Casper

Were there two different accounts that Eusie had confused (or intentionally merged) as one Hegesippus? Was Eusebius a victim of early interpolation, or more likely, guilty of it?

To Jacob's point:
I think it may be a case of throwing the baby out with the bathwater, although we only want to keep the baby, not the water. If there actually is a baby under all the soapsuds....

Toto

When I think about this, I think it is significant that Hegesippus's work, containing first hand knowledge of people close to the Savior, was not copied. We know that Christians selectively copied documents involving thier history. They copied Josephus because he was a source of the events in the first century, and because their was a mention of Jesus. Why would they not have preserved Hegesippus?

But here is another argument from Raskin on the JM list:

Ken Olson has identified Eusebius as the author of the TF in Josephus; one of his points is that "Jews and Greeks" was a recurring theme in Eusebius.

Toto

Jay Raskin has emailed me this response to Bede (although it refers more to Bede's first post than the one above):

IMHO Raskin's theory has a lot of explanatory power. Could Bede or someone else provide the names of prior scholars who realized the problems with the dates and have an alternative explanation?

Bede

It is pointless to argue with a Jesus Myther, as we all know, but I see that Raskin is really basing his entire case upon the monument to James. The rest I have already refuted.

Romans, as a rule, did not go around trashing local temples and monument and generally let local religion do what it liked unless they had good reason not to. So they destroyed the Temple in c. 70AD but there is no reason to suppose they razed the area until 136AD when we can be pretty sure any monument to James would have been trashed too. This tells us that H saw the monument (or his source did) before 136AD which is hardly unlikely given he was writing c. 160AD. As for temple site, Raskin is clutching at straws if his whole case hinges on this. It shows he has the kind of excessively literal mind that makes him a bad textual critic. If he is confident and so well qualifed, let him publish his wrok in a respected journal and not on the Jesus Mysteries list.

Could Raskin also confirm that he dates the Letter to the Hebrews before 70AD due to its mentioning the Temple in the present tense. I assume he cannot countenance any other explanation. The lesson is you need more than one slight anomaly in an ancient text to start making big claims. Finally, we do have the notes form 16th century libraries to show the memoirs survived. I have done a lot of recent work with medieval librray catalogues and find this reasonably convincing. We also find the pope list in H is repeated in Iraeneus and other sources which is an early multiple attestation (well before Eusebius). Can Raskin also confirm he has checked the standard works like PG for all other references to H and possible quotations? I think he will find there are a few.

Yours

Bede

Amaleq13

I've gathered your arguments into one place to make it easier for everyone to determine whether they agree with your opinion of your efforts.

Hegesippus created by Eusebius

1. Eusebius wouldn't have made the mistake of creating an author and depicting him writing over the course of a century.

2. Eusebius couldn't have fooled Jerome into believing Hegesippus was real.

3. Notes from 16th century libraries indicate Hegesippus memoirs were present.


Hegesippus reference to James monument indicates the Temple still stood

1. Hegesippus meant "remains by the remains of the Temple" when he said "remains by the Temple".

2. The monument was likely not razed until 136CE


Eusebius identifies Hegesippus as writing just after the apostles

1. Eusebius meant that Hegesippus "was born immediately after the apostles" when he wrote that Hegesippus "lived immediately after the apostles".

2. Eusebius meant that he liked Hegesippus account better than Clements when he called it "more accurate".

3. Eusebius considered Hegesippus account more accurate because he may have known that Hegesippus had Palestinian experience.

Ted Hoffman

Bede, Hebrews is dated pre-destruction of the temple so there is nothing peculiar wrt the temple as mentioned in it.
What authority are you referring to in this case? Or is it simply your opinion?

In addition, are you admitting that there is an anomaly?

You haven't answered these two questions related to this c.160 date of writing:

1. "If Hegesippus wrote in 160 and Clement before 100, why would Eusebius believe that Hegesippus was more accurate?" [your earlier answer, that Eusebius used Hegessipus because his emotional disposition ['liking'] led him to do so, was defective, cavalier, non-factual and far from satisfactory]

2. Why should we believe that when Hegessipus writes: "they buried him on the spot, by the temple, and his monument still remains by the temple", he actually means :"And they buried him on the spot, by the ruined temple, and his monument still remains by the ruined temple" - yet Hegessipus offers us no reason to believe the temple is ruined at the time of his writing?

Amaleq, nice work of summarizing. Since Bede claims he has refuted ('rebutted' is better), lets examine his refutations, shall we?

Hegesippus created by Eusebius

We have no reason to believe this especially given the fact that Eusebius claimed a letter was written to Jesus and Jesus send a reply to it - Eusebius, clearly, was a man given to stating fiction as fact without batting an eyelid.

Eusebius is also known to have said publicly that lying for Jesus was ok. This, clearly, was a man without any reliable code of ethics or morality.

Jerome's magnum opus was the Vulgate and his main occupation was translating theological writings. As far as translating Eusebius' work is concerned, the Catholic Encyclopaedia tells us about the constraints he had and the quality of the job he did:
So, Jerome was hardly a Eusebius Scholar - and he didn't have time to be anyway - with mounds and mounds of books to translate - including the bulky bible.

Secondly, Jerome had no training in literary, textual, form or source criticism. So Eusebius could have spun a yarn and pulled it over Jerome's eyes without the latter noticing anything was going on.

Thirdly, Jerome (a Christian) had no reason to doubt Eusebius (a Christian). That made his usage of Eusebius' work uncritical hence his radar (assuming he had any) picked nada regarding the memoirs stretching accross a century, contradicting history and contradicting Josephus.

Fourth, Jerome didn't even notice that Hegessipus' account contradicted what we find in Joesphus: The reference to the Pharisees as taking part in action against James contradicts Josephus' account which stated that they protested James' death.

Fifth, Josephus states clearly that James died c. 62 CE. Hehessipus states that Vespasian's siege of Jerusalem (c. 68 CE) took place "immediately" after the death of James. This places the death of James, according to Hegessipus, c. 66-67 CE, which contradicts Joesphus.

There is no evidence of this. The link that was provided by Bede does not prove this.

Hegesippus reference to James monument indicates the Temple still stood

Hegessipus' quote is not consistent with a temple that is in ruins. Unless eisegesis and telepathy is being employed as a method here.
There is no reason to believe this ipse dixit and it is irrelevant because the argument is about the temple, NOT the monument.

Eusebius identifies Hegesippus as writing just after the apostles

This is an apalling case of making claims that fly in the face of available facts.
This serves to cast doubt on the reliability of Hegessipus. If Eusebius could ignore earlier writers and use the works of an old writer to get accounts of things that happened in the past, this questionable selectivity in the face of good sense undermines the idea that Hegessipus, as a source, was as neutral as Clement.

It means Hegessipus was tailor-made to satisfy whatever agenda Eusebius had - thats why Eusebius could rely on Hegessipus even when other writers were better placed chronologically to know certain events better and more accurately.
Evidence shows that 'Hegessipus' is wrong on a number of facts regarding 'Palestinian experience' (he contradicts Josephus and history) thus Eusebius could not have used him for this reason.

Bede

This issue is a great example of why the Jesus Myth is not taken seriously. Preaching to the choir at JesusMysteries or here is one thing. Convincing anyone who knows the material is another. Gross mischaracterisations of texts, such as Raskin is doing here, don't help the JM case. It may be wrong that the JM is partly ignored because so many of the things that its proponents say are laughable (just read the JM list for some laugh a minute giggles). But until JM proponents start to show some descretion and ability to sort the wheat from the chaff, they will go nowhere. This is what made Doherty's review of The Christ Conspiracy such as disaster for JM proponets.

Of course, I don't care much. Presently I am having to tell everyone I know that actually Jesus didn't retire to the south of France with his wife and kid, so the Jesus Myth isn't cutting much ice.

But ask this. Do Jesus Mythers want to escape the ghetto of internet atheists into mainstream acceptance, or are they happy to remain utterly irrelevant to academic scholarship? If they do want to make an impact they need to start learning Greek, doing PhDs and writing in journals other than JHC. Somehow, I doubt they will be doing any of these things soon.

Yours

Bede

Bede's Library - faith and reason

Vorkosigan

Et in arcadia ego, eh? Man, I loved that stuff....when I was 13.

Bede

Yeah. The Holy Blood and Holy Grail was great fun.

Do you know the feeling when you walk past a toy shop or have to start buying for your own kids and see the same toys you used to play with still going strong? This is the feeling I get with the Da Vinci Code and Dungeons and Dragons - it's weird to find it still around long after I stopped playing the game myself.

Yours

Bede

Bede's Library - faith and reason

Ted Hoffman

Bede,
Your issue about Jay Raskin publishing his 'finding' in a peer-reviewed journal, IMO has merit and is worth exploring. I hope Jay gets to read this thread and takes it up. IMO as a Layman, Raskin's case is a solid one.

However, Raskin has not grossly mischaracterized any text - unless you would like to demonstrate exactly how and where. The "Jesus Myth" is a demon you keep blaming for your explicit incapacity to offer any substantive responses to the issues raised. Blame it away if it eases the discomfort that accompanies being in a helpless position with the faceless public gazing, perhaps with relish, at your tackiness and arrogance. This thread, you may notice from the murky depths you are operating under, is not a Jesys Myth thread.

Regarding the red-herring you have introduced in the name of Doherty's review, Doherty's reviews are not presented as fact or research-based theories and he expresses his reservations about some of the works he reviews. You might as well criticize his favorite colour.

Your recourse to red-herrings and other baseless claims about irrelevant issues like the Jesus Myth is a glaring evidence of your apalling inability to argue your position wrt the matter at hand: that Eusebius usage of Hegessipus make it unlikely that such a memoir existed. It shows complete lack of thought on your part when you chose to dispute Raskin's argument because evidently, you have no rational basis for objecting to Raskin's argument.

It is important, at least for someone who purports to be rational like you, to argue from facts and take positions that you can defend using sound arguments without lashing out wildly or flailing uncontrollably like you are doing. Your posts have been content-free and have successively failed to address the issues raised.

For whatever its worth, I have myself undertaken to learning Greek. We are laymen here and that eliminates the need for scholarly credentials. If you are so qualified yourself, have you learnt Greek? Have you published in peer-reviewed journals? Why do you feel that it is ok to raise the bar for Jesus Mythers beyond a level you can reach yourself? And most importantly, unqualified as we are, you can hardly dent the arguments made. One wonders what good your vaunted "recent work with medieval librray catalogues" is given all you can ask are general questions and insult Raskin and Jesus mythers.

Darrel Doughty (professor of New Testament at Drew University) said he would recommend The Jesus Puzzle to his students. Doherty has at least three New Testament Professors that have read his work and take it seriously and have publicly stated so.

Phrases like "ghetto of internet atheists" are characteristic of your ad hominems and cheap rhetoric. I doubt that anyone here is swayed or impressed by them. You have called Raskin's argument "rubbish heap", "truly pathetic" etc but have offered zero substantive response with regard to its merit.

Cheers.