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 07-07-2007, 11:44 AM   #41
PhilosopherJay
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Orlando
Posts: 2,014
Default Photius Reads Gobarus Who Reads Whom?

Hi Ben,

Thanks for this. It is very helpful.

The term Apostolic Man is explained in "The Prescription against Heretics" (chapter 32)

But if there be any (heresies) which are bold enough to plant themselves in the midst of the apostolic age, that they may thereby seem to have been handed down by the apostles, because they existed in the time of the apostles, we can say: Let them produce the original records of their churches; let them unfold the roll of their bishops, running down in due succession from the beginning in such a manner that [that first bishop of theirs] bishop shall be able to show for his ordainer and predecessor some one of the apostles or of apostolic men,—a man, moreover, who continued steadfast with the apostles. For this is the manner in which the apostolic churches transmit their registers: as the church of Smyrna, which records that Polycarp was placed therein by John; as also the church of Rome, which makes Clement to have been ordained in like manner by Peter. In exactly the same way the other churches likewise exhibit (their several worthies), whom, as having been appointed to their episcopal places by apostles, they regard as transmitters of the apostolic seed.

Thus, indeed, the passage in Photius is not contradicting Eusebius when it says that Hegesippus was an apostolic man. It is simply may be an inferrence from Eusebius' words (about Hegesippus being in the generation after the Apostles) that Hegesippus was an apostolic man.

It appears that Photius is not actually quoting Hegesippus. He appears to be quoting Stephan Gobar. This is made quite clear from the opening paragraph of the work posted at
http://www.tertullian.org/fathers/ph...ibliotheca.htm

Read the book of a certain Stephen, a tritheist, surnamed Gobar 1. The work seems to have involved a lot of work without procuring a profit proportional to the great pain expended; it exhibits in fact more futile vanity than utility. The chapters which the author has written relating to questions of general order which concern the church are up to about 52; some chapters on more limited subjects are mingled in there. These chapters are divided into expositions of two contradictory opinions. And these opinions are not advanced either by logic or from the holy scriptures but uniquely, according to the author, from the citation of various Fathers of whom some advance the point of view of the church and others who reject it. The latter point of view is defended by ancient testimonies and ancient authors who had not made an exact study of all the problems, and certain of these citations don't defend the point of view supposed anyway, but only seem to do so, at least to the eyes that collected them. As for the point of view of the church, it is confirmed by the testimonies of authors who have defined the truth with the greatest exactitude. The subjects on which this double and contradictory demonstration is made are the following...

Photius gives a succession of arguments that he finds in Gobar's book, including:

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.6 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,"

It seems most probable that the phrase "I do not know what context" is an interjection by Photius. He is simply saying that Gobar does not mention the context in which Hegesippus says the statement that "these are empty words..." There is no indication here that Photius has read Hegesippus' "Commentaries." Photius is quoting Gobar who has cited Hegesippus.

Who is Gobarus. Adolf von Harnack has this to say in Adolf von Harnack, The "Sic et Non" of Stephanus Gobarus. Harvard Theological Review 16 (1923) pp.205-234.:
(http://www.tertullian.org/fathers/ha...phen_gobar.htm)

In the older, as well as in the current, books on church history, and at some points in New Testament introduction, patristics, and the history of doctrine, a certain work is referred to under the name of "Stephanus Gobarus." The problems arising out of the quotations from this book are of great interest; but we are given virtually no information about the author beyond his name, and the book itself remains a complete mystery.

Here is Harnack's translation of the pasage in question

(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] 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.

It appears we are getting a work that may be from the Sixth century that cites a single line from Hegesippus Commentaries. The author Gobarus is engaged in a rhetorical and logical work raising issues with Church doctrines. As he calls Hegesippus an "apostolic man," a term related to Eusebius, it is quite possible that he has read of Hegesippus in Eusebius. He does cite Eusebius later in the work (14,15), so he is familiar with Eusebius' works.

Harnack makes the point in footnote 38 "Fathers cited by Gobarus (whether at first or second hand cannot be determined) :" So we do not know if Gobarus himself read Hegesippus or not, or if he depended on another source for his citation.

Warmly,

Philosopher Jay




Quote:
Originally Posted by Ben C Smith View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by Roger Pearse View Post

I believe both terms are the same word.
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.
PhilosopherJay is offline  
Old 07-07-2007, 11:57 AM   #42
Ben C Smith
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Midwest
Posts: 4,787
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by PhilosopherJay View Post
The term Apostolic Man is explained in "The Prescription against Heretics" (chapter 32)....

So we do not know if Gobarus himself read Hegesippus or not, or if he depended on another source for his citation.
Good points all. Thanks, Jay.

Ben.
Ben C Smith is offline  
Old 07-07-2007, 01:02 PM   #43
Roger Pearse
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: N/A
Posts: 4,370
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by PhilosopherJay View Post
The term Apostolic Man is explained in "The Prescription against Heretics" (chapter 32)
This is Tertullian, of course; the term is explained again and better in Adversus Marcionem book 4, at the start, when he discusses the authors of the gospels.

All the best,

Roger Pearse
Roger Pearse is offline  
Old 07-07-2007, 01:07 PM   #44
Roger Pearse
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: N/A
Posts: 4,370
Default

I pulled down Griechische Kodikologie and found an article by Aubrey Diller on the manuscripts of Pausanias. There are 8, all renaissance, all copied from a manuscript once owned by the Florentine renaissance book-collector Niccolo Niccoli and now lost.

Diller says that Pausanias is not quoted by anyone before Stephen Byzantius in the 6th century; then only by Arethas of Caesarea in the 9th, and then by Planudes in the 13th. That's it. He hypothesises that only a single copy existed for most of its existence; in rolls in a temple until Byzantius found it and caused it to be transcribed into a codex in uncial; Arethas then had it done into minuscule; and a copy found its way to Niccolo Niccoli in the 1400's.

After Niccolo's death Lorenzo the Magnificent arranged that his books should pass to the library of the abbey of San Marco in Florence. Most of the San Marco books ended up in the Laurentian library (Biblioteca Mediceo-Laurenziana), but not this one.
Roger Pearse 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.