The Legend of James the Just and His Martyrdom

[DCHindley]

For the vocabulary, here we go:

ἀπάξει (apaxei) verb 3rd sg fut ind act/mid of ἀπάγω [α^γ]:
A. lead away, carry off, “ἀπάγουσι βόας καὶ ἴφια μῆλα” Od.18.278; “ἀ. τινὰ ἐκτόπιον” S.OT1340 (lyr.), cf.1521, etc.; προσάγειν . ., ἀπάγειν, bring near . ., hold far off, Arist.GC336a18; ἀ. ἀχλὺν ἀπ᾽ ὀφθαλμῶν remove it, Thphr.HP7.6.2; “τὸ ἱμάτιον ἀπὸ τοῦ τραχήλου” Plu.Ant. 12; οὐκ ἀπάξετε ταῦτα; stop this fooling! Jul.Or.7.225a:—Med., take away for or with oneself, “παρθένον” Hdt.1.196, cf. 4.80, Ar.Nu.1105, etc.; or that which is one's own, X.Cyr.3.1.37, etc.:—Pass., “ἐς ὀξὺ ἀπηγμένας” brought to a point, tapering off, Hdt.7.64, cf. 2.28, Arist. PA658b30.
2. lead away, draw off troops, “τῆς στρατιῆς τὸ πολλόν” Hdt.1.164, cf. Th.1.28, al.; “ἄπαγε τὸν ἵππον” Ar.Nu.32.
b. elliptically, retire, withdraw, Hdt.5.126, X.HG1.1.34, al.; 'go off', Apollod.Epit.3.3.
3. abduct, Aeschin.1.80, Luc.Tim.16:—Pass., “πρὸς ὕβριν -εσθαι” Id.Anach.13.
II. bring back, bring home, Il.18.326; “ἀπήγαγεν οἴκαδε” Od.16.370, cf. S.Ph.941, X.An.1.3.14; “ἀ. ὀπίσω” Hdt.9.117.
III. return, render what one owes, pay, “τὸν φόρον” Ar.V.707, cf. X.Cyr.2.4.12, Th.5.53; render service, honour, etc., “κώμους πρὸς τάφον” E.Tr.1184; “θεωρίαν εἰς Δῆλον” Pl.Phd. 58b.
IV. arrest and carry off, “ἀπάγετε αὐτὸν παρ᾽ ἐμέ” Hdt.2.114, cf 6.81; “δεῖν κἀπάγειν ἐφίετο” E.Ba.439:—Pass., “ἀπαχθέντας παρ᾽ ἑωυτόν” Hdt.6.119.
2. law-term, bring before a magistrate and accuse (cf. “ἀπαγωγή” 111), Antipho5.85; ἀς<*>βείας for impiety, D.22.27; “ἀ. ὡς θεσμοθέτας” Id.23.31; “ἀ. τοῖς ἕνδεκα” Id.24.113; τὴν ἐπὶ θανάτῳ -εσθαι Sch.Arist.Rh.1397a30ap.D.H.Amm.1.12.
3. carry off to prison, Pl.Grg.486a, Ar.Ach.57; “εἰς τὸ δεσμωτήριον” And.4.181, D.23.80, 35.47 (Pass.): abs., “ὡς γόης ἀπαχθῆναι” Pl.Men.80b; “ἀπαχθείς” Lys.25.15.
V. lead away, divert from the subject, esp. by sophistry, “ἀπὸ τοῦ ὄντος ἐπὶ τοὐναντίον” Pl.Phdr.262b; “ἀ. τινὰ ἀπὸ τῆς ὑποθέσεως” D.19.242; “ἀ. τὸ ὀργιζόμενον τῆς γνώμης” divert . ., Th. 2.59; ἀπὸ δεινῶν ἀ. τὴν γνώμην ib.65.
b. in Logic, reduce, “εἰς ἀδύνατον” Arist.APr.29b9:—impers. in Pass., “ἀπῆκται ἄρα εἰς . .” Papp. 798.11.
c. in later Greek, reduce, drive an opposing disputant, “ἐπὶ ψεῦδος” S.E.P.2.233; εἰς ἀντίφασιν, εἰς ἄτοπον, Phlp.in APr. 21.31, 58.14:—Pass., “εἰς ἀδύνατον ἀπαχθῆναι” Arr.Epict.1.7.25, cf. Phlp.in APr.129.2.
2. receive, “ἀπ᾽ ὄψεως . . τὰ δοξάζοντα ἀ.” Pl.Phlb.39b.
3. separate, “ἀπάγεται καὶ χωρίζεται” Id.Phd.97b.
VI. simply, carry, “ἐν ἀριστερᾷ τόξον” Id.Lg.795a.

περιοχῆς (perioches) noun sg fem voc/nom from περιοχ-ή , ἡ, (περιέχω):
A. a containing, enclosing, Plu.2.1078b, Herm. ap. Stob.1.49.69.
2. compass, circumference, “σφαίρας” Placit.3 Prooem., cf. J.BJ5.4.3, Cleom.1.11, 2.3, Diog.Oen.24; opp. μῆκος, BGU492.10 (ii A.D.); ἡ ἐκτὸς π., of the body, Arist.Col.797b22, cf. Pr.870a10, D.S.1.91 ; κατὰ τὰς τῶν ἐθνῶν π. according to their extent, Id.17.58 ; mass, body, Plu.Lys.12 ; “π. τις οὐρανοῦ” Epicur.Ep.2p.37U. ; ἀκατάληπτος π., of the world, Secund.Sent.1.
3. generally, compass, extent, “ἡ π. τῆς ὅλης περιβολῆς καὶ πράξεως” Plb.11.19.2 ; aggregate, Dam.Pr.88,95 bis.
b. content of a definition, etc., Corn.Rh.p.382H., Alex.Aphr.in APr. 278.11, etc.
c. summary, Herm. ap. Stob.1.41.1 ; σύντομος π. Procl.in Ti.1.73; periochae, title of summaries of books of Livy.
4. inclusion, S.E.P.3.101 ; κατὰ περιοχήν τινος including . . , Ph. 2.488.
II. portion circumscribed or marked off, section of a book, Cic.Att.13.25.3, Act.Ap.8.32.
III. pod, husk, shell, Thphr.CP 1.19.2.
2. fence, fortification, LXX 1 Ki.22.4, al. ; πόλις περιοχῆς ib.Ps.30(31).21,al.
IV. straitness, = θλῖψις, συνοχή, Phot.; esp. siege, LXX Je.19.9 ; ἦλθεν πόλις ἐν περιοχῇ ib.4 Ki.24.10; ὕδωρ περιοχῆς ib.Na.3.14.
V.=περιπέτεια, Phot.

ὁδηγήσει (hodegesei) verb 3rd sg fut ind act; 2nd sg fut ind mid; 3rd sg aor subj act from ὁδηγ-έω:
A.lead one upon his way, guide, c. acc. pers., Ps.-Phoc.24, A.Pr. 728, Act.Ap.8.31, X.Eph.1.9 : abs., E.HF1402 ; “φύσιος εἰς τὸ ἄριστον -εούσης” Hp.Lex 2 :—Pass., Plu.2.954b, Vett. Val.359.30 :— also ὁδηγ-ετέω , Them.Or.11.151c.

יבל (yobil) verb hiphil imperfect 3rd person masculine singular suffix 1st person common singular:
0835.0 יָבַל (yabal) bring, carry, lead, conduct.
(835a) יָבָל (yabal) watercourse, stream, as irrigating. Occurs only in Isa 30:25 and Isa 44:4, as the plural construct, yible (-mayim).
(835b) יוּבַל (yubal) stream, only in Jer 17:8.
(835c) יְבוּל (yebul) produce (of the soil).
(835d) בּוּל (bul) produce, outgrowth, only in Job 40:20; Isa 44:19.
(835e) יוֹבֵל (yobel), יֹבֵל (yobel) trumpet.
(835f) יַבַּל (yabbal) runnings, suppurating, only as the feminine singular yabbelet, as a substantive in Lev 22:22.
(835g) אוּבַל (ubal) stream, river, only in Dan 8:2, 3, 6.
(835h) תֵּבֵל (tebel) world.

מצור (masor) noun common masculine singular absolute homonym 2:
1898.0 צוּר (sur) II, bind, besiege.
(1898a) מָצוֹר (masor) siege, entrenchment.
(1898b) מְצוּרָה (mesura) stronghold.

נחה (naha) verb qal perfect 3rd person masculine singular suffix 1st person common singular homonym 1:
1341.0 נָחָה (naha) lead, guide. (ASV and RSV similar with the latter superior at 1 Sam 22:4. 1 Kings 10:26 [both of which evidence a confusion of n¹µâ and nûaµ; cf ASV 2Kings 18:11, and inferior at Psa 67:4 [H 5].

[John2]

I'm still not sure I understand the "Hegesippus combined two sources" idea. After taking another look at Clement and the Second Apocalypse of James, I'm inclined to suspect that these two sources used Hegeisppus, since they both post-date Hegesippus (Clement having been born when Hegesippus was writing, and the dating of the Second Apocalypse of James is uncertain but thought to be around when Clement was born).

Regarding the Second Apocalypse, Hedrick is cited on the earlychristianwritings site:

As to the date and place of composition, little can be said with certainty. Because of the basic Jewish-Christian traditions out of which the tractate is composed, it is probable that its origin is to be associated with Jewish-Christian circles. The absence of allusions to the later developed gnostic systems, and the almost total absence of allusions to the New Testament tradition suggest an early date for the origin of the tractate.

While Hegesippus was from Jewish Christian circles and could have known the Second Apocalypse that way, my "feeling" is that it's the other way around, since Hegesippus wrote a history intended for all Christians that could have been known to Clement and the author of the Second Apocalypse. As I read Clement and the Second Apocalypse, that is the "feeling" I get.

What I think is happening in Clement is that he omits the stoning part, not because he wasn't aware of it, but because the clubbing is what ultimately killed James, because he didn't die from the fall or the stoning (since he continued to pray). It otherwise lines up nicely with Hegesippus.

But there are two Jameses: one called the Just, who was thrown from the pinnacle of the temple and beaten to death with a club by a fuller, and another who was beheaded.

This just sounds like a guy summarizing Hegesippus to me. And the Second Apocalypse sounds like it's based on Hegesippus too.

And they were there and found him standing beside the columns of the temple beside the mighty corner stone. And they decided to throw him down from the height, and they cast him down. And they [...] they [...]. They seized him and struck him as they dragged him upon the ground. They stretched him out and placed a stone on his abdomen. They all placed their feet on him, saying 'You have erred!'

Again they raised him up, since he was alive, and made him dig a hole. They made him stand in it. After having covered him up to his abdomen, they stoned him in this manner.

And he stretched out his hands and said this prayer ...

Cf. Hegesippus:

"But let us go up and throw him down, in order that they may be afraid to believe him.'

And they cried out, saying, 'Oh! Oh! The just man is also in error.' And they fulfilled the Scripture written in Isaiah, 'Let us take away the just man, because he is troublesome to us: therefore they shall eat the fruit of their doings.'

So they went up and threw down the just man, and said to each other, 'Let us stone James the Just.' And they began to stone him, for he was not killed by the fall; but he turned and knelt down and said, 'I entreat you, Lord God our Father, forgive them, for they know not what they do.'

And while they were thus stoning him one of the priests of the sons of Rechab, the son of the Rechabites, who are mentioned by Jeremiah the prophet, cried out, saying, 'Stop. What are you doing? The just one prays for you.'

Since Clement is later than Hegesippus I think the latter was his source. Maybe Hegesippus knew the Second Apocalypse or they shared a common source, but it looks to me like the latter follows the former. That's just my guess, what "feels" right to me as I look at these texts.

So for me there's only one story, that James was thrown down from the Temple and stoned and beaten to death, and Clement and the Second Apocalypse knew about it from Hegesippus. The Second Apocalypse adds some details and Clement omits some, is all.

[Peter Kirby]

I'm still not sure I understand the "Hegesippus combined two sources" idea.

It sounds like you (mostly) understand it, but it doesn't feel right to you because you're seeing (or "feeling") the account of Hegesippus when you read other non-Hegesippus accounts.

[Peter Kirby]

... since they both post-date Hegesippus ...

As to the date and place of composition, little can be said with certainty.

Let's say that we accept this. It would imply that you're unable to use this as an argument for the direction of dependence (for the Second Apocalypse of James). Yet it doesn't appear that you are using it this way, which isn't very logical.

[Peter Kirby]

After taking another look at Clement ... I'm inclined to suspect that these two sources used Hegeisppus, since they both post-date Hegesippus

I agree that Clement post-dates Hegesippus, and I'm just not sure whether Clement used Hegesippus or not. It's possible but not strongly indicated either way yet.

Obviously, Hegesippus did not use Clement of Alexandria.

[Peter Kirby]

So for me there's only one story, that James was thrown down from the Temple and stoned and beaten to death

I have a different perspective here. It was explained in my posts.

I'm not sure how you think you've justified the conclusion (if you think you have) that there was only ever one story.

[Peter Kirby]

And the Second Apocalypse sounds like it's based on Hegesippus too.

And they were there and found him standing beside the columns of the temple beside the mighty corner stone. And they decided to throw him down from the height, and they cast him down. And they [...] they [...]. They seized him and struck him as they dragged him upon the ground. They stretched him out and placed a stone on his abdomen. They all placed their feet on him, saying 'You have erred!'

Again they raised him up, since he was alive, and made him dig a hole. They made him stand in it. After having covered him up to his abdomen, they stoned him in this manner.

And he stretched out his hands and said this prayer ...

Cf. Hegesippus:

"But let us go up and throw him down, in order that they may be afraid to believe him.'

And they cried out, saying, 'Oh! Oh! The just man is also in error.' And they fulfilled the Scripture written in Isaiah, 'Let us take away the just man, because he is troublesome to us: therefore they shall eat the fruit of their doings.'

So they went up and threw down the just man, and said to each other, 'Let us stone James the Just.' And they began to stone him, for he was not killed by the fall; but he turned and knelt down and said, 'I entreat you, Lord God our Father, forgive them, for they know not what they do.'

And while they were thus stoning him one of the priests of the sons of Rechab, the son of the Rechabites, who are mentioned by Jeremiah the prophet, cried out, saying, 'Stop. What are you doing? The just one prays for you.'

You're not interacting with what I wrote at all here. I pointed out the parallels in a much more detailed way already, and I already concluded that there is a literary relationship between them.

[Peter Kirby]

To be fair to you, John2, you're not the only one who gets this feeling here. Similar impressions are frequently noted in the literature. There's something to be said for the gravitational weight that the story in Hegesippus holds for some people. Hegesippus and/or Josephus is generally someone's first encounter with the story of the death of James. Hegesippus is quoted prominently by Eusebius, the church historian, together with Clement of Alexandria and Josephus. Hegesippus is thus part of the tradition of the church fathers. For some, Hegesippus is history; for others, at least the church's story. Unlike Ascents of James or the Second Apocalypse of James, he is much closer to what is considered orthodoxy. It might possibly be true that Hegesippus was being read as a source for many of the other accounts, but it also wouldn't be hard for someone to form a false impression here if it isn't true.

[John2]

You're not interacting with what I wrote at all here. I pointed out the parallels in a much more detailed way already, and I already concluded that there is a literary relationship between them.

It just seems simpler to suppose that Hegesippus was known to Clement and whoever wrote the Second Apocalypse than that they all used common sources. I don't think anyone needed Hegesippus to know that James was called the Just (as Hegesippus says, "He has been called the Just by all from the time of our Saviour to the present day"), but he pre-dates Clement and says everything Clement says about James' death, and the Second Apocalypse also seems in sync with Hegesippus (and has an uncertain dating).

I like things to be simple, and if we say that Hegesippus was the source for Clement and the Second Apocalypse, it seems simple. No multiple stories needed, only the one in Hegesippus.

[Peter Kirby]

You're not interacting with what I wrote at all here. I pointed out the parallels in a much more detailed way already, and I already concluded that there is a literary relationship between them.

It just seems simpler to suppose that Hegesippus was known to Clement and whoever wrote the Second Apocalypse than that they all used common sources. I don't think anyone needed Hegesippus to know that James was called the Just (as Hegesippus says, "He has been called the Just by all from the time of our Saviour to the present day"), but he pre-dates Clement and says everything Clement says about James' death, and the Second Apocalypse also seems in sync with Hegesippus.

I like things to be simple, and if we say that Hegesippus was the source for Clement and the Second Apocalypse, it seems simple. No multiple stories needed, only the one in Hegesippus.

Are you claiming that there were never any oral traditions or Christian stories told about the death of James prior to Hegesippus?