FRDB Archives

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.


Go Back   FRDB Archives > Philosophy & Religious Studies > History of Abrahamic Religions & Related Texts
Welcome, Peter Kirby.
You last visited: Today at 01:23 AM

Poll: What is your position on the originality of the TF?
Be advised that this is a public poll: other users can see the choice(s) you selected.
Poll Options
What is your position on the originality of the TF?

 
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old 08-29-2013, 04:59 AM   #41
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: USA
Posts: 21
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by andrewcriddle View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by noble savage View Post

I'm not sure how we would arrive at such a measurement of emphasis.

And Pseudo-Hegesippus's book has come down to us with the title On the Ruin of the City of Jerusalem.

NS
This passage about the desecration of the temple before its destruction is largely pseudo-Hegesippus' own composition (i.e. only very loosely based on Josephus).

There is no real parallel in Eusebius.

Andrew Criddle
How does this support your argument that:

1) Pseudo-Hegesippus specifically emphasizes the destruction of the temple, whereas Eusebius sees the fall of the temple as one part of the desruction of Jerusalem.

2) This shows that Pseudo-Hegesippus was writing in response to Julian's attempt to rebuild the temple.

Pointing out that Pseudo-Hegesippus's passage on the destruction of the temple is longer than Eusebius's does not make the case. Pseudo-Hegesippus is writing seven books based on the Jewish War, while in Eusebius, Josephus's Jewish War is one of the major sources for the first three books of the Church History. Pseudo-Hegesippus gives a more space to lots of things, including things Eusebius does not address - the fate of other cities, various military engagements, and Pseudo-Hegesippus concludes with an extended account of the fall of Masada including a version of Eleazar's long speech. It seems strange to argue that Pseudo-Hegesippus emphasizes the destruction of the temple but Eusebius sees this as one part of the fall of Jerusalem. Both writers seem to place the destruction of the temple as a very major part of the misfortunes of the Jews.

NS
noble savage is offline  
Old 08-29-2013, 05:30 AM   #42
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: USA
Posts: 21
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by andrewcriddle View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by noble savage View Post

This, of course, applies the TF alone, not Josephus in general. It leaves unexplained how Pseudo-Hegesippus independently discovered the use of Josephus' Jewish War for showing:

They indeed paid the punishments of their crimes, who after they had crucified Jesus the judge of divine matters, afterwards even persecuted his disciples.

in II, 12, which is remarkably similar to Church History III, 5 (which is followed by a reference to Josephus):

the judgment of God might at last overtake them for all their crimes against the Christ and his apostles.

and I might add Church History III, 4:

Now after the the ascension of our Saviour in addition to their crime against him the Jews also at once contrived numberless plots against his disciples.

which comes immediately after Eusebius' paraphrase of Jewish War 4.658.

NS
The basic thought may go back to 1 Thessalonians 2
Quote:
14 For you, brothers, became imitators of the churches of God in Christ Jesus that are in Judea. For you suffered the same things from your own countrymen as they did from the Jews, 15 who killed both the Lord Jesus and the prophets, and drove us out, and displease God and oppose all mankind 16 by hindering us from speaking to the Gentiles that they might be saved—so as always to fill up the measure of their sins. But wrath has come upon them at last!
In which the killing of Christ is one of a sequence of events finally resulting in God's judgment. In the post 70 CE situation, identifying this judgment with the fall of Jerusalem is an obvious step.

Andrew Criddle
The statements by Pseudo-Hegesippus and Eusebius resemble each other more than they do 1 Thessalonians. More to the point, however, they're statements of a thesis on the cause of the misfortunes of the Jews which are backed by the use of Josephus as a source. If this were an "obvious" step, we might expect someone would have made it in the two hundred plus years between the publication of Josephus's works and those of Eusebius. Some Christian writers knew of the Jewish War, and mention it tangentially, but did not use it at length or for this purpose. You have Pseudo-Hegesippus "independently" discovering Josephus's Jewish War and putting it to this use more than a generation after Eusebius's works were in circulation.

NS
noble savage is offline  
Old 08-29-2013, 12:55 PM   #43
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Birmingham UK
Posts: 4,876
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by noble savage View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by andrewcriddle View Post

The basic thought may go back to 1 Thessalonians 2 In which the killing of Christ is one of a sequence of events finally resulting in God's judgment. In the post 70 CE situation, identifying this judgment with the fall of Jerusalem is an obvious step.

Andrew Criddle
The statements by Pseudo-Hegesippus and Eusebius resemble each other more than they do 1 Thessalonians. More to the point, however, they're statements of a thesis on the cause of the misfortunes of the Jews which are backed by the use of Josephus as a source. If this were an "obvious" step, we might expect someone would have made it in the two hundred plus years between the publication of Josephus's works and those of Eusebius. Some Christian writers knew of the Jewish War, and mention it tangentially, but did not use it at length or for this purpose. You have Pseudo-Hegesippus "independently" discovering Josephus's Jewish War and putting it to this use more than a generation after Eusebius's works were in circulation.

NS
See the octavius by Minucius Felix (c 200 CE)

Quote:
But it is objected that it availed the Jews nothing that they themselves worshipped the one God with altars and temples, with the greatest superstition. You are guilty of ignorance if you are recalling later events while you are forgetful or unconscious of former ones. For they themselves also, as long as they worshipped our God--and He is the same God of all--with chastity, innocency, and religion, as long as they obeyed His wholesome precepts, from a few became innumerable, from poor became rich, from being servants became kings; a few overwhelmed many; unarmed men overwhelmed armed ones as they fled from them, following them up by God's command, and with the elements striving on their behalf. Carefully read over their Scriptures, or if you are better pleased with the Roman writings, inquire concerning the Jews in the books (to say nothing of ancient documents) of Flavius Josephus or Antoninus Julianus, and you shall know that by their wickedness they deserved this fortune, and that nothing happened which had not before been predicted to them, if they should persevere in their obstinacy. Therefore you will understand that they forsook before they were forsaken, and that they were not, as you impiously say, taken captive with their God, but they were given up by God as deserters from His discipline.
Andrew Criddle
andrewcriddle is offline  
Old 08-29-2013, 01:05 PM   #44
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Birmingham UK
Posts: 4,876
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by noble savage View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by andrewcriddle View Post

This passage about the desecration of the temple before its destruction is largely pseudo-Hegesippus' own composition (i.e. only very loosely based on Josephus).

There is no real parallel in Eusebius.

Andrew Criddle
How does this support your argument that:

1) Pseudo-Hegesippus specifically emphasizes the destruction of the temple, whereas Eusebius sees the fall of the temple as one part of the desruction of Jerusalem.

2) This shows that Pseudo-Hegesippus was writing in response to Julian's attempt to rebuild the temple.

Pointing out that Pseudo-Hegesippus's passage on the destruction of the temple is longer than Eusebius's does not make the case. Pseudo-Hegesippus is writing seven books based on the Jewish War, while in Eusebius, Josephus's Jewish War is one of the major sources for the first three books of the Church History. Pseudo-Hegesippus gives a more space to lots of things, including things Eusebius does not address - the fate of other cities, various military engagements, and Pseudo-Hegesippus concludes with an extended account of the fall of Masada including a version of Eleazar's long speech. It seems strange to argue that Pseudo-Hegesippus emphasizes the destruction of the temple but Eusebius sees this as one part of the fall of Jerusalem. Both writers seem to place the destruction of the temple as a very major part of the misfortunes of the Jews.

NS
I could quote other passages, (e.g. Christ as the true temple of God whose crucifixion doomed the temple in Jerusalem), but I don't think it would persuade you. I agree the evidence is indirect.

Pseudo-Hegesippus wrote about 10 years after the attempt to rebuild the temple. Isn't it likely that this attempt would be one of his concerns ?

Andrew Criddle
andrewcriddle is offline  
Old 08-29-2013, 01:16 PM   #45
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: USA
Posts: 21
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by andrewcriddle View Post

See the octavius by Minucius Felix (c 200 CE)

Quote:
But it is objected that it availed the Jews nothing that they themselves worshipped the one God with altars and temples, with the greatest superstition. You are guilty of ignorance if you are recalling later events while you are forgetful or unconscious of former ones. For they themselves also, as long as they worshipped our God--and He is the same God of all--with chastity, innocency, and religion, as long as they obeyed His wholesome precepts, from a few became innumerable, from poor became rich, from being servants became kings; a few overwhelmed many; unarmed men overwhelmed armed ones as they fled from them, following them up by God's command, and with the elements striving on their behalf. Carefully read over their Scriptures, or if you are better pleased with the Roman writings, inquire concerning the Jews in the books (to say nothing of ancient documents) of Flavius Josephus or Antoninus Julianus, and you shall know that by their wickedness they deserved this fortune, and that nothing happened which had not before been predicted to them, if they should persevere in their obstinacy. Therefore you will understand that they forsook before they were forsaken, and that they were not, as you impiously say, taken captive with their God, but they were given up by God as deserters from His discipline.
Andrew Criddle
You make my point. Minucius Felix is presenting an interpretation that Josephus and other Jews would have agreed with. Josephus attributes the misfortunes of the Jews in their war with the Romans to the Jews' disobedience to God and understood this to be foretold in prophecy. This is not a specifically Christian interpretation which sees the misfortunes of the Jews as God's punishment for their crimes against the Christ and his disciples, which is what we find in Eusebius and Pseudo-Hegesippus.

NS
noble savage is offline  
Old 08-29-2013, 02:15 PM   #46
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: USA
Posts: 21
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by andrewcriddle View Post

I could quote other passages, (e.g. Christ as the true temple of God whose crucifixion doomed the temple in Jerusalem), but I don't think it would persuade you. I agree the evidence is indirect.

Pseudo-Hegesippus wrote about 10 years after the attempt to rebuild the temple. Isn't it likely that this attempt would be one of his concerns ?

Andrew Criddle
I could quote other passages (e.g., Eusebius and Pseudo-Hegesippus both "correcting" Josephus's identification of Vespasian as the ruler of the world foretold in prophecy on the grounds that it applied to Jesus who ruled the whole world), but I don't think it would persuade you.

Pseudo-Hegesippus wrote about fifty years after Eusebius. Isn't it likely that he knew his work?

Actually, I haven't made an emphatic declaration that it is prima facie unlikely that Julian's attempt to rebuild the temple was among Pseudo-Hegesippus's concerns. What I have brought out is that you're willing to accept fairly weak inferences ("Pseudo-Hegesippus emphasizes the destruction of the temple") as evidence that he is reacting to Julian's attempt to rebuild the temple while repeatedly dismissing a number of agreements between Eusebius and Pseudo-Hegesippus (agreement in overall historical thesis and use of Josephus as a source to prove it, synchronization of the stories of Peter and Paul in Rome with the Jewish War, presumably you'd do that with their common paraphrase of Acts 3:14-15 relating it to the cause of the destruction of Jerusalem and the Vespasian prophecy as well) as due to other factors (e.g., "obvious" modifications). You keep moving the bar higher and higher for the theory that Pseudo-Hegesippus knew Eusebius's works, but set it very low ("I agree the evidence is indirect") for the theory that he is reacting to Julian.

So, again, you haven't justified your initial claim that: "It is prima-facie unlikely that the author was influenced by Eusebius and there is little internal evidence suggesting such an influence." You have shown you will set the bar for "internal evidence suggesting such an influence" a great deal higher than you will set it for theories you approve of.

NS
noble savage is offline  
Old 08-30-2013, 12:24 PM   #47
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Birmingham UK
Posts: 4,876
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by noble savage View Post
Actually, I haven't made an emphatic declaration that it is prima facie unlikely that Julian's attempt to rebuild the temple was among Pseudo-Hegesippus's concerns. What I have brought out is that you're willing to accept fairly weak inferences ("Pseudo-Hegesippus emphasizes the destruction of the temple") as evidence that he is reacting to Julian's attempt to rebuild the temple while repeatedly dismissing a number of agreements between Eusebius and Pseudo-Hegesippus (agreement in overall historical thesis and use of Josephus as a source to prove it, synchronization of the stories of Peter and Paul in Rome with the Jewish War, presumably you'd do that with their common paraphrase of Acts 3:14-15 relating it to the cause of the destruction of Jerusalem and the Vespasian prophecy as well) as due to other factors (e.g., "obvious" modifications). You keep moving the bar higher and higher for the theory that Pseudo-Hegesippus knew Eusebius's works, but set it very low ("I agree the evidence is indirect") for the theory that he is reacting to Julian.
Actually the agreement in the Vespasian prophecy (the discussion as to whether the world-ruler is Vespasian or Christ) is IMO the strongest evidence for pseudo-Hegesippus having known Eusebius.

One issue with this is that we have something similar in Slavonic Josephus
Quote:
(In B. J. VI. v. 4, where in our texts the prophecy of the world-ruler is referred to Vespasian solely.)

Some indeed by this understood Herod, but others the crucified wonder-doer Jesus, others again Vespasian.
It is possible that Slavonic Josephus is influenced by pseudo-Hegesippus and/or Eusebius, but I have speculated that some very early Christian gloss of the text of the Jewish War may be involved.

On a more general level I think we may be differing about what level of occasional weak parallels are necessary to establish influence of work A on work B when we have no prior grounds to believe that the writer of work B had read work A.

Andrew Criddle
andrewcriddle is offline  
 

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -8. The time now is 11:44 AM.

Top

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