Freethought & Rationalism Archive

08-19-2004, 09:12 AM

Jacob,

I didn't say our discussion was rubbish, just that Raskin's argument was. Thus it remains and I can't be bothered to take this further. Your propensity to defend anything helpful to the JM thesis, however absurd, has got the better of you.

And please stop being so sanctimonious, it does not become you.

B

Toto · 08-19-2004, 09:25 AM

For the record, this is a summary of Jay Raskin's arguments that Eusebius invented Hegesippus as a source, and invented the quotes that are found from him in Eusebius' History:

Quote:

1) Nobody before Eusebius quotes from Hegesippus. Hegesippus gives extraordinary information regarding the most intimate relationships of discipes and relatives of Jesus Christ, yet, not one of the dozens of writers on Christianity mentions a single word about Hegesippus before Eusebius.

2) Eusebius claims he composed a Memoir of Five Books. No writer after Eusebius ever quotes another passage from any of these five books or even suggests that he has read the work.

3) A "Memoir" was understood as a text relating what an author personally recalled about another person or subject. The five extensive quotes by Eusebius are presented as "memoirs:" things personally experienced and vouched for by Hegesippus. These events go from the killing of James, apparently in 62 C.E. to the reign of Eleutherus circa 176. In the seven references/quotes, Eusebius never indicates that he is giving anything but the memoirs, i.e. personal recollections of Hegesippus. He never indicates that the text he quotes from the "Memoirs" are anything but contemporaneous with the events described. We are dealing with a consistent pattern of extending the life of Hegesippus to match the time period of each quote/reference. . . .

4) The first reference to Hegesippus (2:23.3) "who lived immediately after the apostles" is in the context of the death of James and just prior to the deaths of Peter and Paul by Nero. Every use of the word "immediately" in book two (2:10.1, 10.5.,14.4, 14.6., 15.1, 23.18, 23.19), means a few years or less.

5) The statement about the Monument still existing next to the temple can be explained if the statement regarding "immediately" means "earlier than the destruction of the Temple in 70." It cannot be explained on the presumption that Eusebius believed at this point in the text that Hegesippus was born after 110, long after the destruction of the Temple.

Okay, the references to James' death may be legend repeated, and the surviving monument a bit of confusion.

But even then, here are the other dates:

Quote:

In book 3 (chapters 11-12) of his History, Eusebius tells us that Hegesippus wrote:

Quote:

Vespasian after the conquest of Jerusalem gave orders that all that belonged to the lineage of David should be sought out, in order that none of the royal race might be left among the Jews; and in consequence of this a most terrible persecution again hung over the Jews.

This indicates that book 5 of his memoirs must have continued into at least the year 70 after Vespasian conquered Jerusalem. (Note that Josephus has not bothered to tell us about this "most terrible persecution that "again hung over the Jews".

Quote:

Domitian did not pass judgment against them, but, despising them as of no account, he let them go, and by a decree put a stop to the persecution of the Church.

Apparently this decree against the relatives of Jesus was not successful and neither was the decree of the Emperor Domitian who also ordered the death of Jesus' relatives as Eusebius tells us later (3.20.7.) that in the Fifteenth Year of Domitian's reign (96 C.E.) He himself released some grandchildren of Jude, Jesus' brother:

Quote:

But when they were released they ruled the churches because they were witnesses and were also relatives of the Lord. And peace being established, they lived until the time of Trajan. These things are related by Hegesippus.

Eusebius gives us this quote (3.32.6):

Quote:

They came, therefore, and took the lead of every church as witnesses and as relatives of the Lord. And profound peace being established in every church, they remained until the reign of the Emperor Trajan

Trajan started to reign in 98. . . . . Eusebius here has Hegesippus tell us about (3.32.6) about Symeon, son of Clopas, an uncle of the Lord who died after being tortured at the age of 120.

In book 4 (4.8.2.)Eusebius tells us this about Hegesippus:

Quote:

He records in five books the true tradition of apostolic doctrine in a most simple style, and he indicates the time in which he flourished when he writes as follows concerning those that first set up idols:

"To whom they erected cenotaphs and temples, as is done to the present day. Among whom is also Antinous,a slave of the Emperor Adrian, in whose honor are celebrated also the Antinoian games, which were instituted in our day. For he [i.e. Adrian] also founded a city named after Antinous

Hadrian ruled from 117-138. The city of Antinoopolis founded in honor of his lover Antinous, was established in 130 C.E.. ...

Eusebius later tells us (4.11.6) that during the episcopate of Anicetus, "Hegesippus records that he himself was in Rome at this time, and that he remained there until the episcopate of Eleutherus."

The Episcopate of Anicetus was between 154 and 167. . . . Apparently he finished his memoirs during the time that Eleutherus was Pope 174-189. We may take the earliest possible date of 174. This means that Hegesippus was working at least 105 years on book five of his memoirs, recording accurately events that took place over at least the last 112 years of his life.

I find it hard to imagine that Jay Raskin is the first to notice this. How do more conventional scholars explain these dates? Do they reject the idea that Hegesippus was writing "memoires" – what he personally observed?

Brother Daniel · 08-19-2004, 09:47 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bede

I didn't say our discussion was rubbish, just that Raskin's argument was. Thus it remains and I can't be bothered to take this further.

That's disappointing. Why aren't you willing to explain, at least for the benefit of people like me who lack expertise, why Raskin's argument is rubbish?

08-19-2004, 09:56 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Brother Daniel

That's disappointing. Why aren't you willing to explain, at least for the benefit of people like me who lack expertise, why Raskin's argument is rubbish?

It explains why in my first post. There is nothing more to add, beyond echoing Toto's point that for some reason no one else has noted what Raskin thinks he has.

B

Amaleq13 · 08-19-2004, 12:09 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jacob Aliet

..."who lived immediately after the apostles"...

This, as well as the information provided by Toto makes my "sloppy copying" theory quite difficult to sustain. The phrase above would appear to directly contradict Bede's claim that " All the other references are consistant with a date of Hegessipus of about 160AD." since that is about a century off from "immediately".

There is definitely something odd going on in these alleged memoirs and it certainly doesn't increase the reliability of the claims made therein.

08-19-2004, 12:29 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Amaleq13

This, as well as the information provided by Toto makes my "sloppy copying" theory quite difficult to sustain. The phrase above would appear to directly contradict Bede's claim that " All the other references are consistant with a date of Hegessipus of about 160AD." since that is about a century off from "immediately".

Hardly. Eusebius thinks the Apostles lived until the 90s with John the last to go in the reign of Trajan (IIRC). Therefore, H is probably born immediately after they died. Not 'active' immediately after they were active, but E doesn't say that. Still, I'd like to see the Greek and I fear that is a bit beyond Raskin's expertise. We are presently arguing over an English translation and English idiom which can be very misleading.

Yours

Bede

Bede's Library - faith and reason

Brother Daniel · 08-19-2004, 12:40 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bede

It explains why in my first post. There is nothing more to add...

How about addressing the rebuttals?

Quote:

... beyond echoing Toto's point that for some reason no one else has noted what Raskin thinks he has.

This amounts to a babel-fish-like argument: Raskin must be wrong because it's too obvious that he's right!

I think you can do better.

Amaleq13 · 08-19-2004, 12:44 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bede

Eusebius thinks the Apostles lived until the 90s with John the last to go in the reign of Trajan (IIRC). Therefore, H is probably born immediately after they died.

Then why would Hegesippus' version of James' death be considered more accurate by Eusebius than Clement's?

08-19-2004, 01:57 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Amaleq13

Then why would Hegesippus' version of James' death be considered more accurate by Eusebius than Clement's?

Because he likes it better. No more explanation is required.

But if you insist... Clement is in Rome and E may well know that H has Palestinian experience.

B

Ted Hoffman · 08-19-2004, 10:43 PM

Toto,

Quote:

I find it hard to imagine that Jay Raskin is the first to notice this. How do more conventional scholars explain these dates? Do they reject the idea that Hegesippus was writing "memoires" – what he personally observed?

They are busy with the methodologies.

Quote:

It explains why in my first post. There is nothing more to add, beyond echoing Toto's point that for some reason no one else has noted what Raskin thinks he has.

This is a corruption of Toto's sentiments. Toto is amazed at the sloppiness of NT scholars for not having noted such a thing: they uncritically use Eusebius and Hegessipus.

You OTOH, seem to imply that Raskin's argument has no merit and that if it did, a scholar would have already made that argument.

Or, as Daniel put it:

Quote:

This amounts to a babel-fish-like argument: Raskin must be wrong because it's too obvious that he's right!

Bede,

Quote:

Still, I'd like to see the Greek and I fear that is a bit beyond Raskin's expertise. We are presently arguing over an English translation and English idiom which can be very misleading.

Grasping at straws...desperately hoping that there is an exit route in Greece.

Eusebius used dates and reigns of certain leaders, that basically fixes any semantic quibbles you may want to throw into the argument.

Quote:

Because he likes it better. No more explanation is required.

Wrong. Its because H, a figment of his imagination, is more convenient to use because:
a) Nobody knew or had H's memoirs so nobody could challenge Eusebius' references.
b) H's memoir, whose sole custody Eusebius monopolizes, can be stretched accross centuries as required and has first-hand eyewitness experience.

Quote:

But if you insist... Clement is in Rome and E may well know that H has Palestinian experience.

Except, H is in Eusebius mind.

Look Bede, Raskin may be wrong. We may all be wrong. Whats important is demonstrating why you think Raskin is wrong. Its that simple. If you cannot do that, you have no rational basis for having your objections.

You have frequently used insults against me and Raskin to make your points but we will not be drawn to mud-slinging. Are you totally incapable of challenging Raskin's argument?

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

08-19-2004, 09:12 AM	#11
Bede Guest Posts: n/a	Jacob, I didn't say our discussion was rubbish, just that Raskin's argument was. Thus it remains and I can't be bothered to take this further. Your propensity to defend anything helpful to the JM thesis, however absurd, has got the better of you. And please stop being so sanctimonious, it does not become you. B

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.