yummyfur

Exactly, we know nothing except there is a list, by some obscure 16th century poet(or possibly not). Even if it was titled "fancifull works" or "works in my private collection", in either case I wouldn't really care. Much like I wouldn't care if this poet had a list that said "holy relics in my possesion" or "fancifull holy relics" and listed a spear that pierced Jesus. What does that prove exactly? nothing.

Anyways, I'm off to the library to scrawl a list of possible 9th century books into some random title sheet, in the hopes that future scholars will ponder whether they exist or not.

PhilosopherJay

Hi Toto,

Good point, Thanks.



I should probably have used the word "legendary" rather than imaginary. For example, on the list, there is Galen's On Demonstation:

from http://www.pbs.org/wnet/redgold/printable/p_galen.html

Galen was quite popular and the rage in the 16th century. Finding or owning a copy of this lost work in the 16th century would have made the owner fabulously wealthy. One may also say that about owning a copy of lost books by Artimodorus, Menander or Hegesippus, referred to on the list as "the Apostelic Man."

Incidentally, it is interesting that in this list Hegesippus gets referenced this way. One cannot say that the reference is strong evidence, but it does suggest that not everybody got the message that Hegesippus wrote a hundred years after the Apostles.

Warmly,

Jay

yummyfur

Hello Jay, I'm writing up a response to your longer rebuttal, and thanks everyone for this intriguing discussion, it's been a great learning experience for me, since I haven't looked at Eusebius in probably two years.


Apostolic man is a general expression having to do with anyone in the direct progression from the apostles, so for example every Catholic in the the 16th century believed the Pope to be an apostolic man, though they didn't believe they had all been born in the first century. Anyone who is considered to be in direct descent in tradition from the apostles, no matter how removed in time, would be considered an apostolic man by 16th century persons.

for example Bernard of Clairvaux writing in the 12th century in describing Malachy O'More Archbishop of Ireland in the 12th century

Ted Hoffman

This discussion has made great progress. Thanks to everybody, particularly yummufur and Jay (the rest are household names here and in no need of praise ).

The fate of Raskin's case, IMO, hinges on the clear demonstration of two things:

1. That Eusebius was referring to Clement of Alexandria and not Clement of Rome wrt the account of James death. This would explain why Hegessipus is preferred, by Eusebius, over Clement.

2. The meaning of "by the temple" wrt the status of the temple, next to which, Hegessipus tells us, James' monument stood. Yummyfur has stated that he/she(?) "wouldn't doubt a memorial or grave might be placed here [next to the Temple wall]".

Raskin and yummyfur are handling 1. above. Regarding 2., a contextual argument that challenges reading of "the temple" in Hegessipus as a standing temple and that favours "the temple" to be referring to a ruined temple is yet to be presented. In other words, we have no reason to believe that Hegessipus was writing post 70 CE.

If it can also be proved that Hegessipus' memoir's existed, it would work against Raskin's argument.

Great work guys!

Ted Hoffman

New thread to avoid derailment:
Would Eusebius have Fabricated an Organized Church History to Please Constantine?

Vorkosigan

Eisenman, p71. After describing H based on E, he then writes: "It is, however, a most curious phenomenon that so many of the individuals Eusebius quotes with regard to information crucial to our understanding of early Christianity in Palestine have not come down to us in the original."

Jay, why would E make up material that assigns James such a prominent place in the early Church and links him so directly to Jesus, when there was already a tendenz to turn James into a cousin or something similar?

Never mind, I see you answered my question
"In any case, we can suppose the following alternative scenario. Eusebius, to please Constantine, wanted to point out that Jesus, being like a good Roman emperor, appointed his brother James to the throne of Jerusalem after his death. Not finding any statements in any texts to support this idea, he made up the fictitious historian Hegesippus."

Bede

I am also intrigued by the question of why E allows his sources on James's death to disagree. Why invent a source that contradicts Josephus in the manner of James's death? I could understand the desire to romanticise the death, but not one that undermines credibility by disagreeing with the earliest source. And also, if E is happy to edit Josephus why did he leave the death of James unedited to make it more consistant?

The data seems most consistant with E having conflicting sources and privileging Clement and H because he thinks they are orthodox while Josephus is not.

Yours

Bede

Bede's Library - faith and reason

Ted Hoffman

Because Eusebius wasnt God. There was too much literature he couldnt keep track of everything. He was a great juggler. But some balls dropped.

He tried his best. Maybe he is the one that made Josephus' lost reference 'go away'. This Josephan reference is the one cited by Origen where Josephus blamed the destruction of Jerusalem on the death of James the Just.

This is consistent with the theory voiced by Eisenmann et al, that Christianity co-opted figures like James the Just (who, initially, had nothing to do with Christianity, into their mainstream movement - we know Josephus' influence and authority was independent of Jesus because of the passage [can't remember the location] where a High Priest asked him to quieten the restless passover crowd that was excited about Jesus' messianship).

He also seems to have fabricated the TF - so, its not like he just let the status quo prevail. He just couldn't cover all his tracks. Plus him and constantine were busy stamping out Arianism and gnostic currents within Xstianity.

Integrating the new symbols like the cross within the army, setting up Jesus' Birthday (25th Dec), making sunday the day of worship, Constantine fighting and winning wars against other emperors and spreading christianity throughout the roman empire... they (Constantine and his sidekick) had their hands full.

Some balls had to drop.

Vorkosigan

Yes, that is how I see it too. I have not see anything decisive that would incline me to believe that H was forged. Nor do I see any contradiction in E's chronology of H. E presents him as someone writing in the first half of the second century, and there is nothing inconsistent with that.

Looking at E's sources (posted to the other thread) fully half are lost. I don't see anything in E that can't be explained by error and the feeble technology (he doesn't have Google or a word processor).

H's history looks like apologetic fancy most of the time (Did Vespasian really issue an order to ferret out all the descendents of David? Is that in Josephus? Can't recall that, can't imagine how it was carried out!). The fact that it is obviously fanciful does not mean it was forged. His account of James' death is utter bullshit, and his claim that the headstone is still there by the Temple is probably bullshit as well. The whole controversy can be laid to rest simply by seeing the claim as someone's lie (perhaps H was shown a headstone and told it was James', perhaps he just lied). In any case, the remark does not appear to date H to prior to the Temple.

If H is writing in this thirties about 130, then there is certainly no impossibility of him going to Rome in and being there as late as the 170s as Raskin wrote:

"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. We must believe that it was closer to 154 for this means Hegesippus had only been writing his memoirs for some 85 years at this point. He certainly deserved a trip to Rome. 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."

H would be in his 70s c. 170, the usual time of death for most of us. E's presentation of H is internally consistent and does not require any suspension of good sense that I can see. H does not say he was personally present when James died, and his remark that the monument of James "still remains by the Temple" implies that a long period of time has passed, long enough that we might be pleasantly surprised to find the monument still extant. That too is consistent with a 60 year gap between the event itself and H's own flourit given by E of 130.

Vorkosigan

PhilosopherJay

Hi Yummyfur,

Thanks for the correction. I was seeing the remark too much in the light of our earlier discussion.

Warmly,

Jay Raskin