noble savage

How does this support your argument that:

1) Pseudo-Hegesippus specifically emphasizes the destruction of the temple, whereas Eusebius sees the fall of the temple as one part of the desruction of Jerusalem.

2) This shows that Pseudo-Hegesippus was writing in response to Julian's attempt to rebuild the temple.

Pointing out that Pseudo-Hegesippus's passage on the destruction of the temple is longer than Eusebius's does not make the case. Pseudo-Hegesippus is writing seven books based on the Jewish War, while in Eusebius, Josephus's Jewish War is one of the major sources for the first three books of the Church History. Pseudo-Hegesippus gives a more space to lots of things, including things Eusebius does not address - the fate of other cities, various military engagements, and Pseudo-Hegesippus concludes with an extended account of the fall of Masada including a version of Eleazar's long speech. It seems strange to argue that Pseudo-Hegesippus emphasizes the destruction of the temple but Eusebius sees this as one part of the fall of Jerusalem. Both writers seem to place the destruction of the temple as a very major part of the misfortunes of the Jews.

NS

noble savage

The statements by Pseudo-Hegesippus and Eusebius resemble each other more than they do 1 Thessalonians. More to the point, however, they're statements of a thesis on the cause of the misfortunes of the Jews which are backed by the use of Josephus as a source. If this were an "obvious" step, we might expect someone would have made it in the two hundred plus years between the publication of Josephus's works and those of Eusebius. Some Christian writers knew of the Jewish War, and mention it tangentially, but did not use it at length or for this purpose. You have Pseudo-Hegesippus "independently" discovering Josephus's Jewish War and putting it to this use more than a generation after Eusebius's works were in circulation.

NS

andrewcriddle

See the octavius by Minucius Felix (c 200 CE)

Andrew Criddle

andrewcriddle

I could quote other passages, (e.g. Christ as the true temple of God whose crucifixion doomed the temple in Jerusalem), but I don't think it would persuade you. I agree the evidence is indirect.

Pseudo-Hegesippus wrote about 10 years after the attempt to rebuild the temple. Isn't it likely that this attempt would be one of his concerns ?

Andrew Criddle

noble savage

You make my point. Minucius Felix is presenting an interpretation that Josephus and other Jews would have agreed with. Josephus attributes the misfortunes of the Jews in their war with the Romans to the Jews' disobedience to God and understood this to be foretold in prophecy. This is not a specifically Christian interpretation which sees the misfortunes of the Jews as God's punishment for their crimes against the Christ and his disciples, which is what we find in Eusebius and Pseudo-Hegesippus.

NS

noble savage

I could quote other passages (e.g., Eusebius and Pseudo-Hegesippus both "correcting" Josephus's identification of Vespasian as the ruler of the world foretold in prophecy on the grounds that it applied to Jesus who ruled the whole world), but I don't think it would persuade you.

Pseudo-Hegesippus wrote about fifty years after Eusebius. Isn't it likely that he knew his work?

Actually, I haven't made an emphatic declaration that it is prima facie unlikely that Julian's attempt to rebuild the temple was among Pseudo-Hegesippus's concerns. What I have brought out is that you're willing to accept fairly weak inferences ("Pseudo-Hegesippus emphasizes the destruction of the temple") as evidence that he is reacting to Julian's attempt to rebuild the temple while repeatedly dismissing a number of agreements between Eusebius and Pseudo-Hegesippus (agreement in overall historical thesis and use of Josephus as a source to prove it, synchronization of the stories of Peter and Paul in Rome with the Jewish War, presumably you'd do that with their common paraphrase of Acts 3:14-15 relating it to the cause of the destruction of Jerusalem and the Vespasian prophecy as well) as due to other factors (e.g., "obvious" modifications). You keep moving the bar higher and higher for the theory that Pseudo-Hegesippus knew Eusebius's works, but set it very low ("I agree the evidence is indirect") for the theory that he is reacting to Julian.

So, again, you haven't justified your initial claim that: "It is prima-facie unlikely that the author was influenced by Eusebius and there is little internal evidence suggesting such an influence." You have shown you will set the bar for "internal evidence suggesting such an influence" a great deal higher than you will set it for theories you approve of.

NS

andrewcriddle

Actually the agreement in the Vespasian prophecy (the discussion as to whether the world-ruler is Vespasian or Christ) is IMO the strongest evidence for pseudo-Hegesippus having known Eusebius.

One issue with this is that we have something similar in Slavonic Josephus It is possible that Slavonic Josephus is influenced by pseudo-Hegesippus and/or Eusebius, but I have speculated that some very early Christian gloss of the text of the Jewish War may be involved.

On a more general level I think we may be differing about what level of occasional weak parallels are necessary to establish influence of work A on work B when we have no prior grounds to believe that the writer of work B had read work A.

Andrew Criddle