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:
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.