Biblical Criticism & History Forum - earlywritings.com

Notice the story is placed during the reign of Julian in Severs but Justinian in the Suda.

No the Suda is later

Secret Alias wrote:Interesting point. But why also Hegesippus (in Epiphanius)?

Hypothesis: The (fifth, at least) book of 'Hegesippus' was in a library at Alexandria, mislabeled by someone (possibly but not necessarily by a Jew or a Christian) as 'Josephus'.

http://stephanhuller.blogspot.com/2010/ ... -used.html

The existence of a chronographer of the tenth year of Antoninus Pius (AD 147-148) has been assumed in explanation of the curious coincidence that both Clement of Alexandria (once) and Epiphanius (once) employ this year as a term in chronological calculations. The latter interrupts his series of bishops of Jerusalem, after the twentieth bishop Julianus, with the note 'all these down to the tenth year of A. Pius,' Haer. lxvi 1.... [Journal of Theological Studies 1900 p. 193 - 194]

Development of said hypothesis:

http://peterkirby.com/chasing-hegesippus.html

BTW, apparently we've had this rodeo before:

http://bcharchive.org/2/thearchives/sho ... l?t=316587

PS -- It's also possible that Papias and 'Hegesippus' were the same person, in which case Papias' fifth book was mislabeled 'Josephus' by a pagan, then relabeled 'Hegesippus' by philologically-minded Christians (circa Origen). Hypothesis here:

http://peterkirby.com/that-hegesippus-was-papias.html

I even think Irenaeus's church list in Adv Haer 3.3.2 is from Hegesippus (without citation). I am not the only one.

This would bolster the 'Hegesippus'=Papias suggestion, as Papias is clearly known to Irenaeus (Adv. Haer. 5.33), while "Hegesippus" as "Hegesippus" himself is a complete non-entity until Eusebius of Caesarea names him, possibly excepting the references to a "Josephus" from Clement and Origen (the Alexandrian fathers).

Unfortunately the data may not permit certainty on these matters.

Did you see the new evidence from the Suda and Severus (10th century)? You're paper is already outdated. My work needs revision.

Secret Alias wrote:Did you see the new evidence from the Suda? You're paper is already outdated. My work needs revision.

Please present it clearly, with quotations made in this thread. Just reading the forum is taxing enough.

I will let Ben do it. I am not good at expressing things in a straightforward manner. The basic idea is that a text referred to as a 'hypomnemata' and written by Josephus has features which resemble what we know about Hegesippus's hypomnemata especially with regards to the family of Jesus being of priestly descent ultimately heading the Jerusalem Church after the destruction of the temple. The text seems to have been preserved in Egypt (hence Severus's reference) and is likely IMO one and the same with Clement's text The Suda is copying out the same report as Severus. It is not an independent report.

I apologize that all this research has made the thread difficult to read. But I figure err on the side of completeness.

Already Block the translator of the Latin Pseudo-Hegesippus (a Variant of Jewish War) says Hegesippus " may be a corruption of Iosippus, the spelling of Josephus in many of the manuscripts."

Peter Kirby wrote:

Secret Alias wrote:Did you see the new evidence from the Suda? You're paper is already outdated. My work needs revision.

Please present it clearly, with quotations made in this thread. Just reading the forum is taxing enough.

Secret Alias wrote:I will let Ben do it. I am not good at expressing things in a straightforward manner. The basic idea is that a text referred to as a 'hypomnemata' and written by Josephus has features which resemble what we know about Hegesippus's hypomnemata especially with regards to the family of Jesus being of priestly descent ultimately heading the Jerusalem Church after the destruction of the temple. The text seems to have been preserved in Egypt (hence Severus's reference) and is likely IMO one and the same with Clement's text The Suda is copying out the same report as Severus. It is not an independent report.

Not sure why I am the secretary all of a sudden, and I do not fully understand his point(s)... like, ever... but I believe he is referring especially to the following from the Suda, and particularly to the use of ὑπομνήματα (memoirs):


Jesus serving in the holy place sounds a bit like James serving in the holy place in Hegesippus, and Stephan thinks that "the Jesus reference sets up the James reference which sets up the descendants of Jesus (also reference by Eusebius in the Vespasian section in Church History) being the heads of the Jerusalem Church. If the Suda had said 'Hegessipus' here it would have been taken to be a missing piece in the puzzle that is Hegesippus's Memoirs. But now that it is clearly 'Josephus' and he makes countless allusions to his familiarity with Antiquities it has to be a reference to the manuscript known to Clement."

Full context: viewtopic.php?f=3&t=2075&start=480#p46676 (Stephan).
Parallel from Severus: viewtopic.php?f=3&t=2075&start=500#p46699 (Andrew).

General question: why is it "memoirs of his captivity" (αἰχμαλωσίας αὐτοῦ ὑπομνήμασιν)? What does that mean? I know that the War can sometimes be called the Capture, but this is a different word.

Ben.

Has anyone noted this book?

(Luther, Heinrich) Josephus & Justus of Tiberias (German Inaugeral Dis, 1910, ET by Caroline Disler, Martin Fischer & Steve Mason, 2008)
http://www.preteristarchive.com/Books/p ... berias.pdf

The writer seems to be a bit opinionated and at times unfairly critical of both Josephus & Justus, more so than can be justified by the scanty and lopsided evidence we do have.

The entire issue of when they wrote what, including the likely years(s) in which Agrippa II could have died, is fully covered.

Yet he speeds along too fast for me, assuming I already know many things about the relationships between Josephus' accounts of events addressed in the War, his Autobiography/Life and Against Apion, that I, in fact, do not. <Boo hoo>

DCH (I am cook today ...)

I think I saw that but it was one of those 'internet reads' (just looking for one particular word or idea). Will read it later certainly David.

It is worth noting that the term αἰχμαλωσίας does appear in an important part of 1 Esdras which I think Josephus cites from in Antiquities rather than the expected Ezra:

The people of Israel who came from exile kept the passover on the fourteenth day of the first month, after the priests and the Levites were purified together. 11 Not all of the returned captives (αἰχμαλωσίας) were purified, but the Levites were all purified together (1 Esdras 7:11)

Then Ezra set out and went from the court of the temple to the chamber of Jehohanan son of Eliashib, 2 and spent the night there; and he did not eat bread or drink water, for he was mourning over the great iniquities of the multitude. 3 And a proclamation was made throughout Judea and Jerusalem to all who had returned from exile (αἰχμαλωσίας) that they should assemble at Jerusalem, 4 and that if any did not meet there within two or three days, in accordance with the decision of the ruling elders, their livestock would be seized for sacrifice and the men themselves expelled from the multitude of those who had returned from the captivity (αἰχμαλωσίας). (1 Esdras 9:3 - 4)

Thank you Ben. I am trying to distance myself from this so that it can be properly digested.