Vorkosigan

In the ninth century, Photius had a copy of a work purporting to be by H. This doesn't mean diddly. Fake works on fake names are a regular practice. I can walk into any bookstore in the US and buy a copy of the Necromonicon or a Klingon dictionary.

Yes, that would be key, and I would like to do that. A sound point.

As I said, I have several. Your understanding is reversed, I think. Have you written H when you meant E? Or what?

There are three key sentences in that passage. The first one, clearly related to the one from Pausanius, the fourit comment, and the last one. Which one are you talking about?

Actually, Ken Olson just sent me a long email about that, which I shall post momentarily. That conjecture may be unproven to you, but there are quite a lot of people who think E is a forger. In point of fact, Bede, I did not believe that E was a forger. I was simply open to the possibility. Don't confuse openness to possibility with belief.

That's untrue. There's quite a bit more there.

I agree. That's why I haven't really focused on that typical storytelling trope. Don't confuse my points with Raskin's. I have essentially rejected Raskin's case. But he focused my attention on Hegesippus.

The only solid point you've made, Bede, is the one about the Greek.

Vorkosigan

Vorkosigan

What is "C" here? Did I miss it?

Vorkosigan

PhilosopherJay

Hi Nostri,

What are the four consecutive sentences Lawlor & Oulton are talking about? Without knowing what these sentences are, the argument cannot be judged.


Warmly,

Jay Raskin

PhilosopherJay

Hi Bede,

We may assume that Eusebius was not quoting the paragraphs because of the trope, but because the paragraphs he quoted contained the argument he wanted to express.
I checked Book 18 of Josephus, He uses this trope exactly once in the approximately 57 paragraphs in the book. We will assume that Quadratus and Hegesippus also uses the trope once in 57 paragraphs. The odds against Eusebius picking the four paragraphs containing this trope at random would be, I believe, 57 to the 4th power or 10,556,001 to 1. The odds are lessoned by the fact that Eusebius quotes some two dozen paragraphs by these authors, but the odds are lengthened somewhat in that Josephus and the other ancient authors probably really only use the trope once in a 1,000 paragraphs. While it would take a better mathematician than me to figure out the exact odds against this being a coincidence, I would suppose it to be in the neighborhood of 10,000,000 to 1.
If you believe it to be less than this, please provide some evidence.

You might also consider these two other passages that contain the trope:
(4.11)
and

5.5.8.


Warmly,

Jay Raskin

Bede

No it means he had a work purporting to be by H. This is evidence that the work existed even if not conclusive. Also, Nostri has shown how at one point an annotator included the H quotations in his copy of E which is further evidence that H existed independently, and furthermore did not say quite the same thing as E. Coupled with the silence regarding suspicisons that E invented H, we can now reject this as unparcimonious and actually very unlikely.

However, we are still left with H being genuine 2nd century or a third century fake. The only way to show this would be literary analysis. But luckily, you task has just got a bit easier as you no longer have to rely on E's paraphrase as we now have four nuggets of genuine H to work on. Show that they are all from sources that the real H couldn't know and you are onto a winner. But remember, it is very hard to tell which way literary dependence goes so you can't just assume H came second, and also, you can't just call anything that doesn't match 'redaction' like you did with Mark's temple scene. Either it comes from other sources or it doesn't. A method that allows difficult bits to be explained away and doesn't show which direction dependence is going is no method at all.

Look forward to seeing it.

OK, I will be careful in future.

And book 3 in Photius. While not conclusive, it is a solid point, becoming more so with Nostri's revelation that some else had H and could quote from it.

Yours

Bede

Bede's Library - faith and reason

Vorkosigan

We can easily fall back on H being a third century fraud; that was my original position anyway. H is a fraud, the question is: what kind?

I'd have to see the sentences of H themselves. Lawlor and Oulton wrote in the 1920s. What are they referring to? Their text concedes that it is entirely possible that the sentences are in fact formulated out of E, though they work hard to deny that. Since Lawlor was an Irish Reverend whose flourit extends back to the turn of the century, it is unlikely that he was very objective on the matter of E's probity. The Desperate Straining in an attempt to explain away the issue, very visible in points 2 and 3, is a good example. "He could never have" is not a point that carries any argumentative weight, just expressing a Desperate Hope that He Didn't

Quite true. That is the problem I have with this whole argument. But in this case, I think the dependence of H on Pausanius is pretty obvious. I doubt P is copying H! But the others are more problematic. Still, if you can find three texts of H in other texts as I already have, you've got something suspicious going on.

Right on. So I am working on alternatives. However, creation by expansion of sources was a common tactic in the ancient world -- that's essentially what the gospels do, for example.

Bede, I didn't do that. There is no need to take shots like that here. I looked up the passage in several sources, and the framing of the story is indeed considered Markan redaction. Did you think I just invented that? See Ludemann (whose book I took it from). It's a common analysis. For example, Steven Davies makes exactly the same analysis I do....

"I will briefly survey the elements of Mark's passage: "On reaching Jerusalem, Jesus entered the temple area and began driving out those who were buying and selling there." [This is a summary statement defining what happened.] "He overturned the tables of the money changers and the benches of those selling doves, and would not allow anyone to carry merchandise through the temple courts." [This is a narrative expansion of the previous sentence, unnecessary, strictly speaking, but appropriate to do, if one is writing a narrative, which Mark is doing.] "And as he taught them, he said, "Is it not written: "`My house will be called a house of prayer for all nations'? But you have made it `a den of robbers.'" [The scriptural pastiche (Isaiah 56:7, Jeremiah 7:11) serves to justify the activity that has been narrated. A similar pastiche of scriptural passages is used by Mark in revision of GTh 65-66 (Mk 12:1-12).] "The chief priests and the teachers of the law heard this and began looking for a way to kill him, for they feared him, because the whole crowd was amazed at his teaching." [Passages such as this are common in Markan controversy-redaction, where Judean leaders plot against Jesus and "crowds" are foils for his teaching and usually support him."

Davies missed the allusion to Nehemiah, but he sees the framing the same way I do.

Even Gundry, who struggles to keep every word as history, thinks it's awkward that Jesus is "teaching" as he is overturning the tables. (The mental image of that is irresistably hilarious).

Let's keep the focus on H, eh? You've come up with some useful points, like the Greek, for example, which is key for the case against Eusebius as the forger. And truthfully, the comment about discovery-by-personal epiphany was also dead on.

Vorkosigan

Bede

Fine. I accept that your analysis of Mark on the Temple ruckus has scholarly backing though I do find the method used frustratingly open ended... That's for another day.

B

PhilosopherJay

Hi Bede,

Please produce the reference to book three so we may examine it and be as sure as you that they certainly existed. Thanks.

...
Nevermind, the inimicable Roger Pearse has come to our rescue, he has posted the relevent passage at
http://www.tertullian.org/fathers/ph...ibliotheca.htm

It is evident that Photius has not read the book because he says, "in I do not know what context..." He calls Hegesippus a "contemporary of the apostles." This directly contradicts Euesebius' claim that he lived in the generation after the apostles. He also refers to the work as "The Commentaries." This seems to contradict Eusebius' claim that the work of Hegesippus was "The Memoirs."

Being such an important source book on the life of Jesus Christ, Photius would have made every effort to acquire the books by Hegesippus. The fact here is that in the 9th century a person as widely read as Photius never saw the books described by Eusebius. Rather than confirming the existence of Hegesippus, this passage adds great weight to the contention that the works quoted by Eusebius never existed.


Pearse also has this reference to Hegesippus by Photius:

http://www.tertullian.org/fathers/ph...ibliotheca.htm

This indicates that in the 9th Century, people were attributing works to Hegesippus on grounds that Photius found insufficent.

Thank you for bringing this up.

Warmly,

Jay Raskin[QUOTE]

Ted Hoffman

Jay,
This is very perceptive. Plus, the question of the odds of finding such a passage in the early texts.

Very salubrious discussion. :thumbs:

I awair Bede's reference to Photius and Nostri's clarification on the texts being referenced.

Its floruit not flourit .

Vorkosigan

Well, I was making pizza yesterday......

I just got From Paul to Valentinus: Christians at Rome in the First Two Centuries. It is a veritable encyclopedia about Christianity in Rome. Among its many comments and observations, I noticed this on page 405, discussing the bishop list that appears in both Iranaeus and Hegesippus.

"Eleutherus constitutes its last, twelfth member. The list explicitly emphasizes [greek??]. The "apostolic" number twelve lends beauty to the list: the apostles are followed by twelve guardians of tradition from Linus to Eleutherus, inclusively. The number twelve is not accidental but deliberate. One could have begun with Peter instead of Linus, and then would have had thirteen members. Also, that with Sextus the "halfway mark" is noted ("as sixth, Sextus is appointed") shows the framework of twelve members to be intentional, already in the composition of the list before Iranaeus {footnote18: The succint note about Sextus is formulated in the present tense and is a constituent component of the list prior to Iranaeus.} This means that the twelfth, Eleutherus, is absolutely essential for the catalogue. Thus, the provenance of the catalogue cannot be proved to be earlier than Eleutherus (c. 175-89)."

Lampe's analysis is interesting. He notes that Hegesippus only gives us 3 around 160, and says that this is because the monarchical episcopate had not emerged at the time he was writing. "In those days (H's time) there did not yet exist a chain of monarchical bearers of tradition. Before the middle of the second century in Rome, at no time did one single prominent person pass on the tradition; this was done by a plurality of presbyters."

Lampe then adds:

"Result: The list of Iranaeus (Haer 3.3.3) is with the highest probability a historical construction from the 180s, when the monarchical episcopacy developed in Rome. Above all, the framework of "apostolic" twelve members (from Linus to Eleutherus) points in the direction of a fictive construction. The names that were woven into the construction were certainly not freely invented but were borrowed from the tradition of the city of Rome (for example, "Clement" or the brother of Hermas, "Pius.") They had belong to presbyters of Roman church history. These persons, however, would never have understood themselves as monarchical leaders -- especially Pius at the time of Hermas.

Lampe usually shows a deplorable lack of skepticism about his sources, but here he at least sniffs out a problem. Nevertheless, there are some interesting thoughts here.

Vorkosigan