Biblical Criticism & History Forum - earlywritings.com

Ben C. Smith wrote: ↑Thu Oct 03, 2019 5:56 pm
According to Eusebius in History of the Church 4.22.1-9, Hegesippus spent quality time both in Corinth and in Rome, getting along with everybody in both places. It would seem odd to me that 1 Clement would be a bone of contention between Hegesippus and both churches, or did they, too, reject the epistle? Hegesippus is all about the unity of the "true church" against heresy; was 1 Clement considered heresy?

As for Eusebius, if the hypotheses about the interpolations are true, and if Stephen Gobar is correct about Hegesippus' comments about the eyes and ears saying, then poor Eusebius would have been confused, right? For him, the eyes and ears saying would have been found both in 1 Corinthians and in 1 Clement. If Hegesippus said something negative about it, but also something positive about 1 Clement overall, what would Eusebius have been left to think? That might be reason enough to skip Hegesippus' actual comments about 1 Clement.

You now what? Whether he was a Jewish Christian or not, I don't think Hegesippus was opposed to Paul (despite never mentioning him and what Photius/Gobar says, even if 1 Cor. 2:6-11 is genuine). I don't know how I ever missed seeing the answer before in EH 4.22.4:

"The same author [Hegesippus] also describes the beginnings of the heresies which arose in his time, in the following words: And after James the Just had suffered martyrdom, as the Lord had also on the same account, Symeon, the son of the Lord's uncle, Clopas, was appointed the next bishop. All proposed him as second bishop because he was a cousin of the Lord. Therefore, they called the Church a virgin, for it was not yet corrupted by vain discourses."

I figure from this that he didn't see Paul as having corrupted the Church with "vain discourses" if he thought it was a "virgin" up to the time Symeon became a bishop (sometime after c. 62 CE). This seems to be the case for James, who in my view reproves Paul in his letter and in Acts but doesn't reject him, and for the Nazarene branch of Jewish Christianity (which went back to the time of Jesus). And since Hegesippus revered James, it would follow that he wouldn't have rejected Paul either.

The position of the Gospel according to Matthew as the first of the four gospels in the New Testament reflects both the view that it was the first to be written, a view that goes back to the late second century A.D., and the esteem in which it was held by the church; no other was so frequently quoted in the noncanonical literature of earliest Christianity.

http://www.usccb.org/bible/matthew/0

John2 wrote: ↑Fri Oct 04, 2019 1:49 pmWhile I'm still thinking Hegesippus did not oppose Paul (and thus that if he was a Jewish Christian he was probably a Nazarene Jewish Christian), it occurred to me that since (in my view) James reproves Paul and calls him an "empty man" in his letter (over the issue of works and faith) but does not reject him, why couldn't Hegesippus similarly reprove Paul and 1 Clement and call them liars (over the issue of "no eyes/no ears") without otherwise rejecting them?

Ben C. Smith wrote: ↑Fri Oct 04, 2019 2:49 pm

John2 wrote: ↑Fri Oct 04, 2019 1:49 pmWhile I'm still thinking Hegesippus did not oppose Paul (and thus that if he was a Jewish Christian he was probably a Nazarene Jewish Christian), it occurred to me that since (in my view) James reproves Paul and calls him an "empty man" in his letter (over the issue of works and faith) but does not reject him, why couldn't Hegesippus similarly reprove Paul and 1 Clement and call them liars (over the issue of "no eyes/no ears") without otherwise rejecting them?

Gobar says that Hegesippus says that "these are empty words and that those who say them are liars since the holy scriptures say, 'Blessed are your eyes because they see and happy your ears because they hear,' and the rest." Does this not imply that, for Hegesippus, both Paul and Clement are liars? Furthermore, does it not imply that, for Hegesippus, 1 Corinthians 2.9 is not scripture? Would that not be a rejection of Paul, then? The gospels are scripture, but Paul is not. And I doubt Corinth and Rome felt this way about Paul by the time Hegesippus was doing his thing.

My brothers, if one of you should wander from the truth and someone should bring him back, consider this: Whoever turns a sinner from the error of his way will save his soul from death and cover over a multitude of sins.

John2 wrote: ↑Fri Oct 04, 2019 3:13 pmWell, but as I said, James (at least in my view) calls Paul an "empty man" (and over a much bigger issue than citing the OT correctly, at that)....

I wonder if James uses the same word for "empty" that Gobar says Hegesippus used for "empty" words....

...but James ultimately doesn't reject Paul.

Were Paul's letters scripture for everyone in the mid-second century CE? Were they for 1 Clement...?

The 19 hits for "scripture" that I get for 1 Clement appear to be only from the OT (including no eyes/no ears, as per pseudo-Philo).

And wasn't Marcion (who Hegesippus rejects) the first to "canonize" Paul's letters?

Ben C. Smith wrote: ↑Fri Oct 04, 2019 3:45 pm

John2 wrote: ↑Fri Oct 04, 2019 3:13 pm

I wonder if James uses the same word for "empty" that Gobar says Hegesippus used for "empty" words....

I need a reference.

James 2:20. (I'd give you the Greek but my go-to biblehub is acting funny at the moment and won't let me see it.)

...but James ultimately doesn't reject Paul.

I am not sure what this means in this context. I doubt James thought that Paul was inspired by the spirit when he wrote about faith and works.

Well, Hegesippus revered James, so I'm thinking what was good for the goose was good for the gander (i.e., James and Hegesippus had an issue with Paul but not to the extent that they viewed him as a heretic). But I take your point that regard for Paul was or may have been different in the first century CE than the second century CE.

These passages are relevant:

1 Clement 13.1b: 1b For the Holy Spirit says, "The one who is wise should not boast about his wisdom, nor the one who is strong about his strength, nor the one who is wealthy about his wealth; instead, the one who boasts should boast about the Lord, seeking after him and doing what is just and right" (= Jeremiah 9.23-24).

1 Clement 16.2: 2 Our Lord Jesus Christ, the Scepter of the majesty of God, did not come in the pomp of pride or arrogance, although He might have done so, but in a lowly condition, as the Holy Spirit had declared regarding Him. For He says.... [And here he quotes from Isaiah 53.]

1 Clement 45.2: 2 Look carefully into the Scriptures, which are the true utterances of the Holy Spirit.

1 Clement 47.1-3: 1 Take up the epistle of the blessed Apostle Paul. 2 What did he write to you at the time when the Gospel first began to be preached? 3 Truly, under the inspiration of the Spirit, he wrote to you concerning himself, and Cephas, and Apollos, because even then parties had been formed among you.

1 Clement 63.2: 2 For you will make us joyful and happy if you become obedient to what we have written through the Holy Spirit and excise the wanton anger expressed through your jealousy, in accordance with the request we have made in this letter for your peace and harmony.

That sounds pretty good, but just to be nitpicky, does 1 Clem 47.1-3 refer to all of the letter that Paul wrote to the Corinthians (in whatever form 1 Clement knew it), or only to the part "concerning himself, and Cephas, and Apollos"? And if 1 Clem. is viewing all of Paul's letter as scripture, is it also viewing itself as scripture (as per 63:2)?

The 19 hits for "scripture" that I get for 1 Clement appear to be only from the OT (including no eyes/no ears, as per pseudo-Philo).


Where in the OT do the following two come from?

1 Clement 23.3-4: 3 May this Scripture be far removed from us that says: “How miserable are those who are of two minds, who doubt in their soul, who say, ‘We have heard these things from the time of our parents, and look! We have grown old, and none of these things has happened to us.’ 4 You fools! Compare yourselves to a tree. Take a vine: first it sheds its leaves, then a bud appears, then a leaf, then a flower, and after these an unripe grape, and then an entire bunch fully grown.” You see that the fruit of the tree becomes ripe in just a short time.

1 Clement 46.2: 2 For it is written, “Cling to those who are holy; for those who cling to them will themselves be made holy.”

I don't know (which is why I said "appear" to come from the OT). Where do those citations come from then (out of curiosity)?

And wasn't Marcion (who Hegesippus rejects) the first to "canonize" Paul's letters?


I seriously doubt it.

Well, Marcion was at least quite fond of Paul to the exclusion of the other apostles and Hegesippus opposed him, so I reckon his fondness for Paul didn't make up for whatever his deficits were in Hegesippus' mind (not liking the other apostles, for one thing?). In other words, only liking Paul wasn't enough for Hegesippus, so perhaps he (for one) didn't view Paul's letters as scripture and thus felt free to criticize a part of them (a part that concerns what Hegesippus certainly regarded as scripture, i.e., the OT). Would that be a radical position to have in the mid-second century CE?

John2 wrote: ↑Fri Oct 04, 2019 5:02 pmJames 2:20. (I'd give you the Greek but my go-to biblehub is acting funny at the moment and won't let me see it.)

Well, Hegesippus revered James, so I'm thinking what was good for the goose was good for the gander (i.e., James and Hegesippus had an issue with Paul but not to the extent that they viewed him as a heretic). But I take your point that regard for Paul was or may have been different in the first century CE than the second century CE.

That sounds pretty good, but just to be nitpicky, does 1 Clem 47.1-3 refer to all of the letter that Paul wrote to the Corinthians (in whatever form 1 Clement knew it), or only to the part "concerning himself, and Cephas, and Apollos"? And if 1 Clem. is viewing all of Paul's letter as scripture, is it also viewing itself as scripture (as per 63:2)?

Well, Marcion was at least quite fond of Paul to the exclusion of the other apostles and Hegesippus opposed him, so I reckon his fondness for Paul didn't make up for whatever his deficits were in Hegesippus' mind (not liking the other apostles?).

In other words, only liking Paul wasn't enough for Hegesippus, so perhaps he (for one) didn't view Paul's letters as scripture and thus felt free to criticize a part of them (a part that concerns what Hegesippus certainly regarded as scripture, i.e., the OT). Would that be a radical position to have in the mid-second century CE?

... rather, 1 Clement is probably an example of "the true faith" which continued, according to Hegesippus, into Primus' time. To call its author a liar for having penned the saying about eyes and ears just does not fit into this scenario very well; it is more like what Hegesippus might say about the heresies which arose after Trajan, and, in fact, he writes about them with a present participle (φαμένους, "those who say" them).

John2 wrote: ↑Fri Oct 04, 2019 5:46 pm

... rather, 1 Clement is probably an example of "the true faith" which continued, according to Hegesippus, into Primus' time. To call its author a liar for having penned the saying about eyes and ears just does not fit into this scenario very well; it is more like what Hegesippus might say about the heresies which arose after Trajan, and, in fact, he writes about them with a present participle (φαμένους, "those who say" them).

But from Hegesippus' point of view the eyes and ears saying was a corruption of the OT, so his concern was only for that particular aspect in Paul and 1 Clement, even if he otherwise had respect for them. Would it be like saying "those who use that variant of the OT are wrong to do so" rather than "those who use it are wrong about everything"?

I don't know (which is why I said "appear" to come from the OT). Where do those citations come from then (out of curiosity)?