The Death of James the Just Revisited

Abstract

Based on the testimony of Josephus (Jewish Antiquities 20.197–203), most scholars place the death of James, the brother of Jesus in 62 c.e. This article breaks with this consensus, arguing that the reference to Jesus "called Christ" in Jewish Antiquities 20.200 is a later Christian interpolation. If it can be shown that the Josephan account was not originally about James, the early Christian leader, then James's death cannot be linked to the high priesthood of Ananus in 62 c.e. It also means that if any of the historical circumstances surrounding James's death can be recovered, they must be sought in the Christian narratival accounts of early antiquity. After reviewing the complex source-critical relations between the James tradition in Hegesippus, Clement of Alexandria, the Second Apocalypse of James, and the Pseudo-Clementine Recognitions, and establishing the earliest independent form of the tradition, I argue that the narrative logic of the martyrdom account depends on at least two minimal historical likelihoods: 1) that James was in fact killed; and 2) that his death occurred shortly before the fall of Jerusalem in 70 c.e.

INTRODUCTION

Christians of antiquity were fascinated with the figure of James, the brother of Jesus. Despite his prominence as leader in the Jerusalem church (Gal 1.19, 2.9; Acts 15.13; G. Thom. 12) and his reported witness to the resurrection (1 Cor 15.7; Gos. Heb. apud Jerome Vir. ill. 2), remarkably little is known about him. In fact, the most extensive traditions that survive concern not the manner of his life, but his death. Much has been made of Josephus's version of the events (Jewish Antiquities 20.197–203, henceforth AJ), the concise and unembellished account preferred to the Christian traditions, which are hagiographic and thus generally seen as of limited historical value. Challenges to the authenticity of Josephus AJ 20.200, however, invite the reconsideration of this wider Christian tradition and its value for the reconstruction of the circumstances of James's death. This article revisits the source-critical issues relating to the narrative accounts of James's death, seeking to establish the earliest form of the tradition. From there, we will be able to investigate the connections (if any) between the literary world of the text and the historical contexts from which those traditions arose.

JAMES IN JOSEPHUS

We begin with Josephus's Jewish Antiquities. The passage that records James's death (AJ 20.197–203) is embedded in a wider context illustrating the unstable political landscape of Jerusalem and Judea in the 50s and 60s c.e. AJ 20.189–97 concerns a dispute between Agrippa II and the temple elite over who had the authority to control the height of the temple wall that adjoined the palace, while AJ 20.204–7 details Albinus's endeavors to destroy the Sicarii and the violent takeover of the priests' tithes by Ananias's servants.¹ As James McLaren writes, the period was "marked by disputes among the Jewish elite—certain families of priests, wealthy laity and Herodians."² Indeed, Josephus viewed the corruption and factionalism of Albinus's procuratorship during this period as the beginning of the end: "tyranny was generally tolerated; and at this time were those seeds sown which brought the city to destruction."³

Within this narrative framework Josephus recounts the rise and fall of Ananus from the office of high priest. The newly appointed procurator Albinus had yet to arrive in Judea; in his absence, Ananus organized a trial for a certain James the brother of Jesus, along with several other individuals, who were executed by stoning. The whole affair outraged a number of "the most fair-minded of the citizens" of Jerusalem,⁴ who wrote letters to King Agrippa and Albinus, resulting in Ananus's removal from the high priesthood after just three months in office. The account ends with Jesus ben Damneus appointed in Ananus's place.

Previous scholarship has given considerable attention to the role of James in the story, the nature of his offense, and its potential implications for understanding Jewish-Christian relations in pre-70 c.e. Palestine.⁵ That the whole affair was primarily religious in nature has been brought into question by McLaren.⁶ McLaren challenges previous assumptions that the opponents of Ananus (a Sadducee) were Pharisees (and thus the dispute centered on difference of interpretation and application of the law),⁷ or that the charge of lawlessness and the punishment of stoning were exclusively religious in character.⁸ Most importantly, McLaren shows that the charges themselves were not of central importance to the narrative. Josephus does not tell us the nature of the offense, nor does he comment on whether any offense had in fact been committed. The whole case may have been "'trumped up' in order to score a victory over a rival faction."⁹ And given that Jesus ben Damneus (a political rival) was able to wrest power from Ananus, it is the political machinations of the Jewish elite that frames the entire incident rather than exact charges levelled against James.¹⁰

While James the brother of Jesus Christ was known as a prominent leader in the Jerusalem church, there is no evidence to suggest that he belonged to the Jewish elite like the priests, Herodians, or other wealthy or influential families. The fact that Josephus singled out James by name, however, seems important for understanding the subsequent outrage of Ananus's political rivals.¹¹ The point is glossed over by McLaren, since it makes little sense why the Christian leader would have been embroiled in a power struggle over the high priesthood. In fact, McLaren's otherwise judicious reading of the events in AJ 20.197–203 would be further bolstered if the trial and execution did not center upon James the Christian leader, but a different James altogether, one that was in fact part of Jerusalem's political elite. Instead of AJ 20.200 identifying James as "the brother of Jesus called Christ" (τὸν ἀδελφὸν Ἰησοῦ τοῦ λεγομένου Χριστοῦ),¹² I argue that the text simply read "the brother of Jesus" (τὸν ἀδελφὸν Ἰησοῦ) and that the words "called Christ" (λεγομένου Χριστοῦ) were later added into the textual tradition on the basis of Origen's exegesis of the passage.

A primary objection to this conjecture concerns the identities of James and Jesus in the pericope. In AJ 20.200, James is only identified by his familial relation to a certain Jesus. But if the qualifier λεγόμενος Χριστός is secondary, there would be no epithet to identify further the Jesus in the passage. Who was this Jesus? The reader only knows him as "the brother of James." But we should note that this is also the case for the reference to the (second?) Jesus in 20.203 a few lines later. There, that Jesus is identified as "son of Damneus" (τοῦ Δαμναίου).¹³ Who is this Damneus? We also do not know. Outside of the association with his son Jesus (20.203 and 20.213), Damneus is not introduced or independently mentioned at all in Josephus's writings.¹⁴ While this is not typically how Josephus introduces his characters, it is certainly not without precedent in his works. In the following examples, Josephus introduces each son with a patronymic, but the identity of the father is otherwise unknown, having not been introduced previously in the narrative:

Justus, the son of Pistus

(Life 34, 36, 88, 175, 390);

Capellus the son of Antyllus

(Life 69);

Ptolemy, the son of Dorymenes

(AJ 12.298);

Andronicus, the son of Messalamus

(AJ 13.75);

Ismael, the son of Phabi

(AJ 18.34 and 20.179).

We even have an example of an "adelphonymic" in which a brother is also not independently introduced, "Felix, the brother of Pallans."¹⁵ We may well ask: who is Antyllus or Dorymenes? How can Josephus introduce Cappellus or Ptolemy in relation to these otherwise unknown figures? Yet in such instances Josephus deemed the bare patronymic or adelphonymic sufficient to identify the individuals in question. In actuality, the identities of these individuals remain somewhat ambiguous. This is also the case in AJ 20.200 and 203. James is introduced only in relation to his brother Jesus, and the Jesus who ascends to the priesthood is identified solely in relation to his father Damneus. While the text is unclear,¹⁶ I suggest that Josephus intended to imply from context that the Jesus in 20.200 was the same Jesus in 20.203. This would provide a sense of poetic justice to the episode—Ananus the high priest kills James, but is then forced to cede the high priesthood to James's brother.¹⁷ Since it is James's connection to his brother Jesus that is of primary interest in the story, Josephus identifies James with an adelphonymic.¹⁸ In 20.203, Jesus is identified with the patronymic, as is the typical way Josephus introduces new high priests. Nevertheless, there remains an ambiguity within the pericope as to the identity of all the individual actors in the story (James, Jesus #1, Jesus #2, Damneus). As we will see, this ambiguity was exploited by Origen in his interpretation of Josephus's James tradition.

JAMES IN JOSEPHUS, ACCORDING TO ORIGEN

Origen makes particular reference to Josephus when discussing the death of James. Origen finds the deferential nature of Josephus here especially noteworthy, since Josephus is not himself a believer.

Flavius Josephus, who wrote the Antiquities of the Jews in twenty books, when wishing to exhibit the cause why the people suffered so great misfortunes that even the temple was razed to the ground, said, that these things happened to them . . . because of the things which they had dared to do against James the brother of Jesus who is called Christ . . . [And] though he did not accept Jesus as Christ, he yet gave testimony that the righteousness of James was so great; and he says that the people thought that they had suffered these things because of James.¹⁹

Origen also refers to Josephus's account of James's death in Contra Celsus, supplying further details from his Josephan source:

For in the eighteenth book of his Jewish Antiquities, Josephus bears witness to John as having been a baptizer . . . Now this writer, although not believing in Jesus as the Christ, in seeking after the cause of the fall of Jerusalem and the destruction of the temple . . . says that these disasters happened to the Jews as a punishment for the death of James the Just, who was a brother of Jesus

(called Christ).²⁰

Similarly, Origen avers that the temple was destroyed "on account, as Josephus says, of James the Just, the brother of Jesus who was called Christ, but in reality, as the truth makes clear, on account of Jesus Christ the Son of God."²¹

Origen's citation of Josephus is rather curious, given that our manuscripts of AJ say almost none of the things Origen attributes to Josephus. Josephus never links James's death to the destruction of Jerusalem or the temple;²² nor was his death at the hands of the Jewish people. Josephus makes no evaluation of James as "righteous," nor does he employ the epithet "James the Just." The priestly opposition, the trial, the companions of James, the means of execution, the consequent outcry—all key features of Josephus's account—are missing in Origen's summaries. In fact, the only overlap is found in the phrase "James, the brother of Jesus called Christ," but even here the wording is not exact:²³

Ἰακώβου τοῦ δικαίου, ὃς ἦν ἀδελφὸς Ἰησοῦ τοῦ λεγομένου Χριστοῦ

(Cels. 1.47);²⁴

Ἰάκωβον τὸν δίκαιον, τὸν ἀδελφὸν Ἰησοῦ τοῦ λεγομένου Χριστοῦ

(Cels. 2.13);²⁵

Ἰάκωβον τὸν ἀδελφὸν Ἰησοῦ τοῦ λεγομένου Χριστοῦ

(Comm. in Mt. 10.17);²⁶

τὸν ἀδελφὸν Ἰησοῦ τοῦ λεγομένου Χριστοῦ, Ἰάκωβος ὄνομα αὐτῷ

(Josephus, AJ 20.200).²⁷

Origen uses three variations of the phrase in three different contexts; if he is quoting Josephus, at the very least, it is clearly neither verbatim nor in context. In fact, there is also no clear sense that Origen actually quotes Josephus directly in any of these cases.²⁸ This, however, as Adolf Harnack notes, is rather typical of Origen's citations of Josephus: "Origen, unlike Clemens and Tertullian, does not explicitly (or implicitly) cite a large quantity. Rather, he tries to avoid citation; only when he needs to prove a certain thing does he quote. This is how he cites Josephus and Philo."²⁹ While Josephus never explicitly links James's death with the fall of Jerusalem, Origen's interpretation is broadly supported by the context of the pericope within the general trajectory of AJ 20. I have already noted that AJ 20.197–203 fits within a larger context that details the deteriorating situation in Jerusalem, precipitating the fall of the city to the Romans. As Wataru Mizugaki explains, "the major purpose of Origen's references to Josephus is, by employing his detailed historical account, to endorse and fortify his own interpretation of the Bible."³⁰ While for Origen it was ultimately Jesus's crucifixion that led to Jerusalem's fall, he was nonetheless able to take Josephus's account of a certain James, "the brother of Jesus," and repurpose it to his own theological ends.³¹ If Origen's appropriation of Josephus is understood as theological interpretation rather than direct citation, there is no need to assume that Origen's copy of AJ had to contain the phrase λεγόμενος Χριστός.³² Origen could easily have made the connection on his own, assuming that Josephus's "James the brother of Jesus" referred to the James he knew from Christian scripture (Matt 13.55; Gal 1.19).

But could one argue that the Josephan material referenced in Origen attests to a genuine textual tradition no longer preserved in our extant manuscripts of AJ? After all, Eusebius is familiar with both Josephus's and Origen's works, and he highlights no discrepancies between the two. When Eusebius cites this Josephan tradition, however, he is in fact quoting Origen (Cels. 1.47) verbatim:

Josephus, at least, has not hesitated to testify this in his writings, where he says, "These things happened to the Jews to avenge James the Just, who was a brother of Jesus, that is called the Christ. For the Jews slew him, although he was a most just man."³³

The same is true of Jerome, whose Lives of Illustrious Men is known to depend on Eusebius.³⁴ Jerome synthesizes James material from Clement of Alexandria and Eusebius's summary of Josephus.³⁵ He then goes on to add:

This same Josephus records the tradition that James was of such great sanctity and reputation among the people that the downfall of Jerusalem was believed to be a result of his death.³⁶

Jerome's placement of this tradition as an appendage to the main martyr narrative suggests that it was not part of the narrative of Josephus he cites above (which, again, is not a reproduction of Josephus, but an amalgam of Clement and Eusebius material), but an additional tradition he knows was ascribed to Josephus. Thus, the primary witnesses for the Josephan tradition linking James's death to Jerusalem's fall reproduce the tradition either directly from Origen or indirectly from Eusebius; they are not witnesses to a non-extant manuscript tradition for AJ that originally contained the tradition.

From the reproduction of Origen's exegesis in Eusebius and Jerome, it is clear that Origen's interpretation of Josephus was well known. On the basis of Origen's exegesis, the presence of the words λεγόμενος Χριστός could be explained as an interpolation made by a Christian scribe, perhaps as a marginal note that was subsequently incorporated into the text by a copyist. The added words would be drawn directly from Origen's writings, they would clarify the ambiguous referent ("the brother of Jesus") in AJ 20.200, and they would bring the text into closer affinity with Origen's interpretation of Josephus.

It seems at present that a majority of scholars accept the reference to Jesus Christ in AJ 20.200 as authentic, and that the passage does in fact concern James the leader of the early Jerusalem church. The major arguments against any sort of interpolation theory revolve around the issue of Christian scribal ethics. Consider Paul Winter's appeal to a scribe's psychological state of mind:

If a Christian forger had inserted a reference to Jesus, he would scarcely have been content to mention Jesus in such non-committal fashion. In all likelihood, he would have used a more direct expression to make clear the reality of the messiahship of Jesus.³⁷

Appeals to the mind of the scribe and their moral compass are rather precarious, especially since we have no way of establishing their motives. If we do entertain this line of enquiry, we find that the evidence does little to secure authenticity. For example, some suggest that the use of λεγόμενος implies a certain level of doubt (translating the phrase "Jesus, the so-called Christ")³⁸ and is thus unlikely to have been written by a Christian scribe. Yet the Christian use of the exact phraseology is common and requires no connotation of suspicion or doubt (Matt 1.16; John 4.25; Or. Cels. 4.28).³⁹

In a similar vein, John Meier argues that contradictions between Josephus and the Christian account of Hegesippus lend further credibility to Josephus's account, and a Christian scribe would not have produced an interpolation that so flatly contradicted the "standard Christian story."⁴⁰ Yet we cannot speak of a "standard" version of James's martyrdom until the collating and harmonizing work of Eusebius. Indeed, a Christian version of the James tradition not in accord with Hegesippus can be found in the writings of Origen. Again, a well-intentioned Christian scribe familiar with Origen's work could well have changed the Josephan account to harmonize it with the scribe's own Christian (Origenian) tradition.

This also cuts against the thesis proposed by Alice Whealey, who believes a third-century scribe would not have purposely changed AJ 20.200 to refer to Jesus Christ and his brother James, given the growing antipathy towards the idea that Jesus had full siblings.⁴¹ But again, if the phrase "called Christ" originated with Origen, then a Christian scribe could easily amend AJ 20.200 on the basis of Origen's text under the same assumptions as Origen.⁴² After all, they would not be amending the phrase τὸν ἀδελφὸν Ἰησοῦ (which is original to Josephus) but simply adding λεγόμενος Χριστός as a marginal note.

To summarize and restate the argument so far:

1. 1). AJ 20.200 originally read τὸν ἀδελφὸν Ἰησοῦ Ἰάκωβος ὄνομα αὐτῷ. The James in question was not the early Christian leader, but a member of Jerusalem's political elite. Josephus narrates a story not about Jewish persecution of Christ-followers, but about the machinations of Judean political leaders and the part they played in the deteriorating situation in Jerusalem prior to the Roman siege.

2. 2). Origen interprets this passage as a story about James the Just and Jesus Christ. His exegesis is extremely free, but nonetheless attentive to the overall context of AJ 20. The words λεγόμενος Χριστός are to be ascribed to Origen (Comm. in Mt. 10.17; Cels. 2.13, 1.47).⁴³

3. 3). On the basis of Origen's interpretation of Josephus, a Christian scribe added the words (τοῦ) λεγομένου Χριστοῦ as a marginal note in their copy of AJ. To do so was not to engage in deceptive forgery, nor was the addition irreverential; it did not contradict the "standard Christian version" of James's death, nor was it impossible for a third-century scribe to make the interpolation, even in a context where James's biological kinship to Jesus may have been in doubt.

The benefits of this explanation are several: it provides an intelligible reading of the original context of AJ 20.197–203; it does away with more complicated theories, such as a lost version of Josephus that explicitly links James's death to the fall of Jerusalem, or the theory that Origen confused Josephus for Hegesippus;⁴⁴ and it circumvents any need for theories that require multiple deletions and additions to the text.⁴⁵ If AJ 20.200 was not originally about James the Just, then James's death cannot be linked to the high priesthood of Ananus in 62 c.e. This also means that if any of the historical circumstances surrounding James's death can be recovered, it must be sought in the Christian narratival accounts.

JAMES IN THE PSEUDO-CLEMENTINE SOURCE (REC. 1.27–71)

Our source-critical enquiry continues with the Pseudo-Clementine Homilies and Recognitions. Similarities in structure and shared material between the Homilies and Recognitions have led scholars to posit an earlier (third-century), non-extant source—the Grundschrift, or "Basic Writing"—upon which both works depend.⁴⁶ In addition to the Grundschrift, (most)⁴⁷ scholars further identify a major section of Recognitions (1.27–71) as deriving from an independent source.⁴⁸ It is this section of the Recognitions that contains the account of James's temple conflict (Rec. 1.70).⁴⁹ Much ink has been spilled in attempting to identify the source of Rec. 1.27–71 with a named work in antiquity. Certain theological affinities between Rec. 1.27–71 and the Ebionites (as described by Epiphanius) have led most scholars to identify Rec. 1.27–71 with the Anabathmoi Jakobou ("Ascents of James"). Epiphanius introduces this work in his Panarion (Adversus haereses):

They [the Ebionites] lay down certain ascents and instructions in the supposed "Ascents (ἀναβαθμοί) of James" as though he were giving orders against the temple and sacrifices, and the fire on the altar—and much else that is full of nonsense.⁵⁰

The following verses elaborate on the contents of the work, particularly its anti-Pauline stance: "Nor are they ashamed to accuse Paul here (ἐνταῦθα) [i.e., in the Ascents of James] with certain fabrications of their false apostles' villainy and imposture."⁵¹ Key reasons for identifying the Ascents of James as the source of Rec. 1.27–71 consist of the following:

1. 1). The term ἀναβαθμοί can refer to "steps," which is precisely where James was thrown down from according to Rec. 1.70.8 (cf. 1.55.2; 1.66.2).

2. 2). Rec. 1.27–71 maintains a strong anti-Pauline stance. Paul is understood as the "enemy" who pushes James from the steps (Rec. 1.70.8; cf. 1.71).

3. 3). Rec. 1.27–71 also maintains a strong stance against the Jewish sacrificial system, which seems to parallel what is said of the Ascents of James by Epiphanius.⁵²

Yet the following counterpoints must be considered:

1. 1). In contrast to the multiple ascents (supposedly to the temple) implied by the plural anabathmoi, James only makes one such ascent (Rec. 1.69)—a point Georg Strecker concedes, though dismisses in light of the strength of points 2 and 3 above.⁵³ It is unclear from the context that anabathmoi means "stairs" or "ascents" in Haer. 30.16.7.⁵⁴

2. 2). A fuller description of the anti-Pauline contents of the Ascents of James is given in Haer. 30.16.8–9.⁵⁵ If Epiphanius's description of the Ascents of James is reliable, the Ebionite work depicts Paul as a Greek, only converting to Judaism to pursue a love interest with the daughter of the high priest. When he failed to acquire his Jewish bride, "he became angry and wrote against circumcision, and against the Sabbath and the legislation."⁵⁶ As Jones rightly judges, when compared to Rec. 1.27-71, "the differences are more striking than the similarities."⁵⁷ Rec. 1.27-71 does not depict Paul as a gentile, nor anti-temple. The opposite is the case—Paul is in cahoots with Caiaphas the high priest, who commissions him to go to Damascus to "bring destruction on the believers."⁵⁸ Also, it is Peter, rather than James, who preaches against the altar and sacrifices (Rec. 1.64.1).

3. 3). While the antipathy towards sacrifices is a peculiar feature of Rec. 1.27–71, it is by no means unique. Jones notes a similar antipathy in Elchasai, who, Epiphanius claims, "bans burnt offerings and sacrifices as something foreign to God."⁵⁹ A similar sentiment is also found in the Gospel of the Ebionites: "I [Christ] came to abolish the sacrifices, and if you cease not from sacrifice, wrath will not cease from you."⁶⁰

Strecker attempted to resolve the discrepancy between the content of the Anabathmoi Jakobou and Rec. 1.33–71⁶¹ by positing two recensions (named AJ-I and AJ-II) stemming from a common archetype (AJ).⁶² Despite its popularity in subsequent scholarship,⁶³ the eventual decline of redaction criticism within the discipline set Strecker's conjectural recension theory in a rather unfavorable light.⁶⁴ It would be better to account for the major differences between Haer. 30.16.7–9 and Rec. 1.27–71 by assuming that each is independent from the other, rather than conjecturing three different versions of a work we do not actually have.

Unfortunately, Strecker's position is typical of Pseudo-Clementine scholarship over the past 170 years. Scholars latch onto a passing reference to a lost work from the church fathers that happens to be accompanied by a few loose thematic correspondences to the Pseudo-Clementine literature. Based on these correspondences, scholars isolate "earlier sources with breathtaking confidence as a prelude to reconstruction of their redaction by later editors."⁶⁵ Against this tendency for scholarly conjecture, I propose that comparison should begin with the extant sources themselves.

JAMES IN HEGESIPPUS, THE SECOND APOCALYPSE OF JAMES, AND CLEMENT

When we turn from reconstructing non-extant texts to considering literary relationships between texts we actually have, a strong case emerges in favour of Rec. 1.27–71's dependence upon Hegesippus (apud Eus. H.e. 2.23.3–18).⁶⁶ Jonathan Bourgel thinks that "the existence of intertextual connections between this account [Hegesippus] and Rec. 1.27–71 can hardly be denied."⁶⁷ Of course, they have frequently been denied, though only in the attempt to shore up the weaker connections between Rec. 1.27–71 and each scholar's favored hypothetical source. Nevertheless, the similarities are readily apparent: unlike Josephus, where James is the victim of the political machinations of the priesthood and Jerusalem elite, the James account in Rec. 1.27–71 is placed within the framework of the seven Jewish sects (which includes reference to the figures Simon and Dositheus⁶⁸), some of whom are arraigned against the Messiah.⁶⁹ Hegesippus likewise introduces his martyrdom account with "some of the seven sects" (τῶν ἑπτὰ αἱρέσεων) initiating a dispute with James concerning Jesus.⁷⁰ In both texts, some of the Jewish leaders have become Christians,⁷¹ and the Jews are concerned that "the whole people" would turn to Jesus,⁷² worrying that they will be "deceived."⁷³ James is asked by the Jews to discourse on Jesus and his messiahship⁷⁴ during the Passover.⁷⁵ James addresses "all the people" from a visible high place;⁷⁶ he attests Jesus as the Christ, speaks about the Parousia,⁷⁷ and is received positively by the crowds.⁷⁸ His opponents "cry out" against him,⁷⁹ and James is "thrown down" from a great height⁸⁰ and beaten.⁸¹ Both accounts record the question "what are you doing?", though in Rec. 1.27–71 it is spoken by the enemy preceding James's attack,⁸² whereas in Hegesippus it is placed in the mouth of the Rechabite in response to the attack.⁸³ Both make mention of gravestone(s),⁸⁴ though obviously in Rec. 1.27–71 this is not James's grave. Finally, both Rec. 1.27–71 and Hegesippus forge a causal link between the Roman war and rejection of the Christian message.⁸⁵

A case can also be made for literary dependence between the Second Apocalypse of James⁸⁶ and Hegesippus. Both refer to James as Jesus's brother⁸⁷ and employ the epithet "the Just;"⁸⁸ both include speeches from James⁸⁹ and an enigmatic reference to the "door."⁹⁰ Unlike Josephus (AJ 20.200), James's last acts occur at the temple;⁹¹ only James is accused,⁹² with his (attempted) murder the result of the crowd's tumult.⁹³ We also see James's opponents rendering the same judgement:

"You have gone astray ()"

(2 Apoc. Jas. 62.7);⁹⁴

"Even the Just One erred (καὶ ὁ δίκαιος ἐπλανήθη)"

(Hegesippus 2.23.15);⁹⁵

"They were all saying with one voice, 'Come, let us stone the Just ()'"

(2 Apoc. Jas. 61.14–15);⁹⁶

"They said to one another, 'Let us stone James the Just (λιθάσωμεν Ἰάκωβον τὸν δίκαιον)'"

(Hegesippus 2.23.16);⁹⁷

"They arose and said, 'Yes, let us kill this man, that he may be removed from our midst. For he will be of no use to us at all ()'"

(2 Apoc. Jas. 61.16–19);⁹⁸

"And they fulfilled the Scripture written in Isaiah, 'Let us take the just man for he is unprofitable to us (ὅτι δύσχρηστος ἡμῖν ἐστιν)'"

(Hegesippus 2.23.15).⁹⁹

James falls from pinnacle of the temple,¹⁰⁰ and in both accounts the opponents go up to "throw him down."¹⁰¹ Both record James praying in his dying moments;¹⁰² both involve a burial at the site of execution;¹⁰³ and both link James's death specifically to the fall of Jerusalem.¹⁰⁴ Importantly, there is no significant overlap between Rec. 1.27–71 and the Second Apocalypse of James, confirming that each has reappropriated Hegesippus independently.¹⁰⁵

The relationship of Clement of Alexandria to Hegesippus is the most difficult to assess, given its brevity. Both Clement and Hegesippus mention multiple Jameses, James's fall from the "pinnacle," and his beating with a "fuller's club." But Clement significantly does not mention the stoning, as recorded in the Second Apocalypse of James and Hegesippus. The differences are perhaps unsurprising given the variance in length between the quotations. Eusebius has collated brief excerpts from Book 6 and Book 7 of Clement's Hypotyposes, before a further quotation distinguishing the two Jameses, "one being the just one, who was cast down from the pinnacle and was beaten to death with a club by a fuller, and another who was beheaded."¹⁰⁶ It is fallacious reasoning to conclude with John Painter that Clement is independent of Hegesippus because he preserves "an earlier and simpler form" of the same tradition since this "simpler form" may be the result of Eusebian redaction.¹⁰⁷ In fact, given the way Eusebius has concisely stitched together the three passages attributed to Clement, Eusebian redaction may be a more sensible explanation than assuming independence from Hegesippus.¹⁰⁸

Based on the strength of these parallels, I maintain that Hegesippus is the source of James's martyrdom tradition, made use of independently by the source of Rec. 1.27–71, the Second Apocalypse of James, and possibly Clement of Alexandria.¹⁰⁹ Despite a cottage industry for complex theories and hypothetical sources, "a simple explanation of the Christian tradition of James's martyrdom seems to be the best one."¹¹⁰ If Hegesippus is indeed our earliest extant source for James's martyrdom, what can be said of the historical veracity of the James tradition as presented in Hegesippus?

HEGESIPPUS'S SOURCES

Aside from the apocryphal nature of many details supplied by Hegesippus, the general veracity of Hegesippus as a witness to early Jewish Christianity is doubtful.¹¹¹ For one thing, Eusebius gives conflicting dates for Hegesippus's activity as belonging to the immediate generation after the apostles (Eus. H.e 2.23.3), and as alive during the last years of Hadrian's reign (117–38 c.e.) (H.e. 4.8.2). Eusebius also notes that Hegesippus himself wrote of travelling to Rome during the episcopate of Eleutherus (c. 174–89 c.e.) (H.e. 4.11.7). This later timeframe places Hegesippus as writing toward the end of the second century, despite Eusebius's motivations to treat Hegesippus's Hypomnemata as an early source for his Ecclesiastical History.¹¹² Furthermore, Eusebius's claims that Hegesippus was of Jewish descent and had knowledge of Hebrew are also dubious. Despite the supposed use of a Hebrew gospel (H.e. 4.22.7), reliance on the Septuagint is clear (see use of LXX Isa 3.10 in H.e. 2.23).¹¹³ Jones also notes that Hegesippus's reference in H.e. 2.23.18 ("immediately Vespasian besieged them [viz. the Jews]") "reflects an outsider's stance."¹¹⁴

If Hegesippus's knowledge of the Palestinian church is not firsthand, what is the nature of his source(s) for James's martyrdom? A partial answer to this question may lie in the intentions of Hegesippus as a compiler of early Christian tradition. Hegesippus's Hypomnemata was primarily heresiological in intent (see H.e. 4.7.15–8.2 and 4.22.2, 3, 4–6, 9); his concern seems to have been the establishment of true doctrine by tracing the succession of bishops (as he does in Corinth and Rome, H.e. 4.22.2–3). For Jerusalem, Hegesippus tells us that Symeon succeeded James after his martyrdom, and that the church remained in a pure state until "Thebuthis, because he was not made bishop, began to corrupt it."¹¹⁵ The Palestinian traditions noticeably have little to do with the actual exploits of James and the other Jerusalem leaders. Despite his own heresiological aims, it appears that Hegesippus's Palestinian sources were primarily martyrological in intent. The recorded martyrdoms of James, Simeon (H.e. 3.32.6), and the descendants of Jude (H.e. 3.19.1–20.7) are significant in this regard. As Jones writes, "Since Hegesippus's interest was in the leadership of the churches by bishops and since he otherwise shows no interest in martyrs," it is likely that "this distinctive martyrological accent" reveals something of "the nature of Hegesippus's source on Palestinian Christianity."¹¹⁶ Jones goes on to suggest that bishops were not yet the hegemonic force they would become, and providing a connection to the martyrs was one way to "bolster their authority" (cf. H.e. 5.16.2, 20–22; 5.18.6–10; 5.24.4–5).¹¹⁷ If Hegesippus had sought his traditions from a bishop of Palestine (on the analogy of Hegesippus's methods in Corinth and Rome), it would explain the heightened martyrological focus attributable to Hegesippus's source:

[W]hen Hegesippus inquired about church leadership in the area of Palestine, the bishop responded from stories that he had collected about regional martyrs . . . [T]he bishop knew these stories apparently from contact with Jewish Christians in the area. He had collected them in the interest of bolstering his own status as a bishop.¹¹⁸

This reconstruction has important implications for our understanding of the James tradition. As Jones recognizes: "The perspective that Hegesippus has preserved some (selective) living tradition among Palestinian Jewish Christians in the second half of the second century opens up a window for detailed evaluation of the material on James."¹¹⁹ If the narrative of James's death is no longer controlled by loyalty to Josephus's account, a critical reading of Hegesippus, despite its legendary elements, may give us better insight into the earliest form of the James tradition.¹²⁰

JAMES AND THE FALL OF JERUSALEM: A HISTORICAL CONTEXT FOR A FICTIONAL NARRATIVE?

Hegesippus's account of the death of James is one of the oldest martyr stories in early Christianity, though as Martin Dibelius notes, the tale already attests "a large number of typical legendary motifs" and traditional topoi.¹²¹ Several features of the account are reminiscent of Jesus tradition: the scribes and Pharisees compliment James that he "does not respect persons" (H.e. 2.23.10),¹²² just as they did of Jesus (Matt 22.16); James stands at the pinnacle (πτερύγιον) of the temple (Matt 4.5; Luke 4.9) to address the people; he bears witness to Jesus (H.e. 2.23.13) with words that echo Matthew 26.64; and his dying prayer of forgiveness for his enemies (H.e. 2.23.16) is the same as that found on Jesus's lips (Luke 23.34).¹²³ His exceeding righteousness and ascetic practices are understandably hagiographic, while his murder and burial inside the temple grounds defy belief.¹²⁴ Of course, these uses of traditional motifs and fanciful details are precisely why the Josephan account is so much more preferable. In Dibelius's estimation, "This legend from Hegesippus cannot be considered a serious rival to the short, clear, and prosaic statement of Josephus."¹²⁵ If one had to choose between Josephus and Hegesippus, the former is more amenable to modern historiography than the latter, and thus there is a potential bias to treat the Josephan account with deference in our reconstruction of James's death. Yet if Hegesippus's legendary account, as I have argued, presents us with the earliest and only independent account of the death of James, is there anything left for the historian to say concerning James the brother of Jesus?

In his recent work on early Christian martyr narratives, Éric Rebillard helpfully reframes the question of historicity in light of ancient rhetorical practices.¹²⁶ The "exposition of events"—narratio or διήγησις —was observed with a tripartite division: fabula, historia, argumentum in Latin (Cicero, Inv. 1.27; Rhet. her. 1.3.4; Quintillian, Inst. 4.2.31), or similarly ἱστορία, μῦθος, πλάσμα in Greek (Asclepiades of Myrlea apud Sextus Empiricus, Math. 1.252–53).¹²⁷ As Cicero explains, truth and verisimilitude are key to their differentiation:

Fabula is the term applied to a narrative in which the events are not true and have no verisimilitude . . . Historia is an account of actual occurrences remote from the recollection of our own age . . . Argumentum is a fictitious narrative which nevertheless could have occurred.¹²⁸

Historia/ἱστορία does not correspond directly to the modern concept of history/historiography since that which is considered "true" (ἀλήθεια) can include "the persons of gods and heroes and notable men."¹²⁹ Furthermore, as Rebillard notes,

As attested in the Progymnasmata, however, the tripartite division actually results in only two types of exercises: μῦθος on one hand, and διήγησις (or διήγημα) on the other, thus attenuating the distinction between ἱστορία/historia and πλάσμα/argumentum. In ancient theories, therefore, there is room for narratives that satisfy the requirements of both ἱστορία/historia and πλάσμα/argumentum.¹³⁰

Thus, in many narrative accounts we find a "blurring of fact and fiction,"¹³¹ in which ostensibly historical events are inextricably bound up with plausible (to an ancient audience) yet fictitious narratives and topoi.¹³² In this we must recognize that such narratives are not simply a mixture of fact and fiction, as if one might sort and separate the two; fact has been transformed into fiction, and the process cannot be reversed. Nevertheless, the interweaving and transformation of ἱστορία and πλάσμα is a motivated process. That is to say, for ἱστορία/πλάσμα narratives there is a causal or motivated relationship between the real world of the events and the constructed narrative world of the texts that purport to record those events. In our analysis of a text, we can examine the content and logic of the narrative at a literary level, but we can also explore what motivated that content and structure, offering historical reconstructions of the events that have the potential to explain how the fabricated narrative took the shape that it did.

Returning to Hegesippus, I argue that the narrative logic of the account of James's martyrdom is dependent on at least two minimal historical likelihoods: 1) that James was in fact killed; and 2) that his death occurred shortly before the fall of Jerusalem. Since the first point has scholarly consensus,¹³³ only the second will be evaluated here.

Hegesippus ends his account of James's martyrdom with the arrival of the Roman armies at Jerusalem: "And immediately Vespasian besieged them" (καὶ εὐθὺς Οὐεσπασιανὸς πολιορκεῖ αὐτούς).¹³⁴ Philip Schaff thinks that "the πολιορκεῖ αὐτούς certainly refers to the commencement of the war (not to the siege of the city of Jerusalem, which was undertaken by Titus, not by Vespasian), i.e., to the year 67 a.d."¹³⁵ His reasoning is based on the fact that Hegesippus mentions Vespasian (who began the war) and not Titus (who besieged Jerusalem). S. G. F. Brandon takes Hegesippus to be referring to the commencement of the siege in 70 c.e., but he notes that Hegesippus "erroneously attributed" the siege to Vespasian instead of Titus.¹³⁶ Since πολιορκέω always means "to besiege" and not "to invade" or "to make war" more generally,¹³⁷ it is almost certain (pace Schaff) that Hegesippus is referring to the beginning of the Jerusalem siege in 70 c.e., and not to the beginning of the war in 67 c.e. It may be too critical, however, to charge Hegesippus with error here. Yes, Vespasian had returned home to become emperor in 69 c.e., with Titus taking full command of the military operations (Tacitus, Hist. 5.10), but to continue to associate the Roman military conquest with Vespasian is hardly erroneous.¹³⁸

The small detail appears to have little bearing on Hegesippus's account, yet its importance was not lost on later tradents of the tradition. It seems to have been the primary detail in Origen's mind (Cels. 1.47, 2.13; Comm. in Mt. 10.17), and the connection between James's death and the fall of Jerusalem is made explicit in the First Apocalypse of James: "As soon as you leave, there will be war waged against this land, so weep for anyone who dwells in Jerusalem."¹³⁹ In the Second Apocalypse of James, the connection is made specifically to the destruction of the temple:

Look, I have given you your house, which you say God has made, through which the one who dwells in it has promised to give you an inheritance. I shall tear down this house, to the ruin and derision of those who live in ignorance.¹⁴⁰

But it is not simply subsequent tradition that seized upon James's link to Jerusalem's fall. The entire narrative world of Hegesippus's account depends on an assumed wartime setting. Jonathan Bourgel has pointed out that the peculiar reference to the son of the Rechabites may provide a clue to the temporal setting of James's martyrdom account. The Rechabites were typically nomadic (Jer 35.7), so their presence here in Jerusalem may strike the reader as out of place. Jeremiah 35.11, however, recounts the Rechabites' entry into Jerusalem to escape the army of Nebuchadnezzar: "But when Nebuchadnezzar king of Babylon came up against the land, we said, 'Come, and let us go to Jerusalem for fear of the army of the Chaldeans and the army of the Syrians.' So we are living in Jerusalem." Bourgel draws the connection:

Thus, only the advance of Nebuchadnezzar's troops who came to subjugate the kingdom of Judah justifies the entry of the Rechabites into Jerusalem. In the same way, the presence of a Rechabite in the temple at the time of James's martyrdom supposes the existence of a wartime context . . . Note also that this narrative detail makes the arrival of the Roman general in Jerusalem after James's death less sudden. The military threat weighing on the Holy City is therefore underlying the very account of the latter's martyrdom. ¹⁴¹

That Hegesippus describes the Rechabites as those "who are mentioned by Jeremiah the prophet" suggests that he is inviting his readers to make an implicit connection between the context of Jeremiah 35.11, which explains why the Rechabites were in the Jerusalem (to escape the encroaching army of Nebuchadnezzar), and the setting of James's death (on the eve of another military conquest).¹⁴² This contextual detail seems to have been lost on later tradents of the martyrdom account. In Epiphanius, the cry is placed in the mouth of Simeon the son of Cleopas (Haer. 30.14.6), a relevant substitute, since Hegesippus reports that Simeon succeeded James as bishop of Jerusalem (apud Eus. H.e. 4.22.4).

Bourgel has further argued that James's title of Oblias should also be read in light of this military context. The meaning of the term is heavily contested,¹⁴³ though Bourgel claims that the translational notes provided by the early tradents of the tradition have not been given sufficient consideration. Hegesippus writes that for ὠβλίας "the Greek is 'rampart of the people'" (ὠβλίας, ὅ ἐστιν Ἑλληνιστὶ περιοχὴ τοῦ λαοῦ).¹⁴⁴ There is reason to believe τοῦ λαοῦ was a later addition to the Eusebian text, since James is referred to with a similar prepositional phrase in H.e. 3.7.9: "James himself the first bishop there [Jerusalem] . . . remained the surest rampart of the place (ὀχυρώτατον παρέμενον τῷ τόπῳ)."¹⁴⁵ Epiphanius uses a different (though effectively synonymous) term: "James, whose surname was Oblias, or 'wall' (τεῖχος) . . ."¹⁴⁶ In line with these ancient witnesses, Bourgel takes Oblias as a term referring to the fortification of the city. He notices that the same fortification language appears in several traditions that concern the death or absence of an individual and the breach of Jerusalem's defenses. In War 4.318, Josephus makes a link between the death of Ananus and the fall of Jerusalem's wall (τεῖχος).¹⁴⁷ 2 Baruch opens with an announcement of the destruction of Jerusalem, in which the Lord calls Baruch and Jeremiah to leave the city in order that it might fall:

Behold, I bring evil upon this city, and upon its inhabitants . . . I have said these things to you that you may bid Jeremiah, and all those that are like you, to retire from this city. For your works are to this city as a firm pillar, and your prayers as a strong wall.¹⁴⁸

Jeremiah and Baruch provide an apotropaic function for the city—as long as they remain and intercede for the people, Jerusalem will not fall. Yaron Eliav similarly highlights rabbinic accounts that attribute the breach of Jerusalem to the death or absence of a particular intercessory figure (Lam. Rab. 1.5; y. Ta'anit 4.68c).¹⁴⁹ The description of these figures in terms of fortification (τεῖχος) forms a literary motif that is inextricably linked to the context of war. The description of James as περιοχή and τεῖχος makes sense in light of his intercessory role (H.e. 2.23.6, 16–17; cf. 2 Apoc. Jas. 62.12–63.29) and "the threat of war hanging over Jerusalem."¹⁵⁰

It seems that the literary form of the tradition is best accounted for if James's death occurs in close proximity to the beginning of the siege of Jerusalem. The fact of this temporal proximity of the figure's death or absence and the city's breach undoubtedly accounts for the similar traditions of Jeremiah (2 Bar. 2.1–2; 4 Bar. 1.1–2), Ananus (Josephus, War 4.318), or R. Tsadok (Lam. Rab. 1.5). The prominence of this feature in James's martyrdom tradition (1 Apoc. Jas. 36.16-19; 2 Apoc. Jas. 60.12-22; Or. Cels. 1.47, 2.13; Comm. in Mt. 10.17; Eus. H.e. 2.23.19 [Hegesippus], 2.23.20 ["Josephus"], 3.11.1; Jerome Vir. ill. 2), the title of James as Oblias (meaning "wall" or "rampart"), and the literary portrayal of the Rechabites in the city all support this historical reconstruction. If Hegesippus's placement of James's death during the Passover is not directly modelled on Jesus's death, this detail would also fit the proposed timeframe, as the siege began on the fourteenth of Xanthicus (Josephus, War 5.567), that is, the first day of Unleavened Bread (War 5.99).¹⁵¹ Subsequent tradition created a causal relation out of a temporal relation. Thus, the legendary elements of James's temple activities (entering the Holy of Holies, his burial on temple grounds) may have arisen from his link to the temple's destruction rather than a direct historical connection to the temple, though a case can be made for the continued association of early Christians with the temple and the rising tensions between Christian leaders and the temple authorities.¹⁵² It may be that for James's martyrdom, "the later authors transformed an original conflict related to the Temple into a dramatic and legendary confrontation inside the Temple."¹⁵³ Nonetheless, placing James's death at the beginning of 70 c.e., perhaps even in the lead up to Passover in the month of Nisan, would account for the connection to the temple (and its imminent destruction) and the death of James made by the earliest tradents of the tradition.

CONCLUSION

While this study in many ways breaks with the current scholarly consensus, its conclusions are an attempt to draw together recent trends that problematize the reliance on Josephus while providing contextualized readings of the Christian narratives. It is hoped that in revisiting the traditions of James's death, we may better appreciate the complexities of the source-critical issues involved and the ambiguous relationship between the historical events and their narrative portrayals.