Pseudo-Hegesippus and the TF

Discussion about the New Testament, apocrypha, gnostics, church fathers, Christian origins, historical Jesus or otherwise, etc.
User avatar
MrMacSon
Posts: 5973
Joined: Sat Oct 05, 2013 3:45 pm

Re: Pseudo-Hegesippus and the TF

Post by MrMacSon » Sun Oct 02, 2016 2:42 pm

Peter Kirby wrote:
That Eusebius claims the John passage came before the Jesus passage reasonably suggests that the Jesus passage had not yet landed in the pages of the Antiquities at the time that the statement was made. The location, then, may be regarded as something fixed either during Eusebius' years or after, which would tend to exclude his predecessor from being the most likely culprit.

https://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/npnf201.iii.vi.xi.html
Eusebius wrote:After relating these things concerning John, he makes mention of our Saviour in the same work, in the following words:
MrMacSon wrote: Cheers. I don't think I've seen that point before. (It raises another issue of whether Eusebius has been credited for (or even used or set up as a repository) for events that happened later; similar to what Secret Agent Huller has, I think, proposed has been done with Irenaeus).
It is also possible that the writing of the Jesus passage - the TF - was at a different [earlier] time to the time it was inserted/'landed' in the Antiquities.

Anyway, enough 'what-about'-ery from me ...

User avatar
Peter Kirby
Site Admin
Posts: 5371
Joined: Fri Oct 04, 2013 2:13 pm
Location: Santa Clara
Contact:

Re: Pseudo-Hegesippus and the TF

Post by Peter Kirby » Sun Oct 02, 2016 2:59 pm

MrMacSon wrote:
Peter Kirby wrote:
That Eusebius claims the John passage came before the Jesus passage reasonably suggests that the Jesus passage had not yet landed in the pages of the Antiquities at the time that the statement was made. The location, then, may be regarded as something fixed either during Eusebius' years or after, which would tend to exclude his predecessor from being the most likely culprit.

https://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/npnf201.iii.vi.xi.html
Eusebius wrote:After relating these things concerning John, he makes mention of our Saviour in the same work, in the following words:
MrMacSon wrote: Cheers. I don't think I've seen that point before. (It raises another issue of whether Eusebius has been credited for (or even used or set up as a repository) for events that happened later; similar to what Secret Agent Huller has, I think, proposed has been done with Irenaeus).
It is also possible that the writing of the Jesus passage - the TF - was at a different [earlier] time to the time it was inserted/'landed' in the Antiquities.

Anyway, enough 'what-about'-ery from me ...
Sure. I thought that was implied. (If it is in the H.E. at a point in time when it is not in the Antiquities, which is quite possible.)

In fact we have an example of this happening. Eusebius converted a quote of Origen into text of Josephus. It never got inserted, so far as we know.

Eusebius, H.E., 2.23.20.
Josephus, at least, has not hesitated to testify this in his writings, where he says, These things happened to the Jews to avenge James the Just, who was a brother of Jesus, that is called the Christ. For the Jews slew him, although he was a most just man.
Eusebius took this quote not from Josephus but rather, at second hand, from Origen (Commentary on Matthew 10.17).

http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/101610.htm
And to so great a reputation among the people for righteousness did this James rise, that Flavius Josephus, who wrote the Antiquities of the Jews in twenty books, when wishing to exhibit the cause why the people suffered so great misfortunes that even the temple was razed to the ground, said, that these things happened to them in accordance with the wrath of God in consequence of the things which they had dared to do against James the brother of Jesus who is called Christ. And the wonderful thing is, that, though he did not accept Jesus as Christ, he yet gave testimony that the righteousness of James was so great; and he says that the people thought that they had suffered these things because of James.
By itself, this only shows that Eusebius is capable of quoting Josephus without manuscript support (with high probability, anyway). It leaves open the possibility that Eusebius found this Testimonium somewhere else and thought it something Josephus said or would likely say (or that, like other quotes, it had already "landed"). It is primarily (but not exclusively) the work of Ken Olson that supports the opinion, to the contrary, that the text was more likely composed by Eusebius. And this other example supports the likelihood that Eusebius could quote it with or without first having it in a manuscript.
"... almost every critical biblical position was earlier advanced by skeptics." - Raymond Brown

User avatar
Ben C. Smith
Posts: 6631
Joined: Wed Apr 08, 2015 2:18 pm
Location: USA
Contact:

Re: Pseudo-Hegesippus and the TF

Post by Ben C. Smith » Sun Oct 02, 2016 3:34 pm

Peter Kirby wrote:By itself, this only shows that Eusebius is capable of quoting Josephus without manuscript support (with high probability, anyway). It leaves open the possibility that Eusebius found this Testimonium somewhere else and thought it something Josephus said or would likely say (or that, like other quotes, it had already "landed"). It is primarily (but not exclusively) the work of Ken Olson that supports the opinion, to the contrary, that the text was more likely composed by Eusebius. And this other example supports the likelihood that Eusebius could quote it with or without first having it in a manuscript.
What I would love to see is a reasoned argument in favor of Eusebius having composed something himself while attributing it to somebody else. The example you cite is exactly the sort of thing which proves that Eusebius is capable of trusting other people's references either without checking them for himself or without daring to ask. Is there a similar example which would seem to prove that Eusebius is capable of making something up from scratch without relying on an Origen, as it were?

In his chapter of Eusebius of Caesarea: Tradition and Innovations, Ken Olson mentions Life of Constantine 2.5.3–41 as a possibility, of which he writes:

Modern scholars have long been skeptical about Licinius’ speech as recorded by Eusebius. Some defended Eusebius by claiming that he merely reports in good faith what his sources told him. In recent scholarship, however, there seems to be a tendency among commentators to ascribe the composition of Licinius’ speech to Eusebius himself.

But this is hardly a smoking gun, is it? This is a trend in scholarship, is it not? Olson continues:

If Cameron and Hall are correct, Eusebius apparently provided his own allegedly outside witness to the truth of Christianity.

That "if" is the catch here, since if the protasis is incorrect then Eusebius did once again as we can find him usually doing, quoting texts which, when and where we are able to check, do actually exist apart from Eusebius (works by the NT authors, the apostolic fathers, Josephus, Justin, Irenaeus, Clement, Origen, Abgar... the list goes on and on). So... is there a more ironclad example, one of equal weight to the example which demonstrates that Eusebius can misquote through a forebear in the faith?

(Note that this question is quite independent of whether the Testimonium is a forgery; it can still be a forgery without Eusebius having authored it.)
ΤΙ ΕΣΤΙΝ ΑΛΗΘΕΙΑ

User avatar
MrMacSon
Posts: 5973
Joined: Sat Oct 05, 2013 3:45 pm

Re: Pseudo-Hegesippus and the TF

Post by MrMacSon » Sun Oct 02, 2016 3:42 pm

MrMacSon wrote: It is also possible that the writing of the Jesus passage - the TF - was at a different [earlier] time to the time it was inserted/'landed' in the Antiquities.
Peter Kirby wrote: Sure. I thought that was implied. (If it is in the H.E. at a point in time when it is not in the Antiquities, which is quite possible.)
Sure. I thought when you said "The location, then, may be regarded as something fixed either during Eusebius' years or after, which would tend to exclude his predecessor from being the most likely culprit", that you were ruling out earlier origin of the passage (pun intended).


And, when you saliently and succinctly write -
Peter Kirby wrote:
In fact we have an example of this happening. Eusebius converted a quote of Origen into text of Josephus. It never got inserted, so far as we know.

Eusebius, H.E., 2.23.20.
Josephus, at least, has not hesitated to testify this in his writings, where he says, These things happened to the Jews to avenge James the Just, who was a brother of Jesus, that is called the Christ. For the Jews slew him, although he was a most just man.
Eusebius took this quote not from Josephus but rather, at second hand, from Origen (Commentary on Matthew 10.17).

http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/101610.htm
And to so great a reputation among the people for righteousness did this James rise, that Flavius Josephus, who wrote the Antiquities of the Jews in twenty books, when wishing to exhibit the cause why the people suffered so great misfortunes that even the temple was razed to the ground, said, that these things happened to them in accordance with the wrath of God in consequence of the things which they had dared to do against James the brother of Jesus who is called Christ. And the wonderful thing is, that, though he did not accept Jesus as Christ, he yet gave testimony that the righteousness of James was so great; and he says that the people thought that they had suffered these things because of James.
By itself, this only shows that Eusebius is capable of quoting Josephus without manuscript support (with high probability, anyway). It leaves open the possibility that Eusebius found this Testimonium somewhere else and thought it something Josephus said or would likely say (or that, like other quotes, it had already "landed"). It is primarily (but not exclusively) the work of Ken Olson that supports the opinion, to the contrary, that the text was more likely composed by Eusebius. And this other example supports the likelihood that Eusebius could quote it with or without first having it in a manuscript.
- it raises the point that a key person between Origen and Eusebius was Pamphilus. I'm not pushing Carrier's point of view: I just want people today to consider it and the wider view that there are likely to have been other people contributing to concepts and doctrines as they were developing in those times (and for us to consider the view that such doctrine was often developing serially).
Last edited by MrMacSon on Sun Oct 02, 2016 3:48 pm, edited 6 times in total.

User avatar
Secret Alias
Posts: 10786
Joined: Sun Apr 19, 2015 8:47 am

Re: Pseudo-Hegesippus and the TF

Post by Secret Alias » Sun Oct 02, 2016 3:43 pm

Is there a similar example which would seem to prove that Eusebius is capable of making something up from scratch without relying on an Origen, as it were?
Doesn't Jerome say as much when he charges that Eusebius edited most of the Alexandrian Church Fathers (but especially Origen) in order to purge them of heresy? The statement is made against Rufinus.
“Finally, from so little sleeping and so much reading, his brain dried up and he went completely out of his mind.”
― Miguel de Cervantes Saavedra, Don Quixote

User avatar
Peter Kirby
Site Admin
Posts: 5371
Joined: Fri Oct 04, 2013 2:13 pm
Location: Santa Clara
Contact:

Re: Pseudo-Hegesippus and the TF

Post by Peter Kirby » Sun Oct 02, 2016 3:57 pm

Ben C. Smith wrote:
Peter Kirby wrote:By itself, this only shows that Eusebius is capable of quoting Josephus without manuscript support (with high probability, anyway). It leaves open the possibility that Eusebius found this Testimonium somewhere else and thought it something Josephus said or would likely say (or that, like other quotes, it had already "landed"). It is primarily (but not exclusively) the work of Ken Olson that supports the opinion, to the contrary, that the text was more likely composed by Eusebius. And this other example supports the likelihood that Eusebius could quote it with or without first having it in a manuscript.
What I would love to see is a reasoned argument in favor of Eusebius having composed something himself while attributing it to somebody else. The example you cite is exactly the sort of thing which proves that Eusebius is capable of trusting other people's references either without checking them for himself or without daring to ask. Is there a similar example which would seem to prove that Eusebius is capable of making something up from scratch without relying on an Origen, as it were?

In his chapter of Eusebius of Caesarea: Tradition and Innovations, Ken Olson mentions Life of Constantine 2.5.3–41 as a possibility, of which he writes:

Modern scholars have long been skeptical about Licinius’ speech as recorded by Eusebius. Some defended Eusebius by claiming that he merely reports in good faith what his sources told him. In recent scholarship, however, there seems to be a tendency among commentators to ascribe the composition of Licinius’ speech to Eusebius himself.

But this is hardly a smoking gun, is it? This is a trend in scholarship, is it not? Olson continues:

If Cameron and Hall are correct, Eusebius apparently provided his own allegedly outside witness to the truth of Christianity.

That "if" is the catch here, since if the protasis is incorrect then Eusebius did once again as we can find him usually doing, quoting texts which, when and where we are able to check, do actually exist apart from Eusebius (works by the NT authors, the apostolic fathers, Josephus, Justin, Irenaeus, Clement, Origen, Abgar... the list goes on and on). So... is there a more ironclad example, one of equal weight to the example which demonstrates that Eusebius can misquote through a forebear in the faith?

(Note that this question is quite independent of whether the Testimonium is a forgery; it can still be a forgery without Eusebius having authored it.)
Good question, but I'm not sure Eusebius did it more than once, let alone that we can prove it. I tend to agree that he's rather observant of sources (this should be a doctoral dissertation or two - who's done this work?), so this may be his terrible sin. Perhaps there are other peccadillos, but I don't know offhand what they are. I'd assume, generally, that where the offense is real, so is the motive. So you'd have to ask where else Eusebius had good motive, if you wanted to pursue this further. (Perhaps regarding Origen himself, under attack at the time? Perhaps, but I don't know.)

In which case, you are right that the parallel example available is less valuable than a full parallel, but that's the trouble with parallels in general. The discussion always seems capable of moving to the discussion of difference. In this case, I think it is a distinction that makes a difference. But I'll still let it stand as reason to credit, generally, that Eusebius might have quoted or invented the passage on Jesus without having it in the text of Josephus before him. (Even though the parallel is only exact for the "quoted.")
What I would love to see is a reasoned argument in favor of Eusebius having composed something himself while attributing it to somebody else.
Unfortunately, the best such example that could be shown (with some real level of evidence) would, I guess, be the Testimonium. Other arguments would likely be weaker, unless there is something I don't know about, which is also quite possible -- and I'd also like to see it.

Whether those arguments on Eusebius and the TF "move the needle" for anyone, personally, is another question...

If someone thinks it stronger instead to propose a third or early fourth century creator of the TF that duped Eusebius, a likely culprit would be a list of extracts. This would preserve the argument about the confusion regarding where Jesus appears in Josephus (perhaps because it came next in the list).

I have a page on the (admittedly, later) examples but the practice in general is certainly ancient:
http://peterkirby.com/the-quotable-josephus.html
"... almost every critical biblical position was earlier advanced by skeptics." - Raymond Brown

User avatar
Ben C. Smith
Posts: 6631
Joined: Wed Apr 08, 2015 2:18 pm
Location: USA
Contact:

Re: Pseudo-Hegesippus and the TF

Post by Ben C. Smith » Sun Oct 02, 2016 4:00 pm

Secret Alias wrote:
Is there a similar example which would seem to prove that Eusebius is capable of making something up from scratch without relying on an Origen, as it were?
Doesn't Jerome say as much when he charges that Eusebius edited most of the Alexandrian Church Fathers (but especially Origen) in order to purge them of heresy? The statement is made against Rufinus.
Reference, please. (It is easy in spots to confuse the people named Eusebius in Against Rufinus.)
ΤΙ ΕΣΤΙΝ ΑΛΗΘΕΙΑ

Bernard Muller
Posts: 3242
Joined: Tue Oct 15, 2013 6:02 pm
Contact:

Re: Pseudo-Hegesippus and the TF

Post by Bernard Muller » Sun Oct 02, 2016 4:21 pm

That Eusebius claims the John passage came before the Jesus passage reasonably suggests that the Jesus passage had not yet landed in the pages of the Antiquities at the time that the statement was made. The location, then, may be regarded as something fixed either during Eusebius' years or after, which would tend to exclude his predecessor from being the most likely culprit
I thought that also and had that argument included in my webpage on the TF, as evidence for forgery. But when I discussed that with Carrier, he convinced me that the Greek just does not say that Eusebius had the main TF after the passage about John the Baptist. I therefore withdrew the argument. Carrier's comments are somewhere in one of his old blogs, but I cannot find them.

Cordially, Bernard
I believe freedom of expression should not be curtailed

User avatar
Peter Kirby
Site Admin
Posts: 5371
Joined: Fri Oct 04, 2013 2:13 pm
Location: Santa Clara
Contact:

Re: Pseudo-Hegesippus and the TF

Post by Peter Kirby » Sun Oct 02, 2016 4:25 pm

Bernard Muller wrote:
That Eusebius claims the John passage came before the Jesus passage reasonably suggests that the Jesus passage had not yet landed in the pages of the Antiquities at the time that the statement was made. The location, then, may be regarded as something fixed either during Eusebius' years or after, which would tend to exclude his predecessor from being the most likely culprit
I thought that also and had that argument included in my webpage on the TF, as evidence for forgery. But when I discussed that with Carrier, he convinced me that the Greek just does not say that Eusebius had the main TF after the passage about John the Baptist. I therefore withdrew the argument. Carrier's comments are somewhere in one of his old blogs, but I cannot find them.
IIRC, the argument works as well in English: "After..." supposed to refer to the way Eusebius quotes first and then continues after to quote again, instead of the way Josephus does anything.

If that's the gist of it, then:

a) It might be "possible" grammatically but not the best reading.
b) It would be stronger if supported by other examples of this construction when quoting, where it doesn't mean what it might seem to mean.
c) I'm not completely sure that it's "possible" grammatically (this would require a closer look, at the evidence including Carrier's evidence).

Then again, it's better if we could just find the sources here and look at them to see.
"... almost every critical biblical position was earlier advanced by skeptics." - Raymond Brown

User avatar
MrMacSon
Posts: 5973
Joined: Sat Oct 05, 2013 3:45 pm

Re: Pseudo-Hegesippus and the TF

Post by MrMacSon » Sun Oct 02, 2016 4:27 pm

I've started another thread on Eusebius for non-TF issues - http://www.earlywritings.com/forum/view ... f=3&t=2667

Post Reply