Peter Kirby

For Photius and most of these "other" fathers, we all owe a debt to Roger Pearse. I only worked on a few books of Eusebius. Here is Pearse's site, which is always current:

http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/fathers/

The two passages on Hegesippus in Photius's Bibliotheca are in the sections not translated into English.

best,
Peter Kirby

Ted Hoffman

That is one time when H was alive according to E. It doesn't rule out that H lived before the temple was destroyed. It could mean E has lost track of the lifespan his narrative confers to E. And that is the argument.
Except we dont know whether its C of Alex or C of Rome whose account got dismissed. Or do you?
And he could also like it because unlike the rest, he could beat it to whatever shape he wanted and sock-puppet-like, make it say what he wanted.
Its not about "the event" its about the monument being next to the temple to this day.
Third person narrative? Please cite the relevant passages (assuming you will be quoting H). But even then, he indicates that the temple is standing. Not in ruins or ruined.
The temple sir. Its still standing.

Vorkosigan

Jacob, it could mean many things. But that ambiguity of meaning is not a point in your favor. H's life is completely consistent -- Antinous was a contemporary, and he died toward the end of the century. The simplest reading of the Temple reference is that H is referring to a monument he saw in his own time.

E clarifies that later, when he mentions Outlines was authored by C of Alex. He actually cites Outlines in several places.

First you and Jay have to demonstrate forgery by E. That has not yet been done. Then we can come to conclusions.

Yes, this day, H's own.

Where does he indicate the Temple is still standing? He never discusses that in any quote.

Jay has at last raised a point I cannot rub away, the double occurrence of "Masbotheans" in both lists of 'sects.' That is very interesting.

Another point. Both H and C of A are writing in the second century, according to E's dates. Can you think of any second century author who used the phrase "True Religion" like H does? Can you think of any second century author who placed any emphasis on the apostolic succession (there is one... as we'll see)? Yet E can dig up TWO! The story of James has an especially suggestive opening line "Control of the Church....." as if emphasizing that the Church was never not controlled. And not only do they both contain this whole idea of succession and doctrinal adherence, but they also -- how convenient! -- were listmakers of who had been in office -- Clement makes a list of "the more distinguished members of the apostolic succession." Clement also received information in a straight line from the original apostles (do other 2C writers make such a claim with such an emphasis?), for he lived "almost immediately after the apostles" although he wrote his history in the reigns of Commodus and Severus at the turn of the third century. What a coincidence how his career overlaps Hegesippus. And just like H, he's got a Justin Martyr reference -- yes, it is right there, Hadrians rescript to Fundanus. C of Alex has apparently read Justin and remembered that little detail in his own letter to the Hadrian. And of course C of Alex and H both tell exactly the same story of James' death.

Now, there is a 2C writer who does mention that the succession was kept up perpetually. It is Iranaeus, who E cites from Book 3. Is it a coincidence that H has the exact same list as Iranaeus, stopping at the exact same place -- Eleutherus?). It is interesting that C of A's letter to the Emperor contains to references to Christianity have begun in the reign of Augustus. That would in fact cohere with Iranaeus' claim that Jesus lived to the age of 50.

Anyway, there's a lot that's suggestive, but nothing conclusive. Someone would have spotted it long before this if it actually existed, I think. Although I'd sure like to see an explanation of why the Masobotheans mutated from a Jewish sect to a Christian heresy....

Vorkosigan

Ted Hoffman

Double edged sword.
Except he wrote his memoirs for over a century?
And the temple next to the monument? Is it in ruins? Is it destroyed? The author gives us no reason to believe its in ruins. We have to import that information into the text
We all know this. E is ambiguous on which Clement gave the account of the death of James the Just. As Jay hypothesized:
We are trying Vork. We are trying. Why don't you cross over and assist us? We could do with a helping hand you know . But I understand - even though its boring to defend the orthodox position, its healthy to do it for sport and keep the discussion going.

Meaning H was writing before 70 CE.
The word Temple, once a temple has been constructed, means a standing temple. If its not standing, words like "ruined" are added to the word temple to indicate otherwise.
Maybe I should revive the other thread...
Not you also...

PhilosopherJay

Hi Ted
I have to admit that this was the weakest argument I brought up. Yummyfur has correctly pointed out that Eusebius also mentions Tertullian without dating him, so he's not generally careful about dating his sources when he introduces them and he does identify Clement as First Century Bishop and then immediately starts distinguishing the works of "Clement of Alexandria,"

It is possible that he is trying to create ambiguity between Clement of A and Clement of R, but the stronger hypothesis seems to me that he just does not see the need to distinguish between the two because they are very clear in his head.

However other arguments that I have brought up, I believe remain better hypotheses than their counter-arguments. These include the ideas that 1)"Memoirs" imply eyewitness accounts, 2) The dating for Hegesippus gets later with each quote, 3) The odd reference to "The Memoirs" as if a work completed or by somebody else, 4) The contradiction in order between the James/Sects references, 5) The Seven Sects paragraph making much better sense referring to seven Christian sects with the outlandish referrence to the Seven Jewish Sects in the next paragraph being an add-in to make the earlier paragraph fit into a First Century timeframe, 6) The reference to the Corruption of the Church of Corinth and Bishop Primus who dates to 109-119, which suggests that Hegesippus started writing his amazingly short Bishops list at that point, and 7) The appearance of Hegesippus' words only in the work of Eusebius with reported other sightings being improbable (Jerome) to absurd (Zahn's 16th century list). All these support a straight reading of "Temple" as a real Temple. And if that reading is correct, Hegesippus may be safely put back in the mind of Eusebius from whence I believe he came.
I do not know if I have mentioned it, but it is also interesting that the name Hegesippus, the alleged First Christian Historian, itself may be a combination of "Herodotus," the first Greek Historian and "Josephus," the first Jewish historian.

Warmly,

Jay Raskin

PhilosopherJay

Oh my, it is quite a coincidence. Its almost as if Clement of A and Hegesippus wrote with one brain. If you don't mind, I think we should place these coincidences along with the other anomalies I've brought out. Any theory of how Eusebius constructed his text wil have to explain these things.

Warmly,

Jay Raskin

Notsri

Hey, Vork.
Thanks for pointing that out; and thanks for posting the website as well. I had a sneaking suspicion that those issues had already been addressed.

Incidentally, today I came across what I thought was a very interesting translation of the fragment of H in H.E. 2.23; it was from R. McL. Wilson's English edition of Schneemelcher's New Testament Apocrypha, vol. 1, pp. 476f. Wilson (Schneemelcher?) gives a markedly different rendition of two passages which Jay has raised issue with.
He translates:
Any idea what could account for the changes?

Brother Daniel

Jay, I was looking at your massaged version of 4.22.5:
I do not see how this interpretation brings us any closer to supporting your ealier claim that 4.22.5 "explains what the author means by the seven sects". I think Vork's point (with respect to this narrow issue, not considering the mysterious repetition of the Masbothaeans, for example) still stands. And on this question apparently hangs your claim that there is a problem in considering the quotes at 4.22.4-5 as appearing later in H's (alleged) work than the quote in 2.23.4.

Unless I'm missing something, which is quite possible...

peace,
Brother D

Vorkosigan

I am busy with translation work, but I'll come back to this thread in a couple of days as soon as I have assembled a case against H. But I think that I can show that the paragraphs on H are all expansions of extant writings.

Vorkosigan

PhilosopherJay

Hi Brother Daniel,

Thank you.

I appear to have been reading 4.22.6 "The same writer also records the ancient heresies which arose among the Jews..." as meaning "the same writer subsequently records." There is no necessity for this reading.

We may assume that Eusebius meant that Hegesippus wrote about the ancient heresies of the Jews before writing about the heresies of the Church. Thus there is no conflict between the order of James and the seven ancient sects report.

Eusebius seems to want to indicate this when he writes at 4.22.7 "And he wrote of many other matters, which we have in part already mentioned, introducing the accounts in their appropriate places." This implies that Hegesippus wrote in chronological order.

Warmly,

Jay Raskin