Toto

Layman is an American lawyer who does not speak Greek. He tried to poke some holes in Olson's case, but most of us were not impressed, and he never published in a peer reviewed journal, if that is important to you. I think you are incorrect is stating that he hasn't added much to his theory.

The latest thread on Olson's theory is Testamonium Flavium

Bede

Toto, may I now take it that the theorist's inability to read Greek and the fact he has not published his work in a peer reviewed journal are things you consider make their work less valuable, useful or authoritative?

B

Toto

Bede - these are always factors to take into consideration.

yummyfur

your welcome
I think Raskin has suitably laid this to rest as important.
True, also I think because of the reason that Eusebius uses qoutes, he might have had to actually create a complete five book Memoir attributed to Hegesippus, or he would be taking a risk with little gain. If he created such a book, we would still have the same problem of why it doesn't get saved.
I think this is largly true
I think the intention was to refer to burial in the Kidron valley, as it is right next to the Temple and also a major burial location, we definatly have tombs from the Herodian period still extant today.

Romans, destroyed inside the city walls, would probably never disturb known graves, as this is something that the average Roman was very superstitious about. In the story about James he is thrown from a Temple roof or tower, which might imply he was thrown off into the Kidron. If it could be helped, no one would want to spill his blood on Temple grounds, or even on the city side. He is then beaten by a Fuller's club, this is something a laundryman uses to beat out the water. The laundryman would likely use the Kidron as a water source.

Note this tomb located next to the Temple wall in this 1864 survey map, near the Eastern gate. Not saying this is anything, but I wouldn't doubt a memorial or grave might be placed here, though not directly in front of the eastern gate like the current Muslim cemetary. In the story of James death, the mutitude keep asking him what is the gate of Jesus?, which might be the eastern gate, which is associated with the messiah.
http://www.templemount.org/1864map.html

Also at the time of Hegesipus it's possible the Temple would not be in ruins, but it would be the temple of Jupiter Capitolina in the colonial city of Aelia Capitolina. It's not clear that this temple was bulit on the Jewish temple site, but it makes sense.
I think this is clear enough
Nowhere in Irenaeus' pope list does he say who he got it from, there is no mention of Hegesippus. I beleive this is just Catholic speculation as to a possible source, nothing more. For reference this would be in Irenaeus' Adversus Haereses Book III Chapter 3.
http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/0103303.htm
I'm not sure thinking the best of Eusebius is a good thing. He is without question a poor writer of greek, and doesn't seem too bright or dilligent. I think I would take Eusebius' work the same way I read Historia Augusta, that is with a lot of trepidation.

As far as creating from whole cloth a person named Hegesippus, and making a work by him. This seems unlikely as the reason for qouting someone, is to use that persons authoirty. If Eusebius created Hegesippus, his readers would not know his authority, and wonder why they had never heard of him, and maybe wonder that they hadn't, because he was a heretic. Heresy seems to plaque the christians from the death of James on, so merely having an author near to the apostles isn't enough, they need an author with a known pedigree. If Eusebius made him up, he would have had to supply this authors works to prove to others that this guy was no heretic, as the given qoutes gives you no clue.

Additionaly Eusebius gives us a clue as to why this work might not have survived, he seems to have qouted a small part of a larger exposition on the history and evils of idolatry in Hegesippus' Memoirs. This kind of work would probably not be considered worthy of keeping by the church that would be in power just a couple hundred years later.

Vorkosigan

Toto was wondering why you put so much store by Layman's analysis when it has the same "flaws" that caused you to deprecate Raskin's.

You were not attacked for saying JMers were not worth arguing with. Nobody edited that remark. I pointed out that you had said that first when you complained about Jacob's comments. You are right about double standards, though. It would be wrong of us to edit Jay for a sweeping comment (if he had made one), while permitting your sweeping attacks to stand. It is you yourself who established the tone for this debate.

Further, Jay's remark contained no innuendo, but simply recognized the fact that his arguments were going to be painful for some people. Here is what he said:

"I am aware of the argument that this could hurt the reputation of Eusebius, which could hurt Christianity generally and thus hurt a great many people. I would counter-argue that falsifying our history to create saints out of men hurts a great many people too."

This remark demonstrates a great sensitivity and commitment to truth.

Vorkosigan

Vorkosigan

But doesn't Eusebius go out of his way to establish that H is not a heretic? In his last remarks on H, he lists him with a bunch of writers and says

"In every case writings which show their orthodoxy and unshakeable devotion to the apostolic tradition have come into my hands."

He then goes on to reinforce this, describing how H went to Rome, mixed with the bishops, and found the same doctrine among them all (this reads like fantasy). He then lists some remarks of H about Clement's Epistle to the Corinthians, which show, once again, that the Roman Church was united and the succession historically established (another powerful motive for making up H). Then he has H sketching the origins of the heresies of his day, claiming that there was no doctrinal problems and the Church was virgin. Then comes a fantasy history about the origins of the heretics.

In the next section E again establishes H's bona fides, showing that "he was a believer of Hebrew descent" and further mentions "other matters coming from Jewish oral tradition." H also says that the heretical books were fabricated by heretics in his own time. (pages 180-2 in my penguin edition of E).

The history here reeks of invention, but whether H's or E's I can't tell. But it is clear that E puts up data to show H was a reliable non-heretic.

Amaleq13

Is it not relevant because we don't know why the author of the list assumed Hegesippus' memoirs never existed?

Toto

I would not assume that the author of the list had to believe that Hegesippus' memoirs never existed, only that they did not exist when he wrote. Or perhaps all we can conclude is that his note is not an indication that the work existed.

PhilosopherJay

Hi YummyFur


Your point "Clement, in the seventh book of his Outlines, relates a story which is worthy of mention; telling it as he received it from those who had lived before him" does suggest a later than Apostles writer, but we should remember that the incident related involves the very early death of James, brother of John, which happens even before the imprisonment of Peter, which Acts seems to place in the 30's. It does not discount at all Clement, Third Bishop of Rome from being the author even if we consider that he was a young companion of Paul a decade later. He would still need to get the story from someone "who lived before" in order for it to be accurate.

The proposition that Eusebius only cared that Clement was orthodox and earlier then him is quite possible. However, I would like to argue the opposite that the late date of Clement of Alexandria (circa 200) was a problem for him.

Lets examine how Eusebius uses the name Clement by following his order.
A. Book 1:12.2, 2:1.3, 2:9.2, 2:15.2, 2:23.3, 2:23.9 -- Eusebius uses the name Clement. He identifies him as the author of "Outlines." but does not date him.
B. Book 3:4.10, 3:15, 3:16, 3:18.5, 3:21.2 -- Eusebius speaks of Clement, Bishop of Rome and clearly dates him to the First Century
C. Book 3:23.2, 3:23.5. Eusebius identifies "Clement of Alexandria" as the author of "Can the Rich Man Be Saved"
D. Book 3:29.1, 3:30.1, 3:30.2. Eusebius identifies "Clement of Alexandria" as the author of "Stromata"
E. Book 3:34.1, 3.38.1, 3.38.2, 3.38.4, 3.38.5, 4:23.1 -- Eusebius speaks about Clement Bishop of Rome
F. Book 4:26.4. Eusebius identifies "Clement of Alexandria" as the author of "On the Passover"
G. Book 5:6.2, 5:6.3, 5:6.4 -- Eusebius talks about Clement, Bishop of Rome
F. Book 5:11.1, 5:11.2 -- Eusebius notes that Clement of Alexandria has the same name as Clement, Bishop of Rome. Eusebius identifies Clement of Alexandria as the author of "hypotyposes" and suggests (5:9-10) he wrote sometime around or after the time of Commodius (180-193)

I think we have to assume that Eusebius did not suddenly come upon the information that Clement of Alexandria lived around 200 C.E. while composing book 5. I think we have to assume that he knew this when composing book 1.

Thus,we have these facts: First when introducing the author of "Can the Rich Man be Saved," "Stromata" and "On the Passover" he names Clement of Alexandria. When introducing the author of "hypotyposes" he has six opportunities to call him by the name Clement of Alexandria, but in every case calls him "Clement" Second, in book 3 when talking about Clement, Bishop of Rome, he very clearly identifies him as living in the first century. In the six opportunities in books 1 and 2 that Eusebius has to identify the time period of the author, he never does so. In book 3 he then has 5 further opportunities to distinguish the First Century Clement of Rome from the late Second/Early Third Century author of "Hypotyposes" He does not do so. It is only at the end of book 3 that he distinquishes Clement, Bishop of Rome from an author Clement of Alexandria, but even here he does not claim that Clement of Alexandria is the author of "hypotyposes"

Now we ask the question "What is this "hypotyposes?" At 6:13.2, he tells us this after telling us that the "Stromata" has 8 books:

Curiously, as with the Memoirs of Hegesippus, we find nobody has bothered to mention what any of these opinions and traditions were that Pantaenus held that Eusebius claims were written in the "hypotyposes."

Eusebius gives another description of the book shortly thereafter at 6:14.1-2:

Now Eusebius does not tell us when he is quoting from "Hypotyposes" in the Second Book of the History, if he is quoting from "opinions or traditions of Pantaenus," or if he is quoting from "the abridged accounts of all canonical books" that Clement made.

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. This would have been a weak and easily discoverable forgery, so he also took some schoolboy notes of various books, perhaps his own, and assigned them to an author named Clement and called them "Outlines." He was undecided if he should attribute them to the Second Century Clement of Alexander or the First Century Clement, Bishop of Rome. He left it up in the air. In any case he only needed them in the unlikely case that someone should call him on his sources and ask to see them. He, of course could not produce the full Memoirs of Hegesippus without his forgery being detected, but he might be able to get away with a few pages of his "Outlines" attributed to Clement. It was not until the 5th book that he made a definite decision to attribute them to Clement of Alexandria. At that point, he was dealing with other questions which made it tactically wise to assign the text to Clement of Alexandria.
The insertion of supporting James material in Josephus and Origen were easily accomplished with only the changing of a few words in Josephus and the addition of a few lines in Origen. There were probably not many copies of either in circulation, and Eusebius could always argue that he had the "right" copy.
This scenario explains the lack of specific dating of Clement in the early references and the reason Eusebius did not separate "Clement" the author of "Outlines" from Clement the Bishop of Rome before book 5, but left their relationship ambiguous. One may suggest also the scenario that Eusebius simply felt no need to do so or was simply careless about informing his readers of these things.
A question that may help determine which scenario is more likely is "Did Eusebius assume that his readers would know he meant Clement of Alexandria when he referred to Clement?" If the answer is "yes," than this scenario is unlikely, if it is "no" than it is the best I can come up with at the moment.

Warmly,

Jay Raskin

Toto

Jay - getting back to Zahn's list, why do you think they are all imaginary? I can't read the fonts on Roger Pearse's page very well, but it appears that one of the books is Artemidorus's Geography Another appears to be a book by Galen?