Photius, Bibliotheca 232, quoting or paraphrasing Stephen Gobar: Ὅτι τὰ ἡτοιμασμένα τοῖς δικαίοις ἀγαθὰ οὔτε ὀφθαλμὸς εἶδεν οὔτε οὖς ἤκουσεν οὔτε ἐπὶ καρδίαν ἀνθρώπου ἀνέβη. Ἡγήσιππος μέντοι, ἀρχαῖός τε ἀνὴρ καὶ ἀποστολικός, ἐν τῷ πέμπτῳ τῶν ὑπομνημάτων, οὐκ οἶδ' ὅ τι καὶ παθών, μάτην μὲν εἰρῆσθαι ταῦτα λέγει, καὶ καταψεύδεσθαι τοὺς ταῦτα φαμένους τῶν τε θειῶν γραφῶν καὶ τοῦ Κυρίου λέγοντος· «Μακάριοι οἱ ὀφθαλμοὶ ὑμῶν οἱ βλέποντες καὶ τὰ ὦτα ὑμῶν τὰ ἀκούοντα» καὶ ἑξῆς. / [Thesis:] The good things prepared for the just the eye has not seen, the ears have not heard, and they are not found in the heart of man. [Antithesis:] However Hegesippus, one of the ancients, a contemporary of the apostles, in the fifth book of his Commentaries [in I do not know what context], says that these are empty words and that those who say them are liars since the Holy Scriptures and the Lord both say, "Blessed are your eyes because they see and happy your ears because they hear," and the rest.
From this notice it is often inferred that Hegesippus, as many Jewish Christians are reported as doing, rejected Paul, since it is Paul who pens these words in 1 Corinthians 2.9: ἃ ὀφθαλμὸς οὐκ εἶδεν καὶ οὗς οὐκ ἤκουσεν καὶ ἐπὶ καρδίαν ἀνθρώπου οὐκ ἀνέβη, ἃ ἡτοίμασεν ὁ θεὸς τοῖς ἀγαπῶσιν αὐτόν. I have until now allowed Hegesippus to be rejecting Paul here, but it has never made much sense to me, and now I am looking into the matter on its own merits (rather than as merely attached to other issues, such as the ending of the Didache).
I have to say, though, that I am not at all convinced that Hegesippus is being correctly quoted here. First of all, it bears mention that we are reading Photius, who is reading Gobar, who is reading Hegesippus. The phrase which I bracketed above ("in I do not know what context," which has also been translated as, "I do not know quite what he meant," or, "how moved I know not") seems to come from Photius, not from Gobar, since the latter has no reason whatsoever to express incredulity at an early father contradicting the received wisdom; indeed, the whole point of his Miscellanies appears to be the contradictions which one is able to find at a moment's notice in the Christian record. Harnack writes, "This remark is by Photius, since he never makes Gobarus speak in the first person." There may be other paraphrases or insertions along the line, as well. Gobar must be viewed as highly tendentious here. Not that either Photius or Hegesippus ought to be excused from suspicions of the same, but Gobar is simply laying out contradictions, and he has every motive to play them up when he finds them, not to play them down. Thus Harnack writes:
From the historical point of view the most interesting statement made by Gobarus is the quotation from Hegesippus. It reads: τὰ ἡτοιμασμένα τοῖς δικαίοις ἀγαθὰ οὔτε ὀφθαλμὸς εἶδεν οὔτε οὖς ἤκουσεν οὔτε ἐπὶ καρδίαν ἀνθρώπου ἀνέβη. Ἡγήσιππος μέντοι, ἀρχαῖός τε ἀνὴρ καὶ ἀποστολικός, ἐν τῷ πέμπτῳ τῶν Ὑπομνημάτων [the following words: οὐκ οἶδ' ὅ τι καὶ παθών, belong to Photius] μάτην μὲν εἰρῆσθαι ταῦτα λέγει, καὶ καταψεύδεσθαι τοὺς ταῦτα φαμένους τῶν τε θειῶν γραφῶν καὶ τοῦ Κυρίου λέγοντος· Μακάριοι οἱ ὀφθαλμοὶ ὑμῶν οἱ βλέποντες καὶ τὰ ὦτα ὑμῶν τὰ ἀκούοντα, καὶ ἑξῆς. The statement "in the fifth book" gives to the quotation a special degree of certainty. That Hegesippus attacked Paul is extremely unlikely, first because he gives the citation in a form different from that of Paul in 1 Corinthians 2,9, secondly because he speaks of more than one who use (or misuse) the saying, and finally because in Paul himself it is a quotation, and we know numerous passages in which it is cited as a word of Scripture or of the Lord. The real state of things can only be as follows: Hegesippus had in mind in his polemic heretics who misused the saying for their celestial fantasies, and did not remember that it is found in Paul as well. But Gobarus knew the saying only as Pauline, and, finding it rejected in Hegesippus, seized on it in order to show that even an ancient and apostolic man had contradicted an apostle. Could there be a stronger testimony to the uncertainty of tradition? Whether Gobarus had the citation at first or second hand, cannot be certainly determined; but the exactness of the formula of citation favors the former assumption.
He is correct about the form of the quotation being different. Here is the comparison in the Greek:
1 Corinthians 2.9: ἀλλὰ καθὼς γέγραπται, ἃ ὀφθαλμὸς οὐκ εἶδεν καὶ οὗς οὐκ ἤκουσεν καὶ ἐπὶ καρδίαν ἀνθρώπου οὐκ ἀνέβη, ἃ ἡτοίμασεν ὁ θεὸς τοῖς ἀγαπῶσιν αὐτόν.
Gobar: τὰ ἡτοιμασμένα τοῖς δικαίοις ἀγαθὰ οὔτε ὀφθαλμὸς εἶδεν οὔτε οὖς ἤκουσεν οὔτε ἐπὶ καρδίαν ἀνθρώπου ἀνέβη.
Gobar: τὰ ἡτοιμασμένα τοῖς δικαίοις ἀγαθὰ οὔτε ὀφθαλμὸς εἶδεν οὔτε οὖς ἤκουσεν οὔτε ἐπὶ καρδίαν ἀνθρώπου ἀνέβη.
The word order and construction are different, and the underlined bits in Gobar (especially "good things to the just") find no parallel in Paul. Clement follows the Pauline formulation far more closely:
1 Clement 34.8: Λέγει γάρ· «Ὀφθαλμὸς οὐκ εἶδεν, καὶ οὖς οὐκ ἤκουσεν καὶ ἐπὶ καρδίαν ἀνθρώπου οὐκ ἀνέβη, ὅσα ἡτοίμασεν κύριος τοῖς ὑπομένουσιν αὐτόν.» / For He says, "Eye has not seen, and ear has not heard, and it has not entered into the heart of man what great things He has prepared for those who patiently await Him."
The underlined parts are deviations from Paul ("as many as" instead of "which," "Lord" for "God," and "wait upon" for "love"). The word order is exactly the same. Lightfoot agrees that Hegesippus is not arguing against Paul:
Lightfoot, Essays on the Work Entitled Supernatural Religion, pages 11-12: Again, when [the author of Supernatural Religion] reproduces the Tübingen fallacy respecting 'the strong prejudice' of Hegesippus against St. Paul, and quotes the often-quoted passage from Stephanus Gobarus, in which this writer refers to the language of Hegesippus condemning the use of the words, 'Eye hath not seen,' &c., why does he not state that these words were employed by heretical teachers to justify their rites of initiation, and consequently 'apologetic' writers contend that Hegesippus refers to the words, not as used by St. Paul, but as misapplied by these heretics? Since, according to the Tübingen interpretation, this single notice contradicts everything else which we now of the opinions of Hegesippus, the view of 'apologists' might, perhaps, have been worth a moment's consideration.
I wish to add to these observations, however:
- Elsewhere Hegesippus seems to reflect rather than reject Pauline terminology. For example, Eusebius reports him as referring to the Jewish people as "the circumcision" in History of the Church 4.22.7. This usage sounds Pauline; refer to Romans 4.12; 15.8; Galatians 2.12; Colossians 2.11; 4.11; Titus 1.10. Another phrase, "to each according to his works," which Eusebius quotes from him in 2.23.9, matches Romans 2.6 perfectly: ἑκάστῳ κατὰ τὰ ἔργα αὐτοῦ.
- In History of the Church 3.16[.1], Eusebius writes of Hegesippus that he "is a trustworthy witness that a tumult did take place in that of the Corinthians at the time referred to" in 1 Clement. In 4.22.1-2, Eusebius tells us that Hegesippus made some remarks about 1 Clement, after which he wrote, "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. And when I had come to Rome I remained there until Anicetus...." These passages create a triangle of associations: 1 Clement is a letter from the Roman church to the Corinthian church; Hegesippus was refreshed in the true faith in Corinth; and Hegesippus also visited Rome. To these associations we may add the observation that 1 Clement both includes the quote about eyes not seeing and ears not hearing (in 34.8) and speaks very approvingly of Paul. While I admit it is possible that Eusebius has skipped over incriminating evidence in Hegesippus to the effect that he rejected both Paul and 1 Clement (for how could he accept the latter and reject the former?), I would like to see the argument for this. Were the churches of Corinth and Rome in agreement with him, as representatives of "the true faith," that 1 Clement and Paul were both to be condemned? Hegesippus seems preoccupied with sussing out heresies and tracing lines of episcopal succession. Was Paul one of the heresies? Did Hegesippus repudiate the very founder of the church in Corinth?
- Then there is this quote from History of the Church 3.32.7-8: "In addition to these things the same man, while recounting the events of that period, records that the church up to that time had remained a pure and uncorrupted virgin, since, if there were any that attempted to corrupt the sound norm of the preaching of salvation, they lay until then concealed in obscure darkness. But, when the sacred college of apostles had suffered death in various forms and the generation of those that had been deemed worthy to hear the inspired wisdom with their own ears had passed away, then the league of godless error took its rise as a result of the folly of heretical teachers, who, because none of the apostles was still living, attempted henceforth with a bold face to proclaim, in opposition to the preaching of the truth, knowledge falsely called." If Eusebius has cited Hegesippus accurately here, then Hegesippus himself assigned the rise of the heresies to the time immediately succeeding the deaths of the apostles. If this is the case, when would Hegesippus have dated Paul? How can Paul be heretical if he precedes the deaths of the apostles?
One final consideration. How certain are we that Hegesippus was Jewish? Eusebius writes in 4.22.8 that "he quotes some passages in the Hebrew tongue, showing that he was a convert from the Hebrews." Is that enough? He knew Hebrew? At the very least we ought to notice that Eusebius is surmising that Hegesippus came from Hebrew lineage; apparently he found no explicit statement to that effect in the Memoirs themselves! I ask because IIRC Lightfoot somewhere denies outright that Hegesippus was a Jewish Christian (I cannot find the quotation right now, but I am pretty sure I remember reading it). And, even if Hegesippus was indeed a Jewish Christian, there is no expectation on that account alone that he would have rejected Paul. He could easily have held beliefs similar to those of the Nazarenes mentioned by Jerome, who avers that they accepted Paul (and refer also to Acts 24.5):
Jerome, On Isaiah 9.1: The Nazarenes, whose opinion I have set forth above, try to explain this passage in the following way: When Christ came and his preaching shone out, the land of ZebuIon and Naphtali first of all were freed from the errors of the Scribes and Pharisees and he shook off their shoulders the very heavy yoke of the Jewish traditions. Later, however, the preaching became more dominant, that means the preaching was multiplied, through the Gospel of the apostle Paul who was the last of all the apostles. And the Gospel of Christ shone to the most distant tribes and the way of the whole sea. Finally the whole world, which earlier walked or sat in darkness and was imprisoned in the bonds of idolatry and death, has seen the clear light of the Gospel. [Translation comes courtesy of Ray A. Pritz, Nazarene Jewish Christianity, page 64.]
(Even Epiphanius claims in Panarion 29.7.2 that the Nazarenes used the New Testament, which presumably would include Paul.)
At any rate, these are my reasons for suspecting that something is wrong with that quotation of Hegesippus as mediated by Photius and Stephen Gobar. What do you think?
Ben.