Iosephiana

[Secret Alias]

It would be interesting to find out if this reference in Eusebius is to Josephus:

The historian (ὁ συγγραφεὺς), reckoning the whole number of the slain, says that eleven hundred thousand persons perished by famine and sword, and that the rest of the rioters and robbers, being betrayed by each other after the taking of the city, were slain. But the tallest of the youths and those that were distinguished for beauty were preserved for the triumph. Of the rest of the multitude, those that were over seventeen years of age were sent as prisoners to labor in the works of Egypt, while still more were scattered through the provinces to meet their death in the theaters by the sword and by beasts. Those under seventeen years of age were carried away to be sold as slaves (αἰχμαλώτους), and of these alone the number reached ninety thousand. [Church History 3.7.2]

Also with respect to Josephus's alleged 'Christian' interest. If it wasn't for the bit at the end of Life that says that he was allowed to settle in Judea with a wife whom he divorced etc and instead focusing on the parallels between his 'memoirs of captivity' or whatever it was called and Hegesippus's memoirs. Assuming they were the same text for a moment, I get the sense there was a close parallel if this was true with Apuleius's Golden Ass.

You know, being a Jew is like being an ass and at the end of his wandering Josephus comes to accept Christ. Remember, if I am not mistaken again, I think Eusebius mentions something about 'Hegesippus' being in Corinth and Rome. I am not sure when all of this happens but what I can piece together is that there was this 'Jerusalem Church' founded on the family line of Jesus (sounds already like the premise for a James Tabor book). This line dies out for some reason in 144 CE or something like that. I forget the exact dates but it is before the 147 date of publication.

Was it the bar Kochba revolt which causes Hegesippus to flee Judea? All that I know is that somehow he travels to Corinth and then possibly Rome and then - for reasons that aren't exactly clear - a Roman succession list gets tacked on to his work - the one which appears in Irenaeus Adv Haer 3.3.1 which causes scholars to think that 'Hegesippus' lived until 170 CE (because that's the date of the succession list).

In a manner very close to Ben's and Steve Mason's assessment of Life's relation to Antiquities, it has been theorized (I don't know if it was just me) that the Roman succession list was tacked on to the 147 CE manuscript somehow either as something tacked on to the beginning or the end of the treatise. But it was Lawlor who noticed - quite astutely - that Epiphanius is citing the story about Marcellina coming to Rome around 147 CE. The source he says is 'Hegesippus.' But others have also noticed that the story of Marcellina coming to Rome closely parallels Marcion coming to Rome around the same time.

If Irenaeus is citing from Hegesippus in Adv Haer 3.3.1:

Since, however, it would be very tedious, in such a volume as this, to reckon up the successions of all the Churches, we do put to confusion all those who, in whatever manner, whether by an evil self-pleasing, by vainglory, or by blindness and perverse opinion, assemble in unauthorized meetings; [we do this, I say,] by indicating that tradition derived from the apostles, of the very great, the very ancient, and universally known Church founded and organized at Rome by the two most glorious apostles, Peter and Paul; as also [by pointing out] the faith preached to men, which comes down to our time by means of the successions of the bishops. For it is a matter of necessity that every Church should agree with this Church, on account of its pre- eminent authority, that is, the faithful everywhere, inasmuch as the apostolical tradition has been preserved continuously by those [faithful men] who exist everywhere.

The blessed apostles, then, having founded and built up the Church, committed into the hands of Linus the office of the episcopate. Of this Linus, Paul makes mention in the Epistles to Timothy. To him succeeded Anacletus; and after him, in the third place from the apostles, Clement was allotted the bishopric. This man, as he had seen the blessed apostles, and had been conversant with them, might be said to have the preaching of the apostles still echoing [in his ears], and their traditions before his eyes. Nor was he alone [in this], for there were many still remaining who had received instructions from the apostles. In the time of this Clement, no small dissension having occurred among the brethren at Corinth, the Church in Rome despatched a most powerful letter to the Corinthians, exhorting them to peace, renewing their faith, and declaring the tradition which it had lately received from the apostles, proclaiming the one God, omnipotent, the Maker of heaven and earth, the Creator of man, who brought on the deluge, and called Abraham, who led the people from the land of Egypt, spake with Moses, set forth the law, sent the prophets, and who has prepared fire for the devil and his angels. From this document, whosoever chooses to do so, may learn that He, the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, was preached by the Churches, and may also understand the apostolical tradition of the Church, since this Epistle is of older date than these men who are now propagating falsehood, and who conjure into existence another god beyond the Creator and the Maker of all existing things. To this Clement there succeeded Evaristus. Alexander followed Evaristus; then, sixth from the apostles, Sixtus was appointed; after him, Telephorus, who was gloriously martyred; then Hyginus; after him, Pius; then after him, Anicetus. Soter having succeeded Anicetus, Eleutherius does now, in the twelfth place from the apostles, hold the inheritance of the episcopate. In this order, and by this succession, the ecclesiastical tradition from the apostles, and the preaching of the truth, have come down to us. And this is most abundant proof that there is one and the same vivifying faith, which has been preserved in the Church from the apostles until now, and handed down in truth.

But Polycarp also was not only instructed by apostles, and conversed with many who had seen Christ, but was also, by apostles in Asia, appointed bishop of the Church in Smyrna, whom I also saw in my early youth, for he tarried [on earth] a very long time, and, when a very old man, gloriously and most nobly suffering martyrdom,(1) departed this life, having always taught the things which he had learned from the apostles, and which the Church has handed down, and which alone are true. To these things all the Asiatic Churches testify, as do also those men who have succeeded Polycarp down to the present time,--a man who was of much greater weight, and a more stedfast witness of truth, than Valentinus, and Marcion, and the rest of the heretics. He it was who, coming to Rome in the time of Anicetus caused many to turn away from the aforesaid heretics to the Church of God, proclaiming that he had received this one and sole truth from the apostles,--that, namely, which is handed down by the Church. There are also those who heard from him that John, the disciple of the Lord, going to bathe at Ephesus, and perceiving Cerinthus within, rushed out of the bath-house without bathing, exclaiming, "Let us fly, lest even the bath-house fall down, because Cerinthus, the enemy of the truth, is within." And Polycarp himself replied to Marcion, who met him on one occasion, and said, "Dost thou know me?" "I do know thee, the first-born of Satan." Such was the horror which the apostles and their disciples had against holding even verbal communication with any corrupters of the truth; as Paul also says, "A man that is an heretic, after the first and second admonition, reject; knowing that he that is such is subverted, and sinneth, being condemned of himself." There is also a very powerful(4) Epistle of Polycarp written to the Philippians, from which those who choose to do so, and are anxious about their salvation, can learn the character of his faith, and the preaching of the truth. Then, again, the Church in Ephesus, founded by Paul, and having John remaining among them permanently until the times of Trajan, is a true witness of the tradition of the apostles.

The reference to more than one church list at the beginning of the church succession list would be a specific reference to the Jerusalem list which Irenaeus avoids mentioning. Instead he focuses on a list which has been theorized to go up to either Soter or Eleuterius (depending on whether you think Irenaeus or his source is saying the 'up til now' with regards to Eleutherius). The manner in which Polycarp suddenly jumps into the picture at the end of the succession list has always made me wonder whether he was the author of the source text (= the Josephus material).

The manner in which Epiphanius cites the material from the Hegesippus 'memoirs' assumes that the author met and condemned 'Marcellina' to her face. This bears an uncanny resemblance to the story about Marcion. Also it is worth noting a similar 'error' or misreading occurs when Epiphanius's and Irenaeus's 'Carpocratians' is rendered 'Harpocratian' (i.e. those of Harpocrates) in Celsus. Celsus calls them 'the Harpocratians of Salome' - a woman - and Origen in his own voices seems to indicate the presence of 'Marcionites' in the passage too but no specific form of the individual or group comes from Celsus's own witness. Origen just says there are a number of sects referenced by Celsus - even a group of Christians who follow the Sybil. Why is there so much variation in the reporting of evidence from this now widely circulating text which seems in many ways to be the founding document of the Church or at least its history.

[Ben C. Smith]

... but I believe he is referring especially to the following from the Suda, and particularly to the use of ὑπομνήματα (memoirs):

So we found Josephus, the historian of the capture of Jerusalem (of whom Eusebius the [spiritual son] of Pamphilus[4] makes much mention in his Ecclesiastical History), saying openly in his memoirs of his captivity that Jesus served in the holy place with the priests. When we found this told by Josephus, a man of ancient times who lived not long after the apostles, we sought to find also from the inspired Scriptures the confirmation of such a discourse.

εὕρομεν οὖν Ἰώσηπον, τὸν συγγραφέα τῆς ἁλώσεως Ἱεροσολύμων, οὗ μνήμην πολλὴν Εὐσέβιος ὁ Παμφίλου ἐν τῇ ἐκκλησιαστικῇ αὐτοῦ ἱστορίᾳ ποιεῖται, φανερῶς λέγοντα ἐν τοῖς τῆς αἰχμαλωσίας αὐτοῦ ὑπομνήμασιν, ὅτι Ἰησοῦς ἐν τῷ ἱερῷ μετὰ τῶν ἱερέων ἡγίαζε. τοῦτο οὖν εὑρόντες λέγοντα τὸν Ἰώσηπον, ἄνδρα ἀρχαῖον ὄντα καὶ οὐ μετὰ πολὺν χρόνον τῶν ἀποστόλων γενόμενον, ἐζητήσαμεν εὑρεῖν καὶ ἐκ τῶν θεοπνεύστων γραφῶν τὸν τοιοῦτον λόγον βεβαιούμενον.

Ben.

Do you mean -

• "... (of whom Eusebius [the spiritual son] of Pamphilus ...) ??

"...the historian of the capture of Jerusalem (of whom Eusebius the [spiritual son] of Pamphilus makes much mention in his Ecclesiastical History), saying openly...."

(Not my own translation, by the way.)

Cheers, Ben. I thought that was the case - I should have asked a more open question i.e. -

• *Should that be "... (of whom Eusebius [the spiritual son] of Pamphilus ...) ??*

Yes, apparently the bracket was misplaced.

I have no special opinion on how direct the relationship between Eusebius and Pamphilus was.

[Secret Alias]

For those who care Epiphanius's Roman succession list which clearly ends c. 147 CE:

5:9 And this school of Carpocrates marks the right ear-lobes of the persons they deceive with a burning iron,26 or by using a razor or needle.

6:1 I heard at some time of a Marcellina who was deceived by them, who corrupted many people in the time of Anicetus, Bishop of Rome, the successor of Pius and the bishops before him.

6:228 For the bishops at Rome were, first, Peter and Paul, the apostles themselves and also bishops—then Linus, then Cletus, then Clement, a contemporary of Peter and Paul whom Paul mentions in the Epistle to the Romans. And no one need wonder why others before him succeeded the apostles in the episcopate, even though he was contemporary with Peter and Paul—for he too is the apostles' contemporary.

6:4 I am not quite clear as to whether he received the episcopal appointment from Peter while they were still alive, and he declined and would not exercise the office—for in one of his Epistles he says, giving this counsel to someone, 'I withdraw, I depart, let the people of God be tranquil,' (I have found this in certain historical works)—or whether he was appointed by the bishop Cletus after the apostles' death.

6:5 But even so, others could have been made bishop while the apostles, I mean Peter and Paul, were still alive, since they often journeyed abroad for the proclamation of Christ, but Rome could not be without a bishop.

6:6 Paul even reached Spain, and Peter often visited Pontus and Bithynia. But after Clement had been appointed and declined, if this is what happened—I suspect this but cannot say it for certain—he could have been compelled to hold the episcopate in his turn, after the deaths of Linus and Cletus who were bishops for twelve years each after the death of Saints Peter and Paul in the twelfth year of Nero.)

6:7 In any case, the succession of the bishops at Rome runs in this order: Peter and Paul, Linus and Cletus, Clement, Evaristus, Alexander, Xystus, Telesphorus, Hyginus, Pius, and Anicetus, whom I mentioned above, on the list. And no one need be surprised at my listing each of the items so exactly; precise information is always given in this way.

6:8 In Anicetus' time then, as I said, the Marcellina I have spoken of appeared at Rome spewing forth the corruption of Carpocrates' teaching, and corrupted and destroyed many there. And that made a beginning of the so-called Gnostics.

There are of course small differences between the list but the similarities are uncanny. Each begin with the 'twin apostles' Peter and Paul and each likely ended c. 147 CE with Anicetus who is interestingly also the bishop under whom (a) 'Marcellina' appears in Rome (b) 'Marcion' appears in Rome and (c) Polycarp appears in Rome. Irenaeus's strange mention of Polycarp out of the blue only to say that Polycarp saw Marcion face to face in Rome may well have been explicitly referenced because there was an older version of the story where Marcellina was seen face to face in Rome by 'Hegesippus.'

Lawlor seems to translate the reference to Marcellina differently so that it is a first person account from what I remember. Will look at it later.

[Secret Alias]

I don't have much time but here is something I wrote years ago about the Jerusalem Church list in Hegesippus transmitted by both Epiphanius and Eusebius:

Some claim Clement made the mistake because he didn't have the exact text in front of him:

The earliest of the Patristic writers, Clement of Alexandria, quotes Josephus as to chronology, but it is fairly certain that he did not know the works at first hand, since the era he refers to runs from Moses to the tenth year of Antoninus, i.e. till the better part of a century after the death of Josephus. [Norman De Mattos Bentwich, Josephus p. 242]

Most however assume that Clement is actually citing from a copy of the Antiquities but don't realize how strange the material he is citing actually is:

As to the silence of Clement of Alexandria, who cites the Antiquities of Josephus, but never cites any of the testimonies now before us, it is no strange thing at all, since be never cites Josephus but once, and that for a point of chronology only, to determine how many years had passed from the days of Moses to the days of Josephus ; so that his silence may almost as well be alleged against a hundred other remarkable passages in Josephus's works as against these before us. [Josephus, William Whiston, p. 997]

It is only natural to assume that Clement is citing exactly what he read in 'Josephus' as he read in his copies of the writings of Josephus. He is not adding the reference to tenth year of Antoninus. It must have appeared in 'Josephus' (note that the author alights upon the idea that 147 CE was '77 years' from the destruction of the Jerusalem temple a significance which would have lost its meaning in Clement's age).

There however some other interesting studies by scholars including C.H Turner's study The Early Episcopal Lists where he notes:

The existence of a chronographer of the tenth year of Antoninus Pius (AD 147-148) has been assumed in explanation of the curious coincidence that both Clement of Alexandria (once) and Epiphanius (once) employ this year as a term in chronological calculations. The latter interrupts his series of bishops of Jerusalem, after the twentieth bishop Julianus, with the note 'all these down to the tenth year of A. Pius,' Haer. lxvi 1. The former tells us that ' Josephus reckons from Moses to David to the second year of Vespasian 1179 years, and from that to the tenth of Antoninus seventy-two years,' Strom, i 21 147; and as the mention of this this last date cannot come either from Josephus, who wrote half a century before it, or from Clement himself, who wrote half a century after it, it is a reasonable supposition that it is borrowed from some other intermediate writer, who will also have been the source of Epiphanius. This lost writer is conjectured by Schlatter l, following von Gutschmid, to be identical with the Judas mentioned above ; but something more than mere conjecture is wanted before we can accuse Eusebius of mistaking the tenth year of of Severus for the tenth of A. Pius. With better judgement, Harnack suggests Cassianus was the author, we have seen that Eusebius knew nothing of him ; if Judas, we must conclude that Eusebius knew next to nothing of a book which ex hypothesi he dated fifty years too late.[Journal of Theological Studies 1900 p. 193 - 194]

So Turner notices that Clement's allusion to a 'tenth year of Antoninus' in Josephus is paralleled by a reference in Eusebius and Epiphanius to a list of bishops of Jerusalem that ends in the 'tenth year of Antoninus.' Turner deals with a number of possibilities here and in a follow up essay, that Cassianus is the likeliest candidate as Eusebius's and Epiphanius's original source.

Of course the other possibility - the right possibility - that Turner doesn't even consider is that Clement and Origen were using a copy of Josephus's writings which were attributed to a 'Josephus the Jew' who in turn was mistakenly identified to have lived in the Antonine and later referenced by Eusebius as 'Hegesippus the Jew.'

Eusebius's other information about Hegesippus makes him a perfect candidate for the information about the list of bishops in Jerusalem. Eusebius earlier reports that Hegesippus's tells us about the bishops of Jerusalem at the time of Trajan as we read:

Some of these heretics, forsooth, laid an information against Symeon the son of Clopas, as being of the family of David, and a Christian. And on these charges he suffered martyrdom when he was 120 years old, in the reign of Trajan Caesar, when Atticus was consular legate in Syria. And it so happened, says the same writer, that, while inquiry was then being made for those belonging to the royal tribe of the Jews, the accusers themselves were convicted of belonging to it. With show of reason could it be said that Symeon was one of those who actually saw and heard the Lord, on the ground of his great age, and also because the Scripture of the Gospels makes mention of Mary the daughter of Clopas, who, as our narrative has shown already, was his father.

The same historian [Hegesippus] mentions others also, of the family of one of the reputed brothers of the Saviour, named Judas, as having survived until this same reign, after the testimony they bore for the faith of Christ in the time of Domitian, as already recorded.

He writes as follows: They came, then, and took the presidency of every church, as witnesses for Christ, and as being of the kindred of the Lord. And, after profound peace had been established in every church, they remained down to the reign of Trojan Caesar: that is, until the time when he who was sprung from an uncle of the Lord, the aforementioned Symeon son of Clopas, was informed against by the various heresies, and subjected to an accusation like the rest, and for the same cause, before the legate Atticus; and, while suffering outrage during many days, he bore testimony for Christ: so that all, including the legate himself, were astonished above measure that a man 120 years old should have been able to endure such torments. He was finally condemned to be crucified.

... Up to that period the Church had remained like a virgin pure and uncorrupted: for, if there were any persons who were disposed to tamper with the wholesome rule of the preaching of salvation, they still lurked in some dark place of concealment or other. But, when the sacred band of apostles had in various ways closed their lives, and that generation of men to whom it had been vouchsafed to listen to the Godlike Wisdom with their own ears had passed away, then did the confederacy of godless error take its rise through the treachery of false teachers, who, seeing that none of the apostles any longer survived, at length attempted with bare and uplifted head to oppose the preaching of the truth by preaching "knowledge falsely so called."[Eusebius' Ecclesiastical History 3:32]

And in the passage cited by Eusebius Hegesippus makes absolutely clear that (a) he is very interested in assembling lists of espiscopal lines and (b) is Eusebius's main source of information about the bishops of Jerusalem:

"And the church of the Corinthians continued in the orthodox faith up to the time when Primus was bishop in Corinth. I had some intercourse with these brethren on my voyage to Rome, when I spent several days with the Corinthians, during which we were mutually refreshed by the orthodox faith.

On my arrival at Rome, I drew up a list of the succession of bishops down to Anicetus, whose deacon was Eleutherus. To Anicetus succeeded Soter, and after him came Eleutherus. But in the case of every succession, and in every city, the state of affairs is in accordance with the teaching of the Law and of the Prophets and of the Lord....

And after James the Just had suffered martyrdom, as had the Lord also and on the same account, again Symeon the son of Clopas, descended from the Lord's uncle, is made bishop, his election being promoted by all as being a kinsman of the Lord.

Therefore was the Church called a virgin, for she was not as yet corrupted by worthless teaching. Thebulis it was who, displeased because he was not made bishop, first began to corrupt her by stealth. He too was connected with the seven sects which existed among the people, like Simon, from whom come the Simoniani; and Cleobius, from whom come the Cleobiani; and Doritheus, from whom come the Dorithiani; and Gorthaeus, from whom come the Gortheani; Masbothaeus, from whom come the Masbothaei. From these men also come the Menandrianists, and the Marcianists, and the Carpocratians, and the Valentinians, and the Basilidians, and the Saturnilians. Each of these leaders in his own private and distinct capacity brought in his own private opinion. From these have come false Christs, false prophets, false apostles-men who have split up the one Church into parts through their corrupting doctrines, uttered in disparagement of God and of His Christ....

There were, moreover, various opinions in the matter of circumcision among the children of Israel, held by those who were opposed to the tribe of Judah and to Christ: such as the Essenes, the Galileans, the Hemerobaptists, the Masbothaei, the Samaritans, the Sadducees, the Pharisees."[Eusebius 4:22]

Clearly then we have seen that Hegesippus takes a strong interest in emphasizing the continuity of episcopal lines dating back to apostolic witnesses. His reference to Thebulis as one who tried to corrupt the 'true episcopal line' which went through a 120 year old Simeon the son of Clopas reinforces that he must be the source for Eusebius's information about the bishops of Jerusalem.

Of course scholarship rarely takes the most sensible road. Reuterdahl (De Fontibus Hist. eccles. Euseb., p. 55) conjectures that these “writings” were found in the church of Jerusalem itself, and compares a passage in the Dem. Evang. III. 5: “The first bishops that presided there [i.e. at Jerusalem] are said to have been Jews, and their names are preserved by the inhabitants of the country.” Many have argued that if Hegesippus or any other known author had been the source of his information, Eusebius would probably have mentioned his name. But this is a silly assumption and not even worth considering.

If we actually look at what Eusebius does tell us about the succession of bishops it is clear that he did have the same list as Epiphanius (i.e. the one which ended with Judas in the tenth year of Antoninus Pius) and that is because they used the same source - i.e. Hegesippus. So we read in Book Four Chapter Five:

The (complete) chronology of the bishops of Jerusalem I have nowhere found preserved in writing; for tradition says that they were all short lived. But I have learned this much from writings, that until the siege of the Jews, which took place under Adrian, there were fifteen bishops in succession there, all of whom are said to have been of Hebrew descent, and to have received the knowledge of Christ in purity, so that they were approved by those who were able to judge of such matters, and were deemed worthy of the episcopate. For their whole church consisted then of believing Hebrews who continued from the days of the apostles until the siege which took place at this time; in which siege the Jews, having again rebelled against the Romans, were conquered after severe battles.

But since the bishops of the circumcision ceased at this time, it is proper to give here a list of their names from the beginning. The first, then, was James, the so-called brother of the Lord; the second, Symeon, the third, Justus , the fourth, Zacchæus; the fifth, Tobias; the sixth, Benjamin; the seventh, John; the eighth, Matthias; the ninth, Philip; the tenth, Seneca; the eleventh, Justus; the twelfth, Levi; the thirteenth, Ephres; the fourteenth, Joseph; and finally, the fifteenth, Judas. These are the bishops of Jerusalem that lived between the age of the apostles and the time referred to, all of them belonging to the circumcision.[Eusebius Church History 4.5.1 - 4]

Epiphanius cites the exact same list with only minor variations but retains what must have been knowledge of the original context of the list - i.e. Hegesippus's statement that he was writing in the tenth year of Antoninus. Epiphanius's citation of the same list reads:

"I subjoin their successive episcopates one by one, beginning with the episcopate of James — < I mean the successive > bishops who were appointed in Jerusalem during each emperor's reign until the time of Aurelian and Probus, when this Mani, a Persian, became known, and produced this outlandish teaching. The list follows: 1 James, who was martyred in Jerusalem by beating with a cudgel. [He lived] until the time of Nero. 2. Symeon, was crucified under Trajan. 3. Judah 4. Zachariah 5. Tobiah 6. Benjamin 7. John, bringing us to the ninth [or] tenth year of Trajan 8. Matthias 9. Philip 10. Seneca 11. Justus, bringing us to Hadrian. 12. Levi 13. Vaphres 14. Jose 15. Judah, bringing us to the tenth year of Antoninus. The above were the circumcised bishops of Jerusalem. The following were gentiles ..."[Panarion, V. 19.9 - 20.15]

There can be absolutely no doubt that Epiphanius and Eusebius are using the same list. Williams simply notes that "the following list appears to be derived from a series of references in Eusebius' Chronicle."(p. 239) But the better explanation is that both Eusebius and Epiphanius are ultimately using Hegesippus as a source which explains the common reference to 'the tenth year of Antoninus' as the year the list was compiled.

There some minor variations in the list most of which can well be accounted for by assuming that Hegesippus wrote in Aramaic. Justus is called Judas by Epiphanius. Zacchæus is called Zacharias by Epiphanius. Eusebius's ᾽Εφρῆς. is identified as ᾽Ου€φρις by Epiphanius The Armenian version of the Chron. calls him Ephrem; Jerome’s version, Ephres. Syncellus calls him ᾽Εφραΐμ, which is the Hebrew form of the name. ᾽Ιωσήφ of Eusebius is called ᾽Ιωσίς by Epiphanius, and Joses by Jerome.

The point of course is that this represents a second line of proof to help prove beyond any doubt that Clement was using a copy of a text identified as having 'Hegesippus' as its author by Eusebius but that Clement himself knew it to be written by 'Josephus.' As I noted in my last post the specific form 'Hegesippus' is an adaptation to the phonetics of Greek, to make the name sound Greek (not Latin). It is an artificial name made up by whoever edited this version of Josephus called Hegesippus. Origen must have been using the same text to get his information about the temple being destroyed because of the Jews mistreatment of James the Just..

[Secret Alias]

I have always found it odd that there was this well-established 'Christian' Josephus text circulating among the earliest Church Fathers - even which served as the founding document of the Church (consider the way Irenaeus uses the Roman Church list as the basis for all his 'certainty' about the truth of the Church) - but which is never quite brought out in the open. There must have been massive controversies about this text. By the time of Origen there is this other edition of Josephus which becomes more or less standardized through Eusebius's influence. But what of this other Josephus text that seems to have been in the hands of Origen's teacher Clement as well as Irenaeus and possibly Polycarp? How could such a crappy text - even an utterly implausible fiction - have had so much influence over the Church, even its founding document only to disappear completely?

[Secret Alias]

And perhaps toward Peter Kirby's point (I try to fair) it is also odd that in the same material at the beginning of Adv Haer 3 there isn't just the unacknowledged reusing of the chronology associated with 'Josephus/Hegesippus' but also - according to almost universal scholarly agreement - an unacknowledged re-purposing of Papias:

WE have learned from none others the plan of our salvation, than from those through whom the Gospel has come down to us, which they did at one time proclaim in public, and, at a later period, by the will of God, handed down to us in the Scriptures, to be the ground and pillar of our faith. For it is unlawful to assert that they preached before they possessed "perfect knowledge," as some do even venture to say, boasting themselves as improvers of the apostles. For, after our Lord rose from the dead, [the apostles] were invested with power from on high when the Holy Spirit came down [upon them], were filled from all [His gifts], and had perfect knowledge: they departed to the ends of the earth, preaching the glad tidings of the good things [sent] from God to us, and proclaiming the peace of heaven to men, who indeed do all equally and individually possess the Gospel of God. Matthew also issued a written Gospel among the Hebrews in their own dialect, while Peter and Paul were preaching at Rome, and laying the foundations of the Church. After their departure, Mark, the disciple and interpreter of Peter, did also hand down to us in writing what had been preached by Peter. Luke also, the companion of Paul, recorded in a book the Gospel preached by him. Afterwards, John, the disciple of the Lord, who also had leaned upon His breast, did himself publish a Gospel during his residence at Ephesus in Asia.

These have all declared to us that there is one God, Creator of heaven and earth, announced by the law and the prophets; and one Christ the Son of God. If any one do not agree to these truths, he despises the companions of the Lord; nay more, he despises Christ Himself the Lord; yea, he despises the Father also, and stands self-condemned, resisting and opposing his own salvation, as is the case with all heretics.

When, however, they are confuted from the Scriptures, they turn round and accuse these same Scriptures, as if they were not correct, nor of authority, and [assert] that they are ambiguous, and that the truth cannot be extracted from them by those who are ignorant of tradition. For [they allege] that the truth was not delivered by means of written documents, but viva voce: wherefore also Paul declared, "But we speak wisdom among those that are perfect, but not the wisdom of this world." And this wisdom each one of them alleges to be the fiction of his own inventing, forsooth; so that, according to their idea, the truth properly resides at one time in Valentinus, at another in Marcion, at another in Cerinthus, then afterwards in Basilides, or has even been indifferently in any other opponent, who could speak nothing pertaining to salvation. For every one of these men, being altogether of a perverse disposition, depraving the system of truth, is not ashamed to preach himself.

But, again, when we refer them to that tradition which originates from the apostles, [and] which is preserved by means of the succession of presbyters in the Churches, they object to tradition, saying that they themselves are wiser not merely than the presbyters, but even than the apostles, because they have discovered the unadulterated truth. For [they maintain] that the apostles intermingled the things of the law with the words of the Saviour; and that not the apostles alone, but even the Lord Himself, spoke as at one time from the Demiurge, at another from the intermediate place, and yet again from the Pleroma, but that they themselves, indubitably, unsulliedly, and purely, have knowledge of the hidden mystery: this is, indeed, to blaspheme their Creator after a most impudent manner! It comes to this, therefore, that these men do now consent neither to Scripture nor to tradition.

3. Such are the adversaries with whom we have to deal, my very dear friend, endeavouring like slippery serpents to escape at all points. Where- fore they must be opposed at all points, if per- chance, by cutting off their retreat, we may succeed in turning them back to the truth. For, though it is not an easy thing for a soul under the influence of error to repent, yet, on the other hand, it is not altogether impossible to escape from error when the truth is brought alongside it.

It is within the power of all, therefore, in every Church, who may wish to see the truth, to contemplate clearly the tradition of the apostles manifested throughout the whole world; and we are in a position to reckon up those who were by the apostles instituted bishops in the Churches, and [to demonstrate] the succession of these men to our own times; those who neither taught nor knew of anything like what these [heretics] rave about. For if the apostles had known hidden mysteries, which they were in the habit of imparting to "the perfect" apart and privily from the rest, they would have delivered them especially to those to whom they were also committing the Churches themselves. For they were desirous that these men should be very perfect and blameless in all things, whom also they were leaving behind as their successors, delivering up their own place of government to these men; which men, if they discharged their functions honestly, would be a great boon [to the Church], but if they should fall away, the direst calamity.

Since, however, it would be very tedious, in such a volume as this, to reckon up the successions of all the Churches, we do put to confusion all those who, in whatever manner, whether by an evil self-pleasing, by vainglory, or by blindness and perverse opinion, assemble in unauthorized meetings; [we do this, I say,] by indicating that tradition derived from the apostles, of the very great, the very ancient, and universally known Church founded and organized at Rome by the two most glorious apostles, Peter and Paul; as also [by pointing out] the faith preached to men, which comes down to our time by means of the successions of the bishops. For it is a matter of necessity that every Church should agree with this Church, on account of its pre- eminent authority, that is, the faithful everywhere, inasmuch as the apostolical tradition has been preserved continuously by those [faithful men] who exist everywhere.

The blessed apostles, then, having founded and built up the Church, committed into the hands of Linus the office of the episcopate. Of this Linus, Paul makes mention in the Epistles to Timothy. To him succeeded Anacletus; and after him, in the third place from the apostles, Clement was allotted the bishopric. This man, as he had seen the blessed apostles, and had been conversant with them, might be said to have the preaching of the apostles still echoing [in his ears], and their traditions before his eyes. Nor was he alone [in this], for there were many still remaining who had received instructions from the apostles. In the time of this Clement, no small dissension having occurred among the brethren at Corinth, the Church in Rome despatched a most powerful letter to the Corinthians, exhorting them to peace, renewing their faith, and declaring the tradition which it had lately received from the apostles, proclaiming the one God, omnipotent, the Maker of heaven and earth, the Creator of man, who brought on the deluge, and called Abraham, who led the people from the land of Egypt, spake with Moses, set forth the law, sent the prophets, and who has prepared fire for the devil and his angels. From this document, whosoever chooses to do so, may learn that He, the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, was preached by the Churches, and may also understand the apostolical tradition of the Church, since this Epistle is of older date than these men who are now propagating falsehood, and who conjure into existence another god beyond the Creator and the Maker of all existing things. To this Clement there succeeded Evaristus. Alexander followed Evaristus; then, sixth from the apostles, Sixtus was appointed; after him, Telephorus, who was gloriously martyred; then Hyginus; after him, Pius; then after him, Anicetus. Soter having succeeded Anicetus, Eleutherius does now, in the twelfth place from the apostles, hold the inheritance of the episcopate. In this order, and by this succession, the ecclesiastical tradition from the apostles, and the preaching of the truth, have come down to us. And this is most abundant proof that there is one and the same vivifying faith, which has been preserved in the Church from the apostles until now, and handed down in truth.

But Polycarp also was not only instructed by apostles, and conversed with many who had seen Christ, but was also, by apostles in Asia, appointed bishop of the Church in Smyrna, whom I also saw in my early youth, for he tarried [on earth] a very long time, and, when a very old man, gloriously and most nobly suffering martyrdom,(1) departed this life, having always taught the things which he had learned from the apostles, and which the Church has handed down, and which alone are true. To these things all the Asiatic Churches testify, as do also those men who have succeeded Polycarp down to the present time,--a man who was of much greater weight, and a more stedfast witness of truth, than Valentinus, and Marcion, and the rest of the heretics. He it was who, coming to Rome in the time of Anicetus caused many to turn away from the aforesaid heretics to the Church of God, proclaiming that he had received this one and sole truth from the apostles,--that, namely, which is handed down by the Church. There are also those who heard from him that John, the disciple of the Lord, going to bathe at Ephesus, and perceiving Cerinthus within, rushed out of the bath-house without bathing, exclaiming, "Let us fly, lest even the bath-house fall down, because Cerinthus, the enemy of the truth, is within." And Polycarp himself replied to Marcion, who met him on one occasion, and said, "Dost thou know me?" "I do know thee, the first-born of Satan." Such was the horror which the apostles and their disciples had against holding even verbal communication with any corrupters of the truth; as Paul also says, "A man that is an heretic, after the first and second admonition, reject; knowing that he that is such is subverted, and sinneth, being condemned of himself." There is also a very powerful(4) Epistle of Polycarp written to the Philippians, from which those who choose to do so, and are anxious about their salvation, can learn the character of his faith, and the preaching of the truth. Then, again, the Church in Ephesus, founded by Paul, and having John remaining among them permanently until the times of Trajan, is a true witness of the tradition of the apostles.

I have never understood how Watson reads the opening lines as having to do with Papias's testimony about his preference for Matthew and the 'living voice' of witnesses but not also about Papias's rejection of Mark and - interestingly if we make the connection - a 'secret gospel' of Mark written after the apostolic age. But in any event we see three early witnesses apparently 'jammed' into the same section:

1. Papias's statement about Matthew reconfigured and repurposed until it is twisted out of its original meaning.
2. the church succession lists for Jerusalem and Rome which seem to come from Josephus/Hegesippus's hypomnemata
3. the sudden introduction of Polycarp as if - in a strange way - the preceding argument came from him

Is there some underlying nexus here where - as Peter suggests Papias is Josephus/Hegesippus? But what about Polycarp? Why is he invoked here and the other names pass unmentioned?

Notice also that 'Peter and Paul' are associated with Papias's preferred gospel at the very beginning and then in both Irenaeus subsequent citation and Epiphanius's citation of Hegesippus Rome again is the see of 'Peter and Paul.' If Josephus/Hegesippus is the author of the two succession lists we are almost expecting a third from Corinth given some other information I am about to bring forward which might interest Bernard.

[Secret Alias]

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?

[Secret Alias]

Another oddity. As we saw Antiquities is severed at the twelfth year of Nero and then Life begins suddenly with the error that Josephus leaves Poppea (who died a year earlier) and returns to Jerusalem to find the country aflame with sedition. Aside from the error with Poppea is it possible there was another reason for severing the text there? Notice that Epiphanius identifies the death of Peter and Paul from the chronology of Hegesippus to the same year:

he (Clement) could have been compelled to hold the episcopate in his turn, after the deaths of Linus and Cletus who were bishops for twelve years each after the death of Saints Peter and Paul in the twelfth year of Nero.

I wonder whether Josephus is ever understood to have met Peter and Paul in Rome and that's the real reason why Life has him come back from the city to Jerusalem.

[Secret Alias]

On the error of the dating of Poppea's death in Josephus relative to his return - https://books.google.com/books?id=TPjYA ... us&f=false

[Secret Alias]

If someone could figure out to my satisfaction how Marcellina became Marcion or vice versa using arguments crossing Hebrew, Aramaic, Greek or Latin I would pay $250 for that answer.