Papias and the disciples of the Lord.

[Ben C. Smith]

But the difference is that Hegesippus, unlike Eusebius and Acts, only talks about Jewish Christians (aside from the Christians he met during his travels).

We do not know that. It may just be Eusebius' selection bias. Lawlor (in Eusebiana) traces more in Eusebius back to Hegesippus than what Eusebius explicitly credits to him, including the banishment of John to Patmos and the Domitianic persecution of Christians.

[John2]

We do not know that. It may just be Eusebius' selection bias. Lawlor (in Eusebiana) traces more in Eusebius back to Hegesippus than what Eusebius explicitly credits to him, including the banishment of John to Patmos and the Domitianic persecution of Christians.

In the parts of Hegesippus that Eusebius cites, I meant.

I'd like to see what else Lawlor says, but the two examples you give seem very Jewish Christian to me, given the similarities I see between Hegesippus and Revelation, and Hegesippus does talk about the Domitianic persecution in EH 3.20.1-8 (and mentions only "the family of the Lord")

But when this same Domitian had commanded that the descendants of David should be slain, an ancient tradition says that some of the heretics brought accusation against the descendants of Jude (said to have been a brother of the Saviour according to the flesh), on the ground that they were of the lineage of David and were related to Christ himself. Hegesippus relates these facts in the following words.

Of the family of the Lord there were still living the grandchildren of Jude, who is said to have been the Lord's brother according to the flesh.

Information was given that they belonged to the family of David, and they were brought to the Emperor Domitian by the Evocatus. For Domitian feared the coming of Christ as Herod also had feared it. 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 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 [cf. Rev. 21:1-8].

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.

[John2]

And Hegesippus' account of Domitian is in keeping with what Seutonius says about him in Domitian 12:

Besides other taxes, that on the Jews was levied with the utmost rigour, and those were prosecuted who without publicly acknowledging that faith yet lived as Jews, as well as those who concealed their origin and did not pay the tribute levied upon their people. I recall being present in my youth when the person of a man ninety years old was examined before the procurator and a very crowded court, to see whether he was circumcised.

http://penelope.uchicago.edu/Thayer/e/r ... tian*.html

Compare with Hegesippus above:

...they were brought to the Emperor Domitian by the Evocatus ... he [Domitian] 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 acres, and from which they raised their taxes and supported themselves by their own labor.

[Ben C. Smith]

I'd like to see what else Lawlor says, but the two examples you give seem very Jewish Christian to me....

At this point it becomes a very real question: what exactly would not be Jewish Christian for you? Even Paul was a Jewish Christian. Talk about his congregations and sure, maybe you are talking only about gentiles (as Hegesippus apparently did with respect to Corinth). But talk about Paul and you are talking about a Jewish Christian. I think you need to quantify what you are saying about Hegesippus in this respect. So far it just kind of feels like "well, of course" to me.

[John2]

I'm still looking for any corroborating evidence that Nazrites were allowed to enter the holy place (meaning not the Holy of Holies), and Lee discusses this, though I can't see enough of it on Google books to know what he concludes (though from what I can see I gather he may think not):

Might the Nazirite ritual provide a return to sanctuary service for deposed priests? To go further, could a Nazirite assume the functions and privileges of the chief priest? Would this be a possibility under extenuating circumstances? ... the fruit of our interpretive enterprise is half ripe.

https://books.google.com/books?id=KtgoD ... od&f=false

And Hahn writes (citing Milgrom's JPS Numbers commentary in footnote 12, which I used to have; damn!):

Some scholars have even argued that the function of the restrictions is to consecrate the Nazirite and this endow him with a status equivalent to the priesthood. In Numbers this is certainly the case. However, in examining other narratives about the Nazirite vow, the situation is far more complex ... we can argue that the Nazirite, in setting himself apart, demonstrates his holiness towards God. He shows that a non-priest can also take part in the separation for Yahweh.

https://books.google.com/books?id=twC2A ... od&f=false

Very interesting issue and I will keep looking.

[John2]

At this point it becomes a very real question: what exactly would not be Jewish Christian for you? Even Paul was a Jewish Christian. Talk about his congregations and sure, maybe you are talking only about gentiles (as Hegesippus apparently did with respect to Corinth). But talk about Paul and you are talking about a Jewish Christian. I think you need to quantify what you are saying about Hegesippus in this respect. So far it just kind of feels like "well, of course" to me.

A non-Pauline Christian (whether born Jewish or a convert; I'm starting to see Mark as semi-Jewish Christian in the latter sense). In fact, I would divide the NT this way.

Jewish Christian:

Mark
Matthew
James
1 Peter
Jude
1-3 John (maybe)
Revelation

Pauline Christian:

Luke/Acts
John
Letters of Paul (authentic and not)
Hebrews
2 Peter

I'm starting to think what happened is that Christianity was largely "Jewish Christian" (in the sense of being non-Pauline) until around the Bar Kokhba war, when I suspect the influence of the Jerusalem Church began to wane, which allowed for the emergence of Luke/Acts and John and the takeover of Pauline Christianity.

And since Hegesippus used the Gospel of the Hebrews (which Church fathers say was like Matthew and was used by Jewish Christians) and resembles Matthew, James and Revelation and never mentions Paul (and is not said to have mentioned Paul), I take him to be a "Jewish Christian."

[Ben C. Smith]

At this point it becomes a very real question: what exactly would not be Jewish Christian for you? Even Paul was a Jewish Christian. Talk about his congregations and sure, maybe you are talking only about gentiles (as Hegesippus apparently did with respect to Corinth). But talk about Paul and you are talking about a Jewish Christian. I think you need to quantify what you are saying about Hegesippus in this respect. So far it just kind of feels like "well, of course" to me.

A non-Pauline Christian (whether born Jewish or a convert; I'm starting to see Mark as semi-Jewish Christian in the latter sense). In fact, I would divide the NT this way.

Jewish Christian:

Mark
Matthew
James
1 Peter
Jude
1-3 John (maybe)
Revelation

Pauline Christian:

Luke/Acts
John
Letters of Paul (authentic and not)
Hebrews
2 Peter

I'm starting to think what happened is that Christianity was largely "Jewish Christian" (in the sense of being non-Pauline) until around the Bar Kokhba war, when I suspect the influence of the Jerusalem Church began to wane, which allowed for the emergence of Luke/Acts and John and the takeover of Pauline Christianity.

And since Hegesippus used the Gospel of the Hebrews (which Church fathers say was like Matthew and was used by Jewish Christians) and resembles Matthew, James and Revelation and never mentions Paul (and is not said to have mentioned Paul), I take him to be a "Jewish Christian."

I disagree with so much of this.

[John2]

I disagree with so much of this.

Suit yourself. I'm sure you have good reasons.

Regarding Nazirites and the priesthood, Ashley writes:

Several of the regulations governing the Nazirite are related to those concerning the priest or high priest. The priests are forbidden to drink wine while they are serving in the tent of meeting (Lev. 10:9), and the Nazirite is forbidden wine at all times (Num. 6:3) ... The priest may not pollute himself by contact, with corpses, except for immediate family members (Lev. 22:1-3); the high priest and the Nazirite may not come into contact with any corpse, even that of immediate family members (Lev. 22:10-12; Num. 6:6).

https://books.google.com/books?id=6hBSc ... od&f=false

There's plenty of stuff along these lines, such by as by Neusner and Kiuchi, how priests and Nazirites are alike and not alike (and Kiuchi is taken down by Gane in the last link for going too far):

https://books.google.com/books?id=W9NHh ... od&f=false

https://books.google.com/books?id=Ujgtj ... od&f=false

https://books.google.com/books?id=ILOoA ... od&f=false

The most interesting thing to me beyond these similarities is that the Priestly Blessings follows the laws for Nazirites in Num. 6, which I'd never thought about before (in the sense of there being any connection between Nazirites and priests). And the only reference to rabbinic writings I've seen so far notes this and therefore likens priests and Nazirites (to some extent), and I wonder if there is anything similar in tractate Nazir.

Ta'anit 26b-27a:

Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi said in the name of bar Kappara: Why is the portion of the priest who recites the benediction (see Numbers 6:22–27) juxtaposed with the portion of the nazirite (see Numbers 6:1–21)? They are juxtaposed to say that just as it is prohibited for a nazirite to drink wine, so too, it is prohibited for a priest who recites the benediction to drink wine.

Rabbi Zeira’s father, and some say it was Oshaya bar Zavda, strongly objects to this explanation. If you wish to compare these two cases, you can argue as follows: Just as it is prohibited for a nazirite to eat grape pits, as he may not partake of any of the products of a grapevine, so too, it should be prohibited for a priest who recites the benediction to eat grape pits. Certainly a priest is not barred from raising his hands after eating a few grape pits. Rather, Rabbi Yitzḥak said that the verse states: “To minister to Him and to bless in His name” (Deuteronomy 10:8). Just as it is permitted for a priest who ministers to God in the Temple to partake of grape pits, so too, it is permitted for a priest who recites the benediction to partake of grape pits.

The Gemara asks: If so, then just as a priest who ministers in the Temple may not be physically blemished, so too, a priest who recites the benediction may not be blemished. The Gemara rejects this suggestion: The priest who recites the benediction is also juxtaposed to a nazirite, who is not affected by a blemish.

https://www.sefaria.org/Taanit.26b.16?lang=bi

[John2]

Not much in M. Nazir, it appears.

M. Nazir 7:1:

A High Priest and a nazir may not become impure for their relatives, but may for an abandoned dead body. [If] they were walking on the road and found an abandoned dead body, Rabbi Eliezer says: "A High Priest shall become impure but the nazir shall not become impure." The Sages say: "The nazir shall become impure and the High Priest shall not become impure." Rabbi Eliezer said to them: "A High Priest shall become impure, as he does not bring a sacrifice for his impurity. And the nazir shall not become impure, as he brings a sacrifice for his impurity." They said to him: "The nazir shall become impure, for his holiness is not eternal holiness. And a High Priest shall not become impure, for his holiness is eternal holiness."

I wonder what the Talmud says. I guess I could start here (which has an interesting note: "It is not impossible that many of the ascetic sects that flourished in the early centuries of the current era, began as nazirite groups. Little positive evidence of this can, however, be found in our treatise"):

http://www.come-and-hear.com/nazir/nazir_0.html

[Ben C. Smith]

I disagree with so much of this.

Suit yourself. I'm sure you have good reasons.

Most of it is peripheral, or at least not strictly relevant, to our discussion of Hegesippus. I do sometimes wonder how much our overall viewpoints on "the big picture" influence our conclusions on individual points.