Peter Kirby wrote: ↑Tue Mar 19, 2024 10:55 pm
The Recognitions Source and Hegesippus
Quotes of Hegesippus are from my old blog post
Chasing Hegesippus, where the location of the citation in Eusebius and the Greek can be found.
Hegesippus makes mention of the "seven sects" in the context of discussing James:
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. On account of these words some believed that Jesus is the Christ. But the sects mentioned above did not believe either in a resurrection or in one’s coming to give to every man according to his works. But as many as believed did so on account of James. Therefore when many even of the rulers believed, there was a commotion among the Jews and Scribes and Pharisees, who said that there was danger that the whole people would be looking for Jesus as the Christ.
Hegesippus mentions the "seven sects" again in the context of Christian heresy:
And after James the Just had suffered martyrdom, as the Lord had also on the same account, Symeon, the son of the Lord’s uncle, Clopas, was appointed the next bishop. All proposed him as second bishop because he was a cousin of the Lord. Therefore, they called the Church a virgin, for it was not yet corrupted by vain discourses. But Thebuthis, because he was not made bishop, began to corrupt it. He also was sprung from the seven sects among the people, like Simon, from whom came the Simonians, and Cleobius, from whom came the Cleobians, and Dositheus, from whom came the Dositheans, and Gorthæus, from whom came the Goratheni, and Masbotheus, from whom came the Masbothæans. From them sprang the Menandrianists, and Marcionists, and Carpocratians, and Valentinians, and Basilidians, and Saturnilians. Each introduced privately and separately his own peculiar opinion. From them came false Christs, false prophets, false apostles, who divided the unity of the Church by corrupt doctrines uttered against God and against his Christ.
Hegesippus lists these "seven sects" that "were opposed to the tribe of Judah and the Christ":
There were, moreover, various opinions in the circumcision, among the children of Israel. The following were those that were opposed to the tribe of Judah and the Christ: Essenes, Galileans, Hemerobaptists, Masbothæans, Samaritans, Sadducees, Pharisees.
Quotes from the Recognitions are from F. Stanley Jones,
An ancient Jewish Christian source on the history of Christianity : Pseudo-Clementine Recognitions 1.27-71. The Pseudo-Clementine Recognitions speaks of a division into "many beliefs" or "many parties" here.
| Syriac translation |
Latin translation |
| (1.53.4) Because of this, as | said before, they sent to us many times and besought us in order that they might either learn or teach as to whether Jesus is the Christ. We drew up a plan to go to the temple, to testify concerning Christ before the entire people, and simultaneously also to put many of them to shame with regard to the great crime. (5) For the people were divided into many beliefs that began in the days of John the Baptist. |
(1.53.4) And since they were frequently requesting that they might either learn or teach regarding whether Jesus is the Christ, it seemed to us right to go up to the temple and to testify publicly about him before the entire people and simultaneously to criticize the Jews with regard to the many things that are absurdly practiced by them. (5) For indeed the people were being divided into many parties having started from John the Baptist. |
| (1.54.1) For as Christ was ready to be revealed for the abolition of sacrifices and in order to reveal and show forth baptism, the slanderer who was opposed recognized from predestination the point in time and created sects and divisions, so that if the former sin should receive renunciation and correction, a second vice would be able to obstruct redemption. |
(1.54.1) "For when the coming of Christ was near, on the one hand to check sacrifices and on the other hand to impart the favor of baptism, the enemy understood from what had been predicted that the time was at hand and effected various schisms among the people so that, if the previous sin might possibly be abolished, the following offence would not be able to be corrected. |
| (2) "The first of these then are the ones called Sadducees, who arose in the days of John when they separated from the people as righteous ones and renounced the resurrection of the dead. They put forward their unbelieving doctrine speciously when they said, namely, ‘It is not right to worship and fear God in prospect of a reward for goodness.’ |
(2) The first was the schism of those who were called Sadducees, starting practically in the times of John. These began to separate themselves from the assembly of the people as more righteous than the others; they denied the resurrection of the dead and asserted this by an argument of unbelief saying that it is not appropriate for God to be worshipped as if for promised pay. |
| In this doctrine, as I have said, Dositheus began and, after Dositheus, Simon, who also started to create differences of opinions as he wished in the likeness of the former. |
The initiator of this opinion was first Dositheus and, second, Simon. |
| (4) "Others again are called Samaritans. They also renounce the resurrection of the dead and adore Mount Gerizim instead of the holy city Jerusalem. |
(4) Another is the schism of the Samaritans. Now while they, too, deny the resurrection of the dead, they assert that God should be worshipped not in Jerusalem but at Mount Gerizim. |
| (5) Now they do correctly await the one prophet who is to come to erect and establish unknown things just as Moses predicted. These fell into schisms through the cunning of Dositheus, and they were thus brought to nought so that they should not be restored by Jesus. |
(5) Though they do, however, properly await the one true prophet on the basis of Moses’ predictions, they have been hindered by the wickedness of Dositheus from believing that the one they awaited is Jesus. |
| (6) "But both the scribes and the Pharisees, |
(6) Both the scribes and the Pharisees are drawn away into another schism. |
| (7) who were baptized by John, were thus instructed that the word of truth is like the key to the kingdom of heaven, which they received from Moses in order to hide it. |
(7) They were baptized by John, and holding on to the word of truth received from Moses’ tradition as being the key to the kingdom of heaven, they hid it from the ears of the people. |
| (8) "Now the pure disciples of John separated themselves greatly from the people and spoke to their teacher as if he was concealed [or: said that their teacher was, as it were, concealed]. |
(8) Some of the disciples of John who imagined they were great separated themselves from the people and proclaimed their master as the Christ. |
| (9) Hence, owing to all these schisms that had arisen among the people, the baptism of Christ was hindered from being believed. |
(9) Now all these schisms were arranged beforehand so that both the faith of Christ and baptism might be hindered by them. |
The Pseudo-Clementine Recognitions names these groups that are also mentioned in the New Testament, i.e.: Sadducees, Samaritans, and Pharisees (and scribes), as well as (some of) the disciples of John. It also mentions two-well known heterodox figures, Dositheus and Simon. The text may admit of multiple interpretations, but the reading that I would suggest is that the Greek original was trying to say that Dositheus sprang from the Sadducees, while Simon sprang from the the Samaritans (and yes I am to some extent using other sources to shed light on the interpretation of Simon here but in a way that I consider to be consistent with the text of the Recognitions or its source). Finally, the certain disciples of John who are considered a schism were drawn from the Pharisees. This is then a description of three schisms, from three prior groups (sects):
Sadducees -> Dositheus
Samaritans -> Simon
Pharisees -> some disciples of John (maintaining John's innocence for the schism per Christian tradition)
There are also other plausible interpretations of the relationship of Dositheus and Simon to these sects. The exact correspondences are not that relevant here. More relevant is the general association of them with the Sadducees, Samaritans, and Pharisees as sects.
Hegesippus also claims that the schisms of Dositheus and Simon sprang from the sects, mentioning Simon as the first of these schisms:
But Thebuthis, because he was not made bishop, began to corrupt it. He also was sprung from the seven sects among the people, like Simon, from whom came the Simonians, and Cleobius, from whom came the Cleobians, and Dositheus, from whom came the Dositheans, and Gorthæus, from whom came the Goratheni, and Masbotheus, from whom came the Masbothæans.
It can be understood that Hegesippus does not believe that Simon or Dositheus or Masbotheus were part of the church, so Thebuthis would be the first "church" schismatic in the scheme of Hegesippus, while Simon may have been earlier (as told in Acts) but not part of the church. Indeed the Masbothæans are mentioned as one of the "seven sects" themselves that had split off from the tribe of Judah. Thebuthis is thus the first "church" schismatic that follows this pattern of springing from the "seven sects," corrupting the church because he wasn't made bishop. From these prior schisms, such as that of Simon (who is mentioned first by Hegesippus), sprang Christian heretics, as Hegesippus immediately continues:
From them sprang the Menandrianists, and Marcionists, and Carpocratians, and Valentinians, and Basilidians, and Saturnilians. Each introduced privately and separately his own peculiar opinion. From them came false Christs, false prophets, false apostles, who divided the unity of the Church by corrupt doctrines uttered against God and against his Christ.
By comparison, Hegesippus has a fulsome list of Jewish sects, including many groups that are not known from the Gospels, bringing the number to a round seven. Hegesippus has a longer list of schisms that sprang from those sects, mentioning more than Dositheus and Simon, while not mentioning the disciples of John as a schism in this quote. By mentioning Simon first (instead of Dositheus) after Thebuthis, Hegesippus agrees in emphasis with Acts, Justin, and Irenaeus. Hegesippus then additionally mention several Christian heresies that came from these schisms. In agreement again with Justin and Irenaeus, after having already mentioned Simon, Hegesippus mentions the heresy of Menander first of all. In parallel again to Justin (who talks about Simon, Menander, and Marcion in 1 Apology 26), Hegesippus mention the heresy of Marcion second, just after Menander.
What is probably a source here (often called Ascents of James) disagrees with other parts of the Pseudo-Clementine Recognitions, which make out that Dositheus attempted to replace Simon by spreading a false rumor that he had died. These other parts agree on the primacy of Simon, unlike the source here, which mentions Dositheus first and as having sprang from the Sadducees.
Photius mentions a work of Hippolytus against heresies, as follows:
A booklet of Hippolytus has been read. Now Hippolytus was a disciple of Irenæus. But it (i. e. the booklet) was the compilation against 32 heresies making (the) Dositheans the beginning (of them) and comprising (those) up to Noetus and the Noetians. And he says that these heresies were subjected to refutations by Irenæus in conversation (or in lectures). Of which refutations making also a synopsis, he says he compiled this book. The phrasing however is clear, reverent and unaffected, although he does not observe the Attic style. But he says some other things lacking in accuracy, and that the Epistle to the Hebrews was not by the Apostle Paul.
F. Legge writes, in comparing with the
Refutation of All Heresies: "It does indeed mention at the outset 'Dositheus the Samaritan,' but only to say that the author proposes to keep silence concerning both him and the Jews, and 'to turn to those who have wished to make heresy from the Gospel,' the very first of whom, he says, is Simon Magus." -
https://www.gutenberg.org/files/65478/6 ... 5478-h.htm
The source behind the Recognitions does not agree with the
Refutation of All Heresies, both because Dositheus is related to the Sadducees and because it doesn't make Simon out to be someone with "heresy from the Gospel." In this way, regarding the treatment of Simon, even
Refutation of All Heresies (which mentions Dositheus sooner) has come under the influence of Justin or Irenaeus, while the source behind the Recognitions has not.
Irenaeus doesn't even mention Dositheus in his extant works, but Pseudo-Tertullian and Jerome both mention an association between Dositheus and the Sadducees, an association also found in this text.
Only this source has both put Dositheus first and maintained both Dositheus and Simon as the leaders of schisms (in a way disconnected from the church or the gospel). This is the only source out of those mentioned so far that shows no influence from the heresiological programs of Justin and Irenaeus, neither to pass on their details nor to deny them. It places some of the disciples of John alongside the sects of Dositheus and Simon, in a way that would be unnecessary and uncomfortable for those who were not in contact with disciples of John and who maintained John more simply as the forerunner of Christ. The list of Jewish sects stays closer to older material already well-known from the gospels about three groups and the disciples of John, while the schismatics named (Dositheus and Simon) are only the two supposed to be the oldest in various traditions. The source behind the Recognitions knows of "the enemy" (Paul), treated as an external threat, but conflict with Paul is apparent at the oldest layers of written Christian tradition, including the letters of Paul themselves.
The treatment of the schisms in the source behind the Recognitions seems like it isn't derived from Hegesippus, which has many elaborations and influences that are not present in Recognitions 1.27-71, including the influence of a second century heresiological project also associated with Justin or Irenaeus. The anti-heretical activity of Hegesippus is also known from elsewhere, such as his opposition to a certain saying or a certain reading of Paul quoted by Photius, his reference to Clement writing to respond to problems in Corinth, his collection of bishop lists, his claim that the church was kept a virgin until a successor was chosen after James died, and his own trip to Rome. Interaction with the anti-heretical project evinced by Hegesippus isn't present in the text behind the Recognitions, either in support or opposition.
As we will see below, there seems to be a relationship between the texts in the presentation regarding James. The treatment of schisms that derived from Jewish divisions further supports viewing the two texts as being in a relationship. And to the extent that we can tell, it seems more likely that the treatment of schisms in the source behind the Recognitions has priority.
The Pseudo-Clementine Recognitions continues with arguments presented by opponents of the apostles, which I will outline and enumerate:
(1) the high priest ... praise them for they seemed to be speaking in favor of forgiveness of sins. He found fault, however, in our baptism, which was given by Jesus.
(2) the Sadducees ... ‘It is an error for us to believe that the dead will ever rise.’
(3) a Samaritan ... ‘The dead do not rise, and instead of the holy place that is in Jerusalem, Mount Gerizim is the house of worship.’ ... [Jesus] was not the prophet to come who was previously proclaimed by Moses.
(4) one of the scribes ... ‘Your Jesus performed signs and wonders as a magician and not as a prophet.’
(5) one of the Pharisees ... found fault ... when he said that Jesus was equal to Moses.
(6) One of the disciples of John approached and boasted regarding John, ‘He is the Christ, and not Jesus, just as Jesus himself spoke concerning him, namely, that he is greater than any prophet who had ever been. If he is thus greater than Moses, it is clear that he is also greater than Jesus for Jesus arose just as did Moses. Therefore, it is right that John, who is greater than these, is the Christ.’
(7) Caiaphas found fault with Jesus’ teaching for this reason: ‘He spoke vacant things when he came, for he called the poor blessed and promised earthly rewards so that they, the virtuous, would inherit the earth and would be filled with foods and drink and things similar to these.’ ...
(8) Caiaphas gave heed to me, sometimes as if exhorting me and sometimes as if finding fault with me. ‘Be silent and do not proclaim about Jesus that he is the Christ, for you are bringing destruction He said, on yourself since you have gone astray after him and are leading others astray.’ Again, he found fault with me as with someone rash, ‘For while you were untaught and a fisher by trade you became a teacher by chance.’
The high priest is Caiaphas, while the scribes are associated with the Pharisees, ambiguities that would indicate against the idea that the source is attempting to reach any particular symbolic number here. The objections of Caiaphas about "foods and drinks" for "the virtuous" resembles what is said of Sadducees in other sources. In the outline of criticisms made here during the public dispute, the source has stayed close to its prior discussion of the identity of the various sects. Some of their criticisms are based on views found earlier in the Gospels (the dead rising for Sadducees, the location of the holy place for Samaritans, the one awaited by Samaritans, the disciples of John revering him). Others are based on elements of the Gospels turned here into criticism (the baptism given by Jesus, the meek inheriting the earth, being fishermen by trade, possibly Moses appearing alongside Jesus in the transfiguration).
Previously, the text spoke about how God wished for sacrifices to cease, such that God would restore the Jews when they had stopped sacrificing and they would be punished after they started sacrificing again. A point is made about how the gospel will be preached to the nations after the destruction of the Temple:
| Syriac translation |
Latin translation |
| (1.64.1) For we know that he [sc. God] is even more angered about your sacrificing after the end of the time for sacrifices. (2) Precisely because of this the temple will be destroyed, and they will erect the abomination of desolation in the holy place. Then, the gospel will be made known to the nations as a witness for the healing of the schisms that have arisen so that also your separation will occur. |
(1.64.1) "’For we ascertain as certain,’ I said, ‘that God is even more irritated with regard to the sacrifices you are offering, because at any rate the time of sacrifices has already expired. (2) And since you do not want to recognize that the time of offering sacrificial victims has already come to an end, for this reason even the temple will be destroyed and the abomination of desolation will be set up in the holy place. Then the gospel will be proclaimed to the nations as a testimony of you, so that your unbelief might be judged on the basis of their belief. |
A speech of Gamaliel calls to mind this speech of his in Acts:
| Acts (ESV) |
Syriac Translation |
Latin Translation |
| But a Pharisee in the council named Gamaliel, a teacher of the law held in honor by all the people, stood up and gave orders to put the men outside for a little while. 35 And he said to them, “Men of Israel, take care what you are about to do with these men. 36 For before these days Theudas rose up, claiming to be somebody, and a number of men, about four hundred, joined him. He was killed, and all who followed him were dispersed and came to nothing. 37 After him Judas the Galilean rose up in the days of the census and drew away some of the people after him. He too perished, and all who followed him were scattered. 38 So in the present case I tell you, keep away from these men and let them alone, for if this plan or this undertaking is of man, it will fail; 39 but if it is of God, you will not be able to overthrow them. You might even be found opposing God!” |
But Gamaliel, who was the head of the nation and who was, because it was advantageous, secretly our brother in the matter regarding faith, perceived that they were intensely gnashing their teeth in the great anger towards us with which they were filled. He said these things: (3) ‘Cease and keep your peace, O people, the children of Israel, for we do not know the nature of this trial that has come upon us. Therefore, leave these men alone, for if this matter is of human origin, come to nought, but if it is of God, why then are you transgressing in vain, as you are not able to do a thing? For it befits the will of God to be continually victorious over all things. |
But when Gamaliel the head of the people (who was secretly our brother in faith but who by our counsel was among them) perceived that they were vehemently raging and were affected with great fury against us, rising he said, (3) ‘Be quiet for a little while, O Israelite men, for you do not perceive the trial that impends upon us. Therefore, leave these men alone. And if what they do is of human contrivance, it will quickly come to an end, but if it is from God, why do you sin without reason and accomplish nothing? For who is able to outstrip the will of God? |
It's generally accepted that this text is dependent on the Acts of the Apostles.
Gerd Lüdemann makes a "synoptic comparison" between the Recognitions and Hegesippus. Lüdemann places Hegesippus on the left. I will place the Recognitions (Ascents of James?) on the left instead (because that's what proves synoptic priority, right? *kidding*). The comparisons are quoted from
Opposition to Paul in Jewish Christianity, pp. 175-176.
| 66f.: James (=the Bishop [of Bishops]: 66.2, 5;[68.2] 70.3) wants to dispute with the leaders of the people in the temple (cf. 68.2) |
1.8-11: First speech of James (=the Just: 12.15f., 18) in the temple |
|
on the question, “Who is the gate of Jesus?” (8) |
|
Success of the speech (9f.) |
|
tumult among the people (10) |
| Speech of Gamaliel (67) |
|
| On the question of Caiaphas: “Is Jesus the true Christ?” (68.2) |
On the same question from the Pharisees and scribes: “Who is the gate of Jesus?” (12) |
| a speech (68.3—69.7) of James |
second speech (13) of James (13) |
| from the highest point of the temple (66.3; 70.8) |
from the pinnacle of the temple (12) |
| Messianic confession (Jesus is the Christ: 69.3) |
Messianic confession (Jesus is the Son of man: 13) |
| Doubled parousia (in lowliness and in glory: 69.4) |
Parousia (on the clouds of heaven: 13) |
| Success of the speech among the people |
Success of the speech among the people (14a) |
| and its leaders (69.8) |
(and its leaders: cf.10) |
| desire to be baptized |
“Hosanna to the Son of David!” |
| Tumult at the appearance of the “enemy” (70.1ff.) in the temple |
|
| Demand of the enemy |
14b-15: Decision of the Pharisees and scribes |
| to kill James and his companions |
to kill James |
| “Why don’t we grab them and tear them in pieces?” (70.5) |
“Let us climb up and throw him down!” (14b) |
| 70.8: Attempted murder of James |
Murder of James |
| Throwing him down from the highest point of the temple |
Throwing him down from the pinnacle of the temple (16) |
|
Stoning (16) |
|
James’s prayer of intercession (16) |
| Remains lying as one dead |
Deathblow from the fuller (18) |
All of this contributes to the idea that there is a literary relationship between this text and Hegesippus.
Attempting to correlate texts in order, and with respect to James, Lüdemann would have the first speech of James in Hegesippus present no parallel in the Recognitions:
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. On account of these words some believed that Jesus is the Christ. But the sects mentioned above did not believe either in a resurrection or in one’s coming to give to every man according to his works. But as many as believed did so on account of James. Therefore when many even of the rulers believed, there was a commotion among the Jews and Scribes and Pharisees, who said that there was danger that the whole people would be looking for Jesus as the Christ.
But the text presents several things in paraphrase that are presented narratively in the Recognitions.
(1) Hegesippus mentions "some of the seven sects" as asking questions. The source behind the Recognitions speaks only of "some of the seven sects": namely, Sadducees, Samaritans, and Pharisees. Hegesippus provides no explanation of why only "some of the seven sects" were involved in questioning, but if we understand his purposes as including the gathering of existing traditions and presenting them in a way that has some kind of history-writing intent, then there doesn't need to be any reason for the reference other than basing it on an earlier source.
(2) Other than just saying that Jesus was the savior, Hegesippus doesn't provide the words that were compelling enough that "some believed that Jesus is the Christ." Again this makes sense if Hegesippus is not so much telling his own story here as he is paraphrasing earlier stories. While it is also a fairly ubiquitous theme in Christian literature, whether "Jesus is the Christ" is the explicit subject of the dialogue of the Recognitions.
(3) Hegesippus says "But the sects mentioned above did not believe either in a resurrection." Hegesippus doesn't specify which of his seven sects didn't believe in a resurrection. The source being paraphrased says that Sadducees and Samaritans didn't believe in the resurrection. Yet Hegesippus himself doesn't mention the Sadducees and Samaritans in this quote, even though they are the sects alleged not to believe in the resurrection. Hegesippus himself in this story mentions only the Pharisees at a later point, even though they aren't among those sects said not to believe in the resurrection. This again makes sense if Hegesippus is paraphrasing an earlier source, specifically the one known to us from the Recognitions.
(4) Hegesippus adds a little of his own voice to the paraphrase in saying "
in one’s coming to give to every man according to his works," but the rest works as a paraphrase of the objection to Caiaphas, "He spoke vacant things when he came, for he called the poor blessed and promised earthly rewards so that they, the virtuous, would inherit the earth and would be filled with foods and drink and things similar to these."
(5) Hegesippus writes, "But as many as believed did so on account of James." Hegesippus has paraphrased what is a discussion of involving many apostles with some of the sects, which would allow the notion that belief could have come on account of the other apostles. The source here agrees with Hegesippus that those who believed did so only after James gave his speech. But only the source presents the context that explains the paraphrase of Hegesippus, where other apostles spoke and could have been the ones who brought people to belief.
(6) Hegesippus writes, again without providing motivation, "Therefore when many even of the rulers believed." In the Recognitions, the story is told about how Caiaphas "quietly" enters a discussion with James about the scriptural basis for Jesus being the Christ. In that discussion, James explains from scripture that there are two advents of the Christ, one in humiliation and the other in glory. Prophecy of his "humble coming" would be a suitable point of debate between Jews and Christians (if somewhat artificial still), but Hegesippus doesn't even describe such points that could come up to persuade anyone, let alone the rulers. The speech of James given later in Hegesippus is just a few words about just the coming of the son of Man. Again this kind of undermotivated characterization makes sense as the result of an effort of paraphrase at this point.
(7) The word θόρυβος in Hegesippus is defined in the LSJ first as "noise, esp. the confused noise of a crowded assembly, uproar, clamour" with another primary definition of "tumult, confusion." In the context of Hegesippus, what is happening is scheming to prevent more people from looking to Jesus as the Christ, which is neither a tumult nor the actions of the whole people. It is not the most natural and appropriate word to use in this context, until you look at its source, where the enemy incites "a great commotion so that the matters that were rightly being said in calmness would neither be put to the test nor be understood and believed." Frankenberg in
Die syrischen Clementinen mit griechischem paralleltext,
p. 75 back-translates (from the Syriac) the Greek word here in this source as θορυβείν. Hegesippus has construed this here as some kind of "murmuring" (another definition) or "commotion" of a crowd conspiring together, as this bridges from his paraphrase of this source to the presentation of different material.
This exploration seems sufficient for now to say that I think this source was used by Hegesippus.
