the_cave

Of course there is some degree of likelihood. That's trivial.

I guess to me the dead giveaway is the fact that pseudo-Hegesippus also narrates the tale of Paulina. That's found in Antiquities, but not in Eusebius. (Unless I am mistaken?) Why would the author go to Antiquities just for the tale of Paulina? He would only go there if he were looking for something...namely, the Testimonium. So he only needs Antiquities as a source for the Testimonium. He doesn't need Eusebius at all (and, there is direct evidence that he used Antiquities, because he also copied the tale of Paulina.)

To argue that he also used Eusebius is to violate Occam's Razor. Not that Occam's Razor is the best principle all the time, but unless there's good evidence to ignore it, it tends to produce the best results. But there is no evidence that pseudo-Hegesippus used Eusebius, because we already know he got the Testimonium from Antiquities.

Please go back and read Andrew's previous thread on this subject, which he took the care and patience to helpfully link to several posts ago. I am not going to replicate his arguments, which you can read for yourself. He has already taken the time and effort to provide other good reasons for the claim that Eusebius was not a source for pseudo-Hegesippus.

Amaleq13

To say that he "simply guessed" is an inaccurate characterization of the conclusion he draws from the specific and logically relevant evidence he described.

You either do not understand his argument or you are being disingenuous in your description.

aa5874

Perhaps, you do not understand what "simply guessed" mean.

In ps.Hegesippus there is information about Peter and Paul in Rome, there is also information about Peter and Paul in Rome in "Church History" by Eusebius.

There is no information about Peter and Paul in Rome in the writings of Josephus.

It is claimed the author of ps. Hegesippus understood Greek.

It is claimed Eusebius wrote in Greek.

It is claimed the ps. Hegesippus was written after Eusebius.

Conclusion:

The claim by Andrew that the author of ps.Hegesippus was unlikely to use Eusebius is highly illogical and appears to be just a guess.

Amaleq13

No, it is quite clearly a wholly inaccurate description of the argument presented and you are quite clearly still confused. Andrew's conclusion is based on relevant evidence and entirely logical whether you understand that fact or not.

the_cave

Indeed--it suggests, aa, that you have not bothered to read Andrew's earlier thread, which again he linked to several posts ago. There is much more to it than which text was written first. You haven't addressed any of Andrew's arguments. It is groundless to call Andrew "illogical".

Your note that Peter and Paul's martyrdom are mentioned in pseudo-Hegesippus is a good catch, but both Tertullian and Lactantius mention it, both writing in Latin, and even earlier than Eusebius. So even according to your own simplistic criteria, they are just as likely to serve as a source for the mention in pseudo-Hegesippus, if not more so. (May I recommend The Early Persecutions of the Christians by Leon Hardy Canfield as an invaluable source on the subject--it's available on Google Books.)

Furthermore the face-off between Peter and Simon Magus certainly doesn't come from Eusebius--most likely, it comes from an early version of the Acts of Peter.

aa5874

Now tell me who wrote the Acts of Peter?

Eusebius?

You can guess.

the_cave

Not likely, since the Greek text predates Eusebius, and the other earliest versions are in Latin and Coptic!

You seriously think Eusebius wrote the Acts of Peter?

Do you have any evidence for this?

aa5874

So, what if the Acts of Peter predates Eusebius?

Antiquities of the Jews predates Eusebius and right now, today, it is believed that Eusebius may have written the TF.

Now, you are the one who claimed some certainty about Eusebius.

Why do you refuse to tell me who wrote the Acts of Peter?

Eusebius may have worked on predated material.

the_cave

Because there are reasons to suspect he did! Whereas your apparent claim that Eusebius wrote the Acts of Peter (?!?) are based on absolutely nothing.

No one knows. But it almost certainly wasn't Eusebius! There is no evidence for it at all.

aa5874

Now, you know I did not claim Eusebius wrote Acts of Peter.

So, what is the evidence that Eusebius almost certainly did not write Acts of Peter? What makes you so certain?