Mary of Clopas = Mary, the sister of Jesus?

[Ben C. Smith]

Sorry, I overlooked that point. So your argument is essentially that:
a) Ireneaus added two succeeding bishops to an earlier list - that earlier list (which ended at Anicetus) was possibly written by Hegesippus himself.

Yes. Epiphanius and Irenaeus may easily have gotten their lists, ending at Anicetus, from Hegesippus. Irenaeus updated his list with Soter ad Eleutherus; I think Epiphanius did not.

b) Eusebius assumed Ireneaus' list meant that Hegesippus was actively writing until the time of Eleutherus, the last of these bishops. Hegesippus had just mentioned that the very same bishop (Eleutherus) was deacon under Anicetus, giving Eusebius more reason for reading into this.

Hegesippus never mentioned Eleutherus at all, ex hypothesi; nor Soter. That part comes from Eusebius misremembering in History of the Church 4.11.7 (that is, confusing Irenaeus' list with that of Hegesippus).

c) Eusebius named Soter and Eleutherus as the successors to Anicetus, though he was just paraphrasing Hegesippus here. Unfortunately, he did this directly after the passage that he had directly quoted Hegesippus.

He was not paraphrasing Hegesippus; he was remembering Irenaeus.

d) Translators misinterpreted this as indicating that Hegesippus himself had written point c. In fact, it was Eusebius' own addition. This can be explained by there being no proper quotation marks in ancient Greek.

Translators read Eusebius stating that Hegesippus stayed in Rome until Eleutherus, and they read Eusebius quoting Hegesippus up until Anicetus, and then going on to Soter and Eleutherus, and they draw the perfectly understandable conclusion that Hegesippus stayed in Rome until Eleutherus and also wrote about it in the quotation which Peter cuts off sooner than most. So this is not a misunderstanding on the part of modern translators: it is a natural consequence of taking seriously exactly what Eusebius tells us. No problem would even arise if it were not for what Peter brought up about the chronology (and the confusion between Josephus and Hegesippus) and especially the fact that Eusebius elsewhere quotes Hegesippus as saying that he remained in Rome until Anicetus. Which is it? Did Hegesippus write that he stayed until Anicetus, or did he write that he stayed until Eleutherus? The former is a direct quotation; the latter is a paraphrase by Eusebius. The former lines up with the chronological point made by Peter; the latter does not. The former can be explained as a mental conflation with Irenaeus' list, which Eusebius also quotes in full; I am not sure what could explain the latter.

[davidlau17]

Sorry, I overlooked that point. So your argument is essentially that:
a) Ireneaus added two succeeding bishops to an earlier list - that earlier list (which ended at Anicetus) was possibly written by Hegesippus himself.

Yes. Epiphanius and Irenaeus may easily have gotten their lists, ending at Anicetus, from Hegesippus. Irenaeus updated his list with Soter ad Eleutherus; I think Epiphanius did not.

b) Eusebius assumed Ireneaus' list meant that Hegesippus was actively writing until the time of Eleutherus, the last of these bishops. Hegesippus had just mentioned that the very same bishop (Eleutherus) was deacon under Anicetus, giving Eusebius more reason for reading into this.

Hegesippus never mentioned Eleutherus at all, ex hypothesi; nor Soter. That part comes from Eusebius misremembering in History of the Church 4.11.7 (that is, confusing Irenaeus' list with that of Hegesippus).

I'm not really sure if I have any meaningful disagreement with you here. I think I just worded that sentence poorly. According to your theory (which oddly pays attention to 4.11.7, while completely disregarding 4.22.3), Hegessipus never mentioned Eleutherus as being a bishop. That part was incorrectly interpolated by Eusebius. Hegessipus did, however, fleetingly mention a point of Eleutherus' life, when he was a deacon.

Eusebius claims these to be the words of Hegessipus (regarding deacon Eleutherus):

3 "And when I had come to Rome I remained there until Anicetus, whose deacon was Eleutherus."

c) Eusebius named Soter and Eleutherus as the successors to Anicetus, though he was just paraphrasing Hegesippus here. Unfortunately, he did this directly after the passage that he had directly quoted Hegesippus.

He was not paraphrasing Hegesippus; he was remembering Irenaeus.

Yes, I understand that. According to your theory: In reality Eusebius was remembering Irenaeus' list, but he believed he was remembering Hegesippus original list.

d) Translators misinterpreted this as indicating that Hegesippus himself had written point c. In fact, it was Eusebius' own addition. This can be explained by there being no proper quotation marks in ancient Greek.

Translators read Eusebius stating that Hegesippus stayed in Rome until Eleutherus, and they read Eusebius quoting Hegesippus up until Anicetus, and then going on to Soter and Eleutherus, and they draw the perfectly understandable conclusion that Hegesippus stayed in Rome until Eleutherus and also wrote about it in the quotation which Peter cuts off sooner than most. So this is not a misunderstanding on the part of modern translators: it is a natural consequence of taking seriously exactly what Eusebius tells us. No problem would even arise if it were not for what Peter brought up about the chronology (and the confusion between Josephus and Hegesippus) and especially the fact that Eusebius elsewhere quotes Hegesippus as saying that he remained in Rome until Anicetus. Which is it? Did Hegesippus write that he stayed until Anicetus, or did he write that he stayed until Eleutherus? The former is a direct quotation; the latter is a paraphrase by Eusebius. The former lines up with the chronological point made by Peter; the latter does not. The former can be explained as a mental conflation with Irenaeus' list, which Eusebius also quotes in full; I am not sure what could explain the latter.

To my knowledge, every translation of Eusebius' "History of the Church" available has the entirety of passages 4.22.2-3 as being in the words of Hegessipus. Eusebius is not paraphrasing him. He is directly quoting.

2 His words are as follows: "And the church of Corinth continued in the true faith until Primus was bishop in Corinth. I conversed with them on my way to Rome, and abode with the Corinthians many days, during which we were mutually refreshed in the true doctrine.
3 And when I had come to Rome I remained there until Anicetus, whose deacon was Eleutherus. And Anicetus was succeeded by Soter, and he by Eleutherus. In every succession, and in every city that is held which is preached by the law and the prophets and the Lord."

Even if you are correct, and the translators didn't realize that second sentence of passage 3 was not in the words of Hegesippus, it would still be a mistranslation.

The point is that, according to all extant translations, Eusebius claims that it was Hegessipus himself who wrote the underlined text above. Eusebius does not claim to be paraphrasing here.

Whether or not Hegesippus remained in Rome until Anicetus is beside the point. Why would it be necessary for Hegesippus to be in Rome to write? Am I missing something here? Eusebius could have very well been wrong about the point of time in which Hegesippus left Rome (4.11.7). Why is that so critical?

Eusebius still directly quotes Hegesippus as writing the key sentence: "And Anicetus was succeeded by Soter, and he by Eleutherus."

[Ben C. Smith]

I have responded in the other thread: viewtopic.php?f=3&t=2101&p=98877#p98877.