Toto

I could correct it, but that would ruin Stephan Huller's joke.

stephan huller

Here is something new to discuss about this saying, something which I think blows a cruise missile into your 'the church and all its writings were created in the fourth century' theory.

From Photius Bibliotheca 232:

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. However Hegesippus, one of the ancients, a contemporary of the apostles, in the third (some say fifth) 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," etc

Hegesippus is universally acknowledged to have written a chronology in the middle of the second century. Here we have him attack the saying that appears in Paul because it seems to contradict the Matt 13:16. Eusebius also says he attributed many of the apocryphal texts to heretics. How can this testimony be written off as a forgery? How can the Church have been invented in the fourth century? Why would someone 'plant' a witness like Hegesippus? To contradict the message of a unified Church ON PURPOSE?

avi

I hope the US Navy has better control of its cruise missiles.

contemporary of the apostles?

Now, then, are we to understand that in the middle of the second century, Hegel met with the apostles?

"the apostles", I presume refers to the original followers of JC himself, or itself, since JC is a god, or perhaps even, the god, ergo gender neutral.

So, when did your man Hegesippus live, then, Stephan? 2nd century, or at the time of the apostles? What about 4th century?

very curious analogy, cruise missile. Spin used a similar idea, a little different metaphor, "slam dunk" if I remember correctly, in explaining the imminent demise of Pete's theory.

Well, I suppose a Cruise Missile is a kinder, gentler method of destruction, compared with contaminating the water supply. So, perhaps a note of thanks is in order.

avi

stephan huller

I think the tendency of many here at the forum to simply think that if they say something enough times that it will come true - in this case that the Church was created in the fourth century. Read my other post you'll see how Hegesippus was from the second century

mountainman

The "Shadowy Hegesippus", outside of "Biblical History" is not so universally acclaimed and respected. The shadowy Hegesippus wrote apologetic, not history. That's the opinion of Momigliano, and I will accept it.


Contradictions like this are not unique in the 4th century. For example, someone publish a purposeful fabrication of the history of the Lord God Caesars at that time? Analysis of the evidence by academics indicates the author of the Historia Augusta .......


Apart from that, Photius is late. You have not made any attempt at answering the question as to what source the Gnostic authors may have had in front of them when they wrote these above mentioned half a dozen texts which mention "what no eye has seen, what no ear has heard ... " etc.

Some of these gnostic texts actually mention Paul by name.
So the Gnostics must have read Paul.

avi

and, if you will take the time and trouble to bother reading my post, you will see that I was not arguing about the date of Hegesippus, but rather, about the discrepancy between your source (which claims first century) and your date, i.e. 2nd century.

here are the two quotes again, in case you missed it, the first time around:

Here is Stephan's "source" which is supposed, according to Stephan, represent a "cruise missile" refuting Pete's theory:

my emphasis.

How can someone be concurrently a "contemporary" of "the" apostles, and also a second century author? That is the question, to which you avoid responding.

You may or may not agree with Pete's theory, but, he has some persuasive arguments on his side, not least of which, is the absence of any credible evidence of the existence of organized "Christianity" before Constantine.

My point is that whether or not one accepts the validity of his hypothesis, it is inappropriate to belittle and demean his novel and creative suggestion. You would profit, in my opinion, from reading more of the evidence he has presented, and offering an opinion on why that evidence is deficient, rather than casting his hypothesis in the category of "true believers", who childishly accept ideas on faith, rather than by judging the evidence.

avi

Zeluvia

It's a poetic, appealing thought concept.

I bet it predates Christianity, and Judaism, and goes WAY back...

mountainman

It would appear that someone is arguing that (at least some of) the gnostics used Paul as their source for this specific saying. Why didn't you mention Brakke's new paper instead of reacting against these strange and new ideas at this forum?

They may not be right. After all they are only based on the evidence itself, and make no apology for the black and sordid historical facts.

In your blog about Athanasius' Witness of the Shadow Canon of the Church of St. Mark [Part One] you are discussing a Harvard Theological Review paper by David Brakke's on a missing fragment to Athanasius' 39th Festal Letter. You introduce the subject by saying that

Then you go on to cite Brakke as follows:


Is Brakke citing Athanasius italicized above? I would be very interested to read your friend's paper but I do not have access to the journal.

mountainman

Yes, I agree. It kind of has the same ring to it as lines the BCE Greek poet(s) wrote about Zeus ...

"In whom we live and move and have our being"

.