Clement Read Hegesippus

[Ben C. Smith]

It's curious though that Clement and Origen don't mention Hegesippus (at least as far as I am aware). It reminds me of the question of whether or not Origen confused him with Josephus regarding the reason for the fall of Jerusalem, which I've tended to doubt since I haven't seen anything that otherwise suggests that he knew Hegesippus (not that I've ever scoured him, I've just never seen anyone give any examples for it like the one for Clement regarding the death of James, and because what he says in my view resembles more what Josephus says about Jerusalem falling because of the death of Ananus in War 4.5.2). At the same time, it would be odd if he didn't know Hegesippus given that Clement appears to.

Yes, it would. Will the book have been lost in the meantime or something from Alexandria?

At any rate, perhaps Hegesippus, being a rather early writer, included material which somewhat embarrassed later writers, much like Papias. In such a case, one might expect the relevant church fathers to take what they needed (or what was congenial) from Hegesippus without necessarily being moved to cite him by name. You agree that Clement appears to have known him, yet Clement does not name him, either.

Another thing to bear in mind is that, as you mention later in your post, we have lost a lot of what both Clement and Origen wrote. But my money is on the simple observation that the church fathers before Eusebius very often failed to cite their sources by name. Why should we expect them to break form just for Hegesippus?

[Secret Alias]

The form Hegesippus is an adaptation to the phonetics of Greek, to make the name sound Greek (not Latin). In the context of a Jewish-Christian or Jewish writer of the second century it is an artificial name made up by whoever edited the Latin version of Josephus and called 'Josephus' - Hegesippus.

[John2]

Now that I take another look at what Clement says in Stromata 1.21, I'm wondering how this can be from Josephus. Where does Josephus say this? And how could it be from Josephus if it mentions Antoninus Pius, who reigned from 138-161 CE?

Flavius Josephus the Jew, who composed the history of the Jews, computing the periods, says that from Moses to David were five hundred and eighty-five years; from David to the second year of Vespasian, a thousand one hundred and seventy-nine; then from that to the tenth year of Antoninus, seventy-seven. So that from Moses to the tenth year of Antoninus there are, in all, two thousand one hundred and thirty-three years.

If I had to bet, I would say this more likely came from Hegesippus, who lived up to the time of Antoninus (unlike Josephus) and whom Clement appears to have known (given his description of James' death), unlike Josephus as far as I can tell (since a word search for Josephus in all of Clement's writings on the Catholic Encyclopedia turned up only this passage), and given the confusion of his name with Josephus in Pseudo-Hegesippus (which illustrates that such a confusion was possible). And I think Hegesippus could have given Clement the impression that he was Jewish, considering how Eusebius describes him in EH 4.22.7:

7. And he wrote of many other matters, which we have in part already mentioned, introducing the accounts in their appropriate places. And from the Syriac Gospel according to the Hebrews he quotes some passages in the Hebrew tongue, showing that he was a convert from the Hebrews, and he mentions other matters as taken from the unwritten tradition of the Jews.

This seems like the easiest and best solution to me.

[Ben C. Smith]

Now that I take another look at what Clement says in Stromata 1.21, I'm wondering how this can be from Josephus. Where does Josephus say this? And how could it be from Josephus if it mentions Antoninus Pius, who reigned from 138-161 CE?

Flavius Josephus the Jew, who composed the history of the Jews, computing the periods, says that from Moses to David were five hundred and eighty-five years; from David to the second year of Vespasian, a thousand one hundred and seventy-nine; then from that to the tenth year of Antoninus, seventy-seven. So that from Moses to the tenth year of Antoninus there are, in all, two thousand one hundred and thirty-three years.

If I had to bet, I would say this more likely came from Hegesippus, who lived up to the time of Antoninus (unlike Josephus) and whom Clement appears to have known (given his description of James' death), unlike Josephus as far as I can tell (since a word search for Josephus in all of Clement's writings on the Catholic Encyclopedia turned up only this passage), and given the confusion of his name with Josephus in Pseudo-Hegesippus (which illustrates that such a confusion was possible). And I think Hegesippus could have given Clement the impression that he was Jewish, considering how Eusebius describes him in EH 4.22.7:

7. And he wrote of many other matters, which we have in part already mentioned, introducing the accounts in their appropriate places. And from the Syriac Gospel according to the Hebrews he quotes some passages in the Hebrew tongue, showing that he was a convert from the Hebrews, and he mentions other matters as taken from the unwritten tradition of the Jews.

This seems like the easiest and best solution to me.

Peter Kirby arrives at much the same conclusion: http://peterkirby.com/chasing-hegesippus.html.

And the Chronicon Paschale appears to confuse Josephus and Hegesippus, as well: viewtopic.php?f=3&t=2075&p=47399#p47399.

[John2]

Peter Kirby arrives at much the same conclusion: http://peterkirby.com/chasing-hegesippus.html.

Oh, I missed that. I'll take another look at it. Thanks.

[John2]

Because of the chronological implausibility of Josephus writing in the reign of Antoninus, this reference to Josephus must refer to a text falsely attributed to Josephus or, alternatively, a text being recalled incorrectly as a work of Josephus ...

It is a curious fact that both exegetes from early third century Alexandria should make the same kind of error and one which leads us to wonder about the otherwise-unattested manuscript tradition of Hegesippus and/or Josephus that may have existed there. It seems vain to suppose they independently decided to misrepresent Josephus ...

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

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

This is consistent with the evidence from Clement of Alexandria suggesting that Hegesippus (called there Josephus) contained a chronological calculation involving the tenth year of Antoninus.

Cool.

[John2]

Yeah, I'm happy with this idea. Props to Peter.

But regarding Origen's confusion, I'm still thinking that it does have something to do with Josephus (as I note in Peter's comment section), given that we know for sure he did know Josephus, and I'm unaware of any other indications that he knew Hegesippus (unlike for Clement), and because I think what he says about James resembles what Josephus says about Ananus in War 4.5.2 much more than what Hegeippus says about James, and what Josephus says about Ananus' associate Jesus could have given Origen the impression that Josephus "did not accept our Jesus to be Christ."

I should not mistake 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. He was on other accounts also a venerable, and a very just man ... Jesus was also joined with him, and ... he was inferior to him upon the comparison ...

Cf. Origen Against Celsus 1.47 and Com. Mt. 10.17:

But he himself [Josephus], though not believing in Jesus as Christ, in seeking the cause of the fall of Jerusalem and the destruction of the temple, whereas he ought to have said that the conspiracy against Jesus was the cause of these things happening to the people, since they killed the prophecied Christ, even says, being unwillingly not far from the truth, that these things befell the Jews as vengeance for James the just, who was a brother of Jesus who is called Christ, since they killed him who was most just.

And in such a way among the people did this James shine for his justice that Flavius Josephus, who wrote the Judaic Antiquities in twenty books, wishing to demonstrate the cause why the people suffered such great things that even the temple was razed down, said that these things came to pass against them in accordance with the ire of God on account of the things which were dared by them against James the brother of Jesus who is called Christ. And the wondrous thing is that, although he did not accept our Jesus to be Christ, he yet testified that the justice of James was not at all small; and he says that even the people supposed they had suffered these things on account of James.

Look how many "hits" there are between these accounts versus Hegesippus, which has only one "hit" (that James was a "just man") and only says that the next thing of note (https://books.google.com/books?id=e-m0A ... on&f=false) after James was killed is that Vespasian besieged Jerusalem (which happened in 69 CE) and (unlike what Origen thought about Josephus) very clearly that "Jesus is the Christ."

Hegesippus EH 2.23.18:

18. And one of them, who was a fuller, took the club with which he beat out clothes and struck the just man on the head. And thus he suffered martyrdom. And they buried him on the spot, by the temple, and his monument still remains by the temple. He became a true witness, both to Jews and Greeks, that Jesus is the Christ. And immediately Vespasian besieged them.

There's nothing here about people thinking Jerusalem fell because of James or anything that would give Origen the impression that Hegesippus "did not accept our Jesus as Christ."

[Ben C. Smith]

Yeah, I'm happy with this idea. Props to Peter.

But regarding Origen's confusion, I'm still thinking that it does have something to do with Josephus (as I note in Peter's comment section), given that we know for sure he did know Josephus, and I'm unaware of any other indications that he knew Hegesippus (unlike for Clement), and because I think what he says about James resembles what Josephus says about Ananus in War 4.5.2 much more than what Hegeippus says about James, and what Josephus says about Ananus' associate Jesus could have given Origen the impression that Josephus "did not accept our Jesus to be Christ."

Yes, I do suspect that Origen confused the text of Josephus with the text of Hegesippus, whereas Clement may have simply confused the names (or may have been misled by scribes or scrolls which confused the two names).

ETA: Peter himself seems to agree with this approach to Origen's confusion, as he writes in a comment to you on that blog post: "I would guess that Clement of Alexandria didn’t know Josephus' genuine works at first hand (or did not know them very well). Origen definitely knew of Josephus genuine works at first hand (as he quotes from the Antiquities in Contra Celsus). This may explain the way that Origen's account of the death of James is directly inspired by the language of Ant. 20.200 and colored by the account of Hegesippus (while Clement's account is basically an abbreviation of the account of Hegesippus). It also explains how Clement can make that curious remark in Stromata 1.21."

[John2]

Yeah, I'm happy with this idea. Props to Peter.

But regarding Origen's confusion, I'm still thinking that it does have something to do with Josephus (as I note in Peter's comment section), given that we know for sure he did know Josephus, and I'm unaware of any other indications that he knew Hegesippus (unlike for Clement), and because I think what he says about James resembles what Josephus says about Ananus in War 4.5.2 much more than what Hegeippus says about James, and what Josephus says about Ananus' associate Jesus could have given Origen the impression that Josephus "did not accept our Jesus to be Christ."

Yes, I do suspect that Origen confused the text of Josephus with the text of Hegesippus, whereas Clement may have simply confused the names (or may have been misled by scribes or scrolls which confused the two names).

ETA: Peter himself seems to agree with this approach to Origen's confusion, as he writes in a comment to you on that blog post: "I would guess that Clement of Alexandria didn’t know Josephus' genuine works at first hand (or did not know them very well). Origen definitely knew of Josephus genuine works at first hand (as he quotes from the Antiquities in Contra Celsus). This may explain the way that Origen's account of the death of James is directly inspired by the language of Ant. 20.200 and colored by the account of Hegesippus (while Clement's account is basically an abbreviation of the account of Hegesippus). It also explains how Clement can make that curious remark in Stromata 1.21."

Cool. And I like your parenthetical remark I underlined above. That's a very charitable option.

[Ben C. Smith]

Something like this?

Hegesippus & Josephus.png (30.32 KiB) Viewed 5622 times