andrewcriddle

Hi Amaleq

Just to clarify.

Pseudo-Hegesippus presumably knew Greek, since he was (almost certainly) using Josephus (Both the Jewish Wars and the Antiquities ) in the original Greek.

My point was that apart from Josephus pseudo-Hegesippus shows little interest in Greek sources in general and he shows no clear evidence of knowledge of Eusebius in particular.

Andrew Criddle

aa5874

Josephus as far as I understand wrote in Greek, therefore the TF whenever
written would be in Greek.

If the author of ps.Hegesippus used Josephus, as Andrew suggested, then that is an indication that the author understood Greek.


Again, it is highly illogical to claim that the author of ps.Hegesppus did NOT understand Geek when Andrew claim he used Josephus which was written in Greek.

It is eqully illogical to claim that the author of ps.Hegesippus was unlikely to use Eusebius when Andrew has dated ps.Hegesippus after the writing of Church History which contains a passage similar to the TF written in Greek and also found in ps.Hegesippus.


There is no opposite claim.

The claim by Andrew is illogical.

Look at the facts.

A pasage found in ps.Hegesippus is similar to a passage found in the writings of Eusebius. The writing of ps.Hegesippus is dated by Andrew to be after Eusebius. Andrew also wrote that the author of ps.Hegesippus used Josephus written in Greek.

The claim by Andrew is illogical or flawed. The information provided by him does not support a claim that it is unlikely that ps.Hegsippus used Euebius.

the_cave

Then, why does pseudo-Hegesippus ignore the remainder of Eusebius?

the_cave

aa, decades of scholarship have preceded you. Several authors have been proposed for the pseudo-Hegesippus. The authorship is not as important, however, as the dating, which is fairly secure--it falls within the final decades of the fourth century. Please read some of the (already-existing) scholarship on the subject if you want to know (which renders your suggestion that Eusebius wrote the pseudo-Hegesippus absurd).

aa5874

Just tell me who wrote ps.Hegesippus.

the_cave

Andrew, in light of your link to your earlier thread on the TF in pseudo-Hegesippus, I'm going to be re-introducing some of the ensuing conversation into this thread. There is a curious third leg to this argument that I'd light to point out: the Slavonic TF (really an Old Russian TF, but I will refer to it as the "Slavonic TF" due to custom).

Keep this passage in mind as we read:

Isn't it curious that pseudo-Hegesippus chooses to highlight the portion of the gospel that we happen to find in the Slavonic TF? The Slavonic TF contains Luke 23:1-15 in both the earliest and best manuscripts (the Vilna and Archival), as well as one of the so-called "separate" manuscripts (in a couple of different but proximate locations). At least, we are told that it is Luke 23:1-15 by the editorial version; a direct translation of the Old Russian is not provided for that gospel snippet. But how strange that both the Slavonic TF and pseudo-Hegesipus would specifically mention that portion of Luke: why would they, if both derived from the version of the TF found in the Antiquities?

Again, the parallels here with the Slavonic TF are intriguing:

--the Slavonic TF says of the wonder-worker that "150 servants and a multitude of people joined him" (similar to "the twelve Apostles...the seventy Disciples, but also...myriads of others" in Eusebius, as well as the "many Jews and even more Gentiles" found in pseudo-Hegesippus)

--the Slavonic TF says of the wonder-worker that his "appearance was more than human" (similar to "something excellent beyond the rest of mankind" in Eusebius, as well as the "performance of works beyond human capability" in pseudo-Hegesippus)

--the Slavonic TF says of the wonder-worker that his "deeds were divine...he worked wonderful and powerful miracles...he was in much opposed to the Law and did not observe the Sabbath according to the ancestral custom" (similar to "miracles and astonishing deeds and of doctrines (till then) unknown" found in Eusebius, and note the "teaching of morals" found in pseudo-Hegesippus. And compare to the traditional TF, which merely speaks of "wonderful works", and no moral teachings at all, except in the oblique reference to a "teacher of such men as receive the truth with pleasure".)

aa5874

I have never claimed that Eusebius must have or was likely to write ps.Hegesippus. And you should know by now that all writings with the name Jesus, the twelve disciples and Paul may have been subjected to massive forgeries.


Tell me when did Eusebius die? Or how old was Eusebius in 325 CE.

Huon

Eusebius Pamphili, Bishop of Cæsarea in Palestine, the "Father of Church History"; b. about 260; d. before 341.

the_cave

And note: the best manuscripts (the Vilna and Archival) of the Slavonic Josephus also take care to note that Josephus was a Jew and also the author of the Testimonium (in this case, the Slavonic version)--in these is contained the following text, within the Slavonic Testimonium:

Now, obviously this is a fairly late note, since it is aware of the term "orthodox" (though that was used as early as Augustine, at least). But it's interesting to observe that it takes care to mention that 1) Josephus was the author of the Testimonium, 2) he was Jewish, and 3) it also mentions historians in an authoritative light. To me, it reads like a marginalia, expanded and made a part of the text by a later scribe.

If it's unlikely that pseudo-Hegesippus used Eusebius, and yet there are linguistic parallels between them, doesn't this suggest that they both derive from a common source?

The argument against this is: yes, but the obvious candidate for a common source, Antiquities 18 where the TF appears, does not talk specifically about Josephus being both Jewish and a historical witness to Jesus (because, Josephus is supposedly the author of the TF!) But in light of the other parallels with the Slavonic Testimonium I've noted above...could it be that all three texts--pseudo-Hegesippus, Eusebius, and the Slavonic Josephus--share a common source?

The relationship among these three writings does not seem straightforward, but I think it's at least worthy of some speculation.

Or...what if the author of the pseudo-Hegesippus knew about a longer version of the TF--a Greek original of the Slavonic version--and so wouldn't wonder at all about any brevity to Josephus' account? He would be reading from both a pseudo-War and from Antiquities...

But this makes sense...if pseudo-Hegesippus and Eusebius were also reading from a different version of the TF--one which Jerome was not aware of.

Amaleq13

I think it is too much of a mess to be of any use. Too unreliable to be helpful to anyone.