Was the “hellenist” Stephen judaized by Hegesippus as the “Pillar James brother of Lord” ?

[Giuseppe]

Stephen was a hellenist, according to Acts. And he was stoned by sinedrites.

The only difference between him and the James brother of Jesus of Hegesippus's legend is:

• the name

• the community of which he was member.

Hegesippus was a Jewish-Christian. As such, he could have any interest to judaize the Acts' s legend about the hellenist Stephen as first Christian martyr stoned by sinedrites.

Stephen was evidently not the real name of a martyr: it means "crown" (of martyrdom). This could be an incentive: his place could be occupied by anyone. So, why not by a Jewish-Christian, rather than by a Hellenist?

Apart the obvious analogies and a possible motive behind Hegesippus, which may be the possible link between Stephen of Acts and the figure of James brother of Jesus invented by Hegesippus?

[Giuseppe]

A link may be the following:

54 When the members of the Sanhedrin heard this, they were furious and gnashed their teeth at him. 55 But Stephen, full of the Holy Spirit, looked up to heaven and saw the glory of God, and Jesus standing at the right hand of God. 56 “Look,” he said, “I see heaven open and the Son of Man standing at the right hand of God.”
57 At this they covered their ears and, yelling at the top of their voices, they all rushed at him, 58 dragged him out of the city and began to stone him.

• First coincidence:
  
  Stephen saw "heaven open". This remembers the "door of Jesus" of which Hegesippus talks about:
  
  Now some of the seven sects, which existed among the people and which have been mentioned by me in the Memoirs, asked him, 'What is the gate of Jesus? and he replied that he was the Saviour.
  
  Note that if "Pillar" works as axis mundi, a channel of private direct communication with a celestial being, then this Stephen could be a “Pillar” in his own right, at least in the eyes of the his judaizer Hegesippus.

• Second coincidence:
  
  Am I the only to see particular irony here?
  
  
  57 At this they covered their ears and, yelling at the top of their voices, they all rushed at him, 58 dragged him out of the city and began to stone him.
  
  The Jews expelled Stephen “out of the city” and for contrapasso, Titus expelled Jews “out of the same city”. The idea of cause-effect "death of James ---> Fall of Jerusalem" could be read by Hegesippus directly in Acts, once he judaized Stephen as James.

[Giuseppe]

I think that Hegesippus was "Matthew". By judaizing the Hellenist Stephen of Acts as the Jewish-Christian James, he was fabricating de facto a Judaizing version of Acts of Apostles, just as he was judaizing the Gospel of Luke by writing the Gospel of Matthew.

Note that "Matthew" was already observed again and again while he insists on the violent punition of the Jews by Romans. He makes any Lukan or Markan parable, where the Jews are evil people, more cruel, by deriving the logical conclusion until to the his extreme tragic consequence (= Romans punished Jews for their crime).

[Giuseppe]

Logical corollary of this analysis: there was no “James the brother of Jesus called Christ” in Josephus's Antiquities 20:200 (read: "called Christ" was a mere Christian interpolation by Hegesippus himself, James being really the brother of “Jesus son of Damneus”, docet Carrier).

Because otherwise "Luke" would have not eclipsed so easily this presumed historical “James the Just” behind the vanishing figure of the hellenist "Stephen", without no apology or appeal to "historical" documents.

Whereas, differently from "Luke", "Matthew" masked himself as "Josephus"/"Hegesippus" in order to correct "Luke" on the real identity of the his "Stephen".

It is more probable that "Matthew" judaized the Stephen of "Luke", rather than "Luke" gentilized the "James the Just" of "Matthew"/Hegesippus.

[John2]

Hegesippus was a Jewish-Christian. As such, he could have any interest to judaize the Acts' s legend about the hellenist Stephen as first Christian martyr stoned by sinedrites.

Or maybe Acts "Gentilized" the Jewish Christian version of James' death because its author was a Gentile who promoted Paul and Paul says of James and other Jewish Christians leaders in Gal. 2:6 "whatever they were makes no difference to me" and thus had an interest in downplaying James as much as possible.

[Giuseppe]

Or maybe Acts "Gentilized" the Jewish Christian version of James' death because its author was a Gentile who promoted Paul

"who promoted Paul"? Really?

A lot of scholars have noted again and again from the night of the times how Acts reduced/eclipsed the presumed independence of Paul from the Pillars, as we observe in Galatians. Hardly a "promotion".

Note the difference between Acts and Hegesippus:

Acts: the first martyr was a hellenist and he was named "crown".

Hegesippus: the first martyr was a Jewish-Christian and he was named "James" and who is claiming this is "Josephus", also.

Who betrayes more interest to sell the his "truth"? Surely who does an appeal to a historian named (even) with the same name!


The invention of Acts is an innocent invention. Hegesippus isn't inventing: he is correcting a previous invention.

[John2]

"who promoted Paul"? Really?

Yes. Acts seems more concerned with Paul than other Christians and ends with Paul by saying "Paul stayed there [in Rome] two full years in his own rented house, welcoming all who came to visit him. Boldly and freely he proclaimed the kingdom of God and taught about the Lord Jesus Christ."

The invention of Acts is an innocent invention. Hegesippus isn't inventing: he is correcting a previous invention.

I think Acts is "correcting" Josephus' account of Saul (aka Paul; that he didn't continue to be a violent hothead after his conversion or consult with Nero), Simon (aka Peter; that he didn't cave in to Agrippa), Simon Magus (that he was a renegade Christian), James (by not mentioning his death or highlighting that he was Jesus' brother), and perhaps even Hegesippus (depending on when you date Acts), the same way Luke (which I think was written by the same person who wrote Acts) and Matthew "correct" Mark.

[Giuseppe]

"who promoted Paul"? Really?

Yes.

Sincerely, I can't follow you on this point. It is too much evident that Acts is taming Paul by making him a mere follower of the Pillars when the Paul of Galatians was independent from (and even against) the Pillars. This isn't a "promotion" but a forced co-optation. I can agree with you that a proto-catholic has interest to co-opt also the Jewish-Christians, but to eclipse entirely and without no kind of disturb the presumed (in your view) more famous Jewish-Christian leader James, by naming him "crown" (!) in a story of martyrdom (!), seems decisively too much easy to be really a deliberate eclipse.

It is how to claim to hide an elephant by using a mere little leaf.

While the reversal is more probable. Hegesippus wanted that the more famous Christian stoned by sinedrites was not a gentile but a Jewish-Christian.

[John2]

It is too much evident that Acts is taming Paul by making him a mere follower of the Pillars when the Paul of Galatians was independent from and even against the Pillars).

Or maybe it is just in keeping with Paul's MO in 1 Cor. 9:19-20:

Though I am free of obligation to anyone, I make myself a slave to everyone, to win as many as possible. To the Jews I became like a Jew, to win the Jews. To those under the law I became like one under the law (though I myself am not under the law), to win those under the law.

[Giuseppe]

Sure. From that POV even the bishop Marcion was a "proto-catholic" in nuce insofar he gave some little concession to his rival Judaizers: for example, by calling the demiurge as "Just" and not more as "Evil" (as the great mass of the other "heretics" despised him).