Скачать книгу
probably a corruption of the Heb. אֹפֶל עַם, which signifies “bulwark of the people.” The same name is given to James by Epiphanius, by Dionysius the Areopagite, and others. See Suicer,
Thesaurus Ecclesiasticus, s.v.
12 περιοχὴ τοῦ λαοῦ καὶ δικαιοσύνη
13 To what Hegesippus refers I do not know, as there is no passage in the prophets which can be interpreted in this way. He may have been thinking of the passage from Isaiah quoted in §15, below, but the reference is certainly very much strained.
14 See Bk. IV. chap. 22.
15 For a discussion of this very difficult question, whose interpretation has puzzled all commentators, see Routh
Rel. Sac. I. p. 434 sq., and Heinichen’s Mel. IV., in his edition of Eusebius, Vol. III., p. 654 sqq. The explanation given by Grabe (in his
Spic. PP. p. 254), seems to me the best. According to him, the Jews wish to ascertain James’ opinion in regard to Christ, whether he considers him a true guide or an impostor, and therefore they ask, “What (of what sort) is the gate (or the way) of Christ? Is it a gate which opens into life (or a way which leads to life); or is it a gate which opens upon death (or a way which leads to death)?” Cf. Matt. vii. 13, 14, where the two ways and the two gates are compared. The Jews had undoubtedly often heard Christ called “the Way,” and thus they might naturally use the expression in asking James’ opinion about Jesus, “Is he the true or the false way?” or, “Is this way true or false?” The answer of James which follows is then perfectly consistent: “He is the Saviour,” in which words he expresses as decidedly as he can his belief that the way or the gate of Christ led to salvation. And so below, in §12, where he gives a second answer to the question, expressing his belief in Christ still more emphatically. This is somewhat similar to the explanation of Heinichen (
ibid. p. 659 sq.), who construes the genitive ᾽Ιησοῦ as in virtual apposition to θύρα: “What is this way, Jesus?” But Grabe seems to bring out most clearly the true meaning of the question.
16 Rufinus translates
non crediderunt neque surrexisse eum, &c., and he is followed by Fabricius (
Cod. Apoc. N. T. II. p. 603). This rendering suits the context excellently, and seems to be the only rendering which gives any meaning to the following sentence. And yet, as our Greek stands, it is impossible to translate thus, as both ἀν€στασιν and ἐρχόμενον are left entirely indefinite. The Greek runs, οὐκ ἐπίστευον ἀν€στασιν, οὐτε ἐρχόμενον ἀποδοῦναι, κ.τ.λ. Cf. the notes of Valesius and of Heinichen on this passage. Of these seven sects, so far as we know, only one, the Sadducees, disbelieved in the resurrection from the dead. If Hegesippus’ words, therefore, be understood of a general resurrection, he is certainly in error.
17 This sentence sufficiently reveals the legendary character of Hegesippus’ account. James’ position as a Christian must have been well enough known to prevent such a request being made to him in good faith (and there is no sign that it was made in any other spirit); and at any rate, after his reply to them already recorded, such a repetition of the question in public is absurd. Fabricius, who does not think the account is true, says that, if it is, the Jews seem to have asked him a second time, thinking that they could either flatter or frighten him into denying Christ.
18 Cf. Matt. xxii. 16.
19 ἐπὶ τὸ πτερύνιον τοῦ ναοῦ. Some mss. read τοῦ ἱεροῦ, and in the preceding paragraph that phrase occurs, which is identical with the phrase used in Matt. iv. 5, where the devil places Christ on a pinnacle of the temple. ἱερός is the general name for the temple buildings as a whole, while ναός is a specific name for the temple proper.
20 Some mss., with Rufinus and the editions of Valesius and Heinichen, add σταυρωθέντος, “who was crucified,” and Stroth, Closs, and Crusé follow this reading in their translations. But many of the best mss. omit the words, as do also Nicephorus, Burton, Routh, Schwegler, Laemmer, and Stigloher, and I prefer to follow their example, as the words seem to be an addition from the previous line.
21 Cf. Matt. xxvi. 64 and Mark xiv. 62
22 Isa. iii. 10. Jess (p. 50) says, “Auch darin ist Hegesipp nur ein Kind seiner Zeit, dass er in ausgedehntem Masse im Alten Testamente Weissagungen auffindet. Aber mit Bezug darauf darf man nicht vergessen,—
dass dergleichen mehr
oratorische Benutzung als exegetische Erklärungen sein sollen.” Cf. the writer’s
Dialogue between a Christian and a Jew
(Papiscus and Philo
), chap. 1. 23 ἄρωμεν. The LXX, as we have it to-day, reads δήσωμεν, but Justin Martyr’s
Dial., chap. 136, reads ἄρωμεν (though in chaps. 17 and 133 it reads δήσωμεν). Tertullian also in his
Adv. Marc. Bk. III. chap. 22, shows that he read ἄρωμεν, for he translates
auferamus.
24 Κύριε θεὲ π€τερ.
25 Luke xxiii. 34.
26 ῾Ραχαβείμ, which is simply the reproduction in Greek letters of the Hebrew plural, and is equivalent to “the Rechabites.” But Hegesippus uses it without any article as if it were the name of an individual, just as he uses the name ῾Ρηχ€β which immediately precedes. The Rechabites were a tribe who took their origin from Jehonadab, the son of Rechab, who appears from 1 Chron. ii. 55 to have belonged to a branch of the Kenites, the Arabian tribe which came into Palestine with the Israelites. Jehonadab enjoined upon his descendants a nomadic and ascetic mode of life, which they observed with great strictness for centuries, and received a blessing from God on account of their steadfastness (Jer. xxxv. 19). That a Rechabite, who did not belong to the tribe of Judah, nor even to the genuine people of Israel, should have been a priest seems at first sight inexplicable. Different solutions have been offered. Some think that Hegesippus was mistaken,—the source from which he took his account having confounded this ascetic Rechabite with a priest,—but this is hardly probable. Plumptre, in Smith’s
Bib. Dict. art.
Rechabites (which see for a full account of the tribe), thinks that the blessing pronounced upon them by God (Jer. xxxv. 19) included their solemn adoption among the people of Israel, and their incorporation into the tribe of Levi, and therefore into the number of the priests. Others (e.g. Tillemont,
H. E. I. p. 633) have supposed that many Jews, including also priests, embraced the practices and the institutions of the Rechabites and were therefore identified with them. The language here, however, seems to imply a native Rechabite, and it is probable that Hegesippus at least believed this person to be such, whether his belief was correct or not. See Routh, I. p. 243 sq.
27 See Jer. xxxv
28 In Epiphanius,
Hær. LXXVIII. 14, these words are put into the mouth of Simeon, the son of Clopas; from which some have concluded that Simeon had joined the order of the Rechabites; but there is no ground for such an assumption. The Simeon of Epiphanius and the Rechabite of Hegesippus are not necessarily identical. They represent simply varieties of the original account, and Epiphanius’, as the more exact, was undoubtedly the later tradition, and an intentional improvement upon the vagueness of the original.
29 Clement (in chap. 5, §4, above), who undoubtedly used the account of Hegesippus as his source, describes the death of James as taking place in the same way, but omits the stoning which preceded. Josephus, on the other hand (quoted below), mentions only the stoning. But Hegesippus’ account, which is the fullest that we have gives us the means of reconciling the
Скачать книгу
