Iosephiana

Discussion about the New Testament, apocrypha, gnostics, church fathers, Christian origins, historical Jesus or otherwise, etc.
andrewcriddle
Posts: 2851
Joined: Sat Oct 05, 2013 12:36 am

Re: Iosephiana

Post by andrewcriddle »

Secret Alias wrote:On this 'switch' from 'Marcellina' in Josephus/Hegesippus to 'Marcion' in Irenaeus's retelling:

http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/i ... athen.html
With great ingenuity Lightfoot has found traces of this list in St. Epiphanius, Haer., XXVII, 6, where that saint of the fourth century carelessly says: Marcellina came to us lately and destroyed many, in the days of Anicetus, Bishop of Rome", and then refers to "the above catalogue", though he has given none. He is clearly quoting a writer who was at Rome in the time of Anicetus and made a list of popes beginning with St. Peter and St. Paul, martyred in the twelfth year of Nero. A list which has some curious agreements with Epiphanius, and extends only to Anicetus, is found in the poem of Pseudo-Tertullian against Marcion; the author has mistaken Marcellina for Marcion. The same list is at the base of the earlier part of the Liberian Catalogue, doubtless from Hippolytus (see under Clement I). It seems fairly certain that the list of Hegesippus was also used by Irenaeus, Africanus, and Eusebius in forming their own. It should be said, however, that not only Harnack and Zahn, but Funk and Bardenhewer, have rejected Lightfoot's view, though on weak grounds. It is probable that Eusebius borrowed his list of the early bishops of Jerusalem from Hegesippus.
The two names do not look similar in Greek. But Marcellina is Latin (the diminutive feminine of the masculine 'Marcus'). Is there something behind all of this in Aramaic or Hebrew from Hegesippus's lost text?
An English translation of the Latin poem against Marcion wrongly attributed to Tertullian is here
Blooming in piety

United stood the Church of Rome, compact

By Peter: whose successor, too, himself,

385 And now in the ninth place, Hyginus was,

The burden undertaking of his chair.

After him followed Pius-Hermas his

Own brother was; angelic "Pastor" he,

Because he spake the words delivered him:

390 And Anicetus the allotted post

In pious order undertook.'Neath whom

Marcion here coming, the new Pontic pest,

(The secret daring deed in his own heart

Not yet disclosed,) went, speaking commonly,

395 In all directions, in his perfidy,

With lurking art. But after he began

His deadly arrows to produce, cast off

Deservedly (as author of a crime

So savage), reprobated by the saints,

400 He burst, a wondrous monster! on our view.
Andrew Criddle

EDITED TO ADD

Already quoted in the thread about the Bishop List in Hegesippus
User avatar
Ben C. Smith
Posts: 8994
Joined: Wed Apr 08, 2015 2:18 pm
Location: USA
Contact:

Re: Iosephiana

Post by Ben C. Smith »

I had some passages snipped on the possible confusion of the names Hegesippus and Josephus and other related matters, and may as well put them out here. This is just for general reference and information. I have no special argument to make at this time on the basis of these passages.

Paulus Orosius, History Against the Pagans 7.6.15-16:

15 Anno eiusdem nono expulsos per Claudium urbe Iudaeos Iosephus refert. sed me magis Suetonius mouet, qui ait hoc modo: Claudius Iudaeos inpulsore Christo adsidue tumultuantes Roma expulit; 16 quod, utrum contra Christum tumultuantes Iudaeos coherceri et conprimi iusserit, an etiam Christianos simul uelut cognatae religionis homines uoluerit expelli, nequaquam discernitur.

Josephus reports, 'In his ninth year the Jews were expelled by Claudius from the city.' But Suetonius, who speaks as follows, influences me more: 'Claudius expelled from Rome the Jews constantly rioting at the instigation of Christ.' As far as whether he had commanded that the Jews rioting against Christ be restrained and checked or also had wanted the Christians, as persons of a cognate religion, to be expelled, it is not at all to be discerned.

Chronicon Paschale:

Οὐεσπασιανοῦ Αὐγούστου τὸ βʹ καὶ Νερουᾶ.

The second of Vespasian Augustus and Nerva.

Ἰώσηππος ἱστορεῖ ἐν τῷ πέμπτῳ λόγῳ τῆς ἁλώσεως ὅτι ἔτους τρίτου Οὐεσπασιανοῦ ἡ ἅλωσις τῶν Ἰουδαίων γέγονεν, ὡς μετὰ μʹ ἔτη τῆς γενομένης παρ' αὐτῶν τόλμης κατὰ τοῦ Ἰησοῦ· ἐν ᾧ χρόνῳ, φησί, καὶ Ἰάκωβον τὸν ἀδελφὸν τοῦ κυρίου καὶ ἐπίσκοπον Ἱεροσολύμων γενόμενον ὑπ' αὐτῶν κρημνισθῆναι καὶ ὑπ' αὐτῶν ἀναιρεθῆναι λιθοβοληθέντα.

Josephus records in the fifth volume of the Capture [= another title for the War] that in the third year of Vespasian the capture of the Jews took place, as after 40 years from their daring deed against Jesus, at which time, he says, also James the brother of the Lord was thrown down and murdered by them by being stoned.

There is a line in a chapter title of some Greek versions of book 6 the Apostolic Constitutions that does not appear in the online translations (I have added the bracketed material below):

θ. Ὅπως Σίμων γοητείαις τισὶ πτῆναι θελήσας εὐχαῖς Πέτρου κατενεχθεὶς ἐξ ὕψους κάτω συνετρίβη τοὺς πόδας καὶ τῶν χειρῶν τοὺς τάρσους· ἱστορεῖ Κλήμης, Ἡγήσιππος, Ἰουστῖνος καὶ Εἰρηναῖος.

IX. How Simon, Desiring to Fly by Some Magical Arts, Fell Down Headlong from on High at the Prayers of Peter, and Brake His Feet, and Hands, and Ankle-Bones. [Clement, Hegesippus, Justin, and Irenaeus give the story.]

George Syncellus (century VIII) writes of Hegesippus:

Ταῦτα μὲν Ἡγήσιππος τῶν τοῦ καθ' ἡμᾶς ὀρθοῦ λόγου ἀξιόπιστος συγγραφεὺς ὀρθῶς ἱστορεῖ, ᾧ καὶ Ἰώσηππος οὐκ ἀπᾴδοντα συμφωνεῖ γράφων ταύτην γενέσθαι τὴν αἰτίαν τῆς κατὰ Οὐεσπασιανὸν ἁλώσεως Ἰουδαίων.

These things Hegesippus, an historian worthy of credit, one of those [who is a follower] of the orthodox word among us, with whom also Josephus agrees, writing what is not in disagreement [with him], that this became the cause of the conquest of the Jews in the time of Vespasian.

Syncellus immediately, then (under the heading Ἰωσήππου περὶ τῶν αὐτῶν, "Josephus concerning the same things"), writes as follows:

Ταῦτα δὲ συμβέβηκεν Ἰουδαίοις κατ' ἐκδίκησιν Ἰακώβου τοῦ δικαίου, ὃς ἦν ἀδελφὸς Ἰησοῦ τοῦ λεγομένου Χριστοῦ, ἐπειδήπερ δικαιότατον αὐτὸν ὄντα Ἰουδαῖοι ἀπέκτειναν.

But these things happened to the Jews as vengeance for James the just, who was the brother of Jesus who is called Christ. For the Jews killed him even though he was a most just man.

From Photius, Bibliotheca 232:

Ὅτι τὰ ἡτοιμασμένα τοῖς δικαίοις ἀγαθὰ οὔτε ὀφθαλμὸς εἶδεν οὔτε οὖς ἤκου- σεν οὔτε ἐπὶ καρδίαν ἀνθρώπου ἀνέβη. Ἡγήσιππος μέντοι, ἀρχαῖός τε ἀνὴρ καὶ ἀποστολικός, ἐν τῷ πέμπτῳ τῶν ὑπομνημάτων, οὐκ οἶδ' ὅ τι καὶ παθών, μάτην μὲν εἰρῆσθαι ταῦτα λέγει, καὶ καταψεύδεσθαι τοὺς ταῦτα φαμένους τῶν τε θειῶν γραφῶν καὶ τοῦ Κυρίου λέγοντος· «Μακάριοι οἱ ὀφθαλμοὶ ὑμῶν οἱ βλέποντες καὶ τὰ ὦτα ὑμῶν τὰ ἀκούοντα» καὶ ἑξῆς.

The good things prepared for the just, the eye has not seen, the ears have not heard and they are not found in the heart of man. However, Hegesippus, one of the ancients, a contemporary of the apostles, in the fifth book of his Commentaries, in I do not know what context, says that these are empty words and that those who say them are liars since the Holy Scriptures say, "Blessed are your eyes because they see and happy your ears because they hear," and the rest.

A footnote to the parallel to 1 Corinthians 1.9 on the page at Tertullian.org says: "This otherwise unknown citation from the lost work of Hegesippus, τῶν ὑπομνημάτων, or Commentaries, has attracted much more interest than the remainder of the codex. Henry mentions that the opinion of Hegesippus on this matter is also mentioned by Gregory of Nyssa, Or. catech. 40, PG 45 c. 104D, who reports Hegesippus as saying the opposite." Gregory of Nyssa, Catechetical Oration 40, however, does not seem to mention Hegesippus in the connection at all:

ἀναγκαῖον ἂν εἴη τούτοις προσθεῖναι καὶ τὸ λειπόμενον, ὅτι οὔτε τὰ ἀγαθὰ τὰ ἐν ἐπαγγελίαις τοῖς εὖ βεβιωκόσι προκείμενα τοιαῦτά ἐστιν ὡς εἰς ὑπογραφὴν λόγου ἐλθεῖν. πῶς γὰρ ἃ οὔτε ὀφθαλμὸς εἶδεν, οὔτε οὖς ἤκουσεν, οὔτε ἐπὶ καρδίαν ἀνθρώπου ἀνέβη; οὔτε μὴν ἡ ἀλγεινὴ τῶν πεπλημμεληκότων ζωὴ πρός τι τῶν τῇδε λυπούντων τὴν αἴσθησιν ὁμοτίμως ἔχει. ἀλλὰ κἂν ἐπονομασθῇ τι τῶν ἐκεῖ κολαστηρίων τοῖς ὧδε γνωριζομένοις ὀνόμασιν, οὐκ ἐν ὀλίγῳ τὴν παραλλαγὴν ἔχει. πῦρ γὰρ ἀκούων ἄλλο τι παρὰ τοῦτο νοεῖν ἐδιδάχθης ἐκ τοῦ προσκεῖσθαί τι τῷ πυρὶ ἐκείνῳ ὃ ἐν τούτῳ οὐκ ἔστι· τὸ μὲν γὰρ οὐ σβέννυται, τούτου δὲ πολλὰ παρὰ τῆς πείρας ἐξεύρηται τὰ σβεστήρια, πολλὴ δὲ τοῦ σβεννυμένου πρὸς τὸ μὴ παραδεχόμενον σβέσιν ἡ διαφορά. οὐκοῦν ἄλλο τι, καὶ οὐχὶ τοῦτό ἐστι. πάλιν σκώληκά τις ἀκούσας μὴ διὰ τῆς ὁμωνυμίας πρὸς τὸ ἐπίγειον τοῦτο θηρίον ἀποφερέσθω τῇ διανοίᾳ· ἡ γὰρ προσθήκη τοῦ ἀτελεύτητον εἶναι ἄλλην τινὰ φύσιν παρὰ τὴν γινωσκομένην νοεῖν ὑποτίθεται. ἐπεὶ οὖν ταῦτα πρόκειται τῇ ἐλπίδι τοῦ μετὰ ταῦτα βίου, καταλλήλως ἐκ τῆς ἑκάστου προαιρέσεως κατὰ τὴν δικαίαν τοῦ θεοῦ κρίσιν ἀναφυόμενα τῷ βίῳ, σωφρονούντων ἂν εἴη μὴ πρὸς τὸ παρὸν ἀλλὰ πρὸς τὸ μετὰ τοῦτο βλέπειν, καὶ τῆς ἀφράστου μακαριότητος ἐν τῇ ὀλίγῃ ταύτῃ καὶ προσκαίρῳ ζωῇ τὰς ἀφορμὰς καταβάλλεσθαι καὶ τῆς τῶν κακῶν πείρας δι' ἀγαθῆς προαιρέσεως ἀλλοτριοῦσθαι, νῦν μὲν κατὰ τὸν βίον, μετὰ ταῦτα δὲ κατὰ τὴν αἰωνίαν ἀντίδοσιν.

It will be necessary to add to what has been said this remaining statement also; viz. that those good things which are held out in the Gospels to those who have led a godly life, are not such as can be precisely described. For how is that possible with things which “eye hath not seen, neither ear heard, neither have entered into the heart of man”? Indeed, the sinner’s life of torment presents no equivalent to anything that pains the sense here. Even if some one of the punishments in that other world be named in terms that are well known here, the distinction is still not small. When you hear the word fire, you have been taught to think of a fire other than the fire we see, owing to something being added to that fire which in this there is not; for that fire is never quenched, whereas experience has discovered many ways of quenching this; and there is a great difference between a fire which can be extinguished, and one that does not admit of extinction. That fire, therefore, is something other than this. If, gain, a person hears the word “worm,” let not his thoughts, from the similarity of the term, be carried to the creature here that crawls upon the ground; for the addition that it “dieth not” suggests the thought of another reptile than that known here. Since, then, these things are set before us as to be expected in the life that follows this, being the natural outgrowth according to the righteous judgment of God, in the life of each, of his particular disposition, it must be the part of the wise not to regard the present, but that which follows after, and to lay down the foundations for that unspeakable blessedness during this short and fleeting life, and by a good choice to wean themselves from all experience of evil, now in their lifetime here, hereafter in their eternal recompense.

I have checked the version in column 104D of PG 45, as well, and no dice. The scripture is mentioned, but there is nothing about Hegesippus, most certainly nothing reporting Hegesippus "as saying the opposite."

Finally, an interesting passage from a book. (Scroll/page up for the possible confusion of Hegesippus with Josephus.)

Ben.
Last edited by Ben C. Smith on Tue Jun 06, 2017 6:57 pm, edited 2 times in total.
ΤΙ ΕΣΤΙΝ ΑΛΗΘΕΙΑ
Secret Alias
Posts: 18909
Joined: Sun Apr 19, 2015 8:47 am

Re: Iosephiana

Post by Secret Alias »

Wow this is awesome! And just to keep things real for a moment. Joseph has always been an extremely common name for Jews. The confusion might have led to a distinction between Flavius Josephus and Hegesippus. It is also worth noting that someone named Joseph living in the second century could have penned a history of the Jewish War and claimed to be the Joseph who wrote the Aramaic hypomnemata. There are a lot of possibilities here. Hegesippus though CAN BE the result of an adaptation to the phonetics of Greek, to make the name Josephus sound Greek (not Latin). As I mentioned in the other thread 'Polycarp' might well have been a title associated with someone named Joseph too. I think there are good grounds to suppose that a prominent Christian living in the mid-second century might have had his writings preserved under a number of different 'pen names' owing to some sort of controversy associated with those writings (even posthumously).
“Finally, from so little sleeping and so much reading, his brain dried up and he went completely out of his mind.”
― Miguel de Cervantes Saavedra, Don Quixote
User avatar
rakovsky
Posts: 1310
Joined: Mon Nov 23, 2015 8:07 pm
Location: USA
Contact:

Re: Iosephiana

Post by rakovsky »

One difference I think is that Josephus considered vespasian the messiah, but hegessipus was christian.

My research on the prophecies of the Messiah's resurrection: http://rakovskii.livejournal.com
Post Reply