Notsri

Hey, Ted. You've raised a number of interesting points. Just to comment on a few at this point...


I think I would tend to agree. To my knowledge - and I could very well be wrong about this - it was the Sadducess that largely controlled Temple affairs in the 1st century. (It was apparently their close ties to the Temple that allowed the Pharisees to gain the ascendancy, subsequent to the Temple's destruction.) I think the significance of this in relation to James warrants qualification, though. This idea that James was a Levite, a nazarite, perhaps the High Priest, etc. - it all reflects tradition from the 2nd century and beyond. Nothing in the NT bolster's any of this, and as far as I know, there are no other 1st century texts that do support it. So it all seems rather unhistorical to me.. at this point, anyway. (I know Eisenman thinks James was the Teacher of Righteousness at Qumran, which relates to what you first mentioned in your post, but I don't think his opinion has been taken very seriously by scholars. Geza Vermes says: "Only the sensation-seeking media [has] been taken in by [his] theor[y]."


It would seem to show that Hegesippus' comments on James correspond well with 2nd century tradition, which lends support to what Eusebius and Memoirs indicate: Hegesippus lived in the 2nd century.


I don't think so; Josephus says nothing of it. All other tradition on the subject is late, and perhaps less reliable. Maybe it needs further investigation, though (by myself and others here, that is).

PhilosopherJay

Hi Nostri,

Sorry for the delay in cross examining your defense of Eusebius. There was a hurricane in Orlando this weekend and it distracted me.

Here are the relevent passages:
(from H.E. 2:23)

(from H.E. 4:22)
The problem is that in that in book II, Eusebius quotes Hegesippus in a James passage saying that he has mentioned the seven sects "above." In Book IV, Eusebius quotes a later mention of the seven sects by Hegesippus in a post-James passage and then says that he "also records" the seven sects and then gives what is apparently Hegesippus' first mention of the seven sects. It appears that Hegesippus has made his first mention of the seven sects before James and that Eusebius is telling us that he makes his first mention of the seven sects in a post-James passage.

As you correctly point out, there is nothing unusual about repeating a list. An author may repeat a list for any number of reasons. What is unusual and I would imagine unprecedented in all ancient literature is enumerating the members of a list, mentioning that you have enumerated the members of the list, writing a few paragraphs and then enumerating the members of the list as if for the first time, as if you had completely forgotten what you had written a few paragraphs before.

It certainly seems easier to believe that Eusebius had forged the passages than to believe that Hegesippus had given a list, reminded us that he had given a list and a few paragraphs later, forgotten he had given us a list and repeated it, as if giving it for the first time.

After first noticing the problem, I thought I had found a solution with the notion that Eusebius had abandoned chronological order in his quoting and had gone back to the earlier section and used the quote out of order. However, after studying the passages more closely, I see that I cannot get Eusebius off the hook this way.

Notice the relation between the ending of the quote in 4:22.5 and the beginning of the quote in 4:22.6.

5. Each introduced privately and separately his own peculiar opinion. From them came false Christs, false prophets, false apostles, who divided the unity of the Church by corrupt doctrines uttered against God and against his Christ."
6. There were, moreover, various opinions in the circumcision, among the children of Israel. The following were those that were opposed to the tribe of Judah and the Christ: Essenes, Galileans, Hemerobaptists, Masbothaeans, Samaritans, Sadducees, Pharisees

The word "moreover" ties the two passages together. The first talks about each Christian "opinion" against "God and against his Christ" and the second talks about Jewish "opinons" opposed to "the tribe of Judah and the Christ" Try reversing the passages. You'll notice immediately that they do not flow.
These two passages were composed together, the second to follow the first.

We have to reject my supposition that Eusebius is going back in the text to quote an earlier passage. We have to take this post-James passage as a first listing of the seven sects. Could the James reference to the seven sects have been something other than a listing of the seven sects?

Note carefully this from the James passage:
The phrase "mentioned above" would tend to indicate that the passage mentioning the sects is "above" on the same page, or at least within the same book. It is also quite difficult to imagine that Hegesippus would mention the Seven Sects and not tell which groups he was talking about upon this first mention.

While the contradiction cannot be reasonably explained on the supposition that Hegesippus wrote the passages in this order, it can easily be explained upon the supposition that Eusebius wrote the passages. He wanted to make it appear that Hegesippus wrote earlier on the Jewish sects prior to writing aobut James, but at the same time, he could not pass up the opportunity to write a well-constructed paragraph containing both the Christian sects in opposition to Christ and the Jewish sects in opposition to Christ.

Warmly,

Jay Raskin

Brother Daniel

I would agree with this if 4.22.5 really looked like the list of seven sects were being enumerated. But it doesn't. It's not clear enough. When someone pointed out that it looked like a list of eleven sects, not seven, you went through some fairly tricky analysis to show where the seven sects appear in the passage. If H were explaining what he means by the seven sects ("as if for the first time"), he would have made it more clear, I think. So this couldn't be the "explanation" of what H means by the seven sects, even if your identification of where the seven appear in the passage is correct.

H is telling us in 4.22.5 that Simonians, Cleobians, Dositheans, Goratheni, and Masbothaeans each depend on a single founding heretic - which in itself may be a little too Eusebian, but that's another argument entirely - and that ultimately the seven sects are somehow to blame for their existence. The progression goes, according to H, from the seven sects to the named individual heretics, and thence to the heretical sects named for those individuals. The other six heretical sects (from Menandrianists to Saturnilians) sprang "from them", where "them" may mean the seven sects. The only alternative referent for "them" would be the other groups that have already been described as springing from the seven sects. (Indeed, at first reading "them" seems to refer to the Masbothaeans.) In any case, the seven sects are apparently ancestral to all eleven sects named in the passage, although the pathway is more clear for the first five than for the last six. So again, the purpose of 4.22.5 does not appear to be to introduce (or re-introduce) the seven sects.

Edited to add: Okay, I get it now. The H quote in 4.22.6 is directly after that of 4.22.5, despite E's extra little "same author" introduction to it. And 4.22.6 does indeed read like an introduction to the seven sects.

Interesting...

peace,

Brother D

Notsri

Hey, guys. I'll be away for a few days, so I'll continue this upon my return. I'm looking forward to it already.

regards,
Notsri

Notsri

Hi, Jay et al. To resume the discussion, then...



I'm not sure this difficulty is quite that insuperable. When we examine the text carefully, I think a very easy explanation presents itself. In H.E. 2.23, Hegesippus says that the "Seven Sects," as he calls them, "have been mentioned" (following McGiffert's translation) by him, or were "already described" (following Deferrari's translation). The language suggests that Hegesippus had set out previously in Memoirs, specifically to name and identify which of the Jewish denominations were "the Seven Sects." On the other hand, Hegesippus' purpose in H.E. 4.22 - which I, too, think is an excerpt from later in Memoirs, Jay - is not to specifically identify "the Seven Sects" (which accounts for the confusion mentioned above by Brother Daniel, as to which of the sects listed there were the "Seven Sects"). Rather, the emphasis lies elsewhere. He wants to show which of the sects were "opposed to the tribe of Judah and the Christ." "The following were those opposed to the tribe of Judah and the Christ," he writes. As it happens, it was the Seven Sects that were opposed to the tribe of Judah and Christ; that is why he lists them - again.

Perhaps this finds an analogue in Epiphanius' Panarion. Twice in Proem 1 (3.6; 5.3) - as I've mentioned before - Epiphanius lists the "Seven Sects"; then he does it a third time in Anacephalaeosis 1 (preface, 14-20); then he goes on in chs. 14-20 to list each sect individually, appending to each a brief description. In every instance his aim is specifically to identify "the Seven Sects." However, in 19.5.7, Epiphanius lists the entire seven once again, but now with a different object in mind. "After Jerusalem's fall," he says, "this [sect, i.e., Ossaeans], and the other sects which enjoyed a brief period of celebrity - I mean the Sadducees, Scribes, Pharisees, Hemerobaptists, Ossaeans, Nasaraeans and Herodians - lingered on till, when its time came, each was dispersed and dissolved." He simply wants to enumerate those sects which "enjoyed a brief period of celebrity" and were ultimately "dispersed and dissolved." And as it happens, it's the Seven Sects he's referring to; that is why he lists them - again (however redundant it may indeed be [especially when taken in context!]).

regards,
Notsri

PhilosopherJay

Hi Nostri,

Would you mind quoting the relevent passages in full: 1 Proem (3.6,5.3)
Anacephalaeosis 1 (preface, 14-20) and 19.5.7.

Using my library loan to look at Epiphanius often takes a week or two.

Warmly,

Jay Raskin

Notsri

Hi, Jay. Okay, so as per your request, here are the relevant passages:


Proem 1.3.5-6 Proem 1.5.3 Anacephalaeosis 1, preface, 14-20 19.5.7 Of course, I've not transcribed chapters 14-20, wherein he deals in greater detail with the Seven Sects. Frankly it would be too much to copy , though I'm sure you understand. Anyway, I don't think there's much there that would be of interest at this point. In any event, hopefully what I have copied will be of help to you. If you'd like a bit more copied, so as to expand even more on the context of what I've included, just let me know; that I'd be happy to do.

Regards,
Notsri

PhilosopherJay

Hi Nostri,

Thank you so much for this. It is extremely helpful. It allows us to examine whether Hegesippus' enumeration and repetition of the Seven Jewish Sects is analogous to Epiphaneus' enumeration and repetition of the Seven Jewish Sects.

In Proem 1.3.5-6, Epiphaneus tells us of the derivation of Judaism and seven sects derived from Judaism. He names them.

In Proem 1.5.3, he tells us the sects he will cover in the first section of his book.

In Anacephalaeosis 1, preface, 14-20, he gives us a description and derivation of the name of each of the Seven Jewish sects.

In 19.5.7, he tells how long the sects persisted. He is being a bit sarcastic towards them as he says they "enjoyed a brief period of celebrity." Probably, he is making the point that these Jewish sects were temporial, while Christianity still remains. He enumerates each of the sects for rhetorical effort, as if saying goodbye and shaking hands with each member of a group of old friends for the last time.

The repetition and enumeration each time is for a quite different reason. Each contributing to the overall style of the work.

Now, in Hegesippus, we do not have the first enumeration of what he calls "The Seven Sects," we have this:

(H.E. 2:23)

Hegesippus must have enumerated the seven sects, otherwise the statement "some of the seven sects" would be extremely vague. I mean to say simply that there was seven sects and some of them asked James a question would immediately cause a reader to stop and say, "Who are these seven sects and which ones approached James?" So we can be reasonably certain that he has given the names of the seven sects previously. He apparently did not give very much other information, as he tells us for the first time here that the seven sects did not believe in the resurrection (of Christ?) and in one's (Christ's?) coming to give every man according to his works. Apparently only the followers of James were believers in the resurrection and judgement of Christ (but as many as believed did so on account of James).

Then we have the important fourth and fifth (at least) references to the seven sects:

(4:22.5-6)
Now, in your post of September 16, you suggest that what he is doing here is
distinguishing and emphasizing the opposition to Christ of the seven sects.

Whereas Epiphaneus has repeated the names of the seven sects as a rhetorical affect and for emphasis, you suggest, on this hypothesis, that Hegessipus has repeated the names to give us new information -- Who opposed the tribe of Judah and Christ.

Hegessipus has already told us the names of the seven sects and he has already told us at 2.23.9 that the seven sects did not believe in Christ's resurrection and judgement. It is possible that he is not sure that the reader remembers the names of the seven sects, and therefore wants to include them again for emphasis. But for some reason, he waits a few paragrahs and then decides to tell us their names again. In which case, the passage should read "As I have already mentioned, the following seven sects of Judaism were opposed to the tribe of Judah and Christ..."

The problem here with this "repetion for new information" hypothesis is that Hegessipus has not only enumerated the seven sects, but he has twice before reminded us that he has referenced the seven sects. He seems to be unaware that the seven sects of Jesus' opponents are the seven sects he has enumerated before and that he has mentioned his own reference to them twice before. He also seems unaware that he has also stated their opposition to Christ before in his statement that only James believed in the resurrection and judgement.

Whereas, each of Epiphaneus' uses of the repetition of the name list makes sense, and the last is done for rhetorical flourish, Hegessipus' use shows not a rhetorical flourish, but a lapse of memory as regards to what he has just written. We may argue over whether the lapse of memory is on the part of Hegesippus or Eusebius.

Warmly,

Jay Raskin


P.S. I think we need to compare Hegesippus' last mention with Epiphaneus' first mention of the seven sects.


It seems to me quite a fantastic coincidence that the terms "tribe of Judah" and "Judah's tribe" (same terms really) should appear in the only two short statements enumerating seven sects of Judaism. It appears to me that Euphaneus is elaborating on the statement "tribe of Judah and the Christ," showing how Christ is related to the Jews through King David.

Whereas the first passage seems to be saying that the seven sects opposed both the Jews and Christ, so we have seven sects vs. Jews and Christ, the second statement seems to be responding that the seven sects come directly from Judaism (derived from) and therefore we have seven Jewish Sects vs. Christ.

In any case, despite four of the seven sect names being different, I would suggest that Eusebius' passage in E.C. 4.22.5-6 is Epiphaneus' source for the idea of seven sects.[/QUOTE] Epiphaneus has never read Hegesippus' first mention of the seven sects either.

Notsri

Hi, Jay. I’m sorry it’s taken me so long to respond to your last post. I’m glad you found the quotations from Epiphanius helpful. You’ve since raised some very good points, I think. I suppose I’ll start from the beginning, roughly where your post began.


I will concede that Epiphanius lists the Seven Sects for various reasons in the places mentioned above, even for "quite different� reasons, to borrow your words. My reason, though, for drawing attention to these passages (and I’m not sure I was clear on this before), is only that Epiphanius affixes the words “Seven Sects� to each list in these excerpts, and therefore it is readily ascertained that the sects listed are THE Seven Sects. His primary concern may be something else altogether, e.g., informing the reader of which sects will be discussed in Book 1 (so Proem 1.5.3), but a collateral concern at some point in each excerpt is to explicitly identify the Seven Sects. Now, if Epiphanius were to write later that he’d mentioned the Seven Sects “above,� the reader would know immediately which ones he was referring to; for he’s listed them three times as “the Seven Sects.� To me this seemed a likely parallel to what Hegesippus has to say in H.E. 2.23.

Hegesippus tells us he’s mentioned the “Seven Sects� already, “above� even, apparently suggesting that he, as with Epiphanius, had explicitly identified the Seven Sects at some point prior. That he does not mean to refer to the text in H.E. 4.22 seems evident from the fact that he lists 18 sects in 4.22, without openly identifying any as the Seven Sects. If in fact 4.22 preceded 2.23, and in 2.23 he meant to refer to 4.22 “above,� then his remarks in 2.23 are far too vague, for how would his readers know with certainty which of those 18 sects were the Seven Sects? Now of course this raises the question, would it – or could it – make sense in Memoirs for Hegesippus to expressly list the Seven Sects in a now lost passage, tell us later that he’s described the Seven Sects above, and then sometime (shortly?) thereafter list them again, though without calling them by that name (though, of course, his readers would likely recognize them)? This is where I brought Panarion 19.5.7 to the table.

As you know, Epiphanius lists the Seven Sects in 19.5.7 without actually identifying them as such. This seemed to me to allow for a possible parallel with Memoirs, insofar as 19.5.7 and H.E. 4.22 both offer a list of the Seven Sects, without actually using that denomination. However, you raised a very good point, one that I failed to consider carefully before, which, of course, is the fact that Hegesippus’ apparent repetition of the Seven Sects seems rather inapt, whereas Epiphanius’s does not. Epiphanius’ reiteration of the Seven Sects does allow us to see that a tautology in Hegesippus is possible, but it doesn’t adequately address the fact that Hegesippus’ repetition comes in a seemingly malapropos manner, given his earlier statements. And so, for the time being, I think I’m willing to bid adieu to Epiphanius on this point, Jay - just like that. :wave: I’m sad to see him go. However, it does still seem possible to me to maintain the position I’ve been trying to uphold with regard to Hegesippus on this point. I do feel like this argument has become somewhat belabored, though, so I won’t try and press it any further, for now; I thought we might come back to this later (unless, of course, you'd like me to continue); you could have a chance to address some of my other remarks from the original post, if you’d like. I will say this, though: I think Josephus may have some bearing on the issue.

Before I go, though, I did want to address a few subordinate matters, particularly your assessment of 19.5.7. This is what you had to say: Epiphanius’ purpose in ch. 19 is to delineate the sect of the Ossaeans – the 6th sect in his list of the Seven. The chapter’s a bit excursive, though. From 1.4-4.6 he expatiates on a false prophet called Elxai (or Elchasai), who apparently had some affiliation with the Ossaeans. In 5.4, 5, he writes of Elxai’s association with the Ebionites as well, along with the Nazoraeans, the Nasaraeans and, again, the Ossaeans. (Unfortunately, I of course did not include this material in the last post.) So, when he lists the Seven Sects in 5.7, it doesn’t seem to be for rhetorical effect. Rather, he simply means to turn his readers’ minds from the four sects mentioned in 5.4, 5 to the Seven Sects. These – not the Ebionites, Nazoraeans, etc. – are the sects which “enjoyed a brief period of celebrity,� as he says. Also, if the comment “enjoyed a brief period of celebrity� were sarcastic, as you suggest, it would indeed fit well within Epiphanius’ style; there’s certainly no shortage of sarcasm in the Panarion! However, he also notes there that the seven sects had “disappeared and dissolved.� It seems best to me, then, to say that Epiphanius was simply making the point that the Seven Sects were popular for a time, but not any longer – all sarcasm aside, just merely a statement of fact.


Also, regarding: Coming back to this point, you later added: The problem with this is that Hegesippus says only that the sects didn’t believe in “a� resurrection, not “the� resurrection, as in Christ’s. They didn’t believe there would be a resurrection of the dead, and accordingly there would be no final judgment. It doesn’t appear that he’s referring to Christ’s resurrection or his expected return.



Lawlor & Oulton do argue that Epiphanius was dependent in a number of places directly upon Hegesippus’ Memoirs, but this doesn’t seem to me to be such an example. His concern in Proem 1.3.5f. has nothing to do with Christ’s ancestral pedigree, and thus it seems very unlikely that he means to refer to Christ’s descent from King David. If his intention was to show Christ’s relation to the Jews through King David, then he does so in an extremely oblique fashion.



This also seems unlikely. Epiphanius develops the data on the Seven Sects to an extent that would require the consideration of a source (or sources) other than Hegesippus (or Eusebius). Anyway, Justin Martyr knows of “Seven Sects� as well, so it seems unnecessary to insist that Epiphanius – the latest of the three writers - came to know of Seven Sects from Hegesippus.

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