Hegesippus: Fragments from the Five Books of Church History

more biting than those regarding the controversy over divinity."

After these things were related, a little later V. C. [Valesius] closes his own disputation regarding Hegesippus with these words: "If Eusebius numbered Hegesippus among the Nazarenes, as the Socinians conclude from his words, and he brings forward some things from the Gospel according to the Hebrews, and specifically from the Hebrew dialect, showing that he believed ^A from the Hebrews; if these words, I say, have value, so that Eusebius considered Hegesippus a Nazarene, there is no doubt that he distinguished the Nazarenes far from the Ebionites. For he numbers him, not otherwise than Justin, among the distinguished patrons of truth, who struggled against impious heresies not only with the living voice, but also with written disputations." Thus far the illustrious Maranus.

SAINT HEGESIPPUS FRAGMENTS FROM THE FIVE BOOKS OF THE COMMENTARIES OF ECCLESIASTICAL ACTS

I. Concerning the history of the martyrdom of James, the brother of the Lord, from Book V. — According to Eusebius, Hist. eccl. lib. II, cap. 23.

The administration of the Church, together with the apostles, was undertaken by James the brother of the Lord, who even from the times of Christ down to our own age has been surnamed the Just. For many indeed were called by the same name of James; but this one was holy from his mother's womb. He never drank wine or fermented liquor; he abstained entirely from the flesh of living creatures; a razor never touched his head; he did not anoint himself with oil, nor was he accustomed to bathe his body in a bath. To him alone it was permitted ^B to enter into the inner sanctuary of the temple; for he did not wear wool, but linen garments. And he alone was accustomed to enter into [the sanctuary]. ^{C D}

and he was found kneeling and asking for forgiveness for the people, so that his knees grew hard like a camel's, because of his constantly bending the knee in worship to God and asking for the remission of sins for the people. By reason of his surpassing righteousness, he was called "the Just" and "Oblias," ^B which, in Greek, means "a bulwark of the people" and "righteousness," as the prophets declare concerning him. Now some of the seven sects, which were among the people and which I have written about in my memoirs, asked him, "What is the door of Jesus?" And he would say that he is the Savior. By this, some came to believe that Jesus is the Christ. But the aforementioned sects did not believe either in the resurrection, or that he was coming to render to every man according to his works. But those who did believe did so because of James. Since many, even of the leaders, were believing, there was a tumult among the Jews and the Scribes and the Pharisees, saying that the whole people was in danger of expecting Jesus as the Christ. They came together, therefore, and said to James: "We beseech you, restrain the people, since they have gone astray toward Jesus, as if he were the Christ. We beseech you to persuade all those who have come together for the day of the Passover concerning Jesus. For all of us obey you; for we all, and the whole people, bear testimony to you that you are just and that you do not respect persons. Persuade, therefore, the multitude not to be led astray concerning Jesus; for all the people and all of us obey you. Stand, therefore, upon the pinnacle of the temple, in order that you may be clearly visible from above, and your words may be easily audible to all the people; for because of the Passover all the tribes have come together ^C with the Gentiles also." The aforementioned Scribes and Pharisees, therefore, set James upon the pinnacle of the temple, and they cried out to him...

^A and said: "O Just One, to whom we all ought to hearken, since the people go astray after Jesus who was crucified, tell us what is the door of Jesus (37) who was crucified." And he answered with a loud voice: "Why do you ask me about Jesus the Son of Man? He himself is sitting in heaven at the right hand of the Great Power, and he is about to come upon the clouds of heaven." And when many were fully persuaded and glorified God for the testimony of James, the same Scribes and Pharisees said to one another: "We did badly by providing such a testimony to Jesus (40). But let us go up and throw him down, so that, being terrified, they might not believe him." And they cried out, saying: "Oh, oh, even the Just One has gone astray." And they fulfilled the Scripture that is written in Isaiah (41): "Let us take away (42) the just man, for he is useless to us; therefore they shall eat the fruit of their own deeds." They went up, therefore, and threw down the Just One, and said to one another: "Let us stone James the Just." And they began to stone him, since he did not die when he was thrown down, but turned and knelt, saying: "I beseech thee, Lord God Father, forgive them; for they do not know what they do." And while they were stoning him in this way, one of the priests of the sons of ^B Reckab...

(37) "The door of Jesus." Pearson observes in *Vind. epist. Ignat.*, part II, p. 153, that Christ himself said in John 10:9: "I am the door," which saying was clearly used in apostolic times concerning Christ, as is gathered openly from this passage of Hegesippus.

(38) "And when many were fully persuaded... and saying: Hosanna to the son of David." Scaliger thought in his *Animadversiones Eusebianae* that these things were spoken concerning James; and I readily agree with him in this. But in that the same Scaliger denies that James could be called the son of David, he errs gravely. For James was the son of Joseph, and therefore descended from the stock of David. Furthermore, it is very true what Scaliger says: that those who shouted "Hosanna" must have carried palms in their hands; an illustrious example of which is in the *Itinerarium Hierosolymitanum* of the monk Antoninus, page 30. From which we learn that it was the custom of the Christians of old, when bishops and presbyters were arriving, to go to meet them for the sake of honor and shout "Hosanna": "There came women to meet us with infants, holding palms in their hands, and ampullae with rose oil: and prostrate at our feet, they were anointing our feet, and singing, psalmodying in the Egyptian tongue the antiphon: 'Blessed are you by the Lord, and blessed is your coming, Hosanna in the highest.'" Jerome also witnesses ^D to this in chapter 21 of Matthew: "Let bishops and holy men, however holy they may be, see with what great danger they allow these things to be said to them: if to the Lord, to whom this was truly said (because the faith of believers was not yet solid), it is imputed as a crime." Moreover, one might not unjustly think that those cries of "Hosanna to the son of David," which Hegesippus says were at that time shouted by certain Jews, ought to be understood of Christ rather than of James. For when James, placed upon the pinnacle of the temple, had truly proclaimed Jesus to be the Christ and the Redeemer of the human race, certain Jews, embracing the faith of Christ, began to shout "Hosanna to the son of David," that is, to Jesus Christ, palms and victory.

(39) "Hosanna." In all our manuscripts there are two words: *hos anna*. Thus also in Jerome, in his *Interpretation of Hebrew names*: "Hosanna; salvifica (save-making), which is called in Greek *hos anna*." Both names ought to be read with an extended letter. That is, *Osanna* (Hosanna), which in both the Hebrew and Greek tongue produces the first syllable. Isidore also, in book VI of his *Etymologies*, testifies that *Osanna* is composed of two words, *Osi* and *Anna*, with one letter elided, just as in verses when we scan them. "For *Osi* is interpreted as 'salvifice,' and *Anna* is an interjection, signifying a movement of the mind under the affection of one beseeching." These words of Isidore are taken from Jerome's epistle 145, to Damasus. Augustine has almost the same thing in his book *De doctrina Christiana*, chapter 11.

(40) "Jesus." Grabius suggests that we should read "to James," or "to Jesus the disciple." But in vain. For Hegesippus seems to intimate that the Pharisees were angry because they themselves had brought it about, or given occasion to James, to bear such an illustrious testimony to Jesus Christ; by which testimony, indeed, many were moved and confirmed, and glorified the same Savior. In this sense I think the word is to be accepted.

(41) "In Isaiah." Scaliger affirms that Hegesippus was mistaken; for this passage does not exist in Isaiah, but in the book which is inscribed *The Wisdom of Solomon*, chapter 2. But Scaliger himself is mistaken in rashly criticizing Hegesippus. For in truth this passage is read in Isaiah, chapter 3: "Let us take away the just man, for he is useless to us; therefore they shall eat the fruit of their own deeds." Thus indeed it is read in the Roman edition. But Justin, in his *Dialogus adversus Tryphonem*, explicitly states that it had been written in the edition of the Seventy Interpreters, "Let us take away the just man," for which the Jewish interpreters had translated "Let us bind." Justin's reading is also confirmed by Tertullian in his book *Contra Marcionem*, chapter 22: "Come," they say, "let us take away the Just One, because he is useless to us." But he is also mistaken in that he says that in Rufinus, Jeremiah is written instead of Isaiah. Furthermore, Hegesippus had in mind this passage of Isaiah which I mentioned, a little above, when he said that James was called the Just One by the prophets: see Justin, *Dial. cum Tryphone* n. 17, 133, 135. But above all n. [missing] to which Valesius points here.

(42) "Let us take away, etc." The passage exists in Isaiah 3, 10. See Justin, *Dial. cum Tryphone* n. 17, 133, 136. But in the first n. 137 is where Valesius relates this.

^A ...and they shall eat the fruit of their works. Therefore, they went up and threw him down and said among themselves: "Let us stone James the Just." They began, therefore, to attack him with stones; for when he was thrown down he did not die immediately, but turned and, kneeling, prayed, saying: "O Lord and Father, God, I beseech You to forgive them, for they know not what they do." And while they were overwhelming the man with stones, one of the priests from the sons of Rechab, the son of Rechabim, who are commended by the testimony of Jeremiah, cried out in a loud voice: "Desist! What are you doing? The Just One is praying for us." Meanwhile, one of them, a fuller, having seized the club with which he was accustomed to press clothes, struck the Just One on the head. And thus did he finish his life with a happy martyrdom; he was buried in that same place, and his monument still remains near the temple. This man has become a true witness to both Jews and Greeks that Jesus is the Christ. And immediately Vespasian besieges Judea, having taken them captive. (49)

II. Concerning the kinsmen of our Savior.

At this time there still remained from the... ^B ...office. For they used to wash away stains from garments and they would whiten them, and procure for them splendor; they used to employ for this purpose presses, or beams, as I have noted in book XXVIII of Ammianus Marcellinus, page 366. Moreover, in our manuscripts Maz., Med., and Fuketii it is written...

(47) "And they buried him in that place." This, indeed, is in the King's codex, which Stephanus followed. But the remaining three, namely Maz., Med., and Fuketii, are somewhat fuller by a few words, in this way: "And they buried him in that place near the temple." Which reading is confirmed by Nicephorus and Rufinus.

(48) "And his monument still remains near the temple." How can it be that this monument (*stēlē*, for this is what that word signifies, as we have noted above) and the sepulchre of James could have still remained after the city had been razed by the Romans? But neither is it likely, as Hegesippus says, that James was buried near the temple. For the Jews buried bodies outside the city, as may be gathered both from the Gospel and from the sepulchre of Helena, queen of the Adiabenes, of whom we have spoken above. Rightly, therefore, did Rufinus omit this entire passage in his translation. Jerome, however, in his book *On Ecclesiastical Writers*, the greater part of which is taken from our Eusebius' *Ecclesiastical History*, in translating these words of Hegesippus, softened them thus: "He had a most well-known monument until the siege of Titus, and the last one of Hadrian." Where, however, I cannot approve of that which he says concerning the last siege of Hadrian. For in that, he followed the error of Eusebius, which others have already long since refuted. Moreover, Jerome said "monument" for that which is *stēlē* in Greek. In the same sense *stēlē* is used in 2 Kings, chapter XVIII, where the ancient translator renders it "titulus." ^C Toward which word in the most ancient Mazarine codex I found this scholion: "It must be known that this column was nothing else than an inform stone, in which the name of James, who was buried there, was incised. Whence also Christians even now place stones in their sepulchres: on which they have been accustomed either to inscribe letters, or to engrave the sign of the cross."

(49) "Sieges Judea, having taken them captive." So indeed the King's codex. But the other three, Maz., Med., and Fuk., do not recognize the words "Judea, having taken them captive." And in my judgment, they are entirely superfluous and inane. For it cannot be said in Greek, when it... ^D

^A is spoken of cities, and not of nations. Rufinus also and Nicephorus do not have these words.

(50) "Judea." In the Royal codex, and in that of Georgius Syncellus, it is read with a slight difference. However, I am surprised at Scaliger, who in his *Eusebian Annotations*, page 187, undeservedly criticizes both Eusebius and Hegesippus. For Hegesippus did not say that the posterity of David was at that time reduced to only two men, as Scaliger falsely alleges against him; but [rather] the posterity of Jude, who was the brother of the Lord: nor did Eusebius understand the words of Hegesippus otherwise. Certainly Hegesippus clearly testifies that Symeon, the son of Cleophas, who was at that time bishop of Jerusalem, was born from the Davidic race. You have his words below in chapter 32. Therefore, neither did Hegesippus err, nor Eusebius. Rather, Scaliger himself is to be rebuked, who, against the authority of Hegesippus—a most ancient writer and close to the apostolic times—obstinately contends that no Jude, brother of the Lord, ever existed. But to the contrary is Epiphanius in *Heresy 78*, who says that Joseph had from a previous marriage four children: James, Symeon, Josetes, and Jude, with whom Hippolytus, bishop of Portus, agrees in Nicephorus, book II, chapter 3, except that instead of Symeon he says Simon, more correctly, as I noted above; and he names the daughters differently. To these is added Jerome in the book *Against Helvidius*. Perhaps someone will say that which was stated by Scaliger, that no mention of this Jude is made in the Gospel. But indeed Matthew in chapter XIII speaks of him thus: "Is not his mother called Mary, and his brothers James, Joseph, Simon, and Jude?" The same is read in Mark, chapter VI. You see how Scaliger, carried away by an excessive desire to find fault, deservedly incurs criticism himself. Furthermore, this Jude is said by some to have had a wife named Maria, according to Nicephorus in book I, chapter 33. From her, therefore, he begat children, from whom the *desposyni* were propagated, about whom Africanus speaks in his *Letter to Aristides*. These errors of Scaliger, moreover, P. Halloixius has long since rebutted in his annotations to the *Life of Hegesippus*; which, indeed, I learned rather late, when my own annotations were already finished.

^B ... grandsons of that Jude, who according to the flesh was called the brother of Christ. Brought by some on the charge that they were descended from the royal stock of David, they were led by the Evocatus to Domitian Caesar. For Domitian feared the coming of Christ, just as did Herod. Questioned, therefore, by him as to whether they were sprung from the race of David, they confessed that this was most true. Then Domitian inquired of them what possessions they had, or how much money they owned. They replied that they only had nine thousand denarii between them, of which half belonged to each; yet they said that they did not have these means in silver, but in the valuation of their fields, namely thirty-nine *jugera* of land, from whose fruits they both paid taxes ^C and provided themselves with a living from their own labor. And at the same time they began to show their hands, offering the hardness of their skin and the callous deeply imprinted on their hands from the assiduity of their labor, as a testimony of their work. Finally, being interrogated concerning Christ and his kingdom, what kind it was, and when and in what places it would appear, they answered that it was not of this world, nor of earthly power; but angelic and heavenly, which would come at the end of the world, when Christ, coming in glory, will judge the quick and the dead, and will reward each according to his deeds. Upon hearing these things, Domitian, not at all condemning them, but even regarding them as base, sent them away free ^D and caused the persecution against the Church to cease.

[alt-version omitted]

(51) "Evocatus." In the Royal codex I found written *Ioucatos*, as the same Stephanus had also warned in the various readings which he appended at the end of his edition. In the *Chronicle of Georgius Syncellus* is read *Ioukatos*. We, from our three codices—Maz., Fuk., and Savilian—have restored the true reading of this place. Nicephorus and Rufinus confirm this reading. For in Rufinus, indeed, it is called "Revocatus": *some Revocatus by name, who had been sent for this purpose, brought them to Domitian.* Nicephorus, however, in book II, chapter 10, has it written *Ioukatos*. Who these *evocati* were is known from Dio: namely, soldiers of a more honorable rank who, having completed their service, were discharged, but were recalled to military duty by the prince. Mention of them is made in ancient inscriptions, *EVOK. AUG.*, that is, *Evocatio Augusti*. Lest anyone wonder that Hegesippus, a Greek writer, used a Roman term. This is not new or infrequent for Hegesippus, who uses *delatoreuein* and *denaria* in this narrative which we have at hand, and uses vulgar speech.

(52) "Tribute." Christophorsonus translates "taxes," as if the taxes of the fields were paid. But *phoroi* are tributes which were paid from the fields, and were paid in the very commodities themselves, that is, in wheat, barley, wine, and the like, as is evident from the Theodosian Code. "Taxes," however, are what in Greek are called *tele*, which were contracted for and exacted by publicans; while tributes were accustomed to be exacted by tax-collectors, or by the ministers of presidents and prefects.

(53) "Callous." From the beginning I hesitated as to whether *callus* should be said in the masculine gender. At length, however, I found *callos* used by Rufinus in book II, where he discusses the death of James, the brother of the Lord.

(54) "Judge the quick." In the Maz. and Fuk. codices, and also in Nicephorus, is read *krineien*. But the Royal codex has it written thus clearly. Therefore, it is a typographical error that crept into the edition of Rob. Stephanus.

^A regarding the decree against the Church. And as for those who were released, they are said to have presided over the churches, since they were both witnesses and also kin of the Lord; and when peace was established, they remained in life until the time of Trajan.

III. Concerning the martyrdom of Symeon, son of Clopas, Bishop of Jerusalem. — From the same Eusebius, Hist. Eccl. lib. III, cap. 32.

^B From the number of these heretics, some denounced Symeon, son of Clopas, because he was of the lineage of David and a Christian. And thus he underwent martyrdom, being one hundred and twenty years of age, in the time of Emperor Trajan and the consular Atticus. The same writer (Hegesippus) says that it happened that the accusers themselves were also seized—for all those from the royal tribe of the Jews were at that time being strictly sought out—as being themselves of that lineage. One might ^C reasonably say that Symeon was also an eyewitness and hearer of the Lord, using as proof the length of his life and the fact that the Gospel Scripture remembers Mary, the wife of Clopas, whose son he was, as the narrative previously made clear. The same writer says that others also, of the lineage of one of the brothers of the Savior, whose name was Judas, survived for that same kingdom, after the testimony they had already previously given for their faith in Christ under Domitian. He writes thus: "They come, therefore, and preside over every Church ^D as witnesses, and being of the lineage of the Lord. And when deep peace had been established in every Church, they remained until Emperor Trajan; until the aforementioned Symeon, son of Clopas, who was the Lord's uncle, having been slandered by the sects, was likewise accused on the same charge before the consular Atticus; and after being tormented for many days, he bore witness, so that all were amazed.

^A at how, at the age of one hundred and twenty years, he endured it. And he was ordered to be crucified.

Following these things, the same man recounts what concerns those who are pointed out, and adds that up to those times the Church remained a virgin, ^B pure and uncorrupted, as the Church, if there were any that were lurking in the darkness of obscurity even then, although some existed who attempted to corrupt the sound rule of the saving preaching. But when the holy band of the Apostles had one after another received the finish of their life, and that generation had passed away which had been granted the privilege of hearing the divine wisdom with their own ears, then the conspiracy of impious error began its existence, through the deceit of false teachers; who, because none of the Apostles were left any longer, already openly and with uncovered head, attempted to preach their knowledge falsely so called in opposition to the preaching of the truth.

For whom they built cenotaphs ^C and temples, as we see even now; of whom is Antinous, a slave of Caesar Hadrian, for whom also a sacred contest is held, which they call the Antinoian, and which exists even in our own time. For he also founded a city named after Antinous, and established prophets.

IV. Regarding the time when Hegesippus himself flourished.

22. ^A And the Church of the Corinthians, he says, remained in the right faith until Primus was bishop in Corinth; with whom I held familiar conversation while I was sailing to Rome, and I spent not a few days with the Corinthians, and we took mutual consolation from the right faith. And when I had come to Rome, I drew up a succession ^B until Anicetus, whose deacon was Eleutherus. And after Anicetus, Soter succeeded him, followed by Eleutherus. In every succession and in every city it is as the law and the prophets and the Lord proclaim. The same author also sets forth the origins of the heresies that arose in his time with these words: "After," he says, "James the Just had suffered martyrdom just as the Lord did, for the preaching of the same doctrine, again ^B the Lord’s cousin, Symeon the son of Clopas, is constituted bishop, being put forward by all as being the second cousin of the Lord." For this reason they called the Church a virgin; for it had not yet been corrupted by vain heresies. Thebuthis, ^C because he was not made bishop, begins to corrupt it, from the seven sects... ^D [alt-version omitted] [index: entries preserved]

that had been sown among the Jewish people. From these also was Simon, from whom the Simonians flowed; and Cleobius, from whom the Cleobians; and Dositheus, from whom the Dositheans; and Gorthaeus, from whom the Gortheni; and Masbothaeus, from whom the Masbothaeans are named. From these also have sprung the Menandrians, and the Marcionists, and the Carpocratians, and the Valentinians, and the Basilidians, and the Saturnilians, and others who, each for himself, introduced their own peculiar opinions. From these have arisen false Christs, false prophets, false apostles, who have divided the unity of the Church by corrupting doctrines against God and against His Christ. Furthermore, the same writer recounts the heresies that existed of old among the Jews, saying: "There were also various opinions in the circumcision among the children of Israel against the tribe of Judah ^B and the Christ."

(71) *From the seven sects*. Nicephorus has expunged the last word as superfluous, for it stands thus: *From the seven sects he also was among the people*. In the Royal codex I have found it written: *he also was among the people*. Which may be tolerated if the distinction that is present in all our codices is removed. And so the sense will be that Thebutis first undertook to corrupt the Church at Jerusalem, having introduced the pestilent doctrine of those seven sects of the Jewish people to which he himself was addicted. A better way, however, in my judgment, would be to read it in this manner: *Being of the seven sects, he also was among the people*. Which means the same as if he were to say: Thebutis had gathered his error from those seven sects of the Jewish people, just as Simon, and Cleobius, and Dositheus.

(72) *And Dositheus, from whom the Dositheans*. There are some, however, who write that this Dositheus was much older. Certainly, if we are to believe Drusius in his *Responsio ad Minerval Serarii* ch. 10, this Dositheus lived around the times of Sennacherib, king of the Assyrians. Jerome in his dialogue *against the Luciferians*: "I pass over the heretics of Judaism, who before the advent of Christ dissipated the law that had been handed down; because Dositheus, the prince of the Samaritans, rejected the prophets; because the Sadducees, born from his root, even denied the resurrection of the flesh." Scaliger, however, in *Elenchus Trihaeresii*, ch. 15, contends that Dositheus was later than Christ; and he does so on the authority of Origen, who in book 1 *against Celsus* explicitly affirms it. But also the same Origen in tractate 27 on Matthew writes that Dositheus the Samaritan lived in the times of the apostles, and boasted that he was Christ, and in volume XIII of his *Enarrations on the Gospel of John*. Now, Origen seems to have drawn this from Clement of Rome, who, speaking of Simon Magus in book II of the *Recognitions*, writes thus: "For when, as you yourself know, John the Baptist had been killed, and Dositheus had begun the beginning of his heresy with thirty principle disciples, and another woman who is called Luna; whence also those thirty, as if according to the course of the moon, appeared to be placed in the number of days; this Simon, greedy for a bad reputation, as we have said, approaches Dositheus, and, feigning friendships, entreats that, if at any time one of those thirty should die, he might immediately substitute himself in the place of the deceased; because it was not lawful among them to exceed the established number, nor to insert anyone unknown or not yet approved. Whence also the others, studying to be made in the number and place, according to the institutions of their sect, strive in every way to please, so that each one of those who follow that number might, when by chance someone, as we have said, has departed, appear worthy to be substituted in the place of the deceased. Therefore Dositheus, entreated by him for a long time, when a place became available within the number, introduced Simon. But not long after, he fell into the love of that woman, whom they call Luna," etc. From which it is evident that Dositheus lived in the same times as Simon. Eulogius, patriarch of Alexandria, feels the same way about the age of Dositheus, as is read in Photius's *Bibliotheca*, cod. 230, and Hegesippus supports that view in the passage we have at hand.

(73) *Correctly in Nicephorus* in ch. 7 of book IV: *And Gorthaeus, from whom the Gorthaeni; and Masbothaeus, from whom the Masbothaeani; from these the Menandrianists, etc.* Which emendation is confirmed by the interpretation of Rufinus. In the Royal, Maz., Fuk., and Savil. codices [the name is written] *Gorthaei*: in Epiphanius in *Ancoratus* they are called *Gorthaei*; in *Panarium* however *Gorthaei*. Furthermore, Hegesippus correctly observes that these heresies drew their origin from the seven sects of the Jewish people. For the Simonians, Dositheans, Gortheni, and the other names of errors were nothing else than streams flowing from those Jewish fountains. But Theodoritus in book I of *Haereticarum Fabularum*, ch. 1, says that all these heresies flowed from the font of Simon, namely the Cleobians, Dositheans, Gortheni, Masbothaeans, Menandrians, Eutychitae, and Canistae: *From this bitterest root sprouted the Cleobiani, Dositheani, Gortheni, Masbothaei, Adrianistae, Eutychitae, Canistae*. But since it is established that the Simonian heresy itself had its origin from the Jewish sects, Theodoret would have spoken more correctly had he said that they were all propagated from the Jewish sects; especially since some of those heresies seem older than the Simonian, for example the Gorthena and the Dositheana.

(74) *From these the Menandrianists*. The first word is missing in the Royal codex, and in Nicephorus, more correctly without doubt. Moreover, in the Maz., Med., and Fuk. codices, for *Menandrianists* is written *Adrianistae*; just as it is also read in Theodoret in book I of *Haereticarum Fabularum*, as we saw above. Rufinus translates *Menandrians*.

(75) *Introduced*. Thus Robert Stephanus corrected it, since in all exemplars it is constantly read: *pareisegagon*. This barbarism is not alien to Hegesippus. In the Fuketian codex, however, I found it written: *pareisegagon*. In Nicephorus, indeed, it is read: *pareisegagon*, which I prefer more.

(76) *Of Judah*. In the Maz., Med., and Fuk. codices I found it written, *among the children of Israel the tribe of Judah*, etc., which I do not know what may mean; unless perhaps one prefers to emend it thus: *among the children of the Israelites; against the tribe of Judah*. The Vulgate reading, however, pleases more, which both the Royal codex and Nicephorus confirm. Now Hegesippus seems to have considered the tribe of Judah pure and empty of all these sects of the Jewish people, so that no one from the tribe of Judah followed the sect of the Essenes, or of the Sadducees, or of the Pharisees. Which, however, is in no way likely.

^A Essenes (77), Galileans (78), Hemerobaptists, Masbothæi (79), Samaritans (80), Sadducees, Pharisees. For by introducing a doctrine against God, and against his Christ, they tore asunder the unity of the Church. The same writer, moreover, recounts those sects which once prevailed among the Jews in these words: "There were," he says, "diverse sects and opinions in the circumcision, among the children of Israel, against the tribe of Judah, and against Christ: namely, the Essenes, Galileans, Hemerobaptists, Masbothæi, Samaritans, Sadducees, and Pharisees."

VI. From book V of the Commentaries. — From Stephen Gobar in Photius, cod. CCXXXII, col. 893.

"That the good things prepared for the just, neither eye has seen, nor ear heard, nor has it entered into the heart of man." ^B Hegesippus, however, an ancient and apostolic man, in the fifth book of his

1 I Cor. II, 9; Isa. LXIV, 4.

Commentaries, I know not what he had in mind («what reason he was moved by [the line cuts off here], when he noted these things. For by introducing a doctrine against God, and against his Christ, they tore asunder the unity of the Church. The same writer, moreover, recounts those sects which once prevailed among the Jews in these words: "There were," he says, "diverse sects and opinions in the circumcision, among the children of Israel, against the tribe of Judah, and against Christ: namely, the Essenes, Galileans, Hemerobaptists, Masbothæi, Samaritans, Sadducees, and Pharisees." ^C

X. Hemerobaptists, who wash both their bodies and their homes and furnishings daily.

Among Isidore in book VIII of his *Etymologies*, eight heresies are numbered, namely: Pharisees, Sadducees, Efinei, Morbonei, Genistæ, Meristæ, Samaritans, and Hemerobaptists. Finally, Clement, in book I of the *Recognitions*, recounts only five sects of the Jews, which he calls schisms, namely: Sadducees, Samaritans, Scribes, Pharisees, and certain disciples of John the Baptist. "For when," he says, "the birth of Christ was already drawing near, to repress sacrifices, but to bestow the grace of baptism, the enemy, understanding that the time was at hand from those things which had been predicted, was working various schisms among the people, so that if by chance the first sin could have been abolished, the second fault could not be corrected. There was, therefore, the first schism of those who were called Sadducees, which arose at the beginning of the days of John. And these, as if more righteous than the rest, began to separate themselves from the gathering of the people, and to deny the resurrection of the dead, etc." But even a little later, the same Clement counts no more than the five above-mentioned sects of the Jews. Perhaps someone will wonder why he omitted the Essenes from these sects. For which thing we can imagine no other reason, except that the ancient Fathers of the Church favored the Essenes beyond measure. ^D

(77) Essenes, Galileans, etc. These are the seven heresies of the Jewish people, of which Hegesippus makes frequent mention, as we have seen in the books above. But Justin, too, in his *Dialogue with Trypho*, recounts the same number of Jewish heresies, but calls them by other names. The words of Justin are these: "Just as no one, if he rightly considers, would agree that the Sadducees are Jews, or similar heresies, Genistæ and Meristæ, Galileans and Helleniani, Pharisees and Baptists." Just as one, if he accurately weighed it, would not say that the Sadducees, or heresies of that sort, the Genistæ and Meristæ, Galileans and Helleniani, Pharisees and Baptists, are Jews. Epiphanius also acknowledges seven heresies of Judaism. But he names them thus: Scribes, Pharisees, Sadducees, Essenes, Nazarenes, Hemerobaptists, Herodians. In the *Indiculo hæreseon*, which is attributed to Blessed Jerome, ten heresies of the Jews are counted. Since this passage is illustrious, it deserves to be set forth here.

I. The Efinei say that Christ taught them complete abstinence. II. The Galileans say that Christ came and taught them not to call Caesar Lord, nor to use his coins. III. The Morbonei say that he was Christ himself, who taught them to keep the Sabbath in everything. IV. The Pharisees deny that Christ has come, and do not communicate with the aforementioned in any matter. V. The Sadducees deny the resurrection, saying: It was said to Adam: "You are earth, and to earth you shall go." VI. The Genistæ presume that they are of the lineage of Abraham. VII. The Meristæ, because they separate the Scriptures, not believing all the prophets, saying that some things were prophesied by one spirit and others by another. VIII. The Samaritans, who, when Israel was captured and led away to Babylon, were transplanted into the place. Coming into the land of the region of Samaria from the part of the Israelites, they keep the custom which they learned from the priest who was sent back; [and] part of the Gentile [custom], which they had in the land of their birth. For in their observances they are separated entirely from the Jews, whose superstition is without doubt known to all. X. The Herodians. This heresy arose in the times of the Savior. These glorified Herod, saying he was the Christ.

(78) Galileans. Justin and Jerome also recount these among the Jewish heresies. The author and head of this sect was Judas the Galilean, who, after the exile of King Archelaus, when the Romans wanted to conduct a census in Judea, incited his fellows to retain their ancient liberty and introduced the fourth sect of the Galileans, as Josephus writes in book II of the *Jewish War*.

(79) Masbothæi. In our manuscripts (Maz., Med. and Fuket), it is read *Masbothæi* with the accent retracted to the antepenultimate syllable. In the *Indiculo* of Jerome they are called *Marbonei*; but in Isidore, *Morbonei*. Moreover, these *Masbothæi* are to be distinguished from those whom Hegesippus mentioned just above. For these were of the seven sects of the Jewish people which arose around the time of Christ. Those, however, were propagated from those seven sects of the Jews, just like the Simonians, Dositheans, and Gortheni. To me, indeed, it seems that there is an error in one or the other place of Hegesippus. In Rufinus, those numbered in the fourth place among the Jewish sects are called *Masbuthei*. Others, however, born from those sects are called *Masbutheani*. For so it is written in the best codex of the Parisian Church.

(80) Samaritans. Epiphanius more rightly distinguished them from the Jews; he recounted seven heresies of the Jews, but four of the Samaritans. Hegesippus, however, was followed by Jerome, or whoever is the author of the *Indiculo*, Isidore, Honorius Augustodunensis and others, who included the Samaritans among the heresies of the Jews, taking the name "Jews" broadly, of course. And Hegesippus seems to have thought thus, when he says: "And there were diverse opinions in the"...

^A Commentaries, I know not what he suffered, that he says that these things were spoken, and that those who say these things falsely accuse both the divine Scriptures and the Lord Himself, who says: "Blessed are your eyes that see, and your ears that hear," and so forth.

VII. Among George Syncellus, in the *Chronography*, page 344. Of this (Clement) one genuine epistle to the Corinthians is current, written as if from the Church of Rome, on the occasion of a certain tumult having arisen at Corinth, as Hegesippus testifies, which ^B is also read in church.

…circumcision. But what he adds, "among the children of Israel," can no longer be excused, since the Samaritans were never considered the children of Israel.

(81) "I know not what he suffered." Cotelerius, whose version of this sixth fragment—as being more exact—we have produced in the notes to the *Apostolic Constitutions*, book VI, chapter 16, has these things to say regarding this passage: "Because, according to the testimony of Jerome on Isaiah LXIV, 4, it was read in the apocryphal work entitled the *Ascension of Isaiah*, which is cited by the Apostle in 1 Cor. II, 9: 'What eye has not seen,' etc., Stephen Gobarus the Tritheite accuses Hegesippus before Photius for having considered this false. One might suspect it was done in this way by Hegesippus in contempt of the apocryphal volume. But I hold a different opinion, and I judge Hegesippus to be free of fault; for he does not deny that those things which God prepared for His own, and which were unseen, unheard of, and unknown, once existed; but rather he wishes to show that they do not exist anymore after the incarnation and the mission of the Holy Spirit. For Paul further adds: 'But to us God has revealed them through His Spirit.' And Hegesippus confirms his opinion through the testimony of Matthew XIII." So far the most learned man.

PANTÆNUS. NOTICE.

(1) Eusebius has, in book VI, chapter 10: "An ancient custom of a school of sacred learning having existed among them." FABRICIUS. Origen, moreover, in a fragment of an epistle preserved by Eusebius in book VI, chapter 19, in which he defends himself against those who objected to him his excessive zeal for Greek disciplines, calling upon the examples of Pantænus and Heraclas, the prefects of this school, says: "This we have done, imitating Pantænus, who before our time benefited many, having had no small amount of preparation in those matters, and Heraclas, the Alexandrian, who now sits in the presbyterium."

(2) He does not say plainly that he was sent to India under bishop Demetrius, but narrates his departure immediately following the mention of Julian, the previous bishop; but yet it could have happened at that time, which Jerome noted.

(3) Eusebius does not say that the Gospel of Matthew was written in Hebrew letters and brought back to Alexandria by Pantænus, but only that it had been handed down by Bartholomew to the Indians and kept there down to the age of Pantænus. FABR.

(4) It does not seem that Jerome had perused the writings of Pantænus, but merely that he wished to express the words of Eusebius, by which, however, there is no mention of commentaries on holy Scripture: "A living voice and through writings commenting on the treasures of divine dogmas." Rufinus: "Instructing disciples as much by living voice as by leaving behind to posterity the treasures of knowledge in the monuments of books." FABRIC. Nevertheless, the true interpretation of Jerome seems so to me.

(5) From Eusebius you might already gather that the name of Pantænus was in the Alexandrian school under Commodus. For...