Ben,
If you can send me a copy of that above that'd be great. I can't see it on my work computer or at the library.
Regarding what you said about Eusebius using Hegesippus despite having what I see as "heretical" views, my first thought was that is a great point and that's that, then. But my understanding of the "big picture" is that Eusebius is the first person (I am aware of) who actually names Hegesippus and that everyone after him (excepting perhaps Photius/Gobar re: "no eye has seen" and Epiphanius re: Roman bishops) uses Eusebius' citations. In other words, while
maybe Irenaus used his Roman bishop list (
if Hegesippus did make one), no one before Eusebius mentions Hegesippus' name.
And though Eusebius was opposed to Jewish Christians and has no issue with citing Hegesippus whenever it serves his purpose, in keeping with the former he does qualify what Hegesippus says about the family of Jesus (unlike Hegesippus, who never has a fancy "exaplanation" for it). For example, before citing Hegesippus on James he says in EH 2.1.2:
2. Then James, whom the ancients surnamed the Just on account of the excellence of his virtue, is recorded to have been the first to be made bishop of the church of Jerusalem. This James was called the brother of the Lord because he was known as a son of Joseph, and Joseph was supposed to be the father of Christ, because the Virgin, being betrothed to him, “was found with child by the Holy Ghost before they came together,” Matthew 1:18 as the account of the holy Gospels shows.
So, in my view, here we have Eusebius
interpreting Hegesippus (and, to be fair, you could say the same thing about me) in a way that was typical in the fourth and fifth centuries CE (i.e., anything but a natural brother of Jesus). Yet there is nothing like that in Hegesippus; he at least never similarly tries to "explain" the relationship between Jesus and his family. And without these kinds of "explanations," I think Eusebius (and Irenaeus) would find (what I see as being the "plain meaning" of) Hegesippus' view "heretical."
He does the same thing (in my view) with Papias and Origen, who were also later deemed to have "heretical' views. As he says of Papias in EH 3.39.12-13:
12. To these belong his statement that there will be a period of some thousand years after the resurrection of the dead, and that the kingdom of Christ will be set up in material form on this very earth. I suppose he got these ideas through a misunderstanding of the apostolic accounts, not perceiving that the things said by them were spoken mystically in figures.
13. For he appears to have been of very limited understanding, as one can see from his discourses. But it was due to him that so many of the Church Fathers after him adopted a like opinion, urging in their own support the antiquity of the man; as for instance Irenæus and any one else that may have proclaimed similar views.
So Eusebius was not above citing people with views he doesn't necessarily agree with, as long as he thinks they serve his purpose and he can
"explain" their "wrong" stuff, like in EH 2.1.2 re: Jesus' family.
And what I don't get about the Roman bishop list is why Eusebius doesn't see fit to mention Hegesippus. Even if Hegesippus' list was not "complete," I would think Eusebius would at least mention him to lend support to the antiquity of the list, since he elsewhere says things like Hegesippus "lived immediately after the apostles [and] gives the most accurate account." But I'm still mulling everything over.