aa5874

Once you date the writing of pseudo-Hegesippus after Eusebius, then it is extremely dubious or highly illogical to use such a late writing to confirm or establish that Eusebius did not write the TF.

andrewcriddle

It is always theoretically possible to derive all references to X from the earliest unambiguous reference to X. Eusebius is the earliest unambiguous refernce to the TF hence it is theoretically possible that all other references to the TF derive from Eusebius.

However it is prima-facie unlikely that pseudo-Hegesippus, writing in Latin and using (apart from Josephus) Latin sources, used the Greek-only works of Eusebius. And there is, apart from the TF, little material in pseudo-Hegesippus that plausibly comes from Eusebius. IE pseudo-Hegesippus certainly did not make any substantial use of Eusebius and there is no real evidence that he knew Eusebius' works at all.

Andrew Criddle

aa5874

First, it is not logical to claim that it is unlikely pseudo-Hegesippus when you are not certain how such a writing came to be written.

Secondly, the passage in question, the TF, could have been written by Eusebius and then was copied by some unknown writer and placed in pseudo-Hegesippus.

Thirdly, it is really irrelevant if the author of psedo-Hegesippus knew what Eusebius wrote, because Eusebius could had written the TF without his knowledge.

Amaleq13

There is no logical connection between Andrew's point and "how it came to written". He said it is unlikely pseudo-Hegesippus used the Greek-only works of Eusebius and he provided an entirely logical linguistic reason for that conclusion. :huh:

How do you imagine this is relevant to Andrew's observation that the TF appears to comprise the majority, if not totality, of text from Eusebius? Inserting an intermediary hand doesn't change that fact at all. :huh:

aa5874

Andrew did not provide any logical reason, he appears to have just guessed.

It is highly illogical to assume an unknown writer did not understand Greek, did not read the writings of Eusebius, that the unknown writer was not or unlikely to be Eusebius himself or that an unknown writing assumed to be written after the TF has confirmed or established that Eusebius was unlikely to have written the TF.

jon-eli

Thanks for the effort, Andrew. That's all quite interesting.

Are you kidding? By your own logic we should attribute to Eusebius everything form the Shepherd of Hermas to the Odyssey.

Doug Shaver

If you haven't noticed yet, you will eventually, that aa does not greatly concern himself with issues of actual relevance. Whenever he needs relevance, he just asserts it.

jon-eli

I might try that myself sometime. I've always wanted to enbubble myself in an indestructible shell of my own delusion.

Amaleq13

Then you simply do not understand the clearly logical connection between the absence of any indication the author knew Greek or used any Greek sources and a claim that the author used a Greek source. Nor, apparently, do you understand the difference between a conclusion based on an observation (ie no Greek) and a "guess".

I don't think Andrew actually makes that claim but what is logical about assuming he did when there is no evidence for it? That is the logically flawed conclusion.

The conclusion is quite logical if there is no evidence to suggest that the author had read Eusebius. Again, it would be the opposite claim that would be logically flawed.

JoeWallack

JW:
So what do you think here Doug as far as originality of the TF?



Joseph

http://www.errancywiki.com/index.php/Main_Page