Hegesippus is an early Christian witness against the perpetual virginity of Mary, especially the Hieronymian understanding of the brothers/sisters of Jesus (to see a discussion, see Two Church Fathers Against Mary's Perpetual Virginity).
Richard Bauckham, while not a proponent of
the perpetual virginity of Mary, holds to the “Epiphanian” view of the brothers/sisters
of Jesus (children of a previous marriage of Joseph’s). Notwithstanding, he has
this to say vis-à-vis Hegesippus and how he is a witness against Jerome’s
view of the brothers/sisters of Jesus:
In fact, Hegesippus seems
to distinguish the relationship to Jesus of Symeon the son of Clopas, whom he calls
‘cousin of the Lord’ (ανεψιος του κυριου: ap. Eusebius, HE 4:22:4;
cf. 3:11), from that of James and Jude, for both of whom he uses the
traditional description ‘brother of the Lord’ (ap. Eusebius, HE
2:23:4; 3:20:1). Modern advocates of the Hieronymian view counter this evidence
by the claim that Hegesippus (in Eusebius, HE 4:22:4) refers to Symeon
as ‘a second (i.e. another) cousin of the Lord’ (οντα ανεψιον του κυριου δευτερον) with the
implication that his predecessor James (whom Hegesippus has just mentioned) was
also a cousin of the Lord. However, if this is what Hegesippus meant to say, his
whole sentence is an awkward way of saying it. The phrase in question is best
understood by analogy with Eusebius. HE 3:22, where the word δευτερος describes first
Ignatius as second bishop of Antioch and then Symeon as second bishop of
Jerusalem, without in either case the use of the word επισκοπος, which must be
understood. Like that passage, HE 4:22:4 describes the succession in the
episcopal see of Jerusalem (purportedly in Hegesippus’ actual words, but
summarized by Eusebius . . . ) in such a context, δευτερον should be taken, not
with ανεψιον, but with επισκοπον understood, and the whole passage translated:
And after James the
Just had suffered martyrdom also the Lord, on the same account, the son of his
[i.e., probably, James’] uncle, Symeon the son of Clopas, was next appointed
bishop, whom, since he was a cousin of the Lord, they all put forward as the
second [bishop].
In that case, Hegesippus’
evidence must be held to count against the Hieronymian view. While he clearly
describes Symeon as the Lord’s cousin, he does not explain James’ relationship
to Jesus in the same way, but remains content with the traditional term ‘brother
of the Lord’. (Richard Bauckham, Jude and the Relatives of Jesus in the
Early Church [Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1990], 23-24)
Elsewhere, Bauckham writes that:
Hegesippus speaks of ‘Jude,
his brother according to the flesh, as he was called [λεγομενου]’ (Eusebius, HE
3:20:1), presumably reporting Jewish Christian usage, while in another passage
dependent on, though not explicitly quoting Hegesippus, Eusebius calls members
of the family of Jesus ‘those who belonged to the Lord’s family according to
the flesh’ (τοις προς γενους κατα σαρκα του κυριου) (HE 3:11:1). That the qualification ‘according to the flesh’ (κατα σαρκα) was Jewish
Christian terminology with reference to the family of Jesus is also suggested
by the fact that Julius Africanus, in a passage dependent on Jewish Christian
sources, refers to Jesus’ ‘relatives according to the flesh’ (οι κατα σαρκα συγγενεις) (Eusebius, HE
1:7:11). James is also called ‘our Lord’s brother according to the flesh’ in
Didascalia 24, which probably preserves Jewish Christian tradition (cf. Ap.
Const. 8:35:1: ‘the brother of Christ according to the flesh’; and Joseph as
Jesus’ father ‘according to the flesh’ in Hist Jos; cf. also Rom 1:3; 9:5; I
Clem 32:2 for Jesus’ ancestry κατα σαρκα). In these phrases ‘according to the flesh’
designates the realm of merely physical relationships by contrast with
relationships ‘according to the Spirit’ (cf. Rom 1:3-4; Gal 3:32; Philem 16).
So whereas ‘the Lord’s brother’ might indicate a special relationship with
Jesus not shared by other Christian leaders, ‘the Lord’s brother according
to the flesh’ relativizes that relationship as only a natural relationship.
It recognizes that to call a natural brother of Jesus the Lord’s brother
really is inappropriate as to call the one who is David’s Lord David’s son
(Mark 12:35-37: for the coherence of this passage with the christological attitude
of the brothers of Jesus . . . ) (Ibid., 127-28)