stephan huller

Yes Andrew, I know what you mean. Anicetus is usually thought to have been Pope of the Catholic Church from about 150 to about 167 (the Vatican's list cites 150 to 167 or 153 to 168). What established the connection however was the parallel list of bishops of Jerusalem in Eusebius and Epiphanius which also ends in the tenth year of Antoninus Pius. I am well aware that scholarship has traditionally frowned on the idea that Hegesippus is related to Josephus (even though the idea is echoed throughout the later Patristic writers - viz. George Syncellus etc).

Neither Epiphanius nor Eusebius explicitly says that their shared episcopal succession list for Jerusalem is from Hegesippus but Lightfoot, Lawlor and others have already made the connection. What they haven't done is connected that information with Clement's chronology from 'Josephus the Jew' which also calculates the distance of Biblical events from the tenth year of Antoninus Pius.

All three of our authors (Irenaeus, Eusebius and Epiphanius) are also recognized to be drawing from the same episcopal list for the Roman See. Lawlor emphasizes that Epiphanius draws his slightly different report about the Carpocratians directly from Hegesippus rather than Irenaeus. This report from Hegesippus's report is dated from the reign of Anicetus.

Interestingly Lawlor notices that Epiphanius's source gives specific information about the dates of the Roman list which he surmises comes directly from Hegesippus rather than Eusebius. This can't be proven of course but Epiphanius does acknowledge some inherent ambiguity in his source:

But after Clement had been appointed and declined, if this is what happened—I suspect this but cannot say it for certain—he could have been compelled to hold the episcopate in his turn, after the deaths of Linus and Cletus who were bishops for twelve years each after the death of Saints Peter and Paul in the twelfth year of Nero

What is the underlying ambiguity? I don't know but it is worth noting that we don't have any direct information about any specific dates from Epiphanius about the rest of the list. I think that the list was just a list of names beyond Cletus. This might account for the inexactness of Anicetus's reign. I suspect that Clement was not part of the original succession list which would account for 147 CE being taken to be already the start of Anicetus's reign in Hegesippus.

Eusebius's citation of Clement as the third pope is remarkably different from the previous two. He simply says "Clement also was appointed the third bishop of the church of Rome" (HE 3.4.10). Another sign that the original list was problematic is the Liberian Catalogue (likely compiled by Hippolytus) where Anacletus is doubled into Cletus and Anacletus, while Clement appears before, instead of after, these two names and the order of Popes Pius and Anicetus has also been interchanged.

What is the original problem? I think it has to have something to do with Irenaeus establishing the original list and calculating the original crucifixion to the reign of Claudius. The point is that the early list wasn't as exact as we should like and so it is entirely possible that Hegesippus's book was dated to BOTH 147 CE AND the reign of Anicetus. There was an inherent inexactness in the period.

stephan huller

I was looking more closely at the Liberian Canon and the same thing happens - the author seems intent to fill a 'gap' of a little under seven years which may have been caused by Irenaeus's original identification of the Passion as taking place in the reign of Claudius. The reign of Anicetus again starts in 150 CE but Anicletus and Cletus (variants of the same name) are taken to be two different people. If we take out Cletus then the reign of Anicetus starts c. 144 CE if we take out Anicletus and leave Cletus (who appears first in the list) then the reign starts in 138 CE (which in turn might explain why Pius and Anicetus are interchanged because 'Pius' starts looking remarkably similar to Antoninus Pius whose reign also began in 138 CE).

As an alternative to my clumsy efforts to reconstruct the chronology there is Schaff's explanation that Hegesippus must have come BEFORE Anicetus's reign. Here is the relevant footnote in his annotation of Eusebius:

Anicetus, according to the Armenian Chron. of Eusebius, succeeded Pius in the fifteenth year of Antoninus Pius; according to Jerome’s version, in the eighteenth year (i.e. 155 or 156), which is more nearly correct. Lipsius puts his accession between 154 and 156 (see note 14, above). According to chap. 19, below, with which both versions of the Chron. agree, Anicetus held office eleven years; i.e. until 165 to 167, when he was succeeded by Soter. Irenæus (as quoted by Eusebius in Bk. V. chap. 24) informs us that Polycarp was in Rome in the time of Anicetus, and endeavored to induce him to adopt the Quartodeciman practice of celebrating Easter; but that, while the two remained perfectly friendly to one another, Anicetus would not change the custom of the Roman church (see the notes on the chapter referred to). As stated in note 13, the Liberian and Felician Catalogues incorrectly insert the name of Anicetus between those of Hyginus and Pius. 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. According to Hegesippus’ account in chap. 22, he must, then, have come to Rome before Anicetus, i.e. during the reign of Pius, and this Eusebius does not here contradict, though he is said to do so by Reading, who translates the Greek words, ἐπιδημῆσαι τῇ ῾Ρώμῃ, “came to the city” (so, also, Closs, Stigloher, and Crusè). But the words properly mean “to be in Rome,” not “to come to Rome,” which would require, rather, ἐπιδημῆσαι εἰς τὴν ῾Ρώμην, as in §2, above, where the words are used of Cerdon. Jerome, to be sure (de vir. ill. 22), says that Hegesippus came to Rome in the time of Anicetus; but his account rests solely upon Eusebius, whom he mistranslated. The tradition, therefore, that Hegesippus came to Rome in the time of Anicetus has no foundation; he was already there, as he himself informs us, in chap. 22, below. Cf. the note on this passage, in chap. 22. [p. 184]

stephan huller

Now that I think I have presented a most reasonable explanation to Andrew's insightful question - I hope my readers will give me license to engage in some of my own speculation.

I think that the story of Hegesippus coming to Rome is based on the REAL historical events surrounding the coming of Polycarp to Rome. I also think the original core to the Irenaean canon (the Syriac letters of Cureton) derive from the same historical event (i.e. Polycarp is the 'fiery one' as Polycarp ultimately died a fiery martyr). I think that Lucian reports on these events in his De Morte Peregrini and as a result Irenaeus had to go to great efforts to distance his master from the accusations contained in that document (accusations which interestingly include the idea that disciples of 'Peregrinus' continued to ammend and write letters for him after he attained his fiery martyrdom).

It would take us too far afield to go over the all the arguments in favor of this proposition. I direct the reader instead to a hastily written document that I wrote for Hermann Detering for at least one small part of the equation - http://www.radikalkritik.de/Huller_Peregrin.htm

The important thing is to see that IF this basic formulation is left intact we can gain an important parallel between the coming of Hegesippus in Rome under Pius and through the reign of Anicetus and Polycarp's historical visit to the city. This parallel ultimately leads us to the understanding that the Letter to the Corinthians was a reworking of the Marcionite Letter to the Alexandrians mentioned in the Muratorian Canon.

How do I get to this seemingly 'wild' bit of speculation? Well, you'll have to read my Against Polycarp (which has a preface by David Trobisch if I haven't mentioned it a million times already) but the implications for a context for the Secret Mark debate are that there wasn't just a secret gospel but a secret 'shadow canon' in Alexandria.

Let me just say for the moment that if we trace Polycarp's visit to Rome we also get a clear context for the last years of life. For Lucian writes at this point in the narrative:

Thereafter he went away a third time, to Egypt, to visit Agathobulus, where he took that wonderful course of training in asceticism, shaving one half of his head, daubing his face with mud, and demonstrating what they call 'indifference' by erecting his yard amid a thronging mob of bystanders, besides giving and, taking blows on the back-sides with a stalk of fennel, and playing the mountebank even more audaciously in many other ways.

From there, thus equipped, he set sail for Italy and immediately after disembarking he fell to abusing. everyone, and in particular the Emperor [Antoninus Pius] knowing him to be mild and gentle, so that he was safe in making bold. The Emperor, as one would expect, cared little for his libels and did not think fit to punish for mere words a man who only used philosophy as a cloak, and above all, a man who had made a profession of abusiveness. But in our friend’s case, even from this his reputation grew, among simple folk any how, and he was a cynosure for his recklessness, until finally the city prefect, a wise man, packed him off for immoderate indulgence in the thing, saying that the city had no need of any such philosopher. However, this too made for his renown, and he was on everybody’s lips as the philosopher who had been banished for his frankness and excessive freedom, so that in this respect he approached Musonius, Dio, Epictetus, and anyone else who has been in a similar predicament.

Coming at last to Greece under these circum stances, at one moment he abused the Eleans, at another he counselled the Greeks to take up arms against the Romans, and at another he libelled a man outstanding in literary attainments and position because he had been a benefactor to Greece in many ways, and particularly because he had brought water to Olympia and prevented the visitors to the festival from dying of thirst, maintaining that he was making the Greeks effeminate, for the spectators of the Olympic games ought to endure their thirst—yes, by Heaven, and even to lose their lives, no doubt, many of them, through the frequent distempers which formerly ran riot in the vast crowd on account of the dryness of the place! And he said this while he drank that same water!

When they almost killed him with stones, mobbing him with one accord, he managed to escape death at the moment by fleeing to Zeus for sanctuary (stout fellow!), and afterwards, at the next Olympiad, he gave the Greeks a speech which he had composed during the four years that had intervened, praising the man who had brought in the water and defending himself for running away at that time.

At last, he was disregarded by all and no longer so admired; for all his stuff was stale and be could not turn out any further novelty with which to surprise those who came in his way and make them marvel and stare at him—a thing for which he had a fierce craving from the first. So he devised this ultimate venture of the pyre, and spread a report among the Greeks immediately after the last Olympic games that he would burn himself up at the next festival. [Morte Peregrini 18 - 22]

We can extrapolate backwards from the events in the last Olympiad associated with Herod Atticus (this 'Herod' still appears in the Martyrdom of Polycarp) an establish a chronology which roughly fits with both Polycarp and Hegesippus. Both are associated with writing a υπομνηματα, both with a Hebrew gospel or 'gospel of the Hebrews.' The only difference is that instead of coming to Rome and meeting 'Pius' the reigning bishop Polycarp means 'Pius' the reigning Emperor.

If anyone is interested in this historical reconstruction I will develop them in another thread but the connection between the Pauline Epistle to the Corinthians coming from an original Epistle to the Alexandrians is paralleled by the invention of a Letter to the Corinthians from a certain 'Clement of Rome' who again is really Polycarp and the contents reflect his attempt at 'correcting' the faith of the Alexandrian Church.

Anyway I think I hope no one minds a little undocumented and ultimately unproven speculative inquiry ...

stephan huller

So before I go back to my section by section parallel citation of Pseudo-Hegesippus and Jewish War I should make it absolutely clear that I think Polycarp was responsible for the creation of the original Josephan narrative behind these texts. He introduced this work in 147 CE and it eventually contained an introductory address written by Irenaeus which is cited by Irenaeus, Eusebius and Epiphanius which frames the visit of the author to Rome. Irenaeus implicitly identifies the individual as 'Polycarp' (the same figure is references as the unnamed 'presbyter' throughout Against the Heresies); Eusebius and Epiphanius identify him as 'Hegesippus' (undoubtedly owing to some inherent ambiguity in the original reference i.e. the author is confused with the individual for whom the υπομνηματα ιστορικά was written).

The real question is whether Irenaeus in penning the introductory letter ever put the name 'Polycarp' on the original MS. I strongly doubt it owing to (a) his habit throughout Against the Heresies of identifying him as 'the presbyter' (i.e. avoiding giving his real name - 'Polycarp' is not the real name of any historical individual) and more telling (b) Eusebius's statement (HE 5, 8, 8) that Irenaeus quotes from the 'apomnemoneumata of a certain apostolic presbyter whose name he passes by in silence and gives his exposition of Sacred Scripture' cf. Adv.Haer. 4, 23, if., cf. 4, 28, 1; 30, 1; 31, 1; 32, 1), without giving the name; Eusebius, Dem. evang. 3, 6, 2).

Hill makes the strongest argument for identifying this individual with Polycarp but more importantly for our purposes also identifies - in my opinion rather convincingly - Polycarp as the author of the Epistle to Diognetus. What is so important here is that this text bares a striking resemblance to Josephus in its lack of specific scriptural references. It reads as a philosophical treatise which in my mind opens the possibility that the υπομνηματα associated with 'Hegesippus' weren't 'memoirs' but a 'commentary' on the destruction of Jerusalem developed with a special interest in Josephus.

Proteus Peregrinus interestingly is always described as a philosopher and his name suggests he was accused of forgery (i.e. assuming the shape of various individuals in whose name he penned literary texts). "It was then that he learned the wondrous lore of the Christians, by associating with their priests and scribes in Palestine. And—how else could it be?—in a trice he made them all look like children, for he was prophet, cult-leader, head of the synagogue, and everything, all by himself. He interpreted and explained some of their books and even composed many, and they revered him as a god, made use of him as a lawgiver, and set him down as a protector, next after that other, to be sure, whom they still worship, the man who was crucified in Palestine because he introduced this new cult into the world." [Morte 11]

On the idea that the υπομνηματα were a genre of 'commentary' within earliest Christianity (and especially Alexandrian Christianity) here is a brief list of early Christians who are said to have written υπομνηματα:

1. the apostles (Justin I Apol. 66.3)
2. Peter (Justin Dial. 103; Clement Theod. 1.19)
3. Mark (Clement Theod. 1.19; Papias HE 3.39.15-16 = apomnemoneumata)
4. Hegesippus (Eusebius HE 4.22.4)
5. Polycarp (see above)
6. Symmachus (Eusebius, HE 6.17)
7. Pantaenus (Ecl. Prop. 56.2; Eusebius HE 5.10.4)
8. Heracleon (Origen Com. Jn. 6.92)
9. Clement of Alexandria (Strom. 1.1)
10. Ambrose, patron of Origen (so Cureton Spicilegium Syriacum p. xii) = Ps-Justin Oratio

stephan huller

We return to our side by side comparison of Pseudo-Hegesippus and Jewish War. The next section in Pseudo-Hegesippus reads:

And so Vespasian was begged that he should come to (their) assistance, because of which (their) destruction was feared. He hastened to Gadara, where very many rich persons, who because of their paternal estates more and more feared the traps and assaults of the brigands and therefore secretly sent to Vespasian that he should come to them, by whom the state should be rescued from the brigands. The Roman army was at hand, seeing which the Gadarensians had a desire of fleeing, but by what route that would be without death for them they did not discover, so that the faction would not rise up against them departing and kill them all. Naturally conscious of his delegation, that Vespasian had been invited by a delegation of Gadarensians did not escape the attention of the chief of the city Dolesus by name. Capturing whom they killed, and having avenged their injury and left the city they took themselves into hiding and better protection. Gadara is surrendered to the Romans and Vespasian is received with great applause. [Pseudo-Hegesippus 4.14]

The parallel passage in Jewish War reads:

These things were told Vespasian by deserters; for although the seditious watched all the passages out of the city, and destroyed all, whosoever they were, that came thither, yet were there some that had concealed themselves, and when they had fled to the Romans, persuaded their general to come to their city's assistance, and save the remainder of the people; informing him withal, that it was upon account of the people's good-will to the Romans that many of them were already slain, and the survivors in danger of the same treatment. Vespasian did indeed already pity the calamities these men were in, and arose, in appearance, as though he was going to besiege Jerusalem, but in reality to deliver them from a [worse] siege they were already under. However, he was obliged first to overthrow what remained elsewhere, and to leave nothing out of Jerusalem behind him that might interrupt him in that siege. Accordingly, he marched against Gadara, the metropolis of Perea, which was a place of strength, and entered that city on the fourth day of the month Dystrus [Adar]; for the men of power had sent an embassage to him, without the knowledge of the seditious, to treat about a surrender; which they did out of the desire they had of peace, and for saving their effects, because many of the citizens of Gadara were rich men. This embassy the opposite party knew nothing of, but discovered it as Vespasian was approaching near the city. However, they despaired of keeping possession of the city, as being inferior in number to their enemies who were within the city, and seeing the Romans very near to the city; so they resolved to fly, but thought it dishonorable to do it without shedding some blood, and revenging themselves on the authors of this surrender; so they seized upon Dolesus, (a person not only the first in rank and family in that city, but one that seemed the occasion of sending such an embassy,) and slew him, and treated his dead body after a barbarous manner, so very violent was their anger at him, and then ran out of the city. And as now the Roman army was just upon them, the people of Gadara admitted Vespasian with joyful acclamations, and received from him the security of his right hand, as also a garrison of horsemen and footmen, to guard them against the excursions of the runagates; for as to their wall, they had pulled it down before the Romans desired them so to do, that they might thereby give them assurance that they were lovers of peace, and that, if they had a mind, they could not now make war against them. [Jewish War 4.7.3]

The only thing of interest here is that Dolesus is just said to be the chief of the city of Gadara in the Pseudo-Hegesippus account. Jewish War feels compelled to make the narrative more interesting and so has him killed by the revolutionaries. Not a very interesting narrative.

stephan huller

We continue with our side by side comparison of Pseudo-Hegesippus and Jewish War. The next section in Pseudo-Hegesippus is:

He immediately ordered Placidus to pursue those who had fled. He himself returned to Caesarea.

Placidus five hundred cavalry having been sent ahead followed those fleeing and drove them into a village which was nearest, in which grown up males of picked young men were discovered to have assumed the audacity to rise up against the Romans. Which thing was the greatest disaster for them, because surrounded by cavalry and shut off from the village they were cut to pieces without hindrance, while others crowded together were withdrawing they were slaughtered before the thresholds of the gates. The mass piled up with bodies of the slain was level with the height of the walls. The Romans pierced some with arrows, they wounded others with various missiles, finally they captured the stronghold and there all except those to whom there was an opportunity to escape were killed. Others fleeing heightened the great reputation of Roman strength by their remarks, their bodies bigger than those seen of men, no assurance to anyone of resisting against the invincible. From which place terrified everyone fled immediately, not only from the vicinity and neighboring places but even the city of Jericho, which on account of the number of its inhabitant multitude encouraged the hope of the rest, was abandoned. Placidus with events occurring to his satisfaction pursued them also with cavalry, some crowded together, others dispersed he laid low all the way to the river Jordan. He also found the greatest number at the bank of the river, the crossing hindered, because then by chance the heralded river had been enlarged by rains or swollen up by melted snows. But they when they saw the Romans to be at hand, prepare themselves and crowd together at the edge of the river. The aid of flight having been shut off, the remedy is turned back into their hands and an attack having been made the many throw themselves against the fewer horsemen. They with the known art and ancient custom of warfare riding in between begin to scatter the formations of the enemy, to break apart masses, to press upon the weary, to follow those giving way. Thus some by the weapons of the enemy, others by their own, because crowded together and thrown back upon themselves they run into one bunch, they are killed. Some tumble down into the river, who are a ruin to themselves, and others entangled with one another were submerged. Yet most thinking that they are able to get across gave themselves to the river, whom when they had progressed a short distance the force of the whirlpools swallowed up or the power of the river carried away. And if any by the exercise of swimming had moved forward upon the waters and by floating or floating under had sustained themselves, or hindered by the branches of trees which are carried off by the river or buffeted by the trunks themselves they deposited their soul in the river. Often even untrained in swimming, when he had grabbed a swimmer, he held on, in order that he himself should escape as well, and tired the one held in the arms, until both immersed each was the death of the other. And if anyone by chance running with a favorable river was thought to be about to escape, he was stitched up with arrows and suddenly on his back the oars of his arms stopping he perished. And there were even those who not knowing how to swim, while they seek a death devoid of pain, voluntarily throw themselves into the river from a high protuberance of the banks, others entering onto the sandy river-bank their foot-prints having been swallowed up sank down. Still the majority vexed by the slipperiness of the smooth rocks or by the shallow places and hesitating on the unstable ground of the stream were overwhelmed by those following. Thirteen thousands were cut to pieces with swords, however an innumerable multitude was annihilated by the river, a huge booty was acquired from the flocks of sheep and herds of camels and asses and cattle. Granted that the butchery of men was very great, it was estimated to be more, because not only was the entire region filled with human bodies, since dispersed and wandering about they were killed in whatever places they were seized, truly even the Jordan itself blocked up with the bodies of the dead was not able to follow its proper course, the Dead Sea also from the blood and viscera of the dead changed the appearance of its nature, into which everything whatever that the Jordan had attracted was carried. Finally on that day ninety two thousands and two hundreds of Judeans were estimated to have perished by only five hundred horsemen and three thousands of foot soldiers. Having progressed also to the farther places Placidus restored to the Roman Empire Abila and Iuliadis and Bethesmon and all the villages of this very place up to the Dead Sea. He placed soldiers also in boats, by whom all who had fled into the celebrated lake were killed.

And thus both these and everything all the way to Maecheruntis was regained. [Pseudo-Hegesippus 4.14c - 16a]

The parallel section in Jewish War reads:

And now Vespasian sent Placidus against those that had fled from Gadara, with five hundred horsemen, and three thousand footmen, while he returned himself to Cesarea, with the rest of the army. But as soon as these fugitives saw the horsemen that pursued them just upon their backs, and before they came to a close fight, they ran together to a certain village, which was called Bethennabris, where finding a great multitude of young men, and arming them, partly by their own consent, partly by force, they rashly and suddenly assaulted Placidus and the troops that were with him. These horsemen at the first onset gave way a little, as contriving to entice them further off the wall; and when they had drawn them into a place fit for their purpose, they made their horse encompass them round, and threw their darts at them. So the horsemen cut off the flight of the fugitives, while the foot terribly destroyed those that fought against them; for those Jews did no more than show their courage, and then were destroyed; for as they fell upon the Romans when they were joined close together, and, as it were, walled about with their entire armor, they were not able to find any place where the darts could enter, nor were they any way able to break their ranks, while they were themselves run through by the Roman darts, and, like the wildest of wild beasts, rushed upon the point of others' swords; so some of them were destroyed, as cut with their enemies' swords upon their faces, and others were dispersed by the horsemen.

Now Placidus's concern was to exclude them in their flight from getting into the village; and causing his horse to march continually on that side of them, he then turned short upon them, and at the same time his men made use of their darts, and easily took their aim at those that were the nearest to them, as they made those that were further off turn back by the terror they were in, till at last the most courageous of them brake through those horsemen and fled to the wall of the village. And now those that guarded the wall were in great doubt what to do; for they could not bear the thoughts of excluding those that came from Gadara, because of their own people that were among them; and yet, if they should admit them, they expected to perish with them, which came to pass accordingly; for as they were crowding together at the wall, the Roman horsemen were just ready to fall in with them. However, the guards prevented them, and shut the gates, when Placidus made an assault upon them, and fighting courageously till it was dark, he got possession of the wall, and of the people that were in the city, when the useless multitude were destroyed; but those that were more potent ran away, and the soldiers plundered the houses, and set the village on fire. As for those that ran out of the village, they stirred up such as were in the country, and exaggerating their own calamities, and telling them that the whole army of the Romans were upon them, they put them into great fear on every side; so they got in great numbers together, and fled to Jericho, for they knew no other place that could afford them any hope of escaping, it being a city that had a strong wall, and a great multitude of inhabitants. But Placidus, relying much upon his horsemen, and his former good success, followed them, and slew all that he overtook, as far as Jordan; and when he had driven the whole multitude to the river-side, where they were stopped by the current, (for it had been augmented lately by rains, and was not fordable,) he put his soldiers in array over against them; so the necessity the others were in provoked them to hazard a battle, because there was no place whither they could flee. They then extended themselves a very great way along the banks of the river, and sustained the darts that were thrown at them, as well as the attacks of the horsemen, who beat many of them, and pushed them into the current. At which fight, hand to hand, fifteen thousand of them were slain, while the number of those that were unwillingly forced to leap into Jordan was prodigious. There were besides two thousand and two hundred taken prisoners. A mighty prey was taken also, consisting of asses, and sheep, and camels, and oxen.

Now this destruction that fell upon the Jews, as it was not inferior to any of the rest in itself, so did it still appear greater than it really was; and this, because not only the whole country through which they fled was filled with slaughter, and Jordan could not be passed over, by reason of the dead bodies that were in it, but because the lake Asphaltiris was also full of dead bodies, that were carried down into it by the river. And now Placidus, after this good success that he had, fell violently upon the neighboring smaller cities and villages; when he took Abila, and Julias, and Bezemoth, and all those that lay as far as the lake Asphaltitis, and put such of the deserters into each of them as he thought proper. He then put his soldiers on board the ships, and slew such as had fled to the lake, insomuch that all Perea had either surrendered themselves, or were taken by the Romans, as far as Macherus. [Jewish War 4.7.4 - 6]

The account, while very similarly, betrays some very noticeable differences in numbers of dead Jews. In both narratives the Roman side consists of 500 cavalry and 3000 footmen. Pseudo-Hegesippus says that 13000 Jews were cut down by Roman swords, "an innumerable multitude was annihilated by the river" and countless asses, sheep, camels and cattle. Later in the narrative Hegesippus says that the total number of Jews that died numbered 92,200. Jewish War by contrast says that 15000 Jews were cut down by the sword, undetermined number leaped into the Jordan. As well as asses, and sheep, and camels, and oxen being taken captive, 2,200 were said to be taken prisoner. Clearly these are two different but related traditions. There is no reference to the number of prisoners taken in Pseudo-Hegesippus, nor a total number of dead in Jewish War but the two numbers here are clearly related (92,200 to 2,200).

stephan huller

We continue with our side by side comparison of the parallel narrative in Pseudo-Hegesippus and Jewish War already having established that Pseudo-Hegesippus is NOT a summary of Jewish War but two related but ultimately separate textual ancestors of a lost second century grandfather MS. The next section in Pseudo-Hegesippus reads:

Vespasian however was waiting for the time of the battle by which the chief city of the whole of Judaea would be attacked. In the midst of this to him occupied with the things entrusted to him news of an uprising from regions of Gaul found its way, that certain powerful men of the Roman military service had revolted from Nero. Which having become known, wishing to mitigate internal wars and the danger to the interests of the entire Roman empire, the disorder of the wars in the East having been reduced, alarmed by news of following events, in order to check or restrain all of Italy, as soon as the rigors of winter were moderated by the beginning of spring, with the greater part of the army he moved away from Caesarea. The state called by the name of Antipater received him. Proceeding from that place he burned villages, killed those whom he had found hostile, and he especially ravaged whatever neighbors to the Idumaeans he came upon, because an unquiet race of men would be a friend to wars rather than to peace and tranquillity. Seizing too two villages Legarim and Caphartoris of Idumaea and their inhabitants he overthrew them with great slaughter. Indeed more than ten thousands of men having been killed, he carried off a thousand captives, he drove out the remaining population, in order that he should station there a band of his own, because the mountainous places of this region were disturbed by brigandage. He himself with the army fell upon Amathun again, which takes the name from the hot waters, [p. 266] because the steam of the waters is said to be called Amathus in the speech of Syria. It is therefore called Thermae in Greek because it has hot springs within its walls. Next through Samaria near to Neapolis he hastened to Jericho, where Trajan driving a great band from those located beyond the Jordan at Perea, conquered peoples of the region, who had come back into Roman control, met him. And so at the news of the arriving Roman army, most from the city of Jericho, because they thought it unsafe, took themselves into the mountains of the region of Jerusalem. The entire crowd of those remaining was destroyed. For it was not difficult for the city to be captured quickly, which was not supported by natural defences and had been abandoned and deserted by its scattering inhabitants. The city was established on a plain, which a wide mountain bare of vegetation overhung. For it stretched out northwards all the way to the region of the city of Scythopolis, and was considered extended from the southern part all the way to the Sodomitana region and the Asphaltius boundaries. Moreover a diseased and barren soil and therefore deserted by inhabitants, because it was without any benefit to farmers because of its natural sterility. Opposite to this above the Jordan (is) a mountain whose beginning arises from Iuliade and northern parts. It stretches forth to the south all the way to Arabian Sebarus which is neighboring to Petra, where indeed the mountain by the usage of the ancients is called Ferreus. A plain lies between these two mountains, which an account of its size, which stretches out into a great space, the inhabitants by ancient usage called Magnus. Whose length is two hundred thirty stadia, its width one hundred twenty, its beginning from the village Genuabaris, its end all the way to the Dead Sea. The Jordan intersects it in the middle of the plain, not only inoffensive but also annexed with thanks for the green banks from the flooding of the river and from the succeeding Asphaltio and the Tiberiadis of a single source, and each lake of a separate quality. For the taste of the water of one is salt and its use unproductive, of the Tiberiadis sweet and fruitful. Truly in the days of summer an immoderate emanation boils up through the extent of the plain, whence from the increasing fault of excessive dryness and the dry earth the bad air brings about deplorable sicknesses for the inhabitants. For all things are dry except for the borders of the river. Finally at great distances even the fruit of trees grows worse, indeed the supply is more abundant and the fruit of palm trees more copious, that is produced above the banks of the river Jordan, another is far more meager. [Pseudo-Hegesippus 4.16]

The parallel narrative in Jewish War reads:

In the mean time, an account came that there were commotions in Gall, and that Vindex, together with the men of power in that country, had revolted from Nero; which affair is more accurately described elsewhere. This report, thus related to Vespasian, excited him to go on briskly with the war; for he foresaw already the civil wars which were coming upon them, nay, that the very government was in danger; and he thought, if he could first reduce the eastern parts of the empire to peace, he should make the fears for Italy the lighter; while therefore the winter was his hinderance [from going into the field], he put garrisons into the villages and smaller cities for their security; he put decurions also into the villages, and centurions into the cities: he besides this rebuilt many of the cities that had been laid waste; but at the beginning of the spring he took the greatest part of his army, and led it from Cesarea to Antipatris, where he spent two days in settling the affairs of that city, and then, on the third day, he marched on, laying waste and burning all the neighboring villages. And when he had laid waste all the places about the toparchy of Thamnas, he passed on to Lydda and Jamnia; and when both these cities had come over to him, he placed a great many of those that had come over to him [from other places] as inhabitants therein, and then came to Emmaus, where he seized upon the passage which led thence to their metropolis, and fortified his camp, and leaving the fifth legion therein, he came to the toparchy of Bethletephon. He then destroyed that place, and the neighboring places, by fire, and fortified, at proper places, the strong holds all about Idumea; and when he had seized upon two villages, which were in the very midst of Idumea, Betaris and Caphartobas, he slew above ten thousand of the people, and carried into captivity above a thousand, and drove away the rest of the multitude, and placed no small part of his own forces in them, who overran and laid waste the whole mountainous country; while he, with the rest of his forces, returned to Emmaus, whence he came down through the country of Samaria, and hard by the city, by others called Neapoils, (or Sichem,) but by the people of that country Mabortha, to Corea, where he pitched his camp, on the second day of the month Desius [Sivan]; and on the day following he came to Jericho; on which day Trajan, one of his commanders, joined him with the forces he brought out of Perea, all the places beyond Jordan being subdued already.

Hereupon a great multitude prevented their approach, and came out of Jericho, and fled to those mountainous parts that lay over against Jerusalem, while that part which was left behind was in a great measure destroyed; they also found the city desolate. It is situated in a plain; but a naked and barren mountain, of a very great length, hangs over it, which extends itself to the land about Scythopolis northward, but as far as the country of Sodom, and the utmost limits of the lake Asphaltiris, southward. This mountain is all of it very uneven and uninhabited, by reason of its barrenness: there is an opposite mountain that is situated over against it, on the other side of Jordan; this last begins at Julias, and the northern quarters, and extends itself southward as far as Somorrhon, which is the bounds of Petra, in Arabia. In this ridge of mountains there is one called the Iron Mountain, that runs in length as far as Moab. Now the region that lies in the middle between these ridges of mountains is called the Great Plain; it reaches from the village Ginnabris, as far as the lake Asphaltitis; its length is two hundred and thirty furlongs, and its breadth a hundred and twenty, and it is divided in the midst by Jordan. It hath two lakes in it, that of Asphaltitis, and that of Tiberias, whose natures are opposite to each other; for the former is salt and unfruitful, but that of Tiberias is sweet and fruitful. This plain is much burnt up in summer time, and, by reason of the extraordinary heat, contains a very unwholesome air; it is all destitute of water excepting the river Jordan, which water of Jordan is the occasion why those plantations of palm trees that are near its banks are more flourishing, and much more fruitful, as are those that are remote from it not so flourishing, or fruitful. [Jewish War 4.8.1,2]

Pseudo-Hegesippus says that Vespasian went "from Caesarea [to] the state called by the name of Antipater" with no specific reference to the number of days that he stayed there. In Jewish War he said to have gone from Cesarea to Antipatris and stayed there two days.

In Pseudo-Hegesippus and Jewish War we have the subsequent mention of his burning various villages but the order and names are completely different. Pseudo-Hegesippus begins with the mention that Vespasian (a) "especially ravaged whatever neighbors to the Idumaeans he came upon, because an unquiet race of men would be a friend to wars rather than to peace and tranquillity (b) two villages Legarim and Caphartoris of Idumaea and their inhabitants he overthrew them with great slaughter (c) killed "more than 10000 of men" and "carried off 1000 captives, he drove out the remaining population" (d) stationed soldiers there and then finally (e) fell upon the hot springs of Amathun (f) went through Samaria near to Neapolis until (g) he hastened to Jericho, where Trajan driving a great band from those located beyond the Jordan at Perea.

Jewish War by contrast says after the reference to the burning of villages that (a) he laid waste all the places about the toparchy of Thamnas (b) he passed on to Lydda and Jamnia (c) he placed a great many refugees therein (d) he then came to Emmaus (e) left the fifth legion therein (f) he came to the toparchy of Bethletephon razing it and the environ (g) seized the two Idumaean villages of Betaris and Caphartobas killing 10000 and taking captive 1000 driving away the multitude (h) he returned to Emmaus (i) he came down through the country of Samaria and went by Neapoils/Sichem (j) went to Corea and (k) on the day following he came to Jericho; on which day Trajan, one of his commanders, joined him with the forces he brought out of Perea, all the places beyond Jordan being subdued already.

Once again, it cannot be argued that Pseudo-Hegessipus is a 'summary' of Jewish War. They represent two separate but related traditions.

In the next section of Pseudo-Hegesippus we read that the plain on which Jericho was established "stretched out northwards all the way to the region of the city of Scythopolis, and was considered extended from the southern part all the way to the Sodomitana region and the Asphaltius boundaries." Jewish War concludes with the words "Scythopolis northward, but as far as the country of Sodom, and the utmost limits of the lake Asphaltiris." Where Pseudo-Hegesippus also references "a mountain whose beginning arises from Iuliade and northern parts [which] stretches forth to the south all the way to Arabian Sebarus which is neighboring to Petra, where indeed the mountain by the usage of the ancients is called Ferreus" Jewish War speaks of "an opposite mountain that is situated over against it, on the other side of Jordan; this last begins at Julias, and the northern quarters, and extends itself southward as far as Somorrhon, (or 'Gomorrah') which is the bounds of Petra, in Arabia." The reference to 'Sodom' and 'Gomorrah' in Jewish War develops from the imagination of a later editor.

We continue with Pseudo-Hegesippus saying that "a plain lies between these two mountains, which an account of its size, which stretches out into a great space, the inhabitants by ancient usage called Magnus." Jewish War by contrast says that within a "ridge of mountains there is one called the Iron Mountain, that runs in length as far as Moab" wherein lies "the Great Plain; it reaches from the village Ginnabris, as far as the lake Asphaltitis." The measurement of this plain is the same in either case - i.e. "length is two hundred and thirty furlongs, and its breadth a hundred and twenty, and it is divided in the midst by Jordan." However Pseudo-Hegesippus adds the detail that "its beginning from the village Genuabaris, its end all the way to the Dead Sea."

As I have noted many times here it is misleading to say that one text is 'fuller' than the other. They each represent separate lines of transmission of the original second century narrative.

Moreover as I noted in a previous post the original author is actually drawing from Pliny's description of Judea. The more I look at these topographical descriptions which come up from time to time in the Josephan corpus the more I am convinced that they result from little more than our second century editor - who likely never set foot in Palestine - stealing passages from authors like Pliny.

Another example to add to the last notation on the appropriation of Pliny's dimensions of Lake Tiberias.

Pseudo-Hegesippus - "... next through Samaria near to Neapolis ..."

Jewish War - he went "through the country of Samaria, and hard by the city, by others called Neapoils, (or Sichem) but by the people of that country Mabortha"

But the original source is Pliny " ... but within-lands are the towns of Samaria and Neapolis which formerly was called Marmortha [or Maxbota]" [Natural Science V.13]

And it isn't just this one description or the dimensions of Lake Tiberias. One gets the distinct sense that our imaginative second century compiler of this υπομνηματα ιστορικά is just layering this last narrative on top of Pliny's description of the physical topography of the region.

For instance Pseudo-Hegesippus's preservation of the Jordan's relationship with the two lakes:

The Jordan intersects it in the middle of the plain, not only inoffensive but also annexed with thanks for the green banks from the flooding of the river and from the succeeding Asphaltio and the Tiberiadis of a single source, and each lake of a separate quality. For the taste of the water of one is salt and its use unproductive, of the Tiberiadis sweet and fruitful.

And Jewish War::

It hath two lakes in it, that of Asphaltitis, and that of Tiberias, whose natures are opposite to each other; for the former is salt and unfruitful, but that of Tiberias is sweet and fruitful.

Both certainly derive from a text of an original author who clearly had Pliny's description in mind:

The River Jordan springs from the Fountain Paneades ... It is a pleasant River, and so far as the situation of the country will permit, spacious, offering itself to the neighbouring Inhabitants; and reluctantly, as it were, it passeth to the Lake Asphaltites, cursed by Nature : by which it is swallowed up ; it loseth its own esteemed waters, by their becoming mixed with those of the Pestilential Lake. And therefore upon the first opportunity of any Valleys, it poureth itself into a Lake [Tiberias] ... a healthful place [ibid]

I am not of course saying that Pliny was the ONLY source that the second century editor used. After all this was a υπομνηματα written in the name of Josephus which drew from a number of sources. Yet Pliny was certainly one of them.

Of course the million dollar question should be - why would Josephus, a general who must have had intimate knowledge of the topography of the region, need to copy Pliny's description of something as basic as the name of Samaria and Neapolis, or the relationship of the Jordan to the two lakes?