mountainman

Hi Vorkosigan,

Did you or anyone else ever get around to doing that webpage
on all this stuff, and if so, what's the address.?

Thanks and best wishes,


Pete

Vorkosigan

No. It is obvious to me that Hegesippus is a second or third century fraud, but I can't prove it. I set that project aside for a general piece on Papias and Hegesippus later.

Michael

Roger Pearse

Pausanias was so rare a text that articles exist (in D.Harlfinger, Griechische Kodicologie) suggesting that only one copy at a time may have existed in all antiquity. But otherwise there is no reason why Hegesippus might not have used it, and I don't quite see how this is a Bad Thing (or whatever is being alleged here).

However vague parallels don't seem like evidence to me. All that we're saying here is that two accounts, one brief, one briefer, of the same event contain similar material. This is surely inevitable.

Unless this is a spoof?

All the best,

Roger Pearse

Roger Pearse

Cramer's Anecdota I have not seen, not least because it was published in the 17th century. However it is one of the two sources for fragments of the lost Greek text of Eusebius Chronicle (Syncellus is the other). What Cramer published was the text of a Byzantine catena, which contained very extensive quotations from other writers.

The codex Barrocianus 142 is listed in the catalogues of the Bodleian, and I did go and look at this catalogue when I was looking into Philip Sidetes. The codex contains extracts from all sorts of historical sources, including some from the lost Church history of Philip Sidetes, not always labelled as such. De Boor published a whole lot of this on Philip but sadly I was unable to see his articles.

I hope that will help people visualise what these two manuscripts contain -- piles of extracts.

Seems reasonable.

All the best,

Roger Pearse

Roger Pearse

I believe both terms are the same word. But titles in ancient works are variable things anyway.

There may be some uncertainty about the text here, as Adolf Harnack rendered it differently from the Greek (I used the French and may have paraphrased wrongly):

http://www.tertullian.org/fathers/ha...phen_gobar.htm

(13) The good things prepared for the just, eye hath not seen nor ear heard, neither have they entered into the heart of man. ---- Hegesippus, however, an ancient and apostolic man (?), says in the fifth book of his Hypomnemata [I do not know how he arrived at this 8] that this is an idle saying, and that those who say it speak falsely, since the Scriptures and the Lord say, "Blessed are your eyes, for they see, and your ears, for they hear," etc.

I'm not sure that people could say accurately what one of us "must have made every effort" to do, never mind Photius, a man living 11 centuries ago and somewhat busy.

This is a different Hegesippus, a classical orator.

All the best,

Roger Pearse

Roger Pearse

I was only aware of KO who had published to this effect, based on an idea by the late Solomon Zeitlin, although I'm not sure whether he convinced anyone. Can I ask whom you had in mind?

Older allegations, centred around documents in the Vita Constantini appear to have arisen from political hostility to the Hapsburg emperor in the 1850's, according to Cameron and Hall in their recent annotated translation (or via: amazon.co.uk). One of the most supposedly controversial of these documents has been found since then in a papyrus.

Eusebius was a great man. He pioneered the citation of sources in serious history, he created the first real world chronicle and the basis for all modern chronography, he preserved vast quantities of ancient literature quite aside from early Christian texts, and he set an example for the future of how to do all these things in a more objective and scholarly manner than anyone before him. His weaknesses were those of his age, but his virtues were his own.

All the best,

Roger Pearse

mountainman

I have started a section on my website called
Interpolations and Forgeries Index: (Eusebius 312-324 CE)

The entries so far are:

Josephus Flavius - The Testimonium Flavianum, Antiquity of the Jews
Tacitus - Annals XV, and directly related to this, also:
Suetonius - Lives of the Twelve Caesars, Nero, 16.
Marcus Aurelius - The "christian" reference at Meditations 11:3
Hegesippus - The "shadowy Hegesippus" according to Momigliano
Celsus: Fourth Century Eusebian forgery of anti-christian writings
Lucian of Samosata - Life of Peregrine, Alexander the Prophet
The Vienne/Lyon Martyrs' Letter - Probable suspect of forgery ... Eusebius.
Origen - Perhaps he was an expert on the Hebrew Texts (alone).
Porphyry: Fourth Century Eusebian forgery of anti-christian writings.
Interpolated Christian Inscriptions?: Yes, there's evidence for these too.

Some of these are already articles, such as recent ones on
Origen, Celsus and Porphyry, while others are for the moment
stubs of data. For the content of a number of these articles
I am indebted to Philospher Jay. Are you comfortable in me
quoting some of the text in this thread, with or without
attribution to you (your choice in this) under the stub on
the above page for Hegesippus?

Best wishes,


Pete

PhilosopherJay

Hi Pete,

I'm not sure if the request to use material was aimed at me, but please feel free to quote me with attribution anytime. Also, feel free to correct the embarrassing and obvious grammatical errors I make. If I had more free time I would correct them myself before making them public.

A website devoted to articles about Eusebean forgeries and suspected forgeries is an excellent idea. Personally, I have nothing against Eusebius, and living in an age where outrageous lies and deceptions are mass manufactured by people in power on a daily basis, we can hardly wag our fingers and act superior. However, whenever we try to construct a real and plausible version of events in early Christian history based on a totality of the facts, someone inevitably comes along and says that it can't be because Eusebius says it happened another way. So, I'm afraid it is only after we deconstruct Eusebius, and show how much of his work is contradicted by known facts and strong evidence, that we can get down to the business of constructing a reasonably accurate history of this fascinating period.

Warmly,

Jay

Ben C Smith

They are. Photius has υπομνηματων (in the genitive); Eusebius has υπομνηματι (in the dative).

Furthermore, Photius calls Hegesippus an apostolic man (ανηρ... αποστολικος). Eusebius says that Hegesippus was in the first succession from the apostles (επι της πρωτης των αποστολων γενομενος διαδοχης). These are not in conflict. Eusebius also calls Polycarp an apostolic man in Church History 3.36.10.

Finally, it is clear that Photius does not have Hegesippus open in front of him; it is not clear that he had never read Hegesippus.

Ben.

Ben C Smith

I know Andrew Criddle long ago supplied the main portion of the texts from the OP in Greek transcription, but, for convenience, here is the full context in Pausanias, Geography 8.9.7-8 (Greek text and English translation both courtesy of Perseus):

Eνομισθη δε και Αντινους σφισιν ειναι θεος των δε εν Μαντινεια νεωτατος εστιν ο του Αντινου ναος. ουτος εσπουδασθη περισσως δη τι υπο βασιλεως Αδριανου εγω δε μετ ανθρωπων μεν ετι αυτον οντα ουκ ειδον, εν δε αγαλμασιν ειδον και εν γραφαις. εχει μεν δη γερα και ετερωθι, και επι τω Νειλω πολις Αιγυπτιων εστιν επωνυμος Αντινου τιμας δε εν Μαντινεια κατα τοιονδε εσχηκε. γενος ην ο Αντινους εκ Βιθυνιου της υπερ Σαγγαριου ποταμου οι δε Βιθυνιεις Αρκαδες τε εισι και Μαντινεις τα ανωθεν. τουτων ενεκα ο βασιλευς κατεστησατο αυτω και εν Μαντινεια τιμας, και τελετη τε κατα ετος εκαστον και αγων εστιν αυτω δια ετους πεμπτου. οικος δε εστιν εν τω γυμνασιω Μαντινευσιν αγαλματα εχων Αντινου και ες ταλλα θεας αξιος λιθων ενεκα οις κεκοσμηται και απιδοντι ες τας γραφας αι δε Αντινου εισιν αι πολλαι, Διονυσω μαλιστα εικασμεναι. και δη και της εν Κεραμεικω γραφης, η το εργον ειχε το Αθηναιων εν Μαντινεια, και ταυτης αυτοθι εστι μιμημα.

Antinoüs too was deified by them; his temple is the newest in Mantineia. He was a great favorite of the Emperor Hadrian. I never saw him in the flesh, but I have seen images and pictures of him. He has honors in other places also, and on the Nile is an Egyptian city named after Antinoüs. He has won worship in Mantineia for the following reason. Antinoüs was by birth from Bithynium beyond the river Sangarius, and the Bithynians are by descent Arcadians of Mantineia. For this reason the emperor established his worship in Mantineia also; mystic rites are celebrated in his honor each year, and games every four years. There is a building in the gymnasium of Mantineia containing statues of Antinoüs, and remarkable for the stones with which it is adorned, and especially so for its pictures. Most of them are portraits of Antinoüs, who is made to look just like Dionysus. There is also a copy here of the painting in the Cerameicus which represented the engagement of the Athenians at Mantineia.

And here is Hegesippus apud Eusebius, History of the Church 4.8.2:

Οις κενοταφια και ναους εποιησαν ως μεχρι νυν ων εστι και Αντινοος δουλος Αδριανου Καισαρος, ου και αγων αγεται Αντινοειος, εφ ημων γενομενος. και γαρ και πολιν εκτισεν επωνυμον Αντινοου, και προφητας.

To whom they erected cenotaphs and temples, as is done to the present day. Among whom is also Antinoüs, a slave of the emperor Hadrian, in whose honor are celebrated also the Antinoian games, which were instituted in our day. For he also founded a city named after Antinoüs and appointed prophets.

Ben.