Eusebius Dates Hegesippus to the "Generation After the Apostles"

Discussion about the New Testament, apocrypha, gnostics, church fathers, Christian origins, historical Jesus or otherwise, etc.
Secret Alias
Posts: 18362
Joined: Sun Apr 19, 2015 8:47 am

Eusebius Dates Hegesippus to the "Generation After the Apostles"

Post by Secret Alias »

The records were received and presented by Eusebius with the highest esteem: “Hegesippus...belongs to the generation after the Apostles, gives the most accurate (ἀκριβέστατα) account of him (James).”25 This would seem to be indeed an intentional exaggeration on the part of Eusebius, for Hegesippus's career can and should be dated with much certainty to the latter decades of the second century. https://books.google.com/books?id=FdsyA ... 22&f=false
25 Compare his appraisal in HE, IV, 8, 1 and IV, 22, 1. It is interesting to note that in Rufinus's translation of Eusebius's comment the reference to Hegesippus's accuracy has been dropped. On Hegesippus’s life, career, and work, see the short survey by
T. Halton, “Hegesippus in Eusebius,” StPat 17 (1982), 3: 688–93, and the still invaluable
study on Hegesippus’s Hypomnemata by Niels Hyldahl, “Hegesipps Hypomnemata,”
STh 14 (1960): 70–113; for an updated bibliography on Hegesippus, see now
O. Skarsaune, “Fragments of Jewish Christian Literature Quoted in Some Greek and
Latin Fathers,” in Jewish Believers in Jesus: The Early Centuries, eds., O. Skarsaune
and R. Havalvik (Peabody, 2007), 338–45 at 338 note 42. Eusebius’s total reliance on
Hegesippus’s Memoires in matters relating to the Apostolic and Post-Apostolic periods
is in need of closer scrutiny which is beyond the scope of this article. Suffice it to
point out here that his dating of Hegesippus as belonging to “the generation after the
Apostles” is in the least an exaggeration, for he flourished during the second half of
the second century. To what ought we attribute this inaccuracy and excessive praise
of this source? Should Eusebius’s choice here be attributed to the lack of sources at
his disposal or was it a deliberate choice? While I am yet unsure of the answer, I
think that William Adler’s recent work on Julius Africanus, who could certainly have
been yet another potential Christian informant on that period, demonstrates how he
glossed over this period, cf. W. Adler, “Iulius Africanus: Chronographiae—The Extant
Fragments,” ed. M. Wallraff et al. and trans. W. Adler), GCS NF Bd. 15 (Berlin, 2007),
XV–XVI. Some scholars have accepted at face value Eusebius’s assertion that Hegesippus
was of Jewish stock (cf. G. Lüdemann, Opposition to Paul in Jewish Christianity
(Minneapolis, 1989), 167), which would seem reasonable enough. See however,
W. Telfer’s opposite view (infra, note 35). Recently it has been asserted that Hegesippus’s
account of James’s martyrdom was probably based on “some sort of Grundschrift,”
see Sh. Mitchell, Perfect Martyr: The Stoning of Stephen and the Construction
of Christian Identity (Oxford, 2010), 82–4, see further infra, 819.
“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
MrMacSon
Posts: 8798
Joined: Sat Oct 05, 2013 3:45 pm

Re: Eusebius Dates Hegesippus to the "Generation After the Apostles"

Post by MrMacSon »

Secret Alias wrote: Thu Jul 19, 2018 12:08 pm
The records were received and presented by Eusebius with the highest esteem: “Hegesippus...belongs to the generation after the Apostles, gives the most accurate (ἀκριβέστατα) account of him (James).”25 This would seem to be indeed an intentional exaggeration on the part of Eusebius, for Hegesippus's career can and should be dated with much certainty to the latter decades of the second century. https://books.google.com/books?id=FdsyA ... 22&f=false
25 ... dating of Hegesippus as belonging to “the generation after the Apostles” ... he flourished during the second half of the second century. To what ought we attribute this inaccuracy and excessive praise of this source?
Reference to the Apostles having lived in the 2nd century?
Secret Alias
Posts: 18362
Joined: Sun Apr 19, 2015 8:47 am

Re: Eusebius Dates Hegesippus to the "Generation After the Apostles"

Post by Secret Alias »

[Hegesippus] flourished during the second half of the second century
“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
MrMacSon
Posts: 8798
Joined: Sat Oct 05, 2013 3:45 pm

Re: Eusebius Dates Hegesippus to the "Generation After the Apostles"

Post by MrMacSon »

Secret Alias wrote: Thu Jul 19, 2018 12:24 pm [Hegesippus] flourished during the second half of the second century
Yep, so if Hegesippus ''belongs to the generation after the Apostles'', then the implication is that the Apostles 'belong to the generation before Hegesippus' ie. mid second century.
Secret Alias
Posts: 18362
Joined: Sun Apr 19, 2015 8:47 am

Re: Eusebius Dates Hegesippus to the "Generation After the Apostles"

Post by Secret Alias »

This is the way a partisan reads ancient texts. Not a serious researcher. Do you really think Eusebius (the source) is saying this? Really?
“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
MrMacSon
Posts: 8798
Joined: Sat Oct 05, 2013 3:45 pm

Re: Eusebius Dates Hegesippus to the "Generation After the Apostles"

Post by MrMacSon »

Secret Alias wrote: Thu Jul 19, 2018 12:43 pm Do you really think Eusebius (the source) is saying this? Really?
Saying what? Eusebius was overtly saying that the Apostles were mid 2nd century? Of course not ...

I'm saying it might be a sign Eusebius' mask had slipped or his sleight of hand had (+/- others who concurrently or subsequently laid down the 'history' of the church).
User avatar
Peter Kirby
Site Admin
Posts: 8024
Joined: Fri Oct 04, 2013 2:13 pm
Location: Santa Clara
Contact:

Re: Eusebius Dates Hegesippus to the "Generation After the Apostles"

Post by Peter Kirby »

We have pretty direct indications regarding what era Eusebius considered to be the apostolic period.

https://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/npnf20 ... xxiii.html
1. At that time the apostle and evangelist John, the one whom Jesus loved, was still living in Asia, and governing the churches of that region, having returned after the death of Domitian from his exile on the island.740
2. And that he was still alive at that time741 may be established by the testimony of two witnesses. They should be trustworthy who have maintained the orthodoxy of the Church; and such indeed were Irenæus and Clement of Alexandria.742
3. The former in the second book of his work Against Heresies, writes as follows:743 “And all the elders that associated with John the disciple of the Lord in Asia bear witness that John delivered it to them. For he remained among them until the time of Trajan.”744
4. And in the third book of the same work he attests the same thing in the following words:745 “But the church in Ephesus also, which was founded by Paul, and where John remained until the time of Trajan, is a faithful witness of the apostolic tradition.”

https://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/npnf20 ... .xxxi.html
1. The time and the manner of the death of Paul and Peter as well as their burial places, have been already shown by us.853
2. The time of John’s death has also been given in a general way,854 but his burial place is indicated by an epistle of Polycrates855 (who was bishop of the parish of Ephesus), addressed to Victor,856 bishop of Rome. In this epistle he mentions him together with the apostle Philip and his daughters in the following words:857
3. “For in Asia also great lights have fallen asleep, which shall rise again on the last day, at the coming of the Lord, when he shall come with glory from heaven and shall seek out all the saints. Among these are Philip, one of the twelve apostles,858 who sleeps in Hierapolis,859 and his two aged virgin daughters, and another daughter who lived in the Holy Spirit and now rests at Ephesus;860 and
163
moreover John, who was both a witness861 and a teacher, who reclined upon the bosom of the Lord, and being a priest wore the sacerdotal plate.862 He also sleeps at Ephesus.”863
4. So much concerning their death. And in the Dialogue of Caius which we mentioned a little above,864 Proclus,865 against whom he directed his disputation, in agreement with what has been quoted,866 speaks thus concerning the death of Philip and his daughters: “After him867 there were four prophetesses, the daughters of Philip, at Hierapolis in Asia. Their tomb is there and the tomb of their father.” Such is his statement.
5. But Luke, in the Acts of the Apostles, mentions the daughters of Philip who were at that time at Cæsarea in Judea with their father, and were honored with the gift of prophecy. His words are as follows: “We came unto Cæsarea; and entering into the house of Philip the evangelist, who was one of the seven, we abode with him. Now this man had four daughters, virgins, which did prophesy.”868
6. We have thus set forth in these pages what has come to our knowledge concerning the apostles themselves and the apostolic age, and concerning the sacred writings which they have left us, as well as concerning those which are disputed, but nevertheless have been publicly used by many in a great number of churches,869 and moreover, concerning those that are altogether rejected and are out of harmony with apostolic orthodoxy. Having done this, let us now proceed with our history.

Eusebius considered the apostolic age to extend, at minimum (probably, also, at maximum), to the time of the reign of Trajan (98-117 CE). In the terms we're using in the thread here, that is "early second century."

Similarly, Symeon is also claimed to have died under Trajan. - http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/npnf201 ... xxxii.html
Reference to the Apostles having lived in the 2nd century?
See above. Eusebius claims that the apostles lived in the first and into the 2nd century.
"... almost every critical biblical position was earlier advanced by skeptics." - Raymond Brown
User avatar
Peter Kirby
Site Admin
Posts: 8024
Joined: Fri Oct 04, 2013 2:13 pm
Location: Santa Clara
Contact:

Re: Eusebius Dates Hegesippus to the "Generation After the Apostles"

Post by Peter Kirby »

Eusebius refers to Hegesippus for a statement where "heresy" became popular after the last apostles died, under Trajan.

http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/npnf201 ... xxxii.html
6. He [Hegesippus] writes as follows: “They came, therefore, and took the lead of every church884 as witnesses885 and as relatives of the Lord. And profound peace being established in every church, they remained until the reign of the Emperor Trajan,886 and until the above-mentioned Symeon, son of Clopas, an uncle of the Lord, was informed against by the heretics, and was himself in like manner accused for the same cause887 before the governor Atticus.888 And after being tortured for many days he suffered martyrdom, and all, including even the proconsul, marveled that, at the age of one hundred and twenty years, he could endure so much. And orders were given that he should be crucified.”

7. 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.

8. 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,889 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, the ‘knowledge which is falsely so-called.’890

"... almost every critical biblical position was earlier advanced by skeptics." - Raymond Brown
User avatar
Peter Kirby
Site Admin
Posts: 8024
Joined: Fri Oct 04, 2013 2:13 pm
Location: Santa Clara
Contact:

Re: Eusebius Dates Hegesippus to the "Generation After the Apostles"

Post by Peter Kirby »

I have previously explored many aspects of "Hegesippus" here:

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

More people should be aware of the details involved in trying to date the work of "Hegesippus."

Book IV, Chapter 6 [of Eusebius], discusses the revolt under Hadrian. Chapter 7 discusses heretics from Pius to Anicetus in Rome and leads into some of the subsequent orthodox writers, Hegesippus and Justin Martyr. Book IV, Chapter 8, discusses Justin Martyr, saying he wrote in the reign of Antoninus. Chapter 9 continues quoting from Justin Martyr, and Chapter 10 discusses bishops in Rome and Alexandria in the reign of Antoninus.

Eusebius, Ecclesiastical History, 4.7.15 – 4.8.3. Nevertheless, in those times the truth again called forth many champions who fought in its defense against the godless heresies, refuting them not only with oral, but also with written arguments. Among these Hegesippus was well known. We have already quoted his words a number of times, relating events which happened in the time of the apostles according to his account. He records in five books the true tradition of apostolic doctrine in a most simple style, and he indicates the time in which he flourished when he writes as follows concerning those that first set up idols: “To whom they erected cenotaphs and temples, as is done to the present day. Among whom is also Antinoüs, a slave of the Emperor Adrian, in whose honor are celebrated also the Antinoian games, which were instituted in our day. For he [i.e. Adrian] also founded a city named after Antinoüs, and appointed prophets.” At the same time also Justin, a genuine lover of the true philosophy, was still continuing to busy himself with Greek literature. He indicates this time in the Apology which he addressed to Antonine, where he writes as follows: “We do not think it out of place to mention here Antinoüs also, who lived in our day, and whom all were driven by fear to worship as a god, although they knew who he was and whence he came.” (link)

Ὅμως δ’ οὖν κατὰ τοὺς δηλουμένους αὖθις παρῆγεν εἰς μέσον ἡ ἀλήθεια πλείους ἑαυτῆς ὑπερμάχους, οὐ δι’ ἀγράφων αὐτὸ μόνον ἐλέγχων, ἀλλὰ καὶ δι’ ἐγγράφων ἀποδείξεων κατὰ τῶν ἀθέων αἱρέσεων στρατευομένους· ἐν τούτοις ἐγνωρίζετο Ἡγήσιππος, οὗ πλείσταις ἤδη πρότερον κεχρήμεθα φωναῖς, ὡς ἂν ἐκ τῆς αὐτοῦ παραδόσεως τινὰ τῶν κατὰ τοὺς ἀποστόλους παραθέμενοι. ἐν πέντε δ’ οὖν συγγράμμασιν οὗτος τὴν ἀπλανῆ παράδοσιν τοῦ ἀποστολικοῦ κηρύγματος ἁπλουστάτῃ συντάξει γραφῆς ὑπομνηματισάμενος, καθ’ ὃν ἐγνωρίζετο σημαίνει χρόνον, περὶ τῶν ἀρχῆθεν ἱδρυσάντων τὰ εἴδωλα οὕτω πως γράφων· »οἷς κενοτάφια καὶ ναοὺς ἐποίησαν ὡς μέχρι νῦν· ὧν ἐστιν καὶ Ἀντίνοος, δοῦλος Ἁδριανοῦ Καίσαρος, οὗ καὶ ἀγὼν ἄγεται Ἀντινόειος, ὁ ἐφ’ ἡμῶν γενόμενος. καὶ γὰρ πόλιν ἔκτισεν ἐπώνυμον Ἀντινόου καὶ προφήτας». κατ’ αὐτὸν δὲ καὶ Ἰουστῖνος, γνήσιος τῆς ἀληθοῦς φιλοσοφίας ἐραστής, ἔτι τοῖς παρ’ Ἕλλησιν ἀσκούμενος ἐνδιέτριβεν λόγοις. σημαίνει δὲ καὶ αὐτὸς τουτονὶ τὸν χρόνον ἐν τῇ πρὸς Ἀντωνῖνον ἀπολογίᾳ ὧδε γράφων· »οὐκ ἄτοπον δὲ ἐπιμνησθῆναι ἐν τούτοις ἡγούμεθα καὶ Ἀντινόου τοῦ νῦν γενομένου, ὃν καὶ ἅπαντες ὡς θεὸν διὰ φόβον σέβειν ὥρμηντο, ἐπιστάμενοι τίς τε ἦν καὶ πόθεν ὑπῆρχεν». (TLG)

This explicitly mentions an interest in determining the date in which the author flourished (most naturally understood as the time in which he composed his texts), comes in a discussion of the Antonine period, sets the text of Hegesippus next to Justin Martyr chronologically, and quotes a very similar passage to the one in Justin in order to support the conclusion that Hegesippus flourished in the reign of Antoninus. We may suppose that here, above all, is where Eusebius took the most care in figuring out what he thinks about the date of Hegesippus. The answer is that Hegesippus comes from the Antonine period.

This is consistent with the evidence from Clement of Alexandria suggesting that Hegesippus (called there Josephus) contained a chronological calculation involving the tenth year of Antoninus (concluding with that year). It is contra-indicated by an error of memory that Eusebius makes in an incidental reference to Hegesippus in his discussion of Justin Martyr, which leads most people to repeat the 170 AD date (which must actually be 175-189 AD for the chronology of Eleutherus in Eusebius) assigned to Hegesippus. Here is that reference:

Eusebius, Ecclesiastical History, 4.11.7. And in Rome Pius died in the fifteenth year of his episcopate, and Anicetus assumed the leadership of the Christians there. Hegesippus records that he himself was in Rome at this time, and that he remained there until the episcopate of Eleutherus. (link)

καὶ κατὰ τὴν Ῥωμαίων δὲ πόλιν πεντεκαιδεκάτῳ τῆς ἐπισκοπῆς ἐνιαυτῷ Πίου μεταλλάξαντος, Ἀνίκητος τῶν ἐκεῖσε προΐσταται· καθ’ ὃν Ἡγήσιππος ἱστορεῖ ἑαυτὸν ἐπιδημῆσαι τῇ Ῥώμῃ παρα μεῖναί τε αὐτόθι μέχρι τῆς ἐπισκοπῆς Ἐλευθέρου. (TLG)

It’s worth quoting from Philip Schaff’s note here:

Eusebius evidently makes a mistake here. That Hegesippus remained so long in Rome (Anicetus ruled from 154–168 (?), and Eleutherus from 177–190) is upon the face of it very improbable. And in this case we can see clearly how Eusebius made his mistake. In chap. 22 he quotes a passage from Hegesippus in regard to his stay in Rome, and it was in all probability this passage from which Eusebius drew his conclusion. But Hegesippus says there that he “remained in Rome until the time of Anicetus,” &c. It is probable, therefore, that he returned to the East during Anicetus’ episcopacy. He does not express himself as one who had remained in Rome until the reign of Eleutherus; but Eusebius, from a hasty reading, might easily have gathered that idea.

It is with this misunderstanding now in our mind, which is demonstrably a misunderstanding in the mind of Eusebius, that we approach the passage that has misled so many regarding the date of the text of Hegesippus.

Eusebius, Eccleasiastical History, 4.21. At that time there flourished in the Church Hegesippus, whom we know from what has gone before, and Dionysius, bishop of Corinth, and another bishop, Pinytus of Crete, and besides these, Philip, and Apolinarius, and Melito, and Musanus, and Modestus, and finally, Irenæus. From them has come down to us in writing, the sound and orthodox faith received from apostolic tradition. (link)

Ἤκμαζον δ’ ἐν τούτοις ἐπὶ τῆς ἐκκλησίας Ἡγήσιππός τε, ὃν ἴσμεν ἐκ τῶν προτέρων, καὶ Διονύσιος Κορινθίων ἐπίσκοπος Πινυτός τε ἄλλος τῶν ἐπὶ Κρήτης ἐπίσκοπος Φίλιππός τε ἐπὶ τούτοις καὶ Ἀπολινάριος καὶ Μελίτων Μουσανός τε καὶ Μόδεστος καὶ ἐπὶ πᾶσιν Εἰρηναῖος, ὧν καὶ εἰς ἡμᾶς τῆς ἀποστολικῆς παραδόσεως ἡ τῆς ὑγιοῦς πίστεως ἔγγραφος κατῆλθεν ὀρθοδοξία. (TLG)

Hegesippus in the five books of Memoirs which have come down to us has left a most complete record of his own views. In them he states that on a journey to Rome he met a great many bishops, and that he received the same doctrine from all. It is fitting to hear what he says after making some remarks about the epistle of Clement to the Corinthians. His words are as follows: “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.” His deacon was Eleutherus, and Anicetus was succeeded by Soter, and he by Eleutherus. In every succession, and in every city that is held which is preached by the law and the prophets and the Lord. (link)

Ὁ μὲν οὖν Ἡγήσιππος ἐν πέντε τοῖς εἰς ἡμᾶς ἐλθοῦσιν ὑπομνήμασιν τῆς ἰδίας γνώμης πληρεστάτην μνήμην καταλέλοιπεν· ἐν οἷς δηλοῖ ὡς πλείστοις ἐπισκόποις συμμίξειεν ἀποδημίαν στειλάμενος μέχρι Ῥώμης, καὶ ὡς ὅτι τὴν αὐτὴν παρὰ πάντων παρείληφεν διδασκαλίαν. ἀκοῦσαί γέ τοι πάρεστιν μετά τινα περὶ τῆς Κλήμεντος πρὸς Κορινθίους ἐπιστολῆς αὐτῷ εἰρημένα ἐπιλέγοντος ταῦτα· »καὶ ἐπέμενεν ἡ ἐκκλησία ἡ Κορινθίων ἐν τῷ ὀρθῷ λόγῳ μέχρι Πρίμου ἐπισκοπεύοντος ἐν Κορίνθῳ· οἷς συνέμιξα πλέων εἰς Ῥώμην καὶ συνδιέτριψα τοῖς Κορινθίοις ἡμέρας ἱκανάς, ἐν αἷς συνανεπάημεν τῷ ὀρθῷ λόγῳ· γενόμενος δὲ ἐν Ῥώμῃ, διαδοχὴν ἐποιησάμην μέχρις Ἀνικήτου·» οὗ διάκονος ἦν Ἐλεύθερος, καὶ παρὰ Ἀνικήτου διαδέχεται Σωτήρ, μεθ’ ὃν Ἐλεύθερος. ἐν ἑκάστῃ δὲ διαδοχῇ καὶ ἐν ἑκάστῃ πόλει οὕτως ἔχει ὡς ὁ νόμος κηρύσσει καὶ οἱ προφῆται καὶ ὁ κύριος. (TLG)

The adjustments I’ve made to the translation by Philip Schaff are to move the quotation marks (which, obviously, do not form part of the Greek manuscript) and to change the division of sentences (another thing not clear in Greek). It is a sensible option simply on the grounds that the entire construction is awkward if attributed to Hegesippus but natural if attributed to Eusebius, who is harmonizing his faulty statement made from memory with the manuscript now before him. Earlier Eusebius stated that Hegesippus stayed in Rome until Eleutherus, but now Hegesippus states that he stayed in Rome until Anicetus. Instead of the comment immediately following, “his deacon was Eleutherus,” being taken as evidence for a second century practice of pairing bishops with special deacons, it should be taken as a way for Eusebius to harmonize the idea that Hegesippus remained there down to Anicetus with his earlier statement that Hegesippus remained there down to Eleutherus. The next sentence is then necessary to explain that Eleutherus did not succeed Anicetus but that Soter came between them. The whole construction is just ill-considered, so Eusebius rounds it out with a panegyric to the apostolic succession being in agreement in every city before returning to the text in front of him.

There is a bit of a textual issue with the Greek phrase “διαδοχὴν ἐποιησάμην μέχρις Ἀνικήτου,” which others have taken to mean that the author wrote down a list of the bishops up through Anicetus upon his arrival in Rome. Schaff writes in his note:

But the words διαδοχήν ἐποιησ€μην, if they can be made to mean anything at all, can certainly be made to mean nothing else than the composition of a catalogue, and hence it seems necessary to make some correction in the text. It is significant that Rufinus at this point reads permansi ibi, which shows that he at least did not understand Hegesippus to be speaking of a list of bishops. Rufinus’ rendering gives us a hint of what must have stood in the original from which he drew, and so Savilius, upon the margin of his ms., substituted for διαδοχὴν the word διατριβήν, probably simply as a conjecture, but possibly upon the authority of some other ms. now lost. He has been followed by some editors, including Heinichen, who prints the word διατριβήν in the text. Val. retains διαδοχὴν in his text, but accepts διατριβήν as the true reading, and so translates. This reading is now very widely adopted; and it, or some other word with the same meaning, in all probability stood in the original text. In my notice of Lightfoot’s article, I suggested the word διαγωγήν, which, while not so common as διατριβήν, is yet used with ποιεῖσθαι in the same sense, and its very uncommonness would account more easily for the change to the much commoner διαδοχὴν, which is epigraphically so like it.

I have followed Rufinus and Schaff here. There is thus no evidence that the text of Hegesippus originally contained a list of Roman bishops, which also is the most natural explanation, as Schaff himself notes, why no bishop lists are referred to Hegesippus by Eusebius himself, who would be proud to have such an ancient authority.

Long story short, the strongest associations are for this period:

Antoninus Pius, emperor (11 July 138 – 7 March 161)
Anicetus, bishop of Rome (around 157-168, or thereabouts)

What we would call the "mid second century."

(To be clear, you can believe whatever you want; you could claim this is all fabrication. I am writing about what Eusebius wrote. We have to start there, with an accurate account and an accurate understanding. We can then add our own opinions and corrections.)
"... almost every critical biblical position was earlier advanced by skeptics." - Raymond Brown
Secret Alias
Posts: 18362
Joined: Sun Apr 19, 2015 8:47 am

Re: Eusebius Dates Hegesippus to the "Generation After the Apostles"

Post by Secret Alias »

Exactly. But remember that while Hegesippus/Josephus has obvious time markers for the 10th year of Antoninus (147 CE) the problem scholars have is that the succession list in Rome has been extended to late second century (i.e. Eleutherius). The bottom line is that any scholar who speaks about Hegesippus actually writing in the age associated with Eleutherius (or to the end of the succession list) isn't taking falsification seriously. Hegesippus published his work in 147 CE. The extended succession list is a second hand, a second addition - it is not Hegesippus.
“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
Post Reply