Vorkosigan

Good to see your creative and perspicacious mind here, Jay.

:notworthy

Vorkosigan

yummyfur

First in Book I and II, all the mentions of Clement, say "in Clement's such and such book of his Outlines" except for the last one, on James's death. I think it's pretty clear who he is talking about. He missed one attribution, which is hardly shocking since he had just mentioned "in Clement's Outlines", 3 times already in book II. For example:

"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"

Obviously he is pointing out to us that Clement didn't live during this time period right in book II, beside the fact that he lays out Clement of Alexandria's whole bio in book VI complete with his works.

The Clement, Bishop of Rome, is described by Eusebius as a co-labourer of Paul, so clearly someone who had lived during the time period that Eusebius has just pointed out in Book II that the author of the Outlines had not lived in.

In this same book II he also qoutes Tertullian, hardly a first century witnes, and one that by Eusebius's qoute, makes known he isn't, he again doesn't give us Tertullians whole bio until the book that covers the period of time Tertullian lived in.

I don't think he is trying to pass him off as first century, I really don't think Eusebius cared. Clement of Alexandria was considered orthodox by Eusebius and therefore acceptable. The Outlines were some kind of "collection" of earlier sources epitomized by Clement. He is an earlier Christian "chronographer" than Eusebius, and with proper orthodox credentials, therefore Eusebius will use what he has to say, unless he can find someone he feels is more orthodox or more authoritative. Eusebius would not consider the sources Clement used as tales, though we might. No christian reader seems to have ever believed that Clement's Hypotyposes were written in the first century, so if this was his plan, it failed miserably.

Let's make a somewhat imaginary example, lets say Cassius Dio gave us a qoute of Tacitus about Tiberius, but for our example let's say we didn't have any of Tacitus's extant works, except a few qoutes here and there in some other later histories. We know that Tacitus did not live during Tiberius's reign and wrote the Annals in 109 CE. Should we think that Cassius Dio is trying to pass him of as living in that time? or the more likely, that Tacitus is a earlier historian than Cassius Dio, and that being such, Tacitus might have had, or at least felt to have had by Cassius Dio, better sources from Tiberius's time period. Cassius Dio might use or reject sources also based on their political veiwpoints, so using a later source, because he likes their politics better. Cassius Dio might believe, for example, that Tacitus was correct ,when he claimed that historians living during Tiberius's, Gauis's, Claudius's, and Nero's reign were compelled by fear, and those shortly after by hate.

You could substitute Suetonius in for Tacitus, both use tales in their works though Suetonius seems more prone to it, but would that mean Cassius Dio qouting them was trying to pass either off as living in Tiberius's reign?

What's better, is that in reality Cassius Dio never qoutes his sources for anything he writes about Tiberius's reign, nor even states what sources he used. If Eusebius had been smart he would have just not named his sources, as it seems acceptable practice by some ancient historians.

Ted Hoffman

Welcome aboard Jay.

Yummyfur,
Whoever he was, this Clement died c.100 CE according to Eusebius.

3.23
"In the third year of the reign of the emperor mentioned above, Clement committed the episcopal government of the church of Rome to Evarestus, and departed this life after he had superintended the teaching of the divine word nine years in all."

yummyfur

Yes Clement of Rome dies about 100 CE, but it's not Clement of Rome who Eusebius is qouting about James, he is qouting Clement of Alexandria's "Outlines".

Vorkosigan

That would explain why he considers Hegesippus more reliable than Clement!

Bede

After explaining why H is prefered to Clement of Alex (thanks for that), we don't have much left except the temple v temple site problem. The dates for H are quite consistant and the Greek does mean born (it is a present participle rather than a noun).

I've nothing to say bout Raskin's innuendo that E forged Clement too as it is pure unsubstantiated (and unreasonable) assertion. E probably forged nothing - we cannot even show Olsen is right about the TF. Layman destroyed his original case and he hasn't added much else. Raskin's thesis has much bigger problems than reading 'temple' for 'site of temple'. If E created H from scratch that gives him 100% editorial freedom. Yet all we have is H used a few times, often to confirm other sources. If he invented the author he could use him for anything and fill in all the gaps he wants to. Yet he does not. E doesn't even make sure that his invented source agrees with Josephus's account of James's death (or manage to make up two consistant accounts).

Also, Jerome knows of H which is highly unlikely if E had invented him. Here's what J says about 390AD:

The quotation, as far as I can gather, didn't come from E (though I can be corrected). So Raskin has to explain what H is doing on J's list and where J is getting his information from if not the HE.

What of the Temple? In the end, we have Raskin claiming E made a mistake saying H was a witness before 70AD in the very same chapter than he says he was born at the first succession of the apostles, and me arguing for a small slip of calling the enormous and substantial remains of the Temple, the Temple. Even if we charitably say these too possibilities are about equal, he has a huge amount of work left to make his thesis even sound plausible.

Yours

Bede

Bede's Library - faith and reason

yummyfur

This qoute could come from Eusebius as no information is given that is not in Eusebius, and some of the style matches what Eusebius says. It's interesting to note that Jerome can't give us anything more about Hegesippus than what's in Eusebius, so I assume it's his source.

for example in book 3 of Eusebius Church History Chapter 8

"Among these Hegesippus was well known. We have already quoted his words a number of times, relating events which happened in the time of the apostles according to his account. He records in five books the true tradition of apostolic doctrine in a most simple style, and he indicates the time in which he flourished when he writes as follows concerning those that first set up idols: "To whom they erected cenotaphs and temples, as is done to the present day. Among whom is also Antinous, a slave of the Emperor Adrian, in whose honor are celebrated also the Antinoian games, which were instituted in our day. For he also founded a city named after Antinous, and appointed prophets."

Later in book 3 chapter 21

"Hegesippus in the five books of Memoirs which have come down to us has left a most complete record of his own views. In them he states that on a journey to Rome he met a great many bishops, and that he received the same doctrine from all. It is fitting to hear what he says after making some remarks about the epistle of Clement to the Corinthians. His words are as follows: "And the church of Corinth continued in the true faith until Primus was bishop in Corinth. I conversed with them on my way to Rome, and abode with the Corinthians many days, during which we were mutually refreshed in the true doctrine. And when I had come to Rome I remained a there until Anicetus, whose deacon was Eleutherus. And Anicetus was succeeded by Soter, and he by Eleutherus."

Bede

Yummyfur,

Thanks for finding that. I did a search but it didn't come up. I'm back in London so don't have my copy anymore.

So, where are we? I'm assuming the position is that despite H 'being well known', Raskin will continue to insist that without pre-E attestation he'll cling to his theory despite all the problems with it and the complete lack of positive evidence apart from a missing word about the temple. The other points I have made still stand:

H's memoirs appear to have existed until the sixteenth century (unless someone ones to claim Kahn was anticipating Raskin's argument);
E does not use his editorial freedom;
H's dates are now consistant with a reading of the text;
We know that James couldn't have been buried by the temple anyway (unless it was in the gorge on the other side which would probably be stated);
We also see why H was prefered to Clement of Alex;
H's pope list is quoted by Iraeneus c. 190AD;

Given I have been attacked for saying JMers are not worth arguing with, will some one slap down Raskin for his innuendo about people wanting to think the best of E? We're all in the same boat here and such double standards do not improve debate.

Yours

Bede

PhilosopherJay

I do not have time to respond to all your interesting observations at the moment. However I did want to note that we can discount Zahn's allegation of the works of Hegesippus existing in the 16th century. I wrote to Roger Pierce about the article on his website and he was very helpful in clearing up the transcription of the Greek text which I could not read on my browser.
It appears that what we have is a list of books written in a copy of the poet Pindar. Zahn jumped to the conclusion that these books were owned by the owner of the copy of the book. When one examines the list, one quickly sees that every single book on the list never existed. For example, there's "the tragedies of Menander." Menander was a comic playwrite who never wrote tragedies. It is evident to me that the owner of the book by Pindar was himself a poet and compiled a list of imaginary works to be used in a poem. The handwriting of part of the list has been identified as Phortios, "who released five Greek epigrams and two Italian sonnets in connection with the other poems in 1555 at Venice."

Zahn has made a categorical error by assuming that the poet actually possessed the books he mentions. To assume that someone possessed not just one but nearly a dozen works that are mere titles that nobody else in history has ever possessed is fantastic.

We can discount Zahn's poetical list of imaginary titles as having any relevancy to the issue at hand.

Thanks to Yummyfur for the excellent analysis discounting Jerome as an independent source for the confirmation of Hesesippus, and for pointing out problems with my hypothesis that Eusebius deliberately misleads his reader into believing Bishop Clement of Rome wrote "The Outlines." I'll respond later when I have more time.


Warmly,

Jay

Amaleq13

Unless I'm mistaken, these names date Hegesippus as wandering about between c130CE - c160CE.