Ben C. Smith wrote: ↑Fri May 31, 2019 5:38 am
davidlau17 wrote: ↑Thu May 30, 2019 11:59 pmAccording to the site Early Christian Writings, he wrote from 165-175, though they give no citation for this.
I have discussed the proper date of Hegesippus
on this forum, in dialogue
with a blog post by Peter Kirby.
So I read your discussion and Peter Kirby's blog post. Clearly much thought has been put into affixing dates for Hegesippus' works; but I must admit, I am hesitant to agree with the conclusions presented.
My main contentions regard the reading of Hegesippus’ passage (as translated by Philip Schaff):
“To whom they erected cenotaphs and temples, as is done to the present day. Among whom is also Antinoüs, a slave of the Emperor Adrian, in whose honor are celebrated also the Antinoian games, which were instituted in our day. For he [Adrian] also founded a city named after Antinoüs, and appointed prophets.”
G.A. Williamson’s (1965) translation of
Historia Ecclesiae reads slightly differently:
"In their honor they erected cenotaphs and temples, as they still do. One of these was Antinous, a slave of Hadrian Caesar’s, in memory of whom the Antinoian Games are held. He was my own contemporary. Hadrian even built a city after him, and appointed prophets."
The slight differences in these translations result also in slightly different implications. Schaff’s translation proclaims that the Antinoian games were instituted in Hegesippus’ “day”. This was read by Peter Kirby to imply that the Hegesippus’ works could be dated between 138 and 148 CE. However, G.A. Williamson’s translation carries with it no such implication. Here, Hegesippus simply states that games are held in the memory of Antinous, and adds that: “He [Antinous? Hadrian?] was my own contemporary.” If we are to read this as meaning Antinous was his contemporary, it simply indicates that he was alive at the time Antinous died (c. 130 CE). We cannot infer from this statement if he actually wrote anything during that time period.
The Antinoian games are often associated with the survival of the Antinous cult after Hadrian; they were concentrated in various Eastern providences of the Empire. These celebrations began taking place during the reign of Hadrian, but existed all the way into the mid-fourth century. Thus, we can infer very little in regard to dating from this passage alone.
In both translations, Hegesippus states that from the reign of Hadrian to his own day, the Romans were erecting statues dedicated to Antinous. He does not, however, specify if this time (“our own day”, “the present day”) ever actually coincided with the era of Hadrian.
While the majority of statues dedicated to Antinous were produced in the 130s, we know that the cult’s following did not die with him, nor did the construction of their monuments. Not only did the cult continuing erecting such idolatry throughout the latter half of the second century, but inscriptions of this youthful ‘god’ can be found on Bithynian coins minted during the reigns of Commodus and Caracalla.
In fact, artifacts dedicated to Antinous were used by the cult’s followers all the way into the fourth century. Portraits and sculptures of the deified Antinous remained popular until Theodosius prohibited Pagan images in 391 AD. Antinous may well have been one of the last pagan ‘gods’ to be abandoned in the Roman Empire. Christian writers continued to attack Antinous and his followers well into the Byzantine Era (i.e. Athanasius 4th century criticisms in
Contra Gentes; Prudentius’ 5th century criticisms in
Contra Symmachum).
Thus, we cannot say if Hegesippus meant his own era to be synonymous with Hadrian’s era. I would even suggest his wording suggests the opposite. He appears to be contrasting the reign of Hadrian to his own time; the past-tense “To whom they erected cenotaphs and temples” is immediately juxtaposed with present-tense (“as is done to the present day” or “as they still do”). He also presents Antonius as being “the slave” of Emperor Hadrian. Little evidence suggests that Antinous was ever a slave, and the inscription on the
Pincian Obelisk certainly implies he was a free person. Oddly enough, Celsus was the only other 2nd century author to present Antonius as being Hadrian’s slave (to my knowledge, anyway).
Eusebius includes another passage from Hegesippus, indicating a more precise placement for dating (the one regarding Bishop Anicetus’ successors: Soter and Eleutherius). This is an area I believe Peter Kirby and Ben were a bit too quick to dismiss. Hegesippus was unable to know about future bishops. It is possible that Eusebius simply listed off the two Roman bishops who succeeded Anicetus, and decided (for some reason) to present this as being stated by Hegesippus himself. In order to accept this premise, however, one must present a compelling rationale for Eusebius’ forgery.
Surely Eusebius would realize the inclusion of their names indicates one of his earliest church authorities, one that he cites extensively, to have authored at a later decade. Thus, I fail to see any motivation for such a forgery. In fact, if Eusebius did have a motive here, would it not be the opposite one? The earlier the authorship, the more legitimate Hegesippus’ testimony appears to be.
To conclude, I do not think we can dismiss the notion that Hegesippus authored (at least one of) his books during Eleutherius’ papacy. His being witness to the construction of Antonian statues implies that he wrote sometime after the 130s, with 200 CE as an approximate terminus; but it indicates no precise date for us. Hegesippus’ mention of the two bishops appointed after Anicetus affixes the most precise range of dating, from 174 to 189 CE.
With that said, I do agree that it is possible (or even likely) that his earlier books were authored before this. Hegesippus himself states that he first entered Rome while Anicetus was bishop (157 CE). Additionally, as you and John2 have noted, Eusebius claims that Hegesippus’ life immediately followed the Apostolic era.
When all is considered, the dating proposed on Early Christian Texts (c. 165-175 CE) seems to be a fair one, albeit, a bit too constricted for my taste. I might suggest a slightly larger spread, ranging from approximately 155 to 189 CE.