Tinker Tailor Soldier Forger

[Ben C. Smith]

But once we accept that Irenaeus is at least largely dependent on Hegesippus for AH 3.3, it's very difficult to say what he could not be getting from Hegesippus.

That is true.

A theory which holds that Irenaeus used Hegesippus up to a certain point, following it with his own material, and then had Eusebius quoting Hegesippus with Irenaeus's additional material directly after it, is possible, but would need some good justification on why it is preferable to the theory that Irenaeus and Eusebius are simply following Hegesippus throughout.

How much justification does it really need? Probably the two authors with whom Eusebius was most conversant are Irenaeus and Origen. Eusebius quotes this exact passage from Irenaeus in History of the Church 5.6.5. His own wording and that of Irenaeus are completely different:

Irenaeus: 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. / Hac ordinatione et successione ea quae est ab apostolis in ecclesia traditio et veritatis praeconatio pervenit usque ad nos. et est plenissima haec ostensio, unam et eandem vivificatricem fidem esse, quae en ecclesia ab apostolis usque nunc sit conservata, et tradita in veritate. / διαδεξαμένου τὸν Ἀνίκητον Σωτῆρος, νῦν δωδεκάτῳ τόπῳ τὸν τῆς ἐπισκοπῆς ἀπὸ τῶν ἀποστόλων κατέχει κλῆρον Ἐλεύθερος. τῇ αὐτῇ τάξει καὶ τῇ αὐτῇ διδαχῇ ἥ τε ἀπὸ τῶν ἀποστόλων ἐν τῇ ἐκκλησίᾳ παράδοσις καὶ τὸ τῆς ἀληθείας κήρυγμα κατήντηκεν εἰς ἡμᾶς.

Eusebius: In each list and each city all is as the Law, the Prophets, and the Lord preach. / ἐν ἑκάστῃ δὲ διαδοχῇ καὶ ἐν ἑκάστῃ πόλει οὕτως ἔχει ὡς ὁ νόμος κηρύσσει καὶ οἱ προφῆται καὶ ὁ κύριος.

Unless I am missing something in your argument (which could well be; my brain is tired), Eusebius could easily be quoting Hegesippus and then pressing him for something close to the same message he had noticed Irenaeus drawing from him, right?

[Charles Wilson]

Eusebius could easily be quoting Hegesippus and then pressing him for something close to the same message he had noticed Irenaeus drawing from him, right?

Unless Eusebius quoting Hegesippus is Eusebius manufacturing Hegesippus (See: Raskin).
I know, I know...

CW

[Ben C. Smith]

Eusebius could easily be quoting Hegesippus and then pressing him for something close to the same message he had noticed Irenaeus drawing from him, right?

Unless Eusebius quoting Hegesippus is Eusebius manufacturing Hegesippus (See: Raskin).
I know, I know...

Ken did put that option on the table:

...unless Eusebius invented the whole block of Hegesippus' testimony on Corinth and bishops of Rome in HE 4.22.1-3 based on Irenaeus H 3.3, which I think might be possible, but is not a theory I would advocate....

And it should be on the table. But, like Ken, I do not subscribe to it.

[Secret Alias]

As you know, I think Epiphanius's reference to 'two Passovers' in that discussion of the chronology of John's gospel is another example of the Carpocratian phenomenon - i.e. Epiphanius sloppily dictating stuff as reads from primary sources he doesn't fully understand to his secretary Anatolius.

[Charles Wilson]

As you know, I think Epiphanius's reference to 'two Passovers' in that discussion of the chronology of John's gospel is another example of the Carpocratian phenomenon - i.e. Epiphanius sloppily dictating stuff as reads from primary sources he doesn't fully understand to his secretary Anatolius.

'Ceptinatin' that there were two Passovers.
Not only that, there were two Passovers every year. If you come in contact with a dead body and are Unclean and unable to attend Passover, you may attend the second one a month later.

"Jesus" IS unclean through Lazarus. Joe of A is unclean by taking down the body of "Jesus". It is possible that both could overcome this through the second Passover and that may explain "Will he come to the Festival?"

[Charles Wilson]

For those late to the Cotillion, Jay Raskin has analyzed Eusebius and found him completely unreliable.
The Main Criticism is that Eusebius has a "Gambler's Tell", in this case, a Set of words and phrases that appear in Eusebius's recognized Works. The phrase is "...down to this day" with variations. Suppose this phrase appears in the works of other Historians reviewed by Eusebius. The phrase does not appear elsewhere.

There are other explicit contradictions in Eusebius in the material he reviews. One might be inclined to believe that Eusebius changed and/or manufactured Text to suit the point Eusebius was trying to make.

"...It is hard to know if Eusebius has wholly made up the text of Hegesippus or has drastically changed the text of a real historian to reflect his point of view. Since nobody mentions Hegesippus before Eusebius and it is difficult to say if anybody ever read him after Eusebius, the more sober judgement for the moment is that he never existed. Eusebius is just taking texts from other sources to create him"

Jay Raskin, Christs and Christianities, ISBN-10: 1413497926, ISBN-13: 978-1413497922 , Note 36, p. 617.

Ben is not convinced. I am. Ben knows a lot more than I do.
YMMV.

Thank you, Ben. Thank you, Ken Olson.

[Ken Olson]

Unless I am missing something in your argument

What I had in mind specifically is the question of who carried the succession list of bishops of Rome down to Eleutherius. Eusebius, as you point out, quotes Irenaeus AH 3.3 in HE 5.6.5. As is typical of ancient writers, Eusebius shows no awareness that Irenaeus is dependent on Hegesippus. He quotes the two authors as though they each came up with a succession list of bishops of Rome.

On your hypothesis, as I understand it, Hegesippus compiled a list ending with Anicetus (and was perhaps writing during the episcopacy of Anicetus), and Irenaeus had Hegesippus' list and added to it the later bishops up to Eleutherius, during whose papacy Eusebius takes him to have written. What makes this a better theory than the theory that Hegesippus first compiled the list up to Anicetus when he visited Rome, and then added the bishops up to Eleutherius, during whose episcopacy he wrote his Hypomnemata (which is a/the common understanding of Hegesippus as quoted by Eusebius), and then Irenaeus took the whole list from Hegesippus, leaving Eleutherius as the final bishop either because he was still bishop of Rome when Irenaeus wrote (Wikipedia has the Vatican making Eleutherius' episcopacy lasting somewhere between 8 and 22 years), or because he didn't care enough to update the list he was taking from irenaeus?

Best,

Ken

[Ben C. Smith]

On your hypothesis, as I understand it, [A] Hegesippus compiled a list ending with Anicetus (and was perhaps writing during the episcopacy of Anicetus), and Irenaeus had Hegesippus' list and added to it the later bishops up to Eleutherius, during whose papacy Eusebius takes him to have written. What makes this a better theory than the theory that [B] Hegesippus first compiled the list up to Anicetus when he visited Rome, and then added the bishops up to Eleutherius, during whose episcopacy he wrote his Hypomenmata (which is a/the common understanding of Hegesippus as quoted by Eusebius), and then Irenaeus took the whole list from Hegesippus, leaving Eleutherius as the final bishop either because he was still bishop of Rome when Irenaeus wrote (Wikipedia has the Vatican making Eleutherius' episcopacy lasting somewhere between 8 and 22 years), or because he didn't care enough to update the list he was taking from irenaeus?

I have given the two theories letter designations above.

Theory B is perfectly possible. My preference for A is more of a suggestion than a firm position. It is based on several things:

1. Eusebius is in direct contradiction with his own quotation of Hegesippus when he asserts in History of the Church 4.11.7 that Hegesippus remained in Rome until Eleutherus; Hegesippus himself, according to History of the Church 4.22.2-3, remained in Rome until Anicetus. This is true whether or not he added to the list to get down to Eleutherus. I have suggested that Eusebius wrote this one part about Hegesippus (since he is not quoting him in 4.11.7) in confusion with Irenaeus.
2. Lawlor has argued that Epiphanius drew upon Hegesippus, and the episcopal list in Epiphanius ends with Anicetus. Now, this may simply be because Epiphanius is writing about Marcellina and does not care about anyone after Anicetus in context. But consider this in conjunction with the next point.
3. The list that Irenaeus gives us evinces a syntactic break at Anicetus. It is possible, as you suggest, that Hegesippus himself wrote the original list and then added to it later, but, if the list was written in two separate sittings anyway (as the break suggests to my mind), then it becomes an open question whether the second writer was Hegesippus himself (again) or Irenaeus.
4. Eusebius, with the exception of that errant comment about Eleutherus in 4.11.7, seems to date Hegesippus to the time of Justin Martyr, giving both of these heresiologists their chronological due in book 4. He dates both Eleutherus' episcopacy and Irenaeus' writings, on the other hand, to a later time, described chronologically in book 5. Hegesippus he characterizes as having lived "immediately after the apostles" (2.23.3), and Justin he characterizes similarly as having lived "not long after the time of the apostles" (2.13.2).
5. Peter Kirby has argued that the Josephus who gave "a chronological calculation involving the tenth year of Antoninus," according to Clement of Alexandria, was actually Hegesippus. I like the argument. I am not sure it is correct, but I like it.

So my suggestion is mostly a matter of synthesis. The synthesis is not perfect; there are still chronological uncertainties to unravel having to do with the episcopal succession in Rome as compared to the dates of the Roman emperors, for example. But the standard view that Hegesippus wrote during the episcopate of Eleutherus is not perfect, either. It is hard to reconcile Hegesippus both having lived "immediately after the apostles," however loosely we interpret that Eusebian phrase, and also writing during the episcopate of Eleutherus.

I would love to see any overall view or synthesis of these matters that you might have.

[Secret Alias]

Just wondering what Ken thought of Tselikas - the world's leading expert on late Byzantine manuscripts - reading 'naked (with) naked' as γυμνοὶ γυμνῷ in To Theodore. Might diminish the scandal a touch if he's right. Not to mention the disagreement with Smith who supposedly wrote the MS. It's funny (I really mean that, this isn't a slight) that with Carlson making such a big deal about the 'bald swindler' nonsense that he didn't translate gymnos as 'bald' to argue that to Theodore was about two bald men being together - i.e. a bald Jesus and a bald youth. That might have convinced me that Smith forged the text. Back to work (or what's left of it)!

[Ken Olson]

Ben Smith wrote:

Theory B is perfectly possible. My preference for A is more of a suggestion than a firm position. It is based on several things:
1. Eusebius is in direct contradiction with his own quotation of Hegesippus when he asserts in History of the Church 4.11.7 that Hegesippus remained in Rome until Eleutherus; Hegesippus himself, according to History of the Church 4.22.2-3, remained in Rome until Anicetus. This is true whether or not he added to the list to get down to Eleutherus. I have suggested that Eusebius wrote this one part about Hegesippus (since he is not quoting him in 4.11.7) in confusion with Irenaeus.

I don't think this is a direct contradiction. Eusebius could have read 4.22-23 as saying that Hegesippus remained in Rome until Eleutherus. Hegesippus says he compiled the list while he was in Rome in the time of Anicetus. He doesn't say he remained in Rome until the reign of Eleutherus, but he doesn't actually say he left either. It could very plausibly be a tendentious reading on Eusebius' part.

The link wouldn't work for me, but I'm guessing you meant this post:

viewtopic.php?f=3&t=7008&p=109850&=Anicetus#p109850

What I was wondering was whether the “syntactic break” at Anicetus actually shows that it is more likely that Epiphanius used Hegesippus directly as opposed to only knowing him through Irenaeus and Eusebius or whether it's a corollary of that hypothesis. I tend to think the latter.

2. Lawlor has argued that Epiphanius drew upon Hegesippus, and the episcopal list in Epiphanius ends with Anicetus. Now, this may simply be because Epiphanius is writing about Marcellina and does not care about anyone after Anicetus in context. But consider this in conjunction with the next point.

Right; this may be because Epiphanius is writing about Marcellina and simply wishes to place her chronologically.

3. The list that Irenaeus gives us evinces a syntactic break at Anicetus. It is possible, as you suggest, that Hegesippus himself wrote the original list and then added to it later, but, if the list was written in two separate sittings anyway (as the break suggests to my mind), then it becomes an open question whether the second writer was Hegesippus himself (again) or Irenaeus.

I disagree. The work Eusebius is quoting (to use the term loosely) in HE 4.22-23 is Hegesippus' Memoirs (Hypomnemata), in which the author refers back to the bishop's list he compiled at an earlier time. This doesn't mean that Eusebius is necessarily still quoting Hegesippus the later part of HE 4.22-23, but I don't think that means it's an open question either. My default assumption would be that he's still quoting Hegesippus' Memoirs as long as it's plausible that he is.

4. Eusebius, with the exception of that errant comment about Eleutherus in 4.11.7, seems to date Hegesippus to the time of Justin Martyr, giving both of these heresiologists their chronological due in book 4. He dates both Eleutherus' episcopacy and Irenaeus' writings, on the other hand, to a later time, described chronologically in book 5. Hegesippus he characterizes as having lived "immediately after the apostles" (2.23.3), and Justin he characterizes similarly as having lived "not long after the time of the apostles" (2.13.2).

Two points here. First, Eusebius could simply be inaccurate or imprecise. At least in the HE, Eusebius is usually simply inferring dates from the interior evidence of the sources he's quoting in the HE and his placements don't carry much independent value.

Second (though actually following from the first), Eusebius probably places Hegesippus and Justin as contemporaries because they both mention Hadrian's slave Antinous in HE 4.8, though in Hegesippus' case it's uncertain whether he meant Antinous lived in his own day or Hadrian instituted the games in honor of Antinous (after his death in 130 CE) in his own day. I think this is the earliest date we can securely place Hegesippus. He does not say he was an adult at the time, so that would hardly exclude him writing his Memoirs under Eleutherus in the 170's. Even if he were as old as Justin (born. c. 100 CE, executed c. 165 CE), this would still not exclude that possibility that he wrote his Memoirs under Eleutherus if we allow he could have written them in his 70's.

5. Peter Kirby has argued that the Josephus who gave "a chronological calculation involving the tenth year of Antoninus," according to Clement of Alexandria, was actually Hegesippus. I like the argument. I am not sure it is correct, but I like it.

I'm fond of it myself, but I'm not sure how it bears on the chronological issues we're talking about here.

So my suggestion is mostly a matter of synthesis. The synthesis is not perfect; there are still chronological uncertainties to unravel having to do with the episcopal succession in Rome as compared to the dates of the Roman emperors, for example. But the standard view that Hegesippus wrote during the episcopate of Eleutherus is not perfect, either. It is hard to reconcile Hegesippus both having lived "immediately after the apostles," however loosely we interpret that Eusebian phrase, and also writing during the episcopate of Eleutherus.

I think the internal evidence is far more important than Eusebius' claim that Hegesippus wrote “immediately after the apostles,” which I think can only be taken in the loosest sense (as with Justin 100-165 CE).

I would love to see any overall view or synthesis of these matters that you might have.

I haven't written up an overall view or synthesis beyond what we've been discussing in this thread, at least not yet.

And Ben, while I'm disagreeing with you on several points here, I'd like to express my appreciation for your rationality.

Best,

Ken