PhilosopherJay

Hi Vorkosigan,

I am very much looking forward to this.

I do not know if it helps, but my guess is that Eusebius is physically cutting paragraphs from other texts and putting them into a book or scroll. He makes corrections to the paragraphs and then copies the entire work. He then slips the corrected paragraphs back into the old text. He rewrites the old text into a new book and destroys the old one.

Warmly,

Jay Raskin

Notsri

I've had a chance to consider a little more carefully the case challenging the authenticity of Memoirs, and I thought I would present to those interested readers my arguments in defense of the fragmentary work. Though admittedly the fragments are not reliable in all matters historical, I see little in the text to substantiate the claims of forgery; and nothing to suggest Hegesippus didn't truly exist. Therefore I'm willing to accept Eusebius' claim that he was quoting a work called Memoirs, written by the Jewish-Christian called Hegesippus.
When I considered what to include here, aside from my counterpoints, of course, I ultimately decided it best for the sake of my argument, to gather relevant excerpts from all the fragments of Hegesippus into one place (this post). I've also placed them in the order I believe they probably were found in the fifth book of Memoirs, given the context of each fragment. I realize this may seem a bit much for those who've been following the thread and no doubt have considered the fragments in Eusebius themselves, and likely many times already; hopefully you'll bear with me, though. Also, in order to facilitate things a bit, I've placed the allegedly problematic passages in boldface, and the numbers in blue are meant to indicate footnotes. It's in these respective notes that I'll present my arguments. I would, however, recommend to the reader that they run through the entire text of Memoirs first, not just to get an idea of how well the fragments dovetail, but to make better sense of my argument as well. Lastly, readers will notice in the quotation an occasional ellipsis in square brackets. This is meant to indicate probable lacunae in Memoirs, for Eusebius neither alludes to nor quotes from these places, but the content of what he does quote often suggests the presence of intervening text. So without further ado, then...


Memoirs, Bk. 5:

1. James is apparently introduced here as a priest (cf. H.E. 2.23.17, an excerpt from Memoirs I've excluded: it's another priest that defends James upon his stoning). This parallels known 2nd century James tradition, which also sets James in special relation to the priests (e.g., 2 Apoc. of James, pp. 44, 61).
2. Similar to the above, this presentation of James as a man of great prayer reflects 2nd century tradition (cf. 1 Apoc. of James, pp. 30-32).
3. Hegesippus is most probably referring to a list he's given earlier in Book 5, or more likely in one of the preceding books. This recurrence of the sects in a single work - once before this passage (as it states), and once after (as he goes on to do) - is not unique in patristic literature. Epiphanius of Salamis's magnum opus, the Panarion, suffers from the same tautology. Epiphanius lists the seven sects no fewer than four times in Book 1 alone: twice in Proem 1 (3.6; 5.3), and twice in Anacephalaeosis 1 (preface 1.14-20; ch. 19.5.7). Thus, it seems Eusebius preserved only the second enumeration, while the first is meant in this passage.
4. The seemingly unlikely language is noted here: "mentioned by me in the Memoirs"; for if Hegesippus is writing Memoirs now, why refer to it in such a removed fashion (almost as if referencing another work altogether)? The argument goes that this is, rather, a clumsy misstatement by Eusebius. Apparently forgetting himself, Eusebius transferred his own assumed separation from the work onto Hegesippus. This seems possible, but I'm not sure we need insist on it. It's important to keep in mind that this was Book 5 of Memoirs - the fifth and final book. It's certainly within the realm of possibilities that Hegesippus was referring to another book altogether in Memoirs (Book 4?), and a book which had long since been completed (maybe even published?). Augustine spent some fifteen years working on The Literal Meaning of Genesis, with two years intervening between the completion of Book 9 and the commencement of Book 10. Book 2 of the poet Horace's Satires were published five years after Book 1; and ten years elapsed between the publication of Books 1-3 and Book 4 of his Odes. So the composition of a literary work was often quite protracted. If such was the case with Hegesippus, then his comment here seems not out place; or at least less unlikely.
5. As the text goes on to show in Eusebius, it's this interrogation and subsequent speech from James at the Temple, that leads to his execution. Again, this finds a parallel in the 2nd century 2 Apoc. of James (p. 45; cf. pp. 60-61), which not only suggests James gave frequent speeches at the Temple, but it's reportedly there that the priests found and executed him.
6. In 2 Apoc. of James, pp. 61-62, James is thrown from the pinnacle of the Temple. And like here, he survives the fall and is subsequently stoned. In Psuedo-Clementine Recognitions 1.70 (ca. AD 150) James is first struck with a brand from the Temple alter (cf. the clubbing depicted here), and then pushed from the Temple steps. So once again, Hegesippus' account corresponds with 2nd century tradition. (Incidentally, the abbreviated account given by Clement of Alexandria in his Hypotyposes is very likely based on the earlier version from Hegesippus. This and the fact that Hegesippus gives a fuller account, is very likely why Eusebius prefers him over Clement. This is the view followed by most scholars.)
7. As here in Memoirs, James prays to God while being stoned in 2 Apoc. of James, pp. 62ff., though his prayer there has nothing in common with the one here. It is interesting to note, though, that both place a prayer on the lips of James during his execution.
8. The problem observed here, of course, is that the writer refers to "the Temple" - as if it were still standing. This passage has then been used to place the composition of Memoirs (or at least its commencement) in the 1st century, before the destruction of the Temple in AD 70. Of course, this blatantly contradicts - or at least presents significant problems with - the last fragments of Memoirs, which suggest the work was written as late as the bishopric of Eluetherus (ca. AD 175). But again, I'm not sure the passage requires this interpretation of us. Bede was the first to suggest, I believe, that, in effect, we should take Hegesippus' words to mean rather the Temple site in general: "his monument still remains by the Temple site." Though this suggestion was ultimately dismissed, I don't think it's without merit. Admittedly, a reference to the Temple site as "the Temple" is unusual, but it, like the seven sects issue, is not without parallel; and therefore we cannot disallow Hegesippus from using it in this sense. In early rabbinic literature we occasionally (though very rarely, to my knowledge) find the same usage. Thus in Midrash Tehillim 11:3 we read: "Rabbi Eleazar ben Pedat maintained...that regardless of whether the Holy Temple is destroyed, or is not destroyed, the Shekhinah (i.e., the divine presence) has not departed from the site, for it is said, 'The Lord is in his Holy Temple' (Pss. 11:3). Even though 'His throne is in heaven' (Pss. 11:3), yet His presence continues in the Temple, for He said, 'My eyes and My heart shall be there perpetually' (1 Kings 9:3)." Similarly in Bereshit Rabbah 79:7: "Rabbi Judan the son of Rabbi Simon said: '[The verse "And he bought the piece of land" (Gen. 33:19) refers to]...one of the three sites regarding which the nations of the world cannot taunt Israel and say, "You have stolen them."...[Another of the three is] the Temple; [ and the proof text is]: "So David gave to Ornan six hundred shekels of gold by weight for the site" (1 Chron. 21:25)'." In the light, then, of this more rare but not unknown usage of "Temple," it seems plausible that Hegesippus is referring to the Temple site, and accordingly we are not required to place this passage in a 1st century setting.
Another point of concern, which is perhaps best addressed here, is that the work is titled Memoirs, implying eyewitness accounts; and of course, if Hegesippus was writing in the 2nd century, he was no eyewitness to the death of James, the siege of Jerusalem, etc. However, the word doesn't always carry this signification, and there's hardly any reason to insist that it means as much here, in light of the work's content. The late John Ferguson, translator in the Fathers of the Church series, offers this definition of the word hypomnemata (the title of Hegesippus' work): "Memory aids. It can be used of any memorandum, the minutes of a committee, a note in a banker's ledger, a doctor's clinical notes, a historical sourcebook." Accordingly, Ferguson translates the word as Notes. Similarly, the Merriam-Webster Dictionary gives three definitions for "memoir"; its third says, in part: "an account of something noteworthy." These definitions best fit Hegesippus' usage: clearly he is giving an account of what he thought noteworthy, and according to Ferguson's definition, his work is rightly considered a historical sourcebook. There is no need, then, to insist that Hegesippus is writing from a 1st century, eyewitness perspective, based on the book's title.
9. There had been some confusion here as to what Hegesippus is attempting to relate. As has already been pointed out, he means simply that these five men, like Thebuthis, had come from among the seven Jewish sects. Simon was a Samaritan (Irenaeus, Adv. Haer. 1.23.1; et al.); Dositheus was reputedly a Jew turned Samaritan (Epiphanius, Panarion: Anacephalaeosis 1, 13.1.3); Gorthaeus was apparently a Samaritan as well (Epiphanius, ibid., 12); and of Cleobius only what Hegesippus tells us is known. Why Hegesippus mentions Masbotheus and the Masbothaeans as derived from the Jewish sects, and then goes on to list them as a Jewish sect, no one can say. Apostolic Constitutions 6.6 says they were a Jewish sect. Perhaps Hegesippus was working with two dissonant sources. In any event, I don't think this discrepancy stands as a point on which to build the case for forgery (I'm not sure anyone even has). Hegesippus could have been the careless writer, just as well as any other.
10. It's been noted here that four of these five sects appear in the same order in Justin Martyr's Dialogue with Trypho, ch. 35. The suggestion was made that a later forger has expanded on Justin's list. It should be borne in mind, though, that Justin wrote ca. AD 150, while Hegesippus' Book 5 is roughly ca. AD 175. Some scholars have suggested that Hegesippus was using Justin's now lost Syntagma, a work in which he specifically addresses certain heresies (perhaps he gave the same order of the four as in Dialogue?). At any rate, I see little reason to deny the possibility that Hegesippus, writing some 25 years after Justin, has expanded upon the list himself, using either Dialogue or Syntagma.
11. Here, the suggestion was made that the reference to Sadducees is anachronistic, they having ceased after the fall of Jerusalem. But Hegesippus doesn't say they still existed in his time: "The following were those opposed to...the Christ," he says. Justin Martyr also mentions Sadducees (Dialogue, 80), as does Hippolytus (Refutations, 24; ca. AD 230). So Hegesippus is simply giving a list of those sects he knows as "the seven sects"; there's no indication of their activity, whether current or not.
12. This is perhaps significant. According to my contextual arrangement of the fragments, Hegesippus refers here to Symeon son of Clopas the third time. If this is Hegesippus writing, then his language is quite natural: "the above-mentioned Symeon son of Clopas" - i.e., "I've already mentioned him (at least) twice before."
13. Supposedly the usage of "true faith" or "true doctrine" here, is indicative of at least a 3rd century hand, or later (Eusebius?). This is not necessary, though, as the phrase was current already in the 2nd century, when Hegesippus reportedly wrote. Celsus, probably writing ca. AD 178 (Vorkosigan has mistakenly placed him in the 3rd century), entitled his anti-Christian tract: On the True Doctrine (an ironical title, to be sure).
14. This is supposedly problematic, in that Primus was bishop ca. AD 109. Hegesippus certainly could not have been consorting with the Corinthian Christians around this time, then, as the passage seems to indicate. However, Hegesippus is referring to Primus, bishop of Corinth, and no one knows the precise dates of his episcopate. The plain meaning of the text, though, is that it was sometime late in the 2nd century. On the other hand, the Primus of AD 109 was bishop in Alexandria, not Corinth, as Eusebius says in H.E. 4.1. So there is no difficulty here.

At any rate, that's about it, I guess. Hope this has shed some light on the issue.

Regards,
Notsri

PhilosopherJay

Hi Nostri,

This is an interesting analysis and I appreciate the work involved.
I guess we should take this one step at a time.

First, let's examine this "special relationship" reflecting Second Century Traditions of James.

The special relationship is quite different in the two texts. In Eusebius-Hegessipus, we are told "He alone was permitted to enter into the holy place; for he wore not woolen but linen garments."

Josephus tells us: 20.9.6. Apparently the wearing of linen garments was reserved for the Priests. Eusebius-Hegesippus is trying to tell us that James, although not a priest, was permitted to wear linen and enter the Holy of Hollies in other words honored like a priest. The Jewish priests considered him one of their own.

Incidentally, this passage is in the same chapter in which we find the death of James described. One may put this down to coincidence or to Eusebius getting this information on linen wearing from Josephus.

The Second Apocalypse of James has this sentence, apparently spoken by the narrator Mariem (Mary? Mariamne?) one of the priests (priestesses?):

So the "special relationship" in Eusebius-Hegesippus is that the Jewish priests honored him as one of their own, while in Second Apocalypse of James, the Jewish priests find him useless and hate him. This is quite understandable. In the Second Apocalypse, James is an anti-Jewish Gnostic who says, " He was that one whom he who created the heaven and the earth and dwelled in it, did not see."

Since the Second Apocalypse identifies James, the Just, as the son of Theuda (Theudas, the Magician?), he can hardly be the brother of Jesus in this text, unless, we assume that Mary was screwing around on Joseph.

As the Gospel of Thomas also does not identify James the Just as a brother of Jesus, we may assume that James the Just was a separate character, most likely in the First Century. At what point he was associated with James, the brother of the Lord is anybody's guess. It could have been First, Second, Third, or Fourth Century.

As to the second point that the First Apocalypse and Eusebius-Hegesippus present him as a man of great prayers, we should compare the relevent texts:

Eusebius: 1st Apocalypse of James:

Now in both cases, James does pray, but in the Eusebius text, he does it in a temple and in the 1st Apocalypse, he does it on a mountain. In the former, he prays apparently to the Jewish God for forgiveness, while in 1st Apocalypse, he prays to the recently crucified Jesus and the Ghost of Jesus appears. So in Eusebius-Hegesippus, James is a pious Jew praying for the Jews, while in 1st Apocalpyse, he is a Gnostic Christian praying to Jesus.

The praying of James may reflect a First Century or Second Century tradition. But, I do not think it is possible to date these texts based on it. Although, it is interesting that 1st Apocalypse denies a maternal kinship between James and Jesus, meaning that it is probably later than a text claiming that relationship.

Warmly,

Jay Raskin

Vorkosigan

:notworthy Fabulous post, Nostri. Lots of meat, with the just the right amount of sauce. I'll be munching on those points until tomorrow.

Vorkosigan

Ted Hoffman

Nostri - that was rich. We could debate on the various strands that can emanate from your post for months [fun!fun! ]. And Jay has given it an interesting approach evocative of the puzzle: "how do you eat an elephant? One piece at a time". I want to add/ask questions on it.

In Price's Review of Robert Eisenman's James the Brother of Jesus, I learnt that James the Just was an Essene - based on his ascetic practices and wearing a linen dress among other things. You write that linen-wearing was reserved for the Priesthood - which is the correct one?

I learnt that James was killed for violating ritual by entering the Inner Sanctum on the day of atonement. For this infraction, as an Essene the mishnah required that he gets executed for this blasphemy.
Again, which is it?

James was regarded as the bulwark that held at bay God's raging wrath towards the Jews - this is supported by Origen's mention of the lost reference of Josephus - in which Josephus blamed the destruction of Jerusalem upon the death of James the Just.

Eisenmann argues that James had very little to do with Jesus and was only later Christianized (co-opted by later Christians). This is supported by the known passage where he was invited by the High Priest during passover to address and pacify the people whose growing faith and expectation in Jesus as a coming messiah was becoming a cause of concern [could someone remind me where we find this? - or is it in Acts?].

Price adds: "Eisenman's James would pretty much make sense as a major religious figure in his own right, not standing in the shadow of Jesus. This is the impression we gain from Hegesippus and others anyway: how could the Temple authorities ever have asked James to quell the popular enthusiasm over Jesus if they knew he himself was a Christian leader? And if he was a prominent Christian leader how could they not have known it? They knew him as a pious Jew, as did Josephus."

Could someone set the ground rules here: Who was James?

Amaleq13

How do you determine that James was not a priest despite all the descriptions consistent with his being a priest?

Why couldn't it be the same guy with only the meaning of the "title" changing?

Notsri

Thanks for the kind feedback everyone. I suppose the obvious thing to do, is to address the points PhilosopherJay has since raised...


As you've pointed out, Jay, Hegesippus says in H.E. 2.23: "[James] alone was permitted to enter into the holy place." If Hegesippus is referring to the Holy of Holies by "holy place," then I see little room to maneuver around the implication that James was High Priest. According to OT scripture, of course, only those of priestly descent were allowed to serve in the Temple, and only the High Priest was permitted inside the Holy of Holies. It seems probable to me, then, that, according to Hegesippus' strange report, James was a priest, and necessarily of priestly descent. This is how others have understood Hegesippus as well. To cite Epiphanius again: "Only this James was allowed to enter the Holy of Holies once a year, since he was a nazirite and a member of the priesthood...James was distinguished by priesthood...[and] James also wore the priestly diadem" (Panarion, Anac. 4, 78.13.5-14.1). McGiffert notes in his translation of H.E.: "The dramatic account of James by Hegesippus is an overdrawn picture from the middle of the second century, colored by Judaizing traits which may have been derived from the Ascents of James, and other Apocryphal sources. He turns James into a Jewish priest and a nazarite saint, etc." )


On the first extant page (p. 44) of the work, it says, "This is the discourse which James the Just delivered in Jerusalem and which Mareim wrote down. One of the priests told it to Theudas, the father of this just man [i.e., James], since he was a relative of his." Admittedly, this is somewhat vague, but it may very well be suggesting that James was a Levite, since he was the priest's relative. This would perhaps find further support at p. 61: "As for me [the priestly relative of Theudas, James' father,] I was with the priests. And I revealed nothing of our kinship, since they were all saying with one voice: 'Come! Let us stone the Just!'" So again, it seems plausible that the author of 2 Apoc. of James thinks James was Levite as well.


I think we're missing the forest for the trees here, though. There are, of course, many divergant details between the two accounts. But both develop a common theme: James as man of prayer. In 1 Apoc. of James, pp. 30-31 we find: "James...prayed...as was his custom." From Hegesippus we read: "[James] was frequently found upon his knees, begging forgiveness for the people." I'm certainly not the first to notice this. Schneemelcher says of 2 Apoc. of James: "In contrast to 1 Apoc. Jas. pp. 30-32, 2 Apoc. Jas. does not appear to refer to James as the great man of prayer (cf. Hegesippus)." (Incidentally, I find Schneemelcher's comments a little strange, since pp. 62-63 of 2 Apoc. of James record a somewhat extended prayer from James.)


I would agree. But... considering the fact that both 1 & 2 Apoc. of James have been dated to the 2nd century, and both show similarities with Hegesippus' account, we can at least say that Hegesippus reflects 2nd century tradtion. This doesn't establish Memoirs as a 2nd century work, but, taken with the other points I commented on, it does at least support a 2nd century dating for Hegesippus' Memoirs.

Vorkosigan

No, it doesn't, Nostri. It points to the third century at least, and someone familiar with these traditions about James, who has read Iranaeus and Justin Martyr.

My particular take is that whenever the content of a writing can be found in an extant public document, than that writing is based on it. For example, the Hitler Diaries were unmasked when their entries were found to contain only remarks that could be located in other books that appeared prior to the diary, particular a compendium of Hitler's speeches. Here we have several passages that purport to be second century, but we ourselves can locate everything alluded to in other texts. That stinks of forgery.

Eisenman moment: One notes the same variation in the Temptation stories of Jesus, in one he's on a mountain, in another he's on the Temple.

Vorkosigan

Notsri

For this aspect of my argument I've been relying almost entirely on Schneemelcher's 2 vol. collection of New Testament Apocrypha.

Regarding 1 Apoc. of James, he says:
Regarding 2 Apoc. of James, he has only this to say:
Perhaps Hegesippus.

Ted Hoffman

Nostri,
Stating that James was a nazirite makes him a Zadokite because we know that the sectarian group that was led by the teacher of rightousness to exile in the caves at the coast of the dead sea during the Hasmonean era, likely had as their leader, a heir apparent to the priesthood which was based on being in the bloodline of Zadok. Sid Green tells us that "The Scrolls are peppered with references to the sectarians as ‘Guardians’ or ‘Keepers’ of the Law. The Hebrew word for this is ‘Shomerim,’ but in the spoken language, Aramaic, it is ‘Natsarraya,’ whence the Greek ‘Nazoraioi’ is a very close transliteration [from Matthew Black, The Scrolls and Christian Origins]. This allows us to see how the community which sheltered the Zadokite bloodline became known as the ‘Nazoraioi’ or ‘Nazoreans,’"
Sons of Zadok

The implication of this, I think, is that James the Just was a Saducee. Is this consistent with what we know wrt the relationship between the Saducees, Pharisees, Ebionites and the Essenes during the first century Judaea?
And this is consistent with James being a Levite?
How is that consistent with James' relationship with Jesus - an illiterate Tekton or Galilean peasant?

I hope this is not a silly question but why is "2nd century tradition" important here?
Does it confer historicity to the idea that James was a Priest/ was a member of the Priesthood?

And why was James Killed anyway? Price thinks that it was because he entered the Inner Sanctum on the day of atonement. Is this correct?