Freethought & Rationalism Archive

JoeWallack · 08-27-2013, 08:10 AM

JW:
Now that everyone agrees that pseudo-Hegesippus wrote after Eusebius, let's take a look at the related Latin history. Everyone would agree that Josephus was known to the Latin Fathers by the end of the second century. pseudo-Hegesippus (sounds kind of like a disease, doesn't it, "TypeO HepeTitus") was by the end of the fourth century. So c. 200 years go by with no extant Latin notice of the TF. Strange/bizarre/macabre.

Assume that Eusebius did create/discover the TF

Max Bialystock: Assume away

per Super Skeptic Neil Godfree:

The Jesus reference in Josephus: its ad hoc doctoring and various manuscript lines

lists the next witness to the TF after Eusebius as Jerome:

Quote:

ca.370′s CE
Jerome cites Josephus 90 times but cites the Testimonium (the Josephan passage about Jesus) only the once, and that in his Illustrious Men, 13. “It is likely that Jerome knew of the Testimonium from the copy of Eusebius available to him.” (Eddy and Boyd). The silence on the Testimonium outside De Viris Illustribus 13 may well relate to the period prior to his attaining access to the Eusebian text of Josephus.

JW:

Jerome's De Viris Illustribus is c. 390. So c. 80 years after Eusbius' TF. Strange that considering the overall popularity of Josephus to Jerome, Jerome's interest in the TF was rarer than Gordon Gecko's interest in Annacott Steel. If Eusebius was The Creator, than Jerome likely had access to copies of Josephus that were older than Eusebius and had no TF. Jerome may not have even been aware of any evidence for the TF until after he was mature. The combination of superior manuscripts of Josephus with no TF and not even being aware of the TF until later in his life would explain his reluctance to use it.

The approximate full lifetime gap between Eusebius' TF and subsequent notice of it makes sense as at that time you have Church Fathers/Scribes who start their careers with supposed evidence for the TF (they have a source/any source).

Thus the c. 65 time lag between Eusebius' TF and pseudo-Hegesippus' not only is not evidence against Eusebius' Creation, it is evidence for.

Joseph

ErrancyWiki

PhilosopherJay · 08-27-2013, 11:14 AM

Hi all,

In his statement on Josephus right after his TF, pseudo-Hegesippus is clearly referencing and explaining Origen' version of the TF. Here are the relevant quotes from Origen:

Quote:

And to so great a reputation among the people for righteousness did this James rise, that Flavius Josephus, who wrote the "Antiquities of the Jews" in twenty books, when wishing to exhibit the cause why the people suffered so great misfortunes that even the temple was razed to the ground, said, that these things happened to them in accordance with the wrath of God in consequence of the things which they had dared to do against James the brother of Jesus who is called Christ. And the wonderful thing is, that, though he did not accept Jesus as Christ, he yet gave testimony that the righteousness of James was so great; and he says that the people thought that they had suffered these things because of James. (Matthew 10:17)

Quote:

For in the 18th book of his Antiquities of the Jews, Josephus bears witness to John as having been a Baptist, and as promising purification to those who underwent the rite. Now this writer, although not believing in Jesus as the Christ, in seeking after the cause of the fall of Jerusalem and the destruction of the temple, whereas he ought to have said that the conspiracy against Jesus was the cause of these calamities befalling the people, since they put to death Christ, who was a prophet, says nevertheless— being, although against his will, not far from the truth— that these disasters happened to the Jews as a punishment for the death of James the Just, who was a brother of Jesus (called Christ),— the Jews having put him to death, although he was a man most distinguished for his justice. Paul, a genuine disciple of Jesus, says that he regarded this James as a brother of the Lord, not so much on account of their relationship by blood, or of their being brought up together, as because of his virtue and doctrine. If, then, he says that it was on account of James that the desolation of Jerusalem was made to overtake the Jews, how should it not be more in accordance with reason to say that it happened on account (of the death) of Jesus Christ, of whose divinity so many Churches are witnesses, composed of those who have been convened from a flood of sins, and who have joined themselves to the Creator, and who refer all their actions to His good pleasure. (contra Celsium, 1.47).

Pseudo-Hegessipus writes:

Quote:

If the Jews don't believe us, they should believe their own people. Josephus said this, whom they themselves think very great, but it is so that he was in his own self who spoke the truth otherwise in mind, so that he did not believe his own words. But he spoke because of loyalty to history, because he thought it a sin to deceive, he did not believe because of stubbornness of heart and the intention of treachery. He does not however prejudge the truth because he did not believe but he added more to his testimony, because although disbelieving and unwilling he did not refuse.

Pseudo-Hegesippus is trying to reconcile Josephus' writing the TF with Origen's statement that Josephus did not believe in Jesus as the Christ.
His conclusion is that Josephus had a split personality. His stubbornness as Jew forbade him seeing Jesus as the Christ, however his loyalty to history forced him to write the TF, testimony that Jesus was the Christ. In other words, Josephus, being a good historian writes the facts, but being a good Jew doesn't believe the facts he has written.

This is a neat way of reconciling the contradiction between Origen's TF (Josephus' praise of James) and Eusebius TF (a description of Jesus as Christ). Unfortunately we no longer have Origen's TF in any of the surviving manuscripts. That would suggest that any manuscripts that had Origen's TF were deliberately destroyed.

It is strange the Origen's forged TF should be destroyed at the exact time that Eusebius' forged TF should appear. There is one most probable explanation of this. Rather then postulating two forgers of TFs, we should recognize that Eusebius forged Origen's TF and added it in both Matthew and Celsius. Later he erased it and changed it to his own stronger TF in his copy/copies of Josephus. Only the idea that Eusebius wrote both TFs really explains the appearance of one and not the other TF in the works of Eusebius and Origen, and the fact that nobody else ever saw Origen's TF.

Under this scenario, it is incorrect to think that Eusebius forged only the TF. He also forged the passages on John the Baptist and James and Origen's TF.

All surviving Josephus manuscripts apparently do come from Caesarea. It is hard to say if Eusebius knew he had the only surviving copy of the work or if he purposefully destroyed all the other surviving copies of the work. Possibly after he wrote Origen's TF and nobody objected, he realized he had the only surviving copy of Josephus' work and this emboldened him to add his own TF and erase Origen's TF. He had probably edited Origen's commentaries on Matthew and Celsius years before and had published them, so he could not recall them to eliminate the now false references to Origen's TF.

Warmly,

Jay Raskin

Quote:

Originally Posted by PhilosopherJay

Hi Noble Savage,

Here is another case of pseudo-Hegesippus using rhetoric directly from Eusebius that proves his dependence on Eusebius for the TF. The TF says nothing about condemning Jews for not believing in Christ based on Josephus' writing. However both pseudo-Hegesippus and Eusebius links the TF to the concept of condemning the unbelieving Jews.

This is from pseudo-Hegesippus:

Quote:

Book II. XII. About which the Jews themselves bear witness, Josephus a writer of histories saying, that there was in that time a wise man, if it is proper however, he said, to call a man the creator of marvelous works, who appeared living to his disciples after three days of his death in accordance with the writings of the prophets, who prophesied both this and innumerable other things full of miracles about him. [p. 164] from which began the community of Christians and penetrated into every tribe of men nor has any nation of the Roman world remained, which was left without worship of him. If the Jews don't believe us, they should believe their own people. Josephus said this, whom they themselves think very great, but it is so that he was in his own self who spoke the truth otherwise in mind, so that he did not believe his own words. But he spoke because of loyalty to history, because he thought it a sin to deceive, he did not believe because of stubbornness of heart and the intention of treachery. He does not however prejudge the truth because he did not believe but he added more to his testimony, because although disbelieving and unwilling he did not refuse. In which the eternal power of Jesus Christ shone bright because even the leaders of the synagogue confessed him to be god whom they had seized for death.

Eusebius in Church History 1.9 writes:

Both pseudo-Hegesippus and Eusebius link the TF to the concept of a condemnation of the Jews for not believing Josephus and for not believing in Jesus as the Christ. There is nothing natural about linking the TF to a condemnation of the Jews for their skepticism about Josephus and Jesus. The TF could be linked to a thousand other concepts.

We are dealing with three possibilities for the linking of the TF with a condemnation-of-disbelieving-Jews showing up in the two writings.

1. Eusebius read the passage in pseudo-Hegessipus and copied the connection between the two independent concepts.
2. Pseudo-Hegessipus read the passage in Eusebius' "Church History." and copied it.
3. They both got the linking of the two from some third earlier linking.

We can eliminate the first possibility because Eusebius lived a half century before pseudo-Hegesippus.
We can eliminate the third possibility by Occam's Razor because we must postulate the existence of a mysterious third document that Eusebius and pseudo-Hegessipus just happened to read and they both copied the concepts in it without mentioning the document.

This leaves us with only the second possibility: pseudo-Hegessipus got the linking from Eusebius.

There is no reason not to believe that pseudo-Hegessipus got both the TF and the idea that Josephus writing the TF should lead to the condemnation of Jews who did not believe Josephus and do not believe in Jesus as the Christ.

We can say with virtual certainly that pseudo-Hegessipus got his TF from Eusebius.

Warmly,

Jay Raskin

Quote:

Originally Posted by noble savage

Well, that's at least headed toward the topic I'm asking about. It still doesn't explain how and why Hegesippus happened upon the works of Josephus which had been largely ignored by Christians before Eusebius and employed them in a manner so similar to Eusebius, in taking passages from the Jewish War to show how:

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:

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

I don't see any explicit mention of Julian or an effort to rebuild the temple after 70 in V, 2. Are you referring to this passage:

Never was that city destroyed, unless when truly they fixed the temple of god to a cross with domestic hands. And about that temple, let them hear: break up this temple and in three days I will rouse it again. And indeed what was it other than sacrilege, when they extended irreverent hands against the source of salvation, when they stoned him, when they scourged him, when they seized him, when they killed him? Then truly the divine fire consumed their sacred things. For when they were burned by the Babylonians they were afterwards renewed, destroyed by Pompey they were restored again, but they were thoroughly burned, when Jesus came, broken up by the heat of the divine spirit they vanished.

I notice earlier in V, 2, though, Hegesippus uses a paraphrase of Acts 3:14-15 to explain how

You have what you sought, you have snatched away from yourself the patron of peace, you sought for the arbiter of life to be killed, for Barabbas to be released to you, who on account of rebellion done in the city and murder had been sent to prison. Thus salvation departed from you, peace went away, calm left off, rebellion was given to you, [p. 297] destruction was given.

which is again remarkably similar to how Eusebius employs the same passage in Church History 3, 7

There is no necessity to add to the narratives of what has happened to the whole nation after the passion of the Saviour and those words in which the multitude of the Jews begged off from death the robber and murderer and besought that the author of Life should be taken from them.

How can you be so confident that Hegesippus was not influenced by Eusebius in his historiography and his rhetoric? He deploys so many of the same passages for the same purposes. And in the case of Josephus, the passages were not used that way by Christians before Eusebius.

NS

andrewcriddle · 08-27-2013, 12:17 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by PhilosopherJay

Hi Noble Savage,

Here is another case of pseudo-Hegesippus using rhetoric directly from Eusebius that proves his dependence on Eusebius for the TF. The TF says nothing about condemning Jews for not believing in Christ based on Josephus' writing. However both pseudo-Hegesippus and Eusebius links the TF to the concept of condemning the unbelieving Jews.

This is from pseudo-Hegesippus:

Quote:

Book II. XII. About which the Jews themselves bear witness, Josephus a writer of histories saying, that there was in that time a wise man, if it is proper however, he said, to call a man the creator of marvelous works, who appeared living to his disciples after three days of his death in accordance with the writings of the prophets, who prophesied both this and innumerable other things full of miracles about him. [p. 164] from which began the community of Christians and penetrated into every tribe of men nor has any nation of the Roman world remained, which was left without worship of him. If the Jews don't believe us, they should believe their own people. Josephus said this, whom they themselves think very great, but it is so that he was in his own self who spoke the truth otherwise in mind, so that he did not believe his own words. But he spoke because of loyalty to history, because he thought it a sin to deceive, he did not believe because of stubbornness of heart and the intention of treachery. He does not however prejudge the truth because he did not believe but he added more to his testimony, because although disbelieving and unwilling he did not refuse. In which the eternal power of Jesus Christ shone bright because even the leaders of the synagogue confessed him to be god whom they had seized for death.

Eusebius in Church History 1.9 writes:

Quote:

7. After relating these things concerning John, he makes mention of our Saviour in the same work, in the following words:197 “And there lived at that time Jesus, a wise man, if indeed it be proper to call him a man. For he was a doer of wonderful works, and a teacher of such men as receive the truth in gladness. And he attached to himself many of the Jews, and many also of the Greeks. He was the Christ.

8. When Pilate, on the accusation of our principal men, condemned him to the cross, those who had loved him in the beginning did not cease loving him. For he appeared unto them again alive on the third day, the divine prophets having told these and countless other wonderful things concerning him. Moreover, the race of Christians, named after him, continues down to the present day.”

9. Since an historian, who is one of the Hebrews themselves, has recorded in his work these things concerning John the Baptist and our Saviour, what excuse is there left for not convicting them of being destitute of all shame, who have forged the acts against them?

Both pseudo-Hegesippus and Eusebius link the TF to the concept of a condemnation of the Jews for not believing Josephus and for not believing in Jesus as the Christ. There is nothing natural about linking the TF to a condemnation of the Jews for their skepticism about Josephus and Jesus. The TF could be linked to a thousand other concepts.

We are dealing with three possibilities for the linking of the TF with a condemnation-of-disbelieving-Jews showing up in the two writings.

1. Eusebius read the passage in pseudo-Hegessipus and copied the connection between the two independent concepts.
2. Pseudo-Hegessipus read the passage in Eusebius' "Church History." and copied it.
3. They both got the linking of the two from some third earlier linking.

We can eliminate the first possibility because Eusebius lived a half century before pseudo-Hegesippus.
We can eliminate the third possibility by Occam's Razor because we must postulate the existence of a mysterious third document that Eusebius and pseudo-Hegessipus just happened to read and they both copied the concepts in it without mentioning the document.

This leaves us with only the second possibility: pseudo-Hegessipus got the linking from Eusebius.

There is no reason not to believe that pseudo-Hegessipus got both the TF and the idea that Josephus writing the TF should lead to the condemnation of Jews who did not believe Josephus and do not believe in Jesus as the Christ.

We can say with virtual certainly that pseudo-Hegessipus got his TF from Eusebius.

Warmly,

Jay Raskin

Hi Jay

There is a slightly earlier passage in Eusebius which explains the reference to forged acts.

Quote:

1. The historian already mentioned agrees with the evangelist in regard to the fact that Archelaus succeeded to the government after Herod. He records the manner in which he received the kingdom of the Jews by the will of his father Herod and by the decree of Cæsar Augustus, and how, after he had reigned ten years, he lost his kingdom, and his brothers Philip and Herod the younger, with Lysanias, still ruled their own tetrarchies. The same writer, in the eighteenth book of his Antiquities, says that about the twelfth year of the reign of Tiberius, who had succeeded to the empire after Augustus had ruled fifty-seven years, Pontius Pilate was entrusted with the government of Judea, and that he remained there ten full years, almost until the death of Tiberius.

2. Accordingly the forgery of those who have recently given currency to acts against our Saviour is clearly proved. For the very date given in them shows the falsehood of their fabricators.

3. For the things which they have dared to say concerning the passion of the Saviour are put into the fourth consulship of Tiberius, which occurred in the seventh year of his reign; at which time it is plain that Pilate was not yet ruling in Judea, if the testimony of Josephus is to be believed, who clearly shows in the above-mentioned work that Pilate was made procurator of Judea by Tiberius in the twelfth year of his reign.

Eusebius is attacking anti-Christian pagans who had put forward Acts of Pilate which had a chronology which could not be reconciled with Eusebius' text of Josephus.

I.E. Eusebius is using Josephus to attack pagans while pseudo-Hegesippus is using Jisephus to attack Jews. This makes the rhetorical similarities much less significant.

Andrew Criddle

andrewcriddle · 08-27-2013, 12:44 PM

One indication that pseudo-Hegesippus is responding to the situation after Julian is that he specifically emphasises the destruction of the Temple.

Eusebius sees the fall of the temple as one part of the destruction of Jerusalem. There is less emphasis on the Temple per se than in pseudo-Hegesippus.

Andrew Criddle

noble savage · 08-27-2013, 01:03 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by andrewcriddle

I.E. Eusebius is using Josephus to attack pagans while pseudo-Hegesippus is using Jisephus to attack Jews. This makes the rhetorical similarities much less significant.

Andrew Criddle

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

noble savage · 08-27-2013, 01:14 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by andrewcriddle

One indication that pseudo-Hegesippus is responding to the situation after Julian is that he specifically emphasises the destruction of the Temple.

Eusebius sees the fall of the temple as one part of the destruction of Jerusalem. There is less emphasis on the Temple per se than in pseudo-Hegesippus.

Andrew Criddle

I'm not sure how we would arrive at such a measurement of emphasis. Eusebius certainly does emphasize the destruction of the temple, as in Church History III, 5:

The last scene of all when the Abomination of Desolation announced by the prophets was set up in the very Temple of God, once world-renowned, when it underwent utter destruction and final dissolution by fire - all this anyone can gather in precise detail from Josephus's history.

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

NS

PhilosopherJay · 08-27-2013, 04:24 PM

Hi andrewcriddle,

Good point. While Eusebius is attacking the unknown writers of the Acts of Pilate, pseudo-Hegesippus is attacking the Jews. The target is different as one would expect since the Acts of Pilate, produced in the time of Maximus (circa 305), would have long since disappeared by the time of pseudo-Hegessipus (circa 375). There would be no reason for him to copy an attack on the writers of a document that nobody had ever heard about.

Still, both pseudo-Hegesippus and Eusebius immediately after citing their TF, are using the fact that Josephus was a Hebrew writer to launch attacks against an opponent and they are both saying that their opponent should be ashamed for the things they have done in light of the TF being written by a Jew. The level of coincidence would still be too fantastic for any rational person to believe that Hegessipus had not read the TF and subsequent passage in "Church History."

Imagine a 19th century text that quotes the "Parting is such sweet sorrow" passage from Shakespeare's Romeo and Juliet and then continues, "Yes, its terrific that a person from a small town like Stratford on Avon knows the transcendental feelings of love." Imagine a 20th century text that quotes the same passage and then continues, "Isn't it wonderful the way a person from the little village of Stratford on Avon can talk about love without refering to sex. The logical conclusion is that the 20th Century writer has read the 19th century writer and has copied the style, modifying the content to fit their times.

The only sensible conclusion here is that pseudo-Hegespipus has read Eusebius' Church History and copied the style, while modifying the content to fit the times.

Warmly,

Jay Raskin

Quote:

Originally Posted by andrewcriddle

Quote:

Originally Posted by PhilosopherJay

Hi Noble Savage,

Here is another case of pseudo-Hegesippus using rhetoric directly from Eusebius that proves his dependence on Eusebius for the TF. The TF says nothing about condemning Jews for not believing in Christ based on Josephus' writing. However both pseudo-Hegesippus and Eusebius links the TF to the concept of condemning the unbelieving Jews.

This is from pseudo-Hegesippus:

Eusebius in Church History 1.9 writes:

Both pseudo-Hegesippus and Eusebius link the TF to the concept of a condemnation of the Jews for not believing Josephus and for not believing in Jesus as the Christ. There is nothing natural about linking the TF to a condemnation of the Jews for their skepticism about Josephus and Jesus. The TF could be linked to a thousand other concepts.

We are dealing with three possibilities for the linking of the TF with a condemnation-of-disbelieving-Jews showing up in the two writings.

1. Eusebius read the passage in pseudo-Hegessipus and copied the connection between the two independent concepts.
2. Pseudo-Hegessipus read the passage in Eusebius' "Church History." and copied it.
3. They both got the linking of the two from some third earlier linking.

We can eliminate the first possibility because Eusebius lived a half century before pseudo-Hegesippus.
We can eliminate the third possibility by Occam's Razor because we must postulate the existence of a mysterious third document that Eusebius and pseudo-Hegessipus just happened to read and they both copied the concepts in it without mentioning the document.

This leaves us with only the second possibility: pseudo-Hegessipus got the linking from Eusebius.

There is no reason not to believe that pseudo-Hegessipus got both the TF and the idea that Josephus writing the TF should lead to the condemnation of Jews who did not believe Josephus and do not believe in Jesus as the Christ.

We can say with virtual certainly that pseudo-Hegessipus got his TF from Eusebius.

Warmly,

Jay Raskin

Hi Jay

There is a slightly earlier passage in Eusebius which explains the reference to forged acts.

Quote:

1. The historian already mentioned agrees with the evangelist in regard to the fact that Archelaus succeeded to the government after Herod. He records the manner in which he received the kingdom of the Jews by the will of his father Herod and by the decree of Cæsar Augustus, and how, after he had reigned ten years, he lost his kingdom, and his brothers Philip and Herod the younger, with Lysanias, still ruled their own tetrarchies. The same writer, in the eighteenth book of his Antiquities, says that about the twelfth year of the reign of Tiberius, who had succeeded to the empire after Augustus had ruled fifty-seven years, Pontius Pilate was entrusted with the government of Judea, and that he remained there ten full years, almost until the death of Tiberius.

2. Accordingly the forgery of those who have recently given currency to acts against our Saviour is clearly proved. For the very date given in them shows the falsehood of their fabricators.

3. For the things which they have dared to say concerning the passion of the Saviour are put into the fourth consulship of Tiberius, which occurred in the seventh year of his reign; at which time it is plain that Pilate was not yet ruling in Judea, if the testimony of Josephus is to be believed, who clearly shows in the above-mentioned work that Pilate was made procurator of Judea by Tiberius in the twelfth year of his reign.

Eusebius is attacking anti-Christian pagans who had put forward Acts of Pilate which had a chronology which could not be reconciled with Eusebius' text of Josephus.

I.E. Eusebius is using Josephus to attack pagans while pseudo-Hegesippus is using Jisephus to attack Jews. This makes the rhetorical similarities much less significant.

Andrew Criddle

andrewcriddle · 08-28-2013, 11:49 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by noble savage

Quote:

Originally Posted by andrewcriddle

I.E. Eusebius is using Josephus to attack pagans while pseudo-Hegesippus is using Jisephus to attack Jews. This makes the rhetorical similarities much less significant.

Andrew Criddle

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

andrewcriddle · 08-28-2013, 12:14 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by noble savage

Quote:

Originally Posted by andrewcriddle

One indication that pseudo-Hegesippus is responding to the situation after Julian is that he specifically emphasises the destruction of the Temple.

Eusebius sees the fall of the temple as one part of the destruction of Jerusalem. There is less emphasis on the Temple per se than in pseudo-Hegesippus.

Andrew Criddle

I'm not sure how we would arrive at such a measurement of emphasis. Eusebius certainly does emphasize the destruction of the temple, as in Church History III, 5:

The last scene of all when the Abomination of Desolation announced by the prophets was set up in the very Temple of God, once world-renowned, when it underwent utter destruction and final dissolution by fire - all this anyone can gather in precise detail from Josephus's history.

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)

Quote:

In the temple therefore itself instead of the good smelling ointments, instead of the censers breathing out good smells, instead of the odors of different flowers, the stench of unburied bodies was hard to bear, which the rains had unloosened, which the fires had charred, which the sun had heated. All the limbs of the murdered citizens had a horrible odor. From this the putrefaction of the loosened entrails, thence the strong smell of the burnt bodies filled every sense and the mouths of the living, so that they not much later were taken by very severe illness and they groaned themselves to be survivors, by which they would die from a harsher punishment, and by that to have been saved so that they should see the laws of nature to be dissolved at the same time with their country, justice to be denied to the living, peace to the citizens, burial to the dead, human and divine affairs equally to be dishonored and polluted, everything mingled together, compassion to be criminal, cruelty to be held in the place of reverence. A military camp in the temple, warfare on the threshold, death on the altars, themselves to see those things about to happen which they had not believed the prophets announcing. Had not David said about these very things: they polluted your sacred temple, they placed the remains of your servants as food for the birds of the sky, they poured out their blood like water around Jerusalem and there was no one who should do burials? For at that time gentiles came into the heirship of god, who would snatch away all things, and the temple was defiled with their corpses and the unburied bodies of the dead lay as the food of birds, the greediness of wild beasts: blood was shed so that it lay in pools in the temple, he was lacking who should do burying, because the madness was shifted from the living into the dead, from the dead into those who were still living.

There is no real parallel in Eusebius.

Andrew Criddle

ficino · 08-29-2013, 03:03 AM

Thanks for the link to Olson's paper, Joe. I see he's a graduate student in the Religion Dept. at Duke. But in his article, he quotes a paper of his own that he published in Catholic Biblical Quarterly in 1999. Does anyone know what he was doing before he enrolled in the grad program at Duke? Was he a priest?

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

08-27-2013, 12:44 PM	#34
andrewcriddle Veteran Member Join Date: Sep 2004 Location: Birmingham UK Posts: 4,876	One indication that pseudo-Hegesippus is responding to the situation after Julian is that he specifically emphasises the destruction of the Temple. Eusebius sees the fall of the temple as one part of the destruction of Jerusalem. There is less emphasis on the Temple per se than in pseudo-Hegesippus. Andrew Criddle

08-29-2013, 03:03 AM	#40
ficino Regular Member Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: New York Posts: 252	Thanks for the link to Olson's paper, Joe. I see he's a graduate student in the Religion Dept. at Duke. But in his article, he quotes a paper of his own that he published in Catholic Biblical Quarterly in 1999. Does anyone know what he was doing before he enrolled in the grad program at Duke? Was he a priest?

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.