Amaleq13

I wasn't making that claim. I was trying to help you understand his point by using extremes (ie no evidence) but I didn't write clearly enough.

The evidence supports use of Josephus but no other Greek sources. Understand?

It is certainly logical to conclude from the absence of evidence indicating use of or familiarity with Eusebius that the author did not use and may not have been familiar with Eusebius.

You don't know what the opposite claim to "It is unlikely the author used Eusebius." is?

You really don't understand that claiming the author likely used Eusebius despite having no evidence for it is logically flawed?

No, you are just confused again.

No evidence the author used Eusebius? Given the specifically limited use of Greek, it is unlikely he did. Very logical.

You have shown no indication of actually understanding the information you've been given.

aa5874

So, why is it that people cannot understand that authorship matters?

Josephus died probably sometime at the end of the 1st century and we are presently discussing whether Eusebius wrote the TF even though it is believed that Eusebius died over 200 years after Josephus.

We are discussing the possibility of authorship by Eusebius because it matters. If it was Eusebius, it must be a forgery.

Why is it people cannot understand that writings with the name Jesus, the disciples and Paul cannot be taken at face value?

Writings of antiquity with the name Jesus, the disciples and Paul are filled with erroneous information, the names of authors are missing, their chronology are fabricated, multiple person are using the same name, there is confusion about geographic locationS and traditions. Very, very little historical information is allowed.

Why cannot people understand that ps.Hegesippus is not immune to forgery or deliberate planting of information exactly as believed to have been done with the TF?

It is illogical to assume that it is unlikely an unknown writer did use Eusebius when a passage similar to Eusebius is found in his writings and was believed to have been written later, especially when the passage in question, the TF, is also believed to have been forged.

andrewcriddle

One problem is the lateness of the Slavonic Josephus. IMHO this material took something like its present shape towards the end of the 1st millennium CE. I have sometimes wondered whether the Slavonic Josephus was (indirectly) influenced by pseudo-Hegesippus.

Andrew Criddle

the_cave

FWIW the Leeming and Leeming edition dates its composition to the 11th century.

If it is unlikely that pseudo-Hegesippus, an author who could demonstrably read Greek, used Eusebius, isn't it much more unlikely that a Byzantine author of the 10th or 11th century knew Latin, and used the pseudo-Hegesippus?

Especially when he already had access to some version of a Greek Josephus (because the author of Slavonic Josephus includes Josephean material not included in pseudo-Hegesippus).

If the TF found in the pseudo-Hegesippus were written by an orthodox scribe, during a period of imperial success and expansion, how could the author have gotten the gospel details so wrong? He states that Jesus had 150 disciples...that he was released by Pilate after he was arrested...that he was arrested a second time...that the 30 talents were paid to Pilate, not Judas...and so on. This, despite the fact that the author seems to have had access to the gospel of Luke and even (supposedly) quotes from it directly!

If not written by an orthodox scribe, but written around 1000CE, then it must have been written by a heretic--but by whom, and where, and for what purpose? And again, what would this heretical Byzantine author be doing with a good reading knowledge of Latin and a copy of the pseudo-Hegesippus? And why was it so important to use it, if he already had a copy of authentic (and Greek) Josephus?

aa5874

And, after all those questions, it can be seen that claiming ps.Hegesippus did not use Eusebius is really problematic and was just a guess.

What you have highlighted is that virtually nothing is known about the author of ps.Hegesippus.

the_cave

How on earth to you come to this conclusion based on anything I've written? It's irrelevant.

I haven't highlighted anything about pseudo-Hegesippus except how much we do know about it. Again, please read some of the scholarship on pseudo-Hegesippus.

JoeWallack

JW:
Note that in this post:

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/crosstalk2/message/15682

the champion for Eusebian origin, Ken Olson, gives Provenance for his assertion:

Emphasis mine. Note the key assertions potentially placing Eusebius at the scene of the crime:

1) Jesus' supposed nature was a major polemical issue of Eusebius' time.

2) The famous critic Porphyry had made a public challenge of Jesus' supposed divine nature existing in Eusebius' time.

3) Eusebius specifically deals with Porphyry claims in Demonstratio.

4) The TF has two primary themes:

1 - Jesus' deeds were beyond human ability.

2 - Jesus was not a sorcerer.

The significance of the combination is that a sorcerer is merely communicating requests for Divine actions. A divine nature means that the ability is self-contained and no communication is required.



Joseph

http://www.errancywiki.com/index.php/Main_Page

aa5874

I was actually referring to Andrew's statement. Andrew appears to have simply guessed that the unknown author of ps.Hegesippus did use not use Eusebius.

Well if we go through your post #114, it will be seen that you have just asked a lot of questions which you seem not to know the answers. Now, this must imply you know very little about the author of ps.Hegesippus, like everyone else.


Question 1.
Question 2.

Question 3.
Question 4.
Question 5.
Now, it would appear to me that you still have many questions about ps.Hegesippus despite reading scholarship.

I hope you now understand why I prefer to actually read ps.Hegesippus myself.

That is the reason I can say without any questions asked it is highly illogical for Andrew to claim ps.Hegesippus did not use Eusebius.

the_cave

I see the source of the confusion--in the second of your quotations above, I meant to ask "If the TF found in the Slavonic Josephus were written by an orthodox scribe, during a period of imperial success and expansion, how could the author have gotten the gospel details so wrong?"

All my other questions are likewise about the authorship and dating of the Slavonic Josephus, not the pseudo-Hegesippus.

It is not "highly illogical" at all. Instead, it is more likely than not.

Is it possible that pseudo-Hegesippus used Eusebius? Of course.

Is it possible that pseudo-Hegesippus is itself interpolated? Of course.

Is it likely? No.

aa5874

So, just tell me who wrote ps.Hegesippus.[/b]

Just saying "No" is not logical.

You must first produce some corroborative source to support your position. Anyone can simply make an assertion without any supportive information at all, like you just did.

You have already admitted that it is possible that ps.Hegesippus used Eusebius, you are, in effect, admitting some degree of likelyhood that Eusebius was used by the unknown author.

I will just say "No" to your logics until you provide some credible source to support for your position.