Julio

Why would some pope name him a saint?
What happened to this man?
If this man’s life is known only via Eusebius, how come he was made a saint?…
How can it be proved he was an “orthodox catholic”?…
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hegesippus_(chronicler)
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/07194a.htm
http://www.earlychristianwritings.co...egesippus.html

Julio

Is it not a great thought that if Hegesippus’ history was discovered today, the ENTIRE Christian Faith [and/or theology] would suffer irreparably?
Would the canonical gospels be again regarded as the truth?
I think not.
I wonder why “some strange hand” destroyed those documents; I just wonder.

Was that "hand" Eusebius' one?... Or his accomplices?

DCHindley

I suppose that if we suddenly rediscovered the works of either Papias or Hegesippus, our understanding of early Christian development would be seriously affected, but the religion would not be crushed like a bug.

Papias was a believer in a 1,000 year kingdom of God here on earth, and cited sayings supposedly from Jesus' own lips speaking of a super fruitful earth, that resemble the one in 2 Baruch. In the 4th century, this was not the accepted POV, and Eusebius criticized him for this belief.

Today, belief in a literal 1,000 year KoG on earth is usually associated with fringe groups like the Jehovah's Witnesses and maybe 7th Day Adventists or the Montanists of the 2nd century and later. Westerners like to think Christianity is "above" that kind of fanatical (i.e., Jewish) thinking. Finding a copy would force Christians to face the "fanatical" aspects of their origins rather than sweep it under the rug as many of them currently do.

Hegesippus for his part did something quite different. He re-told certain events he had drawn from historians of his day and interjected key figures from Christian tradition (John the Baptist, James, Jesus, etc) into what he considered their "proper" place in history.

If we rediscovered it, and were thus better able to deduce his sources (we now think he principally drew from Josephus' War of the Jews) and could see exactly what he added and where he placed the persons and events, what would likely come of it would be a renewed discussion about why Hegesippus would have felt it necessary to insert Christian figures into history that had originally largely ignored them. It might also clarify whether there were references that have not survived (maybe not-so-positive ones) or have been modified during transmission by ancient Christian scribes and publishers.

These kind of things would reshape their world view (maybe even make it more realistic and sensitive to current world events), but would not be equivalent to a torpedo below the waterline of the Christian ship of state.

DCH

Julio

You’re right, I suppose.
Yet, if Hegesippus would tell us about totally different landscape, MANY Christians would give up the faith as a past fantasy.
What would probably happen would be popes and cardinal attempting to “explain” their “Progressive Revelation in Tradition” in a way to find a platform to distance themselves from Hegesippus and try to carry on with their cultic “enterprise”.

DCHindley

I don't understand why they would feel a need to "distance" themselves from Hegesippus. Hegesippus was non-threatening, and tried to put Christianity in context." Why weren't his books preserved? I don't know. Perhaps his suggested positioning of Christian figures into secular history created more questions than they answered.

The three certain citations of Hegesippus, all preserved by Eusebius, deal with traditions about Jesus' family. (1)

Origen, who wrote well after Hegesippus' time, seemed to be relying on some source for statements about Jesus and James that he claims are from Josephus, but do not seem to match exactly what is in Josephus. (2)

It seems likely that Josephus' comment about the death of a High Priest named Ananus, brother of Jesus, being the cause of the destruction of Jerusalem (War 3:318) had somehow been conflated with his statements about John the Baptist being the cause of the destruction of Herod Antipas' army around 35 CE (Ant 18:116-117) and about the death of James the brother of one Jesus, a righteous man (Ant 20:200), but it is all terribly confused. (3)

If this confused account in Origen really does come from Hegesippus, then no wonder he ultimately was not passed on.

DCH

1) Ca. 170 CE, Hegesippus, Commentaries on the Acts of the Church, Book 5, paraphrased in Eusebius, History of the Church 2:23

James, the Lord's brother, succeeds to the government of the Church, in conjunction with the apostles. He has been universally called the Just, from the days of the Lord down to the present time. For many bore the name of James; but this one was holy from his mother's womb. He drank no wine or other intoxicating liquor, nor did he eat flesh; no razor came upon his head; he did not anoint himself with oil, nor make use of the bath. He alone was permitted to enter the holy place: for he did not wear any woolen garment, but fine linen only. He alone, I say, was wont to go into the temple: and he used to be found kneeling on his knees, begging forgiveness for the people--so that the skin of his knees became horny like that of a camel's, by reason of his constantly bending the knee in adoration to God, and begging forgiveness for the people. Therefore, in consequence of his pre-eminent justice, he was called the Just, and Oblias, which signifies in Greek Defense of the People, and Justice, in accordance with what the prophets declare concerning him. [Supposedly referring to the fortified ridge of Mt Zion mentioned in 2 Chron. 27:3]

Now some persons belonging to the seven sects existing among the people, which have been before described by me in the Notes, asked him: "What is the door of Jesus?" And he replied that He was the Saviour. In Consequence of this answer, some believed that Jesus is the Christ. But the sects before mentioned did not believe, either in a resurrection or in the coming of One to requite every man according to his works; but those who did believe, believed because of James. So, when many even of the ruling class believed, there was a commotion among the Jews, and scribes, and Pharisees, who said: "A little more, and we shall have all the people looking for Jesus as the Christ.

They came, therefore, in a body to James, and said: "We entreat thee, restrain the people: for they are gone astray in their opinions about Jesus, as if he were the Christ. We entreat thee to persuade all who have come hither for the day of the passover, concerning Jesus. For we all listen to thy persuasion; since we, as well as all the people, bear thee testimony that thou art just, and showest partiality to none. Do thou, therefore, persuade the people not to entertain erroneous opinions concerning Jesus: for all the people, and we also, listen to thy persuasion. Take thy stand, then, upon the summit of the temple, that from that elevated spot thou mayest be clearly seen, and thy words may be plainly audible to all the people. For, in order to attend the passover, all the tribes have congregated hither, and some of the Gentiles also."

The aforesaid scribes and Pharisees accordingly set James on the summit of the temple, and cried aloud to him, and said: "O just one, whom we are all bound to obey, forasmuch as the people is in error, and follows Jesus the crucified, do thou tell us what is the door of Jesus, the crucified." And he answered with a loud voice: "Why ask ye me concerning Jesus the Son of man? He Himself sitteth in heaven, at the right hand of the Great Power, and shall come on the clouds of heaven."

And, when many were fully convinced by these words, and offered praise for the testimony of James, and said, "Hosanna to the son of David," then again the said Pharisees and scribes said to one another, "We have not done well in procuring this testimony to Jesus. But let us go up and throw him down, that they may be afraid, and not believe him." And they cried aloud, and said: "Oh! oh! The just man himself is in error." Thus they fulfilled the Scripture written in Isaiah: "Let us away with the just man, because he is troublesome to us: therefore shall they eat the fruit of their doings." So they went up and threw down the just man, and said to one another: "Let us stone James the Just." And they began to stone him: for he was not killed by the fall; but he turned, and kneeled down, and said: "I beseech Thee, Lord God our Father, forgive them; for they know not what they do."

And, while they were thus stoning him to death, one of the priests, the sons of Rechab, the son of Rechabim, to whom testimony is borne by Jeremiah the prophet, began to cry aloud, saying: "Cease, what do ye? The just man is praying for us." But one among them, one of the fullers, took the staff with which he was accustomed to wring out the garments he dyed, and hurled it at the head of the just man.

And so he suffered martyrdom; and they buried him on the spot, and the pillar erected to his memory still remains, close by the temple. This man was a true witness to both Jews and Greeks that Jesus is the Christ.

And shortly after Vespasian besieged Judaea, taking them captive.

Commentaries on the Acts of the Church, cited in Eusebius, History of the Church 3:20

After the capture of the Jews by (Emperor) Vespasian “there still survived of the kindred of the Lord the (two) grandsons of Judas, who (Judas) according to the flesh was called his (Jesus’) brother. These were informed against, as belonging to the family of David, and (the) Evocatus (a person who held the rank of an evocati in the army) brought them before Domitian Caesar: for (that one) dreaded the coming of Christ, as Herod had done. And he asked them if they were descendants of David, and they confessed that they were. Then he asked them how much property they had, or how much money they owned. And both of them answered that they had only nine thousand denarii, half of which belonged to each of them; and this property did not consist of silver, but of a piece of land which contained only thirty-nine plethra (the word technically means less than a quarter acre, but was sometimes substituted for the Latin iugerum, which was just over a half acre, so either about 10 or 20 acres) and from which they raised their taxes and supported themselves by their own labor." Then they showed their hands, exhibiting the hardness of their bodies and the callousness produced upon their hands by continuous toil as evidence of their own labor. And when they were asked concerning Christ and his kingdom, of what sort it was and where and when it was to appear, they, answered that it was not a temporal nor an earthly kingdom, but a heavenly and angelic one, which would appear at the end of the world, when he should come in glory to judge the quick and the dead, and to give unto every one according to his works. Upon hearing this, Domitian did not pass judgment against them, but, despising them as of no account, he let them go, and by a decree put a stop to the persecution of the Church. But when they were released they ruled the churches because they were witnesses and were also relatives of the Lord. And peace being established, they lived until the time of Trajan. These things are related by Hegesippus.

Hegesippus, Commentaries on the Acts of the Church, cited in Eusebius, History of the Church 3:32

It is reported that after the age of Nero and Domitian, under the emperor whose times we are now recording, a persecution was stirred up against us in certain cities in consequence of a popular uprising. In this persecution we have understood that Symeon, the son of Clopas, who, as we have shown, was the second bishop of the church of Jerusalem, suffered martyrdom. Hegesippus, whose words we have already quoted in various places, is a witness to this fact also. Speaking of certain heretics he adds that Symeon was accused by them at this time; and since it was clear that he was a Christian, he was tortured in various ways for many days, and astonished even the judge himself and his attendants in the highest degree, and finally he suffered a death similar to that of our Lord. But there is nothing like hearing the historian himself, who writes as follows: "Certain of these heretics brought accusation against Symeon, the son of Clopas, on the ground that he was a descendant of David and a Christian; and thus he suffered martyrdom, at the age of one hundred and twenty years, while Trajan was emperor and Atticus governor [possibly Procurator or Prefect over Judea, and which would likely have been between 103/3 and 104/5 CE]." And the same writer says that his [i.e., Symeon, the son of Clopas] accusers also, when search was made for the descendants of David, were arrested as belonging to that family. And it might be reasonably assumed that Symeon was one of those that saw and heard the Lord, judging from the length of his life, and from the fact that the Gospel makes mention of Mary, the wife of Clopas [John 19:25ff], who was the father of Symeon, as has been already shown.

The same historian says that there were also others, descended from one of the so-called brothers of the Saviour, whose name was Judas, who, after they had borne testimony before Domitian, as has been already recorded, in behalf of faith in Christ, lived until the same reign. He writes as follows: "They came, therefore, and took the lead of every church as witness and as relatives of the Lord. And profound peace being established in every church, they remained until the reign of the Emperor Trajan, 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 cause before the governor Atticus [possibly Procurator or Prefect over Judea, and which would likely have been between 103/3 and 104/5 CE]. 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."

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. 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, 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.'

2)

Ca. 230 CE. Origen Comment. in Matth.

This James was of so shining a character among the people, on account of his righteousness, that Flavius Josephus, when, in his twentieth book of the Jewish Antiquities, he had a mind to set down what was the cause why the people suffered such miseries, till the very holy house was demolished, he said that these things befell them by the anger of God, on account of what they had dared to do to James, the brother of Jesus, who was called Christ: and wonderful it is that, while he did not receive Jesus for Christ, he did nevertheless bear witness that James was so righteous a man. He says further, that the people thought that they suffered these things for the sake of James.

Ca. 250 CE. Origen Contra Cels. lib. i.

I would say to Celsus, who personates a Jew, that admitted of John the Baptist, and how he baptised Jesus, that one who lived but a little while after John and Jesus, wrote, how that John was a baptizer unto the remission of sins. For Josephus testifies in the eighteenth book of Jewish Antiquities, that John was the Baptist, and that he promised purification to those that were baptized. The same Josephus also, although he did not believe in Jesus as Christ, when he was inquiring after the cause of the destruction of Jerusalem and of the demolition of the temple, and ought to have said, that their machinations against Jesus were the cause of those miseries coming on the people, because they had slain that Christ who was foretold by the prophets, he, though as it were unwillingly, and yet as one not remote from the truth, says, “These miseries befell the Jews by way of revenge for James the Just, who was the brother of Jesus, that was called Christ, because they had slain him who was the most righteous person.” Now this James was he whom that genuine disciple of Jesus, Paul, said he had seen as the Lord’s brother; [Gal. i. 19.] which relation implies not so much nearness of blood, or the sameness of education, as it does the agreement of manners and preaching. If therefore he says the desolation of Jerusalem befell the Jews for the sake of James, with how much greater reason might he have said, that it happened for the sake of Jesus, &c.

3)

ca 75 CE, Josephus, Wars of the Jews 4:318

318 I should not be mistaken if I said that the death of Ananus was the beginning of the destruction of the city, and that from this very day may be dated the overthrow of her wall, and the ruin of her affairs, whereon they saw their high priest, and the procurer of their preservation, slain in the midst of their city.

ca 95-100 CE, Antiquities of the Jews 18:116-117

116 Now some of the Jews thought that the destruction of Herod's army came from God, and that very justly, as a punishment of what he did against John, that was called the Baptist: 117 for Herod slew him, who was a good man, and commanded the Jews to exercise virtue, both as to righteousness toward one another, and piety toward God

Antiquities of the Jews 20:200

200 when, therefore, Ananus was of this disposition, he thought he had now a proper opportunity [to exercise his authority]. Festus was now dead, and Albinus was but upon the road; so he assembled the Sanhedrin of judges, and brought before them the brother of Jesus, who was called Christ, whose name was James, and some others, [or some of his companions]; and, when he had formed an accusation against them as breakers of the law, he delivered them to be stoned

Julio

Thanks for the text you posted; I read it all.
Now, the rhetorical and/or hypothetical question:
Did Hegesippus tell the true story or not?
Or was he an exaggerator, superstitious man like Eusebius?
Why would “God’s prescience” allow Eusebius to mention Hegesippus’ text and not preserve it all for posterity?
What Eusebius reports seems to be a story of martyrdom and highly superstitious fervour of those primitive days of the faith.

storytime

Even if everything about the story were discredited, one thing would remain to sustain the body of Christians. That being faith. Faith cannot be killed off for it embodies whatever it wills, so to speak.

aa5874

Faith in Gods has been killed over and over in history.

The Egyptians of today have lost faith in their Gods of antiquity.

The Greeks/Romans of today have given up their faith in their Gods of antoquity.

And those whose Gods were stones, lightining, earthquakes and hurricanes, have abandoned such faith.

Faith in the myth Jesus will soon be destroyed just like any other faith was destroyed.

It is inconceivable or untenable that billions of humans will continue for eternity to have faith in Jesus.

Julio

Excellent! I surely agree with you!
The Christian Faith is currently being demolished one way or another, irreversibly, I'm sure.

storytime

I doubt faith in Jesus will be destroyed soon, maybe in the next thousand years. And even then a thing called faith can be employed onto something else..if Christians so desire; faith in man's ability to do good things, for example. I don't see the body of Christianity being wiped out completely. Jesus may not be seen in the same context of scripture as scholars will accomodate his dismiss with whatever "faith". Jesus will be an ancient relic, he'll be looked on as a teaching tool, but Christianity will remain in his name as a remembrance. Just like those other gods you mentioned who are now relics of the past and Judaism lives on in its accomodating fashion.