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

 
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old 09-08-2004, 04:13 PM   #11
Contributor
 
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Barrayar
Posts: 11,866
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Bede
Guys,

I don't want to rain on anyone's parade but I'm not sure we've got much here.

First, Photius refers to book three of H's memoirs so they certainly existed.
In the ninth century, Photius had a copy of a work purporting to be by H. This doesn't mean diddly. Fake works on fake names are a regular practice. I can walk into any bookstore in the US and buy a copy of the Necromonicon or a Klingon dictionary.

Quote:
Second, Vork, you will have to check the Greek before you draw any conclusions. In English we like to say "they said/did so and so" but Greek prefers impersonal verbs "it was said/done". You might well find you've got no grammatical link through the third person plural in your passages.
Yes, that would be key, and I would like to do that. A sound point.

Quote:
And if you don't have that you don't have anything at all as the sentence you point to in H isn't even about Antonius, he just pops up as an example in the next sentence. Third, you'll need more than one very dodgy example to show that H was forged in the whole cloth.
As I said, I have several. Your understanding is reversed, I think. Have you written H when you meant E? Or what?

There are three key sentences in that passage. The first one, clearly related to the one from Pausanius, the fourit comment, and the last one. Which one are you talking about?

Quote:
Fourth, you are all starting from the conjecture, unproven, that E was a forger.
Actually, Ken Olson just sent me a long email about that, which I shall post momentarily. That conjecture may be unproven to you, but there are quite a lot of people who think E is a forger. In point of fact, Bede, I did not believe that E was a forger. I was simply open to the possibility. Don't confuse openness to possibility with belief.

Quote:
Thus you build conclusion on conjecture and pile a suggestion on top of that for good measure. But the whole lot is resting on nothing at all other than your initial assertions.
That's untrue. There's quite a bit more there.

Quote:
Raskin linking his unproven assertions about E and Josephus to his equally unproven assertions about H and the new guy is a case in point. The only pattern Raskin has identified in his latest post is "and it is still there today", a trope still so common in gizzilions of stories that finding it a few times in E tells us nothing except E was using typical sources with typical tropes.
I agree. That's why I haven't really focused on that typical storytelling trope. Don't confuse my points with Raskin's. I have essentially rejected Raskin's case. But he focused my attention on Hegesippus.

Quote:
So, we can hang onto our pants and see if anyone can produce something where the evidence is a bit more than just a personal epiphany.
The only solid point you've made, Bede, is the one about the Greek.

Vorkosigan
Vorkosigan is offline  
Old 09-08-2004, 04:20 PM   #12
Contributor
 
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Barrayar
Posts: 11,866
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Notsri
I thought I would share this, as it'll no doubt be of some interest. It's a part of passage from Lawlor & Oulton's translation of Church History, vol. 2, pp. 90-91. There are actually two parts to what follows; I've only included one here. If I get some time, I'll post the rest.

Incidentally, Lawlor & Oulton think Irenaeus & Epiphanius relied directly on Memoirs as well.
What is "C" here? Did I miss it?

Vorkosigan
Vorkosigan is offline  
Old 09-08-2004, 07:32 PM   #13
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Orlando
Posts: 2,014
Default

Hi Nostri,

Quote:
Originally Posted by Notsri
I thought I would share this, as it'll no doubt be of some interest. It's a part of passage from Lawlor & Oulton's translation of Church History, vol. 2, pp. 90-91. There are actually two parts to what follows; I've only included one here. If I get some time, I'll post the rest.

Quote:
I. Four consecutive sentences which appear in two manuscripts, in each of which they form part of a series of excerpts from ancient writers, run parallel to H.E. 3.17-20.5. They have been edited in Cramer, Anecd., ii. 88 from Paris MS. 1555 A, and in de Boor from Bodleian MS. Barocc. 142.
What are the four consecutive sentences Lawlor & Oulton are talking about? Without knowing what these sentences are, the argument cannot be judged.


Warmly,

Jay Raskin
PhilosopherJay is offline  
Old 09-08-2004, 08:14 PM   #14
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Orlando
Posts: 2,014
Default gizzilions = How Many

Hi Bede,

Quote:
Guys,

[snip]
The only pattern Raskin has identified in his latest post is "and it is still there today", a trope still so common in gizzilions of stories that finding it a few times in E tells us nothing except E was using typical sources with typical tropes.
{snip}

Yours

Bede
We may assume that Eusebius was not quoting the paragraphs because of the trope, but because the paragraphs he quoted contained the argument he wanted to express.
I checked Book 18 of Josephus, He uses this trope exactly once in the approximately 57 paragraphs in the book. We will assume that Quadratus and Hegesippus also uses the trope once in 57 paragraphs. The odds against Eusebius picking the four paragraphs containing this trope at random would be, I believe, 57 to the 4th power or 10,556,001 to 1. The odds are lessoned by the fact that Eusebius quotes some two dozen paragraphs by these authors, but the odds are lengthened somewhat in that Josephus and the other ancient authors probably really only use the trope once in a 1,000 paragraphs. While it would take a better mathematician than me to figure out the exact odds against this being a coincidence, I would suppose it to be in the neighborhood of 10,000,000 to 1.
If you believe it to be less than this, please provide some evidence.

You might also consider these two other passages that contain the trope:
(4.11)
Quote:
8 But Justin was especially prominent in those days. In the guise of a philospher he preached the divine word, and contended for the faith in his writings. He wrote also a work against Marcion, in which he states that the latter was alive at the time he wrote. 9 He speaks as follows: "And there is a certain Marcion of Pontus, who is even now still teaching his followers to think that there is some other God greater than the creator. And by the aid of the demons he has persuaded many of every race of men to utter blasphemy, and to deny that the maker of this universe is the father of Christ, and to confess that someother, greater than he, was the creator. And all who followed them are, as we have said, called Christians, just as the name of philosophy is given to philosphers, although they may have no doctrines in common." 10To this he adds: "And we have also written a work against all the heresies that have existed, which we will give you if you wish to read it."
and

5.5.8.

Quote:
Irenaeus succeeded him in the episcopate of the church at Lyons.91 We have learned that, in his youth, he was a hearer of Polycarp.92
9 In the third book of his work Against Heresies he has inserted a list of the bishops of Rome, bringing it down as far as Eleutherus (whose times we are now considering), under whom he composed his work. He writes as follows:93
Chapter VI. Catalogue of the Bishops of Rome.
1 "The blessed apostles94 having founded and established the church, entrusted the office of the episcopate to Linus.95 Paul speaks of this Linus in his Epistles to Timothy.96
2 Anencletus97 succeeded him, and after Anencletus, in the third place from the apostles, Clement98 received the episcopate. He had seen and conversed with the blessed apostles,99 and their preaching was still sounding in his ears, and their tradition was still before his eyes. Nor was he alone in this, for many who had been taught by the apostles yet survived.

Warmly,

Jay Raskin
PhilosopherJay is offline  
Old 09-09-2004, 01:41 AM   #15
Bede
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Vorkosigan
In the ninth century, Photius had a copy of a work purporting to be by H. This doesn't mean diddly.
No it means he had a work purporting to be by H. This is evidence that the work existed even if not conclusive. Also, Nostri has shown how at one point an annotator included the H quotations in his copy of E which is further evidence that H existed independently, and furthermore did not say quite the same thing as E. Coupled with the silence regarding suspicisons that E invented H, we can now reject this as unparcimonious and actually very unlikely.

However, we are still left with H being genuine 2nd century or a third century fake. The only way to show this would be literary analysis. But luckily, you task has just got a bit easier as you no longer have to rely on E's paraphrase as we now have four nuggets of genuine H to work on. Show that they are all from sources that the real H couldn't know and you are onto a winner. But remember, it is very hard to tell which way literary dependence goes so you can't just assume H came second, and also, you can't just call anything that doesn't match 'redaction' like you did with Mark's temple scene. Either it comes from other sources or it doesn't. A method that allows difficult bits to be explained away and doesn't show which direction dependence is going is no method at all.

Quote:
Actually, Ken Olson just sent me a long email about that, which I shall post momentarily. That conjecture may be unproven to you, but there are quite a lot of people who think E is a forger. In point of fact, Bede, I did not believe that E was a forger. I was simply open to the possibility. Don't confuse openness to possibility with belief.
Look forward to seeing it.

Quote:
Don't confuse my points with Raskin's. I have essentially rejected Raskin's case. But he focused my attention on Hegesippus.
OK, I will be careful in future.

Quote:
The only solid point you've made, Bede, is the one about the Greek.
And book 3 in Photius. While not conclusive, it is a solid point, becoming more so with Nostri's revelation that some else had H and could quote from it.

Yours

Bede

Bede's Library - faith and reason
 
Old 09-09-2004, 04:04 AM   #16
Contributor
 
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Barrayar
Posts: 11,866
Default

Quote:
However, we are still left with H being genuine 2nd century or a third century fake. The only way to show this would be literary analysis. But luckily, you task has just got a bit easier as you no longer have to rely on E's paraphrase as we now have four nuggets of genuine H to work on. Show that they are all from sources that the real H couldn't know and you are onto a winner. But remember, it is very hard to tell which way literary dependence goes so you can't just assume H came second, and also, you can't just call anything that doesn't match 'redaction' like you did with Mark's temple scene. Either it comes from other sources or it doesn't. A method that allows difficult bits to be explained away and doesn't show which direction dependence is going is no method at all.
We can easily fall back on H being a third century fraud; that was my original position anyway. H is a fraud, the question is: what kind?

I'd have to see the sentences of H themselves. Lawlor and Oulton wrote in the 1920s. What are they referring to? Their text concedes that it is entirely possible that the sentences are in fact formulated out of E, though they work hard to deny that. Since Lawlor was an Irish Reverend whose flourit extends back to the turn of the century, it is unlikely that he was very objective on the matter of E's probity. The Desperate Straining in an attempt to explain away the issue, very visible in points 2 and 3, is a good example. "He could never have" is not a point that carries any argumentative weight, just expressing a Desperate Hope that He Didn't

Quote:
But remember, it is very hard to tell which way literary dependence goes so you can't just assume H came second,
Quite true. That is the problem I have with this whole argument. But in this case, I think the dependence of H on Pausanius is pretty obvious. I doubt P is copying H! But the others are more problematic. Still, if you can find three texts of H in other texts as I already have, you've got something suspicious going on.

Quote:
and also, you can't just call anything that doesn't match 'redaction'
Right on. So I am working on alternatives. However, creation by expansion of sources was a common tactic in the ancient world -- that's essentially what the gospels do, for example.

Quote:
...like you did with Mark's temple scene.
Bede, I didn't do that. There is no need to take shots like that here. I looked up the passage in several sources, and the framing of the story is indeed considered Markan redaction. Did you think I just invented that? See Ludemann (whose book I took it from). It's a common analysis. For example, Steven Davies makes exactly the same analysis I do....

"I will briefly survey the elements of Mark's passage: "On reaching Jerusalem, Jesus entered the temple area and began driving out those who were buying and selling there." [This is a summary statement defining what happened.] "He overturned the tables of the money changers and the benches of those selling doves, and would not allow anyone to carry merchandise through the temple courts." [This is a narrative expansion of the previous sentence, unnecessary, strictly speaking, but appropriate to do, if one is writing a narrative, which Mark is doing.] "And as he taught them, he said, "Is it not written: "`My house will be called a house of prayer for all nations'? But you have made it `a den of robbers.'" [The scriptural pastiche (Isaiah 56:7, Jeremiah 7:11) serves to justify the activity that has been narrated. A similar pastiche of scriptural passages is used by Mark in revision of GTh 65-66 (Mk 12:1-12).] "The chief priests and the teachers of the law heard this and began looking for a way to kill him, for they feared him, because the whole crowd was amazed at his teaching." [Passages such as this are common in Markan controversy-redaction, where Judean leaders plot against Jesus and "crowds" are foils for his teaching and usually support him."

Davies missed the allusion to Nehemiah, but he sees the framing the same way I do.

Even Gundry, who struggles to keep every word as history, thinks it's awkward that Jesus is "teaching" as he is overturning the tables. (The mental image of that is irresistably hilarious).

Let's keep the focus on H, eh? You've come up with some useful points, like the Greek, for example, which is key for the case against Eusebius as the forger. And truthfully, the comment about discovery-by-personal epiphany was also dead on.

Vorkosigan
Vorkosigan is offline  
Old 09-09-2004, 05:05 AM   #17
Bede
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Vorkosigan
Let's keep the focus on H, eh?
Fine. I accept that your analysis of Mark on the Temple ruckus has scholarly backing though I do find the method used frustratingly open ended... That's for another day.

B
 
Old 09-09-2004, 05:27 AM   #18
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Orlando
Posts: 2,014
Default Photius' Testimony

Hi Bede,

Quote:
Guys,

I don't want to rain on anyone's parade but I'm not sure we've got much here.

First, Photius refers to book three of H's memoirs so they certainly existed.
Please produce the reference to book three so we may examine it and be as sure as you that they certainly existed. Thanks.

...
Nevermind, the inimicable Roger Pearse has come to our rescue, he has posted the relevent passage at
http://www.tertullian.org/fathers/ph...ibliotheca.htm

Quote:
The good things prepared for the just, the eye has not seen, the ears have not heard and they are not found in the heart of man.[1] However Hegesippus, one of the ancients, a contemporary of the apostles, in the third book of his Commentaries, in I do not know what context, says that these are empty words and that those who say them are liars since the Holy Scriptures say, "Blessed are your eyes because they see and happy your ears because they hear," etc.
It is evident that Photius has not read the book because he says, "in I do not know what context..." He calls Hegesippus a "contemporary of the apostles." This directly contradicts Euesebius' claim that he lived in the generation after the apostles. He also refers to the work as "The Commentaries." This seems to contradict Eusebius' claim that the work of Hegesippus was "The Memoirs."

Being such an important source book on the life of Jesus Christ, Photius would have made every effort to acquire the books by Hegesippus. The fact here is that in the 9th century a person as widely read as Photius never saw the books described by Eusebius. Rather than confirming the existence of Hegesippus, this passage adds great weight to the contention that the works quoted by Eusebius never existed.


Pearse also has this reference to Hegesippus by Photius:

http://www.tertullian.org/fathers/ph...ibliotheca.htm

Quote:
265. Read almost all the discourses of Demosthenes; 65 authentic ones are attributed to him among which most people think the best composed are the harangues to the people.

Some say that the discourse 'On the Halonnesus' -- which is also entitled 'Second discourse against Philip', because the orator there responds to the letter of Philip -- some say that thus this is not an authentic discourse of Demosthenes; and allege, in support of their opinion, the expressions, the vocabulary, and the harmony of the construction; these elements are much above the manner of Demosthenes; in the fact the style, here, is relaxed and without consistancy, much inferior to the skill of the orator in this domain. Those who remove it from Demosthenes attribute it to Hegesippus.[1] I myself think that, often, the works of different authors show great resemblance and that writings of different character derive from the same author. Because human resource isn't always inalterable or immutable, no more in letters than in other areas of life. Above all, considering a difference which does not hold even on the most essential characteristics of the diction of the orator, but on very little, I would not know how to decide with assurance that the discourse 'On the Halonnesus' is a work of Hegesippus or a moment of fallibility in the talent of Demosthenes.
This indicates that in the 9th Century, people were attributing works to Hegesippus on grounds that Photius found insufficent.

Thank you for bringing this up.

Warmly,

Jay Raskin[QUOTE]
PhilosopherJay is offline  
Old 09-09-2004, 06:16 AM   #19
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: ""
Posts: 3,863
Default

Jay,
Quote:
We may alternatively suggest that Eusebius just happens to be drawn towards passages in Josephus, Hegesippus and Quadratus which contain the concept of miraculous things happening down to the present day. We must then consider him quite lucky that this concept seems to appear at the end of passages, in diverse authors, that just happen to be proving arguments he is trying to make.
This is very perceptive. Plus, the question of the odds of finding such a passage in the early texts.

Very salubrious discussion. :thumbs:

I awair Bede's reference to Photius and Nostri's clarification on the texts being referenced.

Its floruit not flourit .
Ted Hoffman is offline  
Old 09-09-2004, 08:02 AM   #20
Contributor
 
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Barrayar
Posts: 11,866
Default

Quote:
Its floruit not flourit .
Well, I was making pizza yesterday......

I just got From Paul to Valentinus: Christians at Rome in the First Two Centuries. It is a veritable encyclopedia about Christianity in Rome. Among its many comments and observations, I noticed this on page 405, discussing the bishop list that appears in both Iranaeus and Hegesippus.

"Eleutherus constitutes its last, twelfth member. The list explicitly emphasizes [greek??]. The "apostolic" number twelve lends beauty to the list: the apostles are followed by twelve guardians of tradition from Linus to Eleutherus, inclusively. The number twelve is not accidental but deliberate. One could have begun with Peter instead of Linus, and then would have had thirteen members. Also, that with Sextus the "halfway mark" is noted ("as sixth, Sextus is appointed") shows the framework of twelve members to be intentional, already in the composition of the list before Iranaeus {footnote18: The succint note about Sextus is formulated in the present tense and is a constituent component of the list prior to Iranaeus.} This means that the twelfth, Eleutherus, is absolutely essential for the catalogue. Thus, the provenance of the catalogue cannot be proved to be earlier than Eleutherus (c. 175-89)."

Lampe's analysis is interesting. He notes that Hegesippus only gives us 3 around 160, and says that this is because the monarchical episcopate had not emerged at the time he was writing. "In those days (H's time) there did not yet exist a chain of monarchical bearers of tradition. Before the middle of the second century in Rome, at no time did one single prominent person pass on the tradition; this was done by a plurality of presbyters."

Lampe then adds:

"Result: The list of Iranaeus (Haer 3.3.3) is with the highest probability a historical construction from the 180s, when the monarchical episcopacy developed in Rome. Above all, the framework of "apostolic" twelve members (from Linus to Eleutherus) points in the direction of a fictive construction. The names that were woven into the construction were certainly not freely invented but were borrowed from the tradition of the city of Rome (for example, "Clement" or the brother of Hermas, "Pius.") They had belong to presbyters of Roman church history. These persons, however, would never have understood themselves as monarchical leaders -- especially Pius at the time of Hermas.

Lampe usually shows a deplorable lack of skepticism about his sources, but here he at least sniffs out a problem. Nevertheless, there are some interesting thoughts here.

Vorkosigan
Vorkosigan is offline  
 

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -8. The time now is 09:03 PM.

Top

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