This story is from Hegesippus, as quoted by Eusebius, to whom alone we owe its preservation,——the works of the original author being all lost, except such fragments, accidentally quoted by other writers. The translation I have taken from the MS. of the Rev. Dr. Murdock, to whose research I am already so much indebted in similar instances.
The comments of Michaelis on these two testimonies, may be appropriately subjoined. (Introduction, Vol. IV. pp. 288, 291. Marsh’s translation.)
“The account given by Hegesippus, contains an intermixture of truth and fable; and in some material points contradicts the relation of Josephus, to [♦]which no objection can be made. It confirms however the assertion, that James was in great repute among the Jews, even among those who did not believe in Christ; and that they paid him much greater deference than we might suppose they would have shown to a Christian bishop, and a brother of Christ, whom they had crucified. Many parts of the preceding account are undoubtedly fabulous, especially that part which relates to the request of the Jews, that James would openly declare from the battlements of the temple, that Jesus was not the Messiah. Indeed, if this were true, it would not redound to his honor; for it would imply that he had acted with duplicity, and not taken a decided part in favor of Christianity, or the Jews could never have thought of making such a request. But that a person, who was the head of the church in Jerusalem, should have acted such a double part as to leave it undecided what party he had embraced, and that too for thirty years after the ascension, is in itself almost incredible. It is inconsistent likewise with the relation of Josephus, and is virtually contradicted both by Paul and by Luke, who always speak of him with the utmost respect, and have no where given the smallest hint, that he concealed the principal doctrines of the Christian religion.”
[♦] “whieh” replaced with “which”
Thus gloriously ended the steady, bright career of “the second apostolic martyr.” Honored, even by the despisers of the faith and haters of the name of Christ, with the exalted title of “THE JUST,” he added the solemn witness of his blood, to that of his divine brother and Lord, and to that of his young apostolic brother, whose name and fate were equally like his,——a testimony which sealed anew the truth of his own record against the sins of the oppressors, published in his last great earthly work:——“Ye have condemned and killed the JUST; yet he doth not resist you.”
SIMON ZELOTES.
HIS NAME.
The ever-recurring difficulty about the distinctive appellations of the apostles, forms the most prominent point of inquiry in the life of this person, otherwise so little known as to afford hardly a single topic for the apostolic historian. The dispute here indeed involves no question about personal identity, but merely refers to the coincidence of signification between the two different words by which he is designated in the apostolic lists, to distinguish him from the illustrious chief of the twelve, who bore the same name with him. Matthew and Mark in giving the names of the apostles,——the only occasion on which they name him,——call him “Simon the Cananite;” but Luke, in a similar notice, mentions him as “Simon Zelotes;” and the question then arises, whether these two distinctive appellations have not a common origin. In the vernacular language of Palestine, the word from which Cananite is derived, has a meaning identical with that of the root of the Greek word Zelotes; and hence it is most rationally concluded, that the latter is a translation of the former,——Luke, who wrote entirely for Greeks, choosing to translate into their language a term whose original force could be apprehended only by those acquainted with the local circumstances with which it was connected. The name Zelotes, which may be faithfully translated by its English derivative, Zealot, has a meaning deeply involved in some of the most bloody scenes in the history of the Jews, in the apostolic age. This name, or rather its Hebrew original, was assumed by a set of ferocious desperadoes, who, under the honorable pretense of a holy zeal for their country and religion, set all law at defiance, and constituting themselves at once the judges and the executors of right, they went through the land waging war against the Romans, and all who peacefully submitted to that foreign sway. This sect, however, did not arise by this name until many years after the death of Jesus, and there is no good reason to suppose that Simon derived his surname from any connection with the bloody Zealots who did their utmost to increase the last agonies of their distracted country, but from a more holy zeal displayed in a more righteous manner. It may have been simply characteristic of his general conduct, or it may have referred to some particular occasion in which he decidedly evinced this trait of zeal in a righteous cause.
The Cananite.——In respect to this name, a most absurd and unjustifiable blunder has stood in all the common versions of it, which deserves notice. This is the representation of the word in the form, “Canaanite,” which is a gross perversion of the original. The Greek word is Κανανιτης, (Kananites,) a totally different word from that which is used both in the New Testament, and in the Alexandrian version of the Old, to express the Hebrew term for an inhabitant of Canaan. The name of the land of Canaan is always expressed by the aspirated form, Χανααν, which in the Latin and all modern versions is very properly expressed by “Chanaan.” In Matthew xv. 22, where the Canaanitish woman is spoken of, the original is Χαναναια, (Chananaia,) nor is there any passage in which the name of an inhabitant of Canaan is expressed by the form Κανανιτης, (Cananites,) with the smooth K, and the single A. Yet the Latin ecclesiastic writers, and even the usually accurate Natalis Alexander, express this apostle’s name as “Simon Chananaeus,” which is the word for “Canaanite.”