Pseudo-Hegesippus and the TF

[Ben C. Smith]

That Eusebius claims the John passage came before the Jesus passage reasonably suggests that the Jesus passage had not yet landed in the pages of the Antiquities at the time that the statement was made. The location, then, may be regarded as something fixed either during Eusebius' years or after, which would tend to exclude his predecessor from being the most likely culprit

I thought that also and had that argument included in my webpage on the TF, as evidence for forgery. But when I discussed that with Carrier, he convinced me that the Greek just does not say that Eusebius had the main TF after the passage about John the Baptist. I therefore withdrew the argument. Carrier's comments are somewhere in one of his old blogs, but I cannot find them.

IIRC, the argument works as well in English: "After..." supposed to refer to the way Eusebius quotes first and then continues after to quote again, instead of the way Josephus does anything.

If that's the gist of it, then:

a) It might be "possible" grammatically but not the best reading.
b) It would be stronger if supported by other examples of this construction when quoting, where it doesn't mean what it might seem to mean.
c) I'm not completely sure that it's "possible" grammatically (this would require a closer look, at the evidence including Carrier's evidence).

Then again, it's better if we could just find the sources here and look at them to see.

The word "after" is a translational flourish intended to capture the aspect of the aorist participle, διελθών. Eusebius, History of the Church 1.11.3-9:

3. The same Josephus confesses in this account that John the Baptist was an exceedingly righteous man, and thus agrees with the things written of him in the Gospels. He records also that Herod lost his kingdom on account of the same Herodias, and that he was driven into banishment with her, and condemned to live at Vienne in Gaul. 4. He relates these things in the eighteenth book of the Antiquities, where he writes of John in the following words: It seemed to some of the Jews that the army of Herod was destroyed by God, who most justly avenged John called the Baptist. 5. For Herod slew him, a good man and one who exhorted the Jews to come and receive baptism, practicing virtue and exercising righteousness toward each other and toward God; for baptism would appear acceptable unto Him when they employed it, not for the remission of certain sins, but for the purification of the body, as the soul had been already purified in righteousness. 6. And when others gathered about him (for they found much pleasure in listening to his words), Herod feared that his great influence might lead to some sedition, for they appeared ready to do whatever he might advise. He therefore considered it much better, before any new thing should be done under John's influence, to anticipate it by slaying him, than to repent after revolution had come, and when he found himself in the midst of difficulties. On account of Herod's suspicion John was sent in bonds to the above-mentioned citadel of Machæra, and there slain. [= Antiquities 18.5.2 §116-119a.] 7. After relating [more literally: having related] these things concerning John [ταῦτα περὶ τοῦ Ἰωάννου διελθών], he makes mention of our Saviour in the same work, in the following words [καὶ τοῦ σωτῆρος ἡμῶν κατὰ τὴν αὐτὴν τοῦ συγγράμματος ἱστορίαν ὧδέ πως μέμνηται]: And there lived at that time Jesus, a wise man, if indeed it be proper to call him a man. For he was a doer of wonderful works, and a teacher of such men as receive the truth in gladness. And he attached to himself many of the Jews, and many also of the Greeks. He was the Christ. 8. When Pilate, on the accusation of our principal men, condemned him to the cross, those who had loved him in the beginning did not cease loving him. For he appeared unto them again alive on the third day, the divine prophets having told these and countless other wonderful things concerning him. Moreover, the race of Christians, named after him, continues down to the present day. [= Antiquities 18.3.3 §63-64.] 9. Since an historian, who is one of the Hebrews themselves, has recorded in his work these things concerning John the Baptist and our Saviour, what excuse is there left for not convicting them of being destitute of all shame, who have forged the acts against them? But let this suffice here.

The quotations about John and Jesus are in deep green and maroon, respectively.

[Peter Kirby]

The word "after" is a translational flourish intended to capture the aspect of the aorist participle, διελθών. Eusebius, History of the Church 1.11.3-9:

3. The same Josephus confesses in this account that John the Baptist was an exceedingly righteous man, and thus agrees with the things written of him in the Gospels. He records also that Herod lost his kingdom on account of the same Herodias, and that he was driven into banishment with her, and condemned to live at Vienne in Gaul. 4. He relates these things in the eighteenth book of the Antiquities, where he writes of John in the following words: It seemed to some of the Jews that the army of Herod was destroyed by God, who most justly avenged John called the Baptist. 5. For Herod slew him, a good man and one who exhorted the Jews to come and receive baptism, practicing virtue and exercising righteousness toward each other and toward God; for baptism would appear acceptable unto Him when they employed it, not for the remission of certain sins, but for the purification of the body, as the soul had been already purified in righteousness. 6. And when others gathered about him (for they found much pleasure in listening to his words), Herod feared that his great influence might lead to some sedition, for they appeared ready to do whatever he might advise. He therefore considered it much better, before any new thing should be done under John's influence, to anticipate it by slaying him, than to repent after revolution had come, and when he found himself in the midst of difficulties. On account of Herod's suspicion John was sent in bonds to the above-mentioned citadel of Machæra, and there slain. [= Antiquities 18.5.2 §116-119a.] 7. After relating [more literally: having related] these things concerning John [ταῦτα περὶ τοῦ Ἰωάννου διελθών], he makes mention of our Saviour in the same work, in the following words [καὶ τοῦ σωτῆρος ἡμῶν κατὰ τὴν αὐτὴν τοῦ συγγράμματος ἱστορίαν ὧδέ πως μέμνηται]: And there lived at that time Jesus, a wise man, if indeed it be proper to call him a man. For he was a doer of wonderful works, and a teacher of such men as receive the truth in gladness. And he attached to himself many of the Jews, and many also of the Greeks. He was the Christ. 8. When Pilate, on the accusation of our principal men, condemned him to the cross, those who had loved him in the beginning did not cease loving him. For he appeared unto them again alive on the third day, the divine prophets having told these and countless other wonderful things concerning him. Moreover, the race of Christians, named after him, continues down to the present day. [= Antiquities 18.3.3 §63-64.] 9. Since an historian, who is one of the Hebrews themselves, has recorded in his work these things concerning John the Baptist and our Saviour, what excuse is there left for not convicting them of being destitute of all shame, who have forged the acts against them? But let this suffice here.

The quotations about John and Jesus are in deep green and maroon, respectively.

Thanks. It is less clear than the translation "after" would make it seem. So there is no statement about the order in Josephus.

There seems to be some kind of an argument here, but it is not as forceful as I suggested previously in this thread. Mea culpa.

You'd have to both say that the participial phrase modifies him making mention (Josephus) and then say, less securely, that it implies that what had been related was related previously (not just in time, relative to Eusebius, but also relative to the passage on Jesus that comes next). And I think I'd have to switch it around -- to sustain the argument, I guess we'd need examples showing that it is likely making a soft implication regarding order (the kind implied by saying A having happened, B happens -- if that is the implication here).

[Bernard Muller]

Here is the Greek for Eusebius' H of C, I, 11, 7

[7] Ταῦτα περὶ τοῦ Ἰωάννου διελθών, καὶ τοῦ σωτῆρος ἡμῶν κατὰ τὴν αὐτὴν τοῦ συγγράμματος ἱστορίαν ὧδέ πως μέμνηται 1 ‘Γίνεται δὲ κατὰ τοῦτον τὸν χρόνον Ἰησοῦς, σοφὸς ἀνήρ, εἴ γε ἄνδρα αὐτὸν λέγειν χρή. ἦν γὰρ παραδόξων ἔργων ποιητής, διδάσκαλος ἀνθρώπων τῶν ἡδονῇ τἀληθῆ δεχομένων, καὶ πολλοὺς μὲν τῶν Ἰουδαίων, πολλοὺς δὲ καὶ ἀπὸ τοῦ Ἑλληνικοῦ ἐπηγάγετο. ’

'κατὰ τὴν αὐτὴν τοῦ συγγράμματος' can mean: according to the same writings
I recalled that Carrier said, because Eusebius mentioned the same writings, he did not mean the passage about Jesus came after the one of John the Baptist. If it did, "according to the same writings' would be unnecessary.

Cordially, Bernard

[Ben C. Smith]

There seems to be some kind of an argument here, but it is not as forceful as I suggested previously in this thread. Mea culpa.

You'd have to both say that the participial phrase modifies him (Josephus) and then say, less securely, that it implies that what had been related was related previously. And I think I'd have to switch it around -- to sustain the argument, I guess we'd need examples showing that it is likely making a soft implication regarding order.

Well, the participle does modify Josephus, no doubt about that. The aorist participle is very commonly used to indicate, or at least imply, time prior to the main verb. There is a somewhat similar situation in History of the Church 4.16.7-8:

7 And that he met his death as he had predicted that he would, in consequence of the machinations of Crescens, is stated by Tatian, a man who early in life lectured upon the sciences of the Greeks and won no little fame in them, and who has left a great many monuments of himself in his writings. He records this fact in his work against the Greeks, where he writes as follows: And that most admirable Justin declared with truth that the aforesaid persons were like robbers. [= Chapter 18.] 8 Then, after making some remarks [ἐπειπών; more literally: having remarked] about the philosophers, he continues as follows: Crescens, indeed, who made his nest in the great city, surpassed all in his unnatural lust, and was wholly devoted to the love of money. [= Chapter 19.]

Of course, the difference here is that there is a "then" in play to make the sequence clear. Obviously, too, my search has hardly been exhaustive.

ETA: Another instance may be found here:

Eusebius, History of the Church 3.6.19: 19 Τούτοις ἐπειπών τινα μεταξὺ ἐπιφέρει λέγων.... / Having said certain things in connection with these in the meantime, he continues, saying....

The passage before this comes from Josephus, Wars 5.12.3 §512; the passage after this is from 5.13.6 §566, a bit later in the same book.

[Peter Kirby]

Thanks for sharing this.

I recalled that Carrier said, because Eusebius mentioned the same writings, he did not mean the passage about Jesus came after the one of John the Baptist. If it did, "according to the same writings' would be unnecessary.

But is there something wrong with redundancy? It is frequently used. Sometimes to clarify, sometimes for emphasis, sometimes just because.

It's also not completely useless because the audience may not know the extent of Josephus' writing and the different places and times he could have written something. This actually turned out to be the case, a lot of times. Eusebius could end up talking about books that nobody knows about (and certainly not the current reader) outside Eusebius. This time, he just happened not to do so.

I'm willing to grant that it is not clear.

[Peter Kirby]

Antiquities 18-20 is not well attested before Eusebius (Origen and Porphyry knew it)

Hi Ken, do you recall what references Porphyry made here? Thanks.

[Ken Olson]

Antiquities 18-20 is not well attested before Eusebius (Origen and Porphyry knew it)

Hi Ken, do you recall what references Porphyry made here? Thanks.

Porphyry, On Abstinence from Eating Animals 4.11:

11. But among those who are known by us, the Jews, before they first suffered the subversion of their legal institutes under Antiochus, and afterwards under the Romans, when also the temple in Jerusalem was captured, and became accessible to all men to whom, prior to this event, it was inaccessible, and the city itself was destroyed; - before this took place, the Jews always abstained from many animals, but peculiarly, which they even now do, from swine. At that period, therefore, there were three kinds of philosophers among them. And of one kind, |122 indeed, the Pharisees were the leaders, but of another, the Sadducees, and of the third, which appears to have been the most venerable, the Essenes. The mode of life, therefore, of these third was as follows, as Josephus frequently testifies in many of his writings. For in the second book of his Judaic History, which he has completed in seven books, and in the eighteenth of his Antiquities, which consists of twenty books, and likewise in the second of the two books which he wrote against the Greeks, he speaks of these Essenes, and says, that they are of the race of the Jews, and are in a greater degree than others friendly to one another. They are averse to pleasures, conceiving them to be vicious, but they are of opinion that continence and the not yielding to the passions, constitute virtue. And they despise, indeed, wedlock, but receiving the children of other persons, and instructing them in disciplines while they are yet of a tender age, they consider them as their kindred, and form them to their own manners. And they act in this manner, not for the purpose of subverting marriage, and the succession arising from it, but in order to avoid the lasciviousness of women. They are likewise, despisers of wealth, and the participation of external possessions among them in common is wonderful; nor is any one to be found among them who is richer than the rest. For it is a law with them, that those who wish to belong to their sect, must give up their property to it in common; so that among all of them, there is not to be seen either the abjectness of poverty, or the insolence of wealth; but the possessions of each being mingled with those of the rest, there was one property with all of them, as if they had been brothers. They likewise conceived oil to be a stain to the body, and that if any one, though unwillingly, was anointed, he should [immediately] wipe his body. For it was considered by them as beautiful to be squalid 13, and to be always clothed in white garments. But curators of the common property were elected by votes, indistinctly for the use of all. They have not, however, one city, but in each city many of them dwell together, and those who come among them from other places, if they are of their sect, equally partake with them of their possessions, as if they were their own. Those, likewise, who first perceive these strangers, behave to them as if they were their intimate acquaintance. Hence, when they travel, they take nothing with them for the sake of expenditure. But they neither |123 change their garments nor their shoes, till they are entirely torn, or destroyed by time. They neither buy nor sell anything, but each of them giving what he possesses to him that is in want, receives in return for it what will be useful to him. Nevertheless, each of them freely imparts to others of their sect what they may be in want of, without any remuneration.

https://www.tertullian.org/fathers/porp ... _book4.htm