Papias and the disciples of the Lord.

[John2]

Ben wrote:

understand everything you are saying, but you deal only with half of my question. The other half is why James alone would be allowed into this place, whatever it is.

Oh, right, I meant to address that and forgot.

I think it could mean one of two things, either that James alone (among Christians) was allowed to enter the "holy place," or that it pertains to what Hegesippus says right before his description of James entering the "holy place," that "there were many that bore the name of James."

In other words, I think it could mean "he alone [of Christians] was permitted to enter into the holy place," or that "he alone [of the many Christians who were named James] was permitted to enter into the holy place" (because he wore linen clothes and was a nazirite and exceedingly righteous and such).

Edit: Another possibility (or an elaboration of the first one) is that it pertains to something else Hegesippus says right before his description of James entering the holy place: "James, the brother of the Lord, succeeded to the government of the Church in conjunction with the apostles," i.e., "he alone [of these Christian leaders] was permitted to enter the holy place."

[Ben C. Smith]

I think there is a misunderstanding here. Papias does not show himself to be contemporaneous with these disciples. He writes of them as if they are dead and gone.

OK. But what if he was later only slightly than them?

Why not? But what suggests it?

These comments -

Schoedel writes about Papias (The Anchor Bible Dictionary, v. 5, p. 140):

• According to Irenaeus, our earliest witness, Papias was "a hearer of John and a companion of Polycarp, a man of primitive times," who wrote a volume in "five books" (haer. 5.33.4; quoted by Eusebius Hist. Eccl. 3.39.1) ...
  
  ... Papias himself in the preface to his book distinguished the apostle John from John the presbyter and seems to have had significant contact only with John the presbyter and a certain Aristion (Hist. Eccl. 3.39.3-7)

Schoedel writes about the comments of Papias (op. cit., v. 5, pp. 141-142):

• What the fragments have to tell us about Mark and Matthew is information that Papias himself traces to "the presbyter" (Eus. Hist. Eccl. 3.39.15-16).

http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/papias.html

Yes, Irenaeus calls him a "hearer of John." Does anything from Papias himself suggest that Irenaeus was right?

[John2]

Ben wrote:

The natural counter to this is to point out that entering "the holies" (whatever that means) and entering the temple are not necessarily the same thing: "He alone was permitted to enter into the holies; for he wore not woolen but linen garments. And he was in the habit of entering alone into the temple...." The habitual part applies only to his entering into the temple/sanctuary, which practically anybody could do. Granted, he goes in alone both times....

But "holy place" and "temple" seem to be the same thing in Acts 21:28.

For me the big picture is that Hegesippus revered James (who was pro-Torah), used the Gospel of the Hebrews (which is pro-Torah) and knew Hebrew (like pro-Torah Jewish Christians). And he also never calls James a priest. Would someone like this imply that only James -and not the high priest- was permitted to enter the Holy of Holies? It just doesn't seem likely to me, all things considered.

[MrMacSon]

Yes, Irenaeus calls him a "hearer of John." Does anything from Papias himself suggest that Irenaeus was right?

I'm not sure. Most other commentary I've found just now seems to be about what Papias is said to say about Mark and Matthew. See my next post [in this thread] ..

[MrMacSon]

Reliability
.
Various scholars have questioned Papias' reliability.^[63][64] Yoon-Man Park states: "Many modern scholars have dismissed the reliability of the tradition from Papias primarily because they believe it was formulated to vindicate the apostolicity of Mark's Gospel."^[65]

Much discussion of Papias's comments about the Gospel of Mark and Gospel of Matthew is concerned with assessing Papias' reliability as evidence for the origins of these Gospels or with emphasizing the apologetic character of the Gospels in order to discredit their reliability.^[66] Casey argued that Papias was ... reliable about a Hebrew collection of sayings by the Apostle Matthew which had nothing to do with the Greek Gospel of Matthew, either incorrectly ascribed to Matthew or written by another Matthias.^[67]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Papias_of_Hierapolis

63. Black, C. Clifton (1994). Mark: Images of an Apostolic Interpreter. p. 86. ISBN 0872499731. "quoted Papias and took him so seriously, if his theology was such an embarrassment … None of this, naturally, is tantamount to an assessment of Papias's reliability, on which we are not yet prepared to pass."

64. Ehrman, Bart D. (2006). Peter, Paul, and Mary Magdalene: The Followers of Jesus in History and Legend. p. 8. ISBN 0195300130. ".. But unfortunately, there are problems with taking Papias's statement at face value and assuming that in Mark's Gospel we have a historically reliable account of the activities of Peter. To begin with, some elements of Papias's statement simply aren't plausible."

65. Park, Yoon-Man (2009). Mark's Memory Resources and the Controversy Stories (Mark 2:1-3:6): An Application of the Frame Theory of Cognitive Science to the Markan Oral-Aural Narrative. p. 50. ISBN 9004179623. "Before using this source as evidence it is necessary to discuss the much debated issue of the reliability of Papias's testimony. Many modern scholars have dismissed the reliability of the tradition from Papias primarily because they believe it was formulated to vindicate the apostolicity of Mark's Gospel. Yet what is to be noted is that Papias's claim to apostolicity for the second Gospel is indirectly made through Peter… of Peter did, instead of fabricating the relationship between Mark and Peter?"

66. Bauckham, Richard (2007). The Testimony of the Beloved Disciple: Narrative, History, and Theology in the Gospel of John. p. 53. ISBN 080103485X. "Much discussion of Papias's comments about Mark and Matthew, preoccupied either with showing their reliability as evidence for the origins of these Gospels or with emphasizing their apologetic character in order to discredit their reliability…."

67. Casey, Maurice (2010). Jesus of Nazareth: An Independent Historian's Account of His Life and Teaching. ISBN 0567104087. "It was later Church Fathers who confused Matthew's collections of sayings of Jesus with our Greek Gospel of Matthew. I suggest that a second source of the confusion lay with the real author of this Gospel. One possibility is that he was also called Matthias or Matthew. These were common enough Jewish names, and different forms were similar enough."

[Ben C. Smith]

Ben wrote:

understand everything you are saying, but you deal only with half of my question. The other half is why James alone would be allowed into this place, whatever it is.

Oh, right, I meant to address that and forgot.

I think it could mean one of two things, either that James alone (among Christians) was allowed to enter the "holy place," or that it pertains to what Hegesippus says right before his description of James entering the "holy place" alone, that "there were many that bore the name of James."

In other words, I think it could mean "he alone [of Christians] was permitted to enter into the holy place," or "he alone [of the many Christians who were named James] was permitted to enter into the holy place" (because he wore linen clothes and was a nazirite and exceedingly righteous and such).

Okay.

I, on the other hand, am with David on this, I believe. I think it is all just pure legend. Hegesippus' words are not specific enough for us even to know exactly what it is he is saying (or, rather, if they are specific enough, they are wrong), suggesting that he may not know all that much about temple protocol. On its face, what Hegesippus says is that only James was allowed to enter "the holies." Having to add stuff to the sentence to avoid historical error does not inspire my confidence in its reliability; the only place in the temple off limits to all but one person was the holy of holies. On its face, what Hegesippus says is also that James habitially entered the temple (not necessarily the holy of holies, but does Hegesippus know enough to avoid even this pitfall?) alone to pray; this too suggests a priestly role. James wore linen like a priest, and was pure like a priest.

You call him a Jewish Christian, like Eusebius does, but Eusebius tells us exactly why he thought that: Hegesippus quoted some stuff in Hebrew from a Jewish Christian gospel. I am not sure that is enough to verify for certain that he was Jewish. Jerome also quoted stuff in Hebrew from a Jewish Christian gospel, but was in no way Jewish.

The entire account of James' death just reeks of legend. The only arguments I have seen against it being legendary all depend at some point on what "could" be, what Hegesippus "could" mean; none of them depends upon Hegesippus actually being validated or corroborated with anything approaching historical rigor.

[MrMacSon]

67. Casey, Maurice (2010). Jesus of Nazareth: An Independent Historian's Account of His Life and Teaching. ISBN 0567104087. "It was later Church Fathers who confused Matthew's collections of sayings of Jesus¹ with our Greek Gospel of Matthew. I suggest that a second source of the confusion lay with the real author of this Gospel¹. One possibility is that he was also called Matthias or Matthew. These were common enough Jewish names, and different forms were similar enough."

¹ These comments by Casey could be taken to imply or used to argue that the Gospel of Matthew was written after Papias or after a looser ''Matthew's collections of sayings" had circulated.

[Ben C. Smith]

Ben wrote:

The natural counter to this is to point out that entering "the holies" (whatever that means) and entering the temple are not necessarily the same thing: "He alone was permitted to enter into the holies; for he wore not woolen but linen garments. And he was in the habit of entering alone into the temple...." The habitual part applies only to his entering into the temple/sanctuary, which practically anybody could do. Granted, he goes in alone both times....

But "holy place" and "temple" seem to be the same thing in Acts 21:28.

For me the big picture is that Hegesippus revered James (who was pro-Torah), used the Gospel of the Hebrews (which is pro-Torah) and knew Hebrew (like pro-Torah Jewish Christians). And he also never calls James a priest. Would someone like this imply that only James -and not the high priest- was permitted to enter the Holy of Holies? It just doesn't seem likely to me, all things considered.

Being in favor of the Torah does not imply intimate knowledge of temple procedures, does it?

Would someone like this imply that only James -and not the high priest- was permitted to enter the Holy of Holies?

If he thought that the real priests were either absent or in dereliction of duty, why not? Legends are full of unrealistic stuff like that.

[MrMacSon]

Apparently Papias stating that "Judas Iscariot did not die from the actual hanging but from his fall when he was cut down and burst open upon hitting the ground" ... "harmonizes Matthew 27:5 and Acts 1:8." https://www.gotquestions.org/Papias-of-Hierapolis.html

[Ben C. Smith]

Subject: Origen 1, Scholars 0

I take Hegesippus to be saying that Vespasian’s siege of the city was not “inevitable” as you put it, nor was it a “development of the war”. It was the result (“fruit”) of the Jerusalemites’ killing of James. Prior to that event, the righteous one’s intercessory prayer in the sanctuary, kneeling and asking for forgiveness for the people, had held back God’s judgment on Jerusalem. By killing James, the Jews and Scribes and Pharisees removed “the rampart of the people” that was protecting them. I think that is by far the most plausible way to understand the explicit fulfillment citation of LXX Isaiah 3.10, “Let us take the just man for he is unprofitable to us. Yet they shall eat the fruit of their works.” What do you take “the fruit of their works” to be? I think the quotation may well be a metaleptic reference to the larger context of Isaiah 3 on God’s punishment of Jerusalem and Judah. Possibly the mention of the “Rechabim to whom the prophet Jeremiah bore witness” is a metaleptic reference to Jermiah 35 (especially v. 17) as well.

So I’m not persuaded by your argument that “And immediately Vespasian besieged them” actually belongs to the following section in Hegesippus, not only because it relies on a conjecture about what might have been in a lost source, but also because it does not fit well with the internal logic of the story, and the words kai euthus (“and straightaway,” well known from its frequent use in Mark’s Gospel) are unlikely to begin an entirely new pericope but instead tie what follows them closely with what precedes them. James’ killers had to eat the fruits of their works.

Similarly, while I’m sure you realize the story is unrealistic in many of its aspects, and much of it is composed of reworked scriptural passages (Isaiah, Jeremiah, the trial and death of Jesus and the stoning of Stephen in Acts 7, the door from John 10; see the marginal notations in the Loeb edition) I think you overestimate the extent to which Hegesippus is writing accurate or even realistic history. James, unrealistically, seems to have taken over the role of the High Priest (right down to the linen vestments) who alone enters the Holy of Holies to make atonement for the sins of the people only on Yom Kippur, the Day of Atonement (Leviticus 16.29-34). James goes into the sanctuary much more often, presumably because the author thinks the people have much greater sin that needs forgiving.

The passage about James’ knees becoming as hard as a camel’s is meant to emphasize that James has been doing this for quite a while. It is not some recent development brought on by the disruptions of the war. There are no disruptions from the war apparent in the text. There are still priests in Jerusalem (2.23.7) as well as Scribes and Pharisees and “Jews” and their big problem in the text is not that they are at war with Rome, but that so many people are going astray and following Jesus because of the preaching of James. So, with a remarkable lack of foresight, they ask the same James to address the people at Passover, for which “all the tribes” (how many tribes is that?) and the Gentiles have been able to gather. They mistakenly hope that James, contrary to his known record, will restrain the people from accepting Jesus as the Christ, and they acknowledge that they and all the people are, for some reason, bound to obey James. This is a Christian legend, and trying to interpret it by putting it in the context of historical data about the Jewish War known from other sources is a mistake.

The historical/chronological problem that the story in Hegesippus is intended to resolve from its own Christian perspective is the theological issue of divine causality: why did God wait forty years to punish the Jews for killing Christ? The answer is: because of the presence of James the Righteous One in the city, constantly praying for forgiveness for the people. God’s punishment came only after the people did away with James. James’ death is the trigger event for the punishment of Jerusalem, but the underlying cause is the continued rejection God’s messengers culminating in the killing of Jesus.