Originally Posted by Notsri

Hi, Jay. I know I said in my last post that I'd wait to further discuss the issue of H.E. 4.22.6 until sometime later, but I had some free time today, and, well, I couldn't help but come back to this point. As stated previously, it seemed possible to me that Josephus may help solve this dilemma (a dilemma for me, anyway). Of course, I'm referring to the question of whether or not 4.22.6 preserves the second of Hegesippus' Seven Sects-lists. (Incidentally, to complicate matters further, it's come to my attention that Lawlor & Oulton think 4.22.6 contains the first and perhaps the only list, and from another of Memoirs' books entirely, i.e., not Book 5 [which would likely make it the text Hegesippus is referring to in 2.23.8-9]. If I remember correctly, this is the same view you entertained for a short time. Anyway, I'd be very interested in seeing their rendition of 4.22.6, since McGiffert's translation seems to suggest unambiguously that it in fact comes from Book 5; unfortunately, I possess only vol. 2 of their translation of H.E., which contains the notes alone. Deferrari's rendition is slightly more ambiguous [it doesn't contain the "moreover" from McGiffert's version, which necessarily links it to the preceding text], though, all things considered from his translation, I'd still be inclined to infer that 4.22.5-6 is part of the same pericope from Memoirs, Book 5. At any rate, I just thought I'd throw that into the mix.)

As for Josephus, I noticed these three passages from Antiquities (the variegated font will be commented on as we go along):

13.5.9:
13.10.5-6:
18.1.2:

Now, coming back to this issue of H.E. 4.22.6, you had several objections to my argument. Your first was that: 1) "Hegesippus has already told us the names of the Seven Sects" – apparently implying that it was unnecessary and thus unlikely for him to have done so a second time. But if Epiphanius does not answer to this objection, then Josephus certainly does, for he names each of the three sects as if for the first time on two separate occasions: 13.5.9 & 18.1.2 (cf. the text in green, above). This would certainly allow for the possibility that Hegesippus had done so as well.

Your second protest was that: 2) "[Hegesippus] has already told us at 2.23.9 that the Seven Sects did not believe in Christ's resurrection and judgment" – implying that it was unnecessary and therefore unlikely for him to have done so again. To respond I would note what I've already stated in the previous post: 2.23.9 concerns rather the general resurrection of the dead, and God's final judgment; so there is no repetition of the material in 4.22.6, when Hegesippus says, "The following were those that were opposed to the tribe of Judah and the Christ" (though it seems that even Christ's resurrection and judgment are not alluded to in this statement). This still allows, then, for the hypothesis of "repetition for new information," which finds excellent support in the Antiquities' excerpts above: Each time Josephus calls his readers' attention to the three sects, he appends new information (cf. the passages in blue in each excerpt).

The third and seemingly most insoluble objection you raised, was with regard to the fact that: 3) in 2.23.8-9, Hegesippus "twice…remind[s] us that he has referenced the Seven Sects…[He] shows us not a rhetorical flourish [in 4.22.6, then], but a lapse of memory as regards to what he has just written [in 2.23.8-9]." This, I think, is the real crux of the matter, at this point. How likely is it that Hegesippus would say, roughly, "I've mentioned the Seven Sects above," and then go on shortly after to list those seven again? However, in answer I do think this finds a loose parallel in Antiquities 13.10.5-6: In section 5, Josephus mentions the Pharisees, telling us he's described them already (see the font in red, above), likely referring to what we find in 13.5.9, above (see the relevant text in green). But then he goes on to mention in section 6, with a different purpose in mind, namely, to include new information, two of those three sects: the Pharisees and the Sadducees; and then adds the Essenes as well, informing us that he's given a more detailed description of the three sects in Jewish Wars, Book 2 (see the passage in magenta, above). So, even though he's named the three sects in 13.5.9, and alludes to that fact in 13.10.5, he still goes on, according to his purpose, in 13.10.6, to give us a bit more information on those three sects (or at least two of them, though, again, the third is at least mentioned). We can imagine something quite similar in Memoirs: in, say, Book 4, Hegesippus lists and identifies the Seven Sects; in Book 5 he alludes to that fact; and then shortly thereafter, according to his purpose (since he's dealing with the topic of religious heresies), he names the Seven Sects again.

Finally, specifically on the charge of a lapsed memory, this could very well be raised against Josephus as well. Why did he name the three sects on two separate occasions, each as if for the first time; in 18.1.2 had he forgotten of the other? And in 13.10.6, why direct the readers only to Jewish Wars, Book 2; why not to Antiquities 13.5.9 as well; had he in fact forgotten that passage? In any event, what I really mean to get at here, Jay, is that, despite the redundancy and the apparent (though doubtful) presence of forgetfulness on Josephus' part, we can hardly argue that Josephus' Antiquities never existed for the mere fact that we possess the work. So, in closing, I don’t think redundancy or seeming forgetfulness is a very sturdy peg on which to hang our doubts.

Regards,

Notsri