Bede

Well, I couldn't resist. Here's the Greek:

2.23.3: epi ths prwths twn apostolwv gevomenos diaoxhs.

born at the first succesion of the apostles

2.23.18: h sthlh menei para twi nawi

the monument remains by the temple

Sorry for the irregular transcription but I hope that's clear.

The first line is translated as "of the first generation after the apostles" by Loeb but my contention that it could mean H was born in the late first century is born out as the succession would take place on the deaths of the apostles (60 - 90AD). This is consistant with the date of H alive of up to 160AD, especially given E's desire to portray him as a source.

The second passage supports Raskin's reading, except that it is clearly false. No way, as the CCEL footnotes attest, could James have been buried by the temple when all burials had to be outside the walls. The only thing H could have seen is a later monument (the word sthlh does not seem to be mean gravestone automatically). While this could be an error of E is his fabrication it is consistent with H visiting Jerusalem after the destruction and seeing a recent monument which he assumed (as very often happens) was an original grave.

Hence, the Greek (assuming I've got it right) does show that Raskin's contention that H was active 'immediately' after the apostles is unsupported, while context shows that the gravestone H thought he saw was certainly not there before 70AD.

Yours

Bede

Bede's Library - faith and reason

Ted Hoffman

How vague is Greek?
Is it the case that " first generation after " can be easily interchanged with "immediately after"?

Raskin's full argument:
Note that Bede's statement "...all burials had to be outside the walls" is only useful if we were to fault Eusebius with stating that the monument was "inside the walls".
Perhaps Bede could explain how exactly James being "buried by the temple" is challenged by the idea that "...all burials had to be outside the walls"?

Challenges to Bede's late dating of Hegessipus:

1. Eusebius indicates clearly (in Church History 3.23.3) that he relies on Hegessipus because he was chronologically closest to the events using the phrase 'immediately after the apostles'.
This is inconsistent with Eusebius' preference of Hegessipus over Clement, who lived earlier than Hegessipus (Clement died c100 CE according to Eusebius).
It only makes sense if we presume that Clement was written after Hegessipus - which is not the case.

Bede attempted to explain this away by stating that Eusebius chose Hegessipus because Eusebius' emotional disposition (liking) led him to do so. I indicated earlier that this 'explanation' was defective, cavalier, non-factual and far from satisfactory.
If Bede is serious about the issue, he needs to come up with a substantive answer.

Barring a satisfactory and provable explanation, we can only attribute Eusebius' preference of Hegessipus' account over Clements, to the early writing of Hegessipus as is consistent with (a) a temple standing at the time of writing (b) Eusebius reliance on Hegessipus over Clement.

2. Bede's interpretation is less parsimonious (per Occam's razor) because it then requires us to explain away, as incorrect, certain factoids - like the Temple being intact at the time of writing, like Eusebius' preference being based on the chronological proximity of Hegessipus etc.

Bede argues that Eusebius is incorrect to indicate that the temple is intact, for no other reason than the fact that the passage conflicts with his interpretation.

Bede also would like us to ignore the chronological appeal Eusebius finds in Hegessipus (which he links to H's account being more accurate) and would instead like us to assume that Eusebius actually had unstated emotional reasons for choosing Hegessipus - again, Bede asks us to do this in order to sustain his late dating of Hegessipus.

3. It is unclear how Bede arrived at the date of 160 CE. If he is using certain sources, perhaps he can enlighten us on how that date was arrived at.

Ted Hoffman

If you have relied on Loeb, as you claim, then you are covered but why the "assuming" - is "succession after" markedly different from "generation after"?
FYI, all sources I have seen in the web use "immediately after".

I don't have the Loeb translation, but if you dont mind, is "immediately" used in 2:10.1, 10.5.,14.4, 14.6., 15.1, 23.18, 23.19 in the Loeb translation? Or is "generation after" used in some cases in the passages above?

yummyfur

I'm a bit confused, there are two Clements, one of Rome and one of Alexandria who lived at different times.

I thought the James qoute in Eusebius was from Clement of Alexandia, who would certainly be later than Hegesippus, even if Hegesippus is writing at 160 CE. I believe Clement of Alexandria was supposed to be active from about 190 to 215 CE.

The information in Eusebius on the death of Clement you posted, is for Clement of Rome. I don't think it's hard to believe that Hegesippus is considered living closer to the time period of the first apostles than Clement of Alexandria, and therefore would be considered more authoritative on information about James by Eusebius.

Toto

Why would you think that Eusebius is quoting Clement of Alexandria?

yummyfur

That's why I said I was confused. My understanding was that this qoute was from Clement of Alexanderia, that is, whenever I have read something on this Eusebius's qoute it's been attributed that way. I don't know if it's correct but that has always been my understanding, so I was suprised to see it attributed to Clement of Rome. I think this is somewhat based on Jerome's useage.

Jerome is obviously somehwat confused on Josephus, but this might be because he is using Origen as his guide on what Josephus says about James, as far as Joesphus saying it was James death that Josephus believed caused Jerusalem to be destroyed. But he clearly states that it is Clement in his 7th Outlines, this would be Clement of Alexandria, not Clement of Rome.

Toto

Perhaps you are right, although Clement of Alexandria appears to have composed his Outlines in the early part of his career:

PhilosopherJay

Hi Jacob and Bede

This is very well put, I deeply appreciate your strong defense of the argument regarding the fictional nature of Eusebius' Hegesippus. I think you've made even clearer and sharper points than I have.


I Thank Bede for going to the trouble of looking up the original Greek text of the passage at issue in Loeb.

The Loeb translation of the phrase as "of the first generation after the apostles," seems to me quite correct. The word "gemenos" comes apparently from "gignomai" meaning "to come into being" and its form here is aorist, part mid masc nom sg, according to (Henry George Liddell, Robert Scott,) "A Greek-English Lexicon." The term "generation" seems the appropriate translation.

The contemporary use of the word "generation" seems pretty close to the use prevalent in the first century. A parent is one generation, a child the next. While generations could last hundreds of years in the early Old Testament Texts, the term in normal usage in the First to Fourth centuries would refer to a normal period between parents and children of 20 years, although this might be stretched to as much as 30 or 40 years. If we assume the "generation" of the apostles was the same time as Jesus, approximately 6 B.C. - 6 C.E., we may assume that Eusebius is telling us that Hegesippus was born in the first generation following the Apostles, somewhere between 16 C.E. - 46 C.E. Any reader of the time would make the reasonable deduction that Hegesippus was born around 20-30 C.E., in the first generation after the apostles.

This would place Hegesippus just around 40-50 years old when he is allegedly writing his "Memoirs" sometime after Vespasian has brought his armies
against the Jews 67 C.E. and before the burning of the Temple, 70 C.E.. While this may seem a little young for a man to be writing his memoirs, we should not forget that life expectancy was shorter in those times. Age 40 was considered the time when a man flourished, when he was at the full height of his powers and he achieved his greatest accomplishments.

Now, to save Hesesippus we can construe the text to be saying that Hegesippus was born in the first generation after the last apostle died and we can say Hegesippus did not mean the Temple, still standing, but meant "Temple Site." We can ignor that Eusebius is introducing the testimony of Hegesippus as a more contemporary testimony to events than Clement of Rome (d. 100 according to Eusebius). We can ignor Eusebius' usage pattern of claiming Hegesippus as a solid contemporary source for over a dozen events over a 110 year + period without ever distinguishing what he saw from what he must only have heard if this were the case. We can shake our heads in wonder that in thousands of pages of learned Christian debates that have come down from the Second Century onward, nobody, outside of Eusebius, has ever found it desirable to quote a single line from this supposed first Judeo-Christian historian and his five books. We can be amazed how Christians managed to preserve these books through the allegedly greatest persecutions, but when they had assumed power, managed to lose these extraordinarily important texts. We may ignor or explain away numerous other contradictions and impossibilities in the text. We may, but I do not know any reason why we should.

I am aware of the argument that this could hurt the reputation of Eusebius, which could hurt Christianity generally and thus hurt a great many people. I would counter-argue that falsifying our history to create saints out of men hurts a great many people too.

Warmly,

Jay Raskin

Toto

Welcome to the forums, Jay!

The question has been raised as to whether the Clement is Clement of Rome or Clement of Alexandria. Clement of Alexandria would not kill your theory, but was clearly later than the presumed Hegesippus. Any comment?

PhilosopherJay

Hi Yummyfur,

This does appear to be correct and Eusebius is referencing the work of Clement of Alexandria "Hypotyposes." This creates greater problems. For the first Four books of his History, Eusebius speaks of Clement as the author of Hypotyposes and Clement as the Bishop of Rome. He does not distinguish between them. There is no hint that a late Second Century Clement from Alexandria wrote Hypotyposes. [Jerome says Clement of Alexandria flourished around the time of Emperor Serverus and Antoninus (193-217)] Worse, he has introduced the book Hypotyposes as a witness to Mid-First Century affairs. Obviously, as a witness to First Century affairs such as Peter's death in 62 C.E., a book written in the late Second Century in Alexandria is rather useless.

Hypotyposes is another work which has disappeared, but at least this time we have witnesses in two other writers Oecumenius (10th century) and Moschus (550-619), so there is more of a chance of these books being real, although, we also have to consider if Eusebius forged texts and inserted them in these works. Eusebius tells us there are 8 such books which he describes this way (E.H. 6)
He is using these "Outlines" of tales by a late Second Century writer as witnesses to events of the First Century. It is only when he gets to events in the late Second Century (Book 5:11.1) that he decides to tell the reader that Clement of Alexandria is the author of Hypotyposes. He dates him for us by suggesting that Clement of Alexandria excelled at school in the time of Commodius (180-192).

It is hard to say if Eusebius was deliberately trying to pass off "Hypotyposes" as a First Century work and deliberately trying to associate it with Clement of Rome, or if it was an accident that he repeatedly mentions Clement as the author of Hypotyposes and mentions Clement as the Third Bishop of Rome and does not differentiate between them. I would suggest that he deliberately wanted to pass off "Hypotyposes" as a work of Clement of Rome, but then changed his mind or forgot this plan when he needed source material for the late Second Century, while writing Book 5.

Warmly,

Jay Raskin