For a short while, I was almost persuaded that "He became a true witness, both to Jews and Greeks, that Jesus is the Christ, and immediately Vespasian besieged them." belonged to the wording of Eusebius. More careful study has persuaded me that this suspicion of mine was not correct. Some may still find my thought process here to be of interest, so I can share it.
For one thing, we can know that Hegesippus and Origen (with reference to Josephus) are not the only sources of an idea that would connect the death of James to the First Jewish Revolt somehow. The First Apocalypse of James (from the NHL) has: "When you depart, immediately war will be made with this land. Weep, then, for him who dwells in Jerusalem." A sequence of events that included the death of James, a war in Judea, and sorrow for Jerusalem is expressed here. To me, this indicates a likelihood of a more widespread tradition among Christians about the death of James being shortly before this war and/or shortly before the taking of Jerusalem, reflected variously in the First Apocalypse of James and in Hegesippus. I had momentarily been thinking that perhaps this connection was made only in a narrow literary context that included Origen and Eusebius, but this indicates against that to me. The expression in the First Apocalypse of James is consistent with a death of James that was placed prior to the outbreak of the war (which could have been a few years later).
More importantly, Ken Olson brings out some important connections in understanding the text of Hegesippus, including: why is James called "bulwark of the people" (περιοχὴ τοῦ λαοῦ)? What is the significance of James "begging forgiveness for the people" and the objection later made "Cease, what do ye? The just one prayeth for you"? What is the supposed fulfillment of "therefore they shall eat the fruit of their doings" quoted from Isaiah?
The first question is best explained with reference to another passage of Eusebius (EH 3.7.9)
Both words can refer to fortifications or fences:
https://lsj.gr/wiki/%CF%80%CE%B5%CF%81% ... F%87%CE%AE
https://lsj.gr/wiki/%E1%BC%95%CF%81%CE%BA%CE%BF%CF%82
By the way, the translation above obscures some features of the Greek, which suggests that they were "conducting their discussions in the city of Jerusalem itself" (ἐπ' αὐτῆς τῆς Ἱεροσολύμων πόλεως τὰς διατριβὰς ποιούμενοι). There is also a similar reference from Eusebius previously (EH 3.5.3):
Eusebius thus has two similar accounts, one emphasizing the apostles and James conducting discussion there, the other emphasizing the flight to Pella. It's not completely clear whether we should understand these accounts in a harmonized way (perhaps even going back to Hegesippus, who may have said something about Pella) or as separate ideas. If they were to be harmonized, then that would possibly shed some light on the passage of Hegesippus about James. On such a reading, where the death of James is the only thing preventing a complete absence of holy men in Jerusalem, the rest of the Jerusalem church's holy men (apostles and disciples) would have fled to Pella already, while James stayed behind to pray for the forgiveness of the people in Jerusalem. This reading would interpret "besieged them" to refer more specifically to the siege of Jerusalem, not as a reference to the outbreak of war. The idea that people had gathered together for passover is consistent with such a reading, given that the siege of Jerusalem began around passover (according to Josephus). Of course, attributing this siege to Vespasian instead of Titus would have to be considered an error of the account on this reading (and likely not the only error in the account). The plausibility of such a reading is supported by the later reference made in EH 3.12:
Of course, it's just possible that this means "Vespasian after the conquest of Jerusalem [by Titus]," but in either case Vespasian is the subject of the narrative of Hegesippus according to Eusebius, in a story told in close connection to the conquest of Jerusalem. And if the earlier reference forms part of the quotation of Hegesippus, it seems most natural to read Hegesippus as claiming that Vespasian was responsible for the conquest of Jerusalem by siege. This is consistent with what is said immediately before by Eusebius:
Eusebius refers to the account of Hegesippus on Symeon becoming bishop again later (Ecclesiastical History, 4.22.4-5). It's unnatural to assume that Eusebius would be the source of a claim that Vespasian conducted the conquest of Jerusalem, given that Eusebius used Josephus and knew that Titus conducted the siege of Jerusalem. This makes it likely that the claim comes from Hegesippus, as something narrated after the death of James.
This implies the existence of two different ideas or traditions, one in Hegesippus where the presence of James in Jerusalem delays the siege (during the war), the other found in the First Apocalypse of James where the death of James precedes the outbreak of the war.
Eusebius relies on Josephus and Acts for chronology when contextualizing the death of James (EH 2.23.1-2):
This indicates further against attributing the words "immediately Vespasian besieged them" to Eusebius, who would have attributed the siege of Jerusalem more directly to Titus and places the death of James prior to the outbreak of the war, following Josephus.
It's also worth noting that the story quoted has a bit about "For all the tribes, with the Gentiles also, are come together on account of the Passover," so, while the purposes of Hegesippus are obscure to us now, apparently he had some interest in portraying James as a witness "both to Jews and Greeks," even though this may also have been an appealing idea to Eusebius too.
As a result, I don't find any substantial reasons to argue that the closing words of the quote don't belong to Hegesippus. They seem consistent with what little we know about Hegesippus and what he wrote. That they are part of the quote is consistent with the phrasing that Eusebius uses to pick up after the quote and with the considerations outlined above.
Perhaps of more interest (even if just to argue against it...?) is a conclusion in favor of an interpretation of Hegesippus according to which he is writing about a death of James that takes place prior to the siege of Jerusalem (and during the war). It's been my impression that attempts to harmonize the chronology of Hegesippus (usually in the form of arguing for the ambiguity of what is written, often with emphasis placed on the reference to "Vespasian" as being to the start of a war instead of the siege of Jerusalem) with other sources have generally been more popular. I suggest that Hegesippus incorrectly attributed the conquest of Jerusalem to Vespasian. It must be admitted that it is difficult to know for sure because of the fragmentary state of the remains of Hegesippus.
This doesn't directly answer you, Ken, but it shows some of my progress along the way to answering.
For one thing, we can know that Hegesippus and Origen (with reference to Josephus) are not the only sources of an idea that would connect the death of James to the First Jewish Revolt somehow. The First Apocalypse of James (from the NHL) has: "When you depart, immediately war will be made with this land. Weep, then, for him who dwells in Jerusalem." A sequence of events that included the death of James, a war in Judea, and sorrow for Jerusalem is expressed here. To me, this indicates a likelihood of a more widespread tradition among Christians about the death of James being shortly before this war and/or shortly before the taking of Jerusalem, reflected variously in the First Apocalypse of James and in Hegesippus. I had momentarily been thinking that perhaps this connection was made only in a narrow literary context that included Origen and Eusebius, but this indicates against that to me. The expression in the First Apocalypse of James is consistent with a death of James that was placed prior to the outbreak of the war (which could have been a few years later).
More importantly, Ken Olson brings out some important connections in understanding the text of Hegesippus, including: why is James called "bulwark of the people" (περιοχὴ τοῦ λαοῦ)? What is the significance of James "begging forgiveness for the people" and the objection later made "Cease, what do ye? The just one prayeth for you"? What is the supposed fulfillment of "therefore they shall eat the fruit of their doings" quoted from Isaiah?
The first question is best explained with reference to another passage of Eusebius (EH 3.7.9)
But it may be proper to mention also those events which exhibited the graciousness of that all-good Providence which held back their destruction full forty years after their crime against Christ — during which time many of the apostles and disciples, and James himself the first bishop there, the one who is called the brother of the Lord, were still alive, and dwelling in Jerusalem itself, remained the surest bulwark of the place (ἕρκος ὥσπερ ὀχυρώτατον). Divine Providence thus still proved itself long-suffering toward them in order to see whether by repentance for what they had done they might obtain pardon and salvation; and in addition to such long-suffering, Providence also furnished wonderful signs of the things which were about to happen to them if they did not repent.
Both words can refer to fortifications or fences:
https://lsj.gr/wiki/%CF%80%CE%B5%CF%81% ... F%87%CE%AE
https://lsj.gr/wiki/%E1%BC%95%CF%81%CE%BA%CE%BF%CF%82
By the way, the translation above obscures some features of the Greek, which suggests that they were "conducting their discussions in the city of Jerusalem itself" (ἐπ' αὐτῆς τῆς Ἱεροσολύμων πόλεως τὰς διατριβὰς ποιούμενοι). There is also a similar reference from Eusebius previously (EH 3.5.3):
But the people of the church in Jerusalem had been commanded by a revelation, vouchsafed to approved men there before the war, to leave the city and to dwell in a certain town of Perea called Pella. And when those that believed in Christ had come there from Jerusalem, then, as if the royal city of the Jews and the whole land of Judea were entirely destitute of holy men, the judgment of God at length overtook those who had committed such outrages against Christ and his apostles, and totally destroyed that generation of impious men.
Eusebius thus has two similar accounts, one emphasizing the apostles and James conducting discussion there, the other emphasizing the flight to Pella. It's not completely clear whether we should understand these accounts in a harmonized way (perhaps even going back to Hegesippus, who may have said something about Pella) or as separate ideas. If they were to be harmonized, then that would possibly shed some light on the passage of Hegesippus about James. On such a reading, where the death of James is the only thing preventing a complete absence of holy men in Jerusalem, the rest of the Jerusalem church's holy men (apostles and disciples) would have fled to Pella already, while James stayed behind to pray for the forgiveness of the people in Jerusalem. This reading would interpret "besieged them" to refer more specifically to the siege of Jerusalem, not as a reference to the outbreak of war. The idea that people had gathered together for passover is consistent with such a reading, given that the siege of Jerusalem began around passover (according to Josephus). Of course, attributing this siege to Vespasian instead of Titus would have to be considered an error of the account on this reading (and likely not the only error in the account). The plausibility of such a reading is supported by the later reference made in EH 3.12:
For Hegesippus records that Clopas was a brother of Joseph. He also relates that Vespasian after the conquest of Jerusalem gave orders that all that belonged to the lineage of David should be sought out, in order that none of the royal race might be left among the Jews; and in consequence of this a most terrible persecution again hung over the Jews.
Of course, it's just possible that this means "Vespasian after the conquest of Jerusalem [by Titus]," but in either case Vespasian is the subject of the narrative of Hegesippus according to Eusebius, in a story told in close connection to the conquest of Jerusalem. And if the earlier reference forms part of the quotation of Hegesippus, it seems most natural to read Hegesippus as claiming that Vespasian was responsible for the conquest of Jerusalem by siege. This is consistent with what is said immediately before by Eusebius:
Eusebius, Ecclesiastical History, 3.11.1-2. After the martyrdom of James and the conquest of Jerusalem which immediately followed, it is said that those of the apostles and disciples of the Lord that were still living came together from all directions with those that were related to the Lord according to the flesh (for the majority of them also were still alive) to take counsel as to who was worthy to succeed James. They all with one consent pronounced Symeon, the son of Clopas, of whom the Gospel also makes mention; to be worthy of the episcopal throne of that parish. He was a cousin, as they say, of the Saviour. For Hegesippus records that Clopas was a brother of Joseph.
Eusebius refers to the account of Hegesippus on Symeon becoming bishop again later (Ecclesiastical History, 4.22.4-5). It's unnatural to assume that Eusebius would be the source of a claim that Vespasian conducted the conquest of Jerusalem, given that Eusebius used Josephus and knew that Titus conducted the siege of Jerusalem. This makes it likely that the claim comes from Hegesippus, as something narrated after the death of James.
This implies the existence of two different ideas or traditions, one in Hegesippus where the presence of James in Jerusalem delays the siege (during the war), the other found in the First Apocalypse of James where the death of James precedes the outbreak of the war.
Eusebius relies on Josephus and Acts for chronology when contextualizing the death of James (EH 2.23.1-2):
But after Paul, in consequence of his appeal to Cæsar, had been sent to Rome by Festus, the Jews, being frustrated in their hope of entrapping him by the snares which they had laid for him, turned against James, the brother of the Lord, to whom the episcopal seat at Jerusalem had been entrusted by the apostles. The following daring measures were undertaken by them against him.
Leading him into their midst they demanded of him that he should renounce faith in Christ in the presence of all the people. But, contrary to the opinion of all, with a clear voice, and with greater boldness than they had anticipated, he spoke out before the whole multitude and confessed that our Saviour and Lord Jesus is the Son of God. But they were unable to bear longer the testimony of the man who, on account of the excellence of ascetic virtue and of piety which he exhibited in his life, was esteemed by all as the most just of men, and consequently they slew him. Opportunity for this deed of violence was furnished by the prevailing anarchy, which was caused by the fact that Festus had died just at this time in Judea, and that the province was thus without a governor and head.
Leading him into their midst they demanded of him that he should renounce faith in Christ in the presence of all the people. But, contrary to the opinion of all, with a clear voice, and with greater boldness than they had anticipated, he spoke out before the whole multitude and confessed that our Saviour and Lord Jesus is the Son of God. But they were unable to bear longer the testimony of the man who, on account of the excellence of ascetic virtue and of piety which he exhibited in his life, was esteemed by all as the most just of men, and consequently they slew him. Opportunity for this deed of violence was furnished by the prevailing anarchy, which was caused by the fact that Festus had died just at this time in Judea, and that the province was thus without a governor and head.
This indicates further against attributing the words "immediately Vespasian besieged them" to Eusebius, who would have attributed the siege of Jerusalem more directly to Titus and places the death of James prior to the outbreak of the war, following Josephus.
It's also worth noting that the story quoted has a bit about "For all the tribes, with the Gentiles also, are come together on account of the Passover," so, while the purposes of Hegesippus are obscure to us now, apparently he had some interest in portraying James as a witness "both to Jews and Greeks," even though this may also have been an appealing idea to Eusebius too.
As a result, I don't find any substantial reasons to argue that the closing words of the quote don't belong to Hegesippus. They seem consistent with what little we know about Hegesippus and what he wrote. That they are part of the quote is consistent with the phrasing that Eusebius uses to pick up after the quote and with the considerations outlined above.
Perhaps of more interest (even if just to argue against it...?) is a conclusion in favor of an interpretation of Hegesippus according to which he is writing about a death of James that takes place prior to the siege of Jerusalem (and during the war). It's been my impression that attempts to harmonize the chronology of Hegesippus (usually in the form of arguing for the ambiguity of what is written, often with emphasis placed on the reference to "Vespasian" as being to the start of a war instead of the siege of Jerusalem) with other sources have generally been more popular. I suggest that Hegesippus incorrectly attributed the conquest of Jerusalem to Vespasian. It must be admitted that it is difficult to know for sure because of the fragmentary state of the remains of Hegesippus.
This doesn't directly answer you, Ken, but it shows some of my progress along the way to answering.
Statistics: Posted by Peter Kirby — Thu Mar 14, 2024 2:13 pm