Papias and the disciples of the Lord.

Discussion about the New Testament, apocrypha, gnostics, church fathers, Christian origins, historical Jesus or otherwise, etc.
John2
Posts: 2363
Joined: Fri May 16, 2014 4:42 pm

Re: Papias and the disciples of the Lord.

Post by John2 » Thu May 17, 2018 1:28 pm

What great subject, Ben (and thanks again for the information). Regarding Num. 1:51, as I go down the list on Google books, this caught my eye:
Rashi qualifies the "coming near" to involve the performance of priestly tasks. In other words it is not the physical presence of the stranger that is being interdicted here, but rather the usurpation of priestly functions. This was also the declared view of the rabbis (cf, San. 82b-84a; Sifre Num. Qorah 116 etc.).

https://books.google.com/books?id=P5OLt ... th&f=false
Hm.
Tell me all that you know and I'll show you snow and rain.

User avatar
Ben C. Smith
Posts: 5843
Joined: Wed Apr 08, 2015 2:18 pm
Location: USA
Contact:

Re: Papias and the disciples of the Lord.

Post by Ben C. Smith » Thu May 17, 2018 1:43 pm

John2 wrote:
Thu May 17, 2018 1:28 pm
What great subject, Ben (and thanks again for the information). Regarding Num. 1:51, as I go down the list on Google books, this caught my eye:
Rashi qualifies the "coming near" to involve the performance of priestly tasks. In other words it is not the physical presence of the stranger that is being interdicted here, but rather the usurpation of priestly functions. This was also the declared view of the rabbis (cf, San. 82b-84a; Sifre Num. Qorah 116 etc.).

https://books.google.com/books?id=P5OLt ... th&f=false
Hm.
Read each one of those passages carefully. The passage from Sanhedrin, for example, is about which acts lead to punishment by death outside the temple. It does not allow nonpriests into the temple.
ΤΙ ΕΣΤΙΝ ΑΛΕΘΕΙΑ

John2
Posts: 2363
Joined: Fri May 16, 2014 4:42 pm

Re: Papias and the disciples of the Lord.

Post by John2 » Thu May 17, 2018 2:02 pm

Read each one of those passages carefully. The passage from Sanhedrin, for example, is about which acts lead to punishment by death outside the temple. It does not allow nonpriests into the temple.
What about here?

San. 82b-83a:
... if the priest performs any of these sacrificial rites outside the Temple, although there are severe prohibitions with regard to performing the Temple service outside the Temple, he is exempt from karet.

And one is not liable for their performance, neither due to non-priesthood, if a non-priest performs one of those rites in the Temple, he is not liable to receive the death penalty; nor due to the performance of any of these rites in a state of ritual impurity; nor due to the performance of any of these rites as a priest lacking the requisite priestly vestments; nor due to the performance of any of these services without the washing of his hands and feet. The reason for the lack of liability is that in all these cases, additional rites must be performed in order to complete the service. One is liable for performing the service outside the Temple, or performing the service as a non-priest, in a state of ritual impurity, etc., only when performing a ritual that completes the service.

From the baraita, one may infer: But one who burns the offering on the altar in one of these circumstances, including in a state of ritual impurity, is liable. What, is it not teaching that he is liable to receive death at the hand of Heaven, and there is proof from the baraita to resolve Rav Aḥa bar Huna’s dilemma? The Gemara rejects that proof: No, he is liable for violating a prohibition, without the punishment of death.

The Gemara asks: But according to that understanding, as for the non-priest who is mentioned in the baraita together with the priest who performs the Temple service in a state of impurity, is he too liable for violating a prohibition, and not death, if he burns the offering on the altar? But isn’t it written: “And the non-priest who approaches shall be put to death” (Numbers 18:7)? The Gemara answers: Do not extrapolate the liability of a non-priest from the liability of a ritually impure priest, as this case of ritual impurity is as it is, and that case of a non-priest is as it is; each situation is discussed independently.

https://www.sefaria.org/Sanhedrin.82b?lang=bi
We also have to bear in mind that James is not presented as performing the service, only praying. So if a non-priest was not liable to receive the death penalty for performing rites in the Temple, why would one who only prayed be? "One is liable for performing the service outside the Temple, or performing the service as a non-priest, in a state of ritual impurity, etc., only when performing a ritual that completes the service."
Tell me all that you know and I'll show you snow and rain.

User avatar
Ben C. Smith
Posts: 5843
Joined: Wed Apr 08, 2015 2:18 pm
Location: USA
Contact:

Re: Papias and the disciples of the Lord.

Post by Ben C. Smith » Thu May 17, 2018 2:14 pm

John2 wrote:
Thu May 17, 2018 2:02 pm
So if a non-priest was not liable to receive the death penalty for performing rites in the Temple, why would one who only prayed be? "One is liable for performing the service outside the Temple, or performing the service as a non-priest, in a state of ritual impurity, etc., only when performing a ritual that completes the service."
My question is not whether a nonpriest receives the death penalty for being in the temple, but rather whether he is allowed in the temple (just because something does not carry the death penalty does not mean that it is allowed). This whole passage is bouncing off that line from Numbers about the death penalty. But I cannot find where it is actually allowing or prohibiting a nonpriest in the temple.
ΤΙ ΕΣΤΙΝ ΑΛΕΘΕΙΑ

User avatar
Ben C. Smith
Posts: 5843
Joined: Wed Apr 08, 2015 2:18 pm
Location: USA
Contact:

Re: Papias and the disciples of the Lord.

Post by Ben C. Smith » Thu May 17, 2018 2:17 pm

Also, I quoted Josephus as mentioning a barrier which was "for the exclusion of the multitude from coming into the temple, and showing that it was a place that was free and open only for the priests [εἴρξοντα μὲν τοὺς πολλοὺς τῆς εἰς τὸ ἱερὸν εἰσόδου, μόνοις δὲ ἀνειμένην αὐτὴν τοῖς ἱερεῦσι σημανοῦντα]." If nonpriests are allowed in the temple, who is being excluded?
ΤΙ ΕΣΤΙΝ ΑΛΕΘΕΙΑ

John2
Posts: 2363
Joined: Fri May 16, 2014 4:42 pm

Re: Papias and the disciples of the Lord.

Post by John2 » Thu May 17, 2018 3:23 pm

Let's also bear in mind that the Pharisees (who were in charge of the Sanhedrin during this period according to Josephus) tended to not execute people, so one might assume this was the case regarding non-priests being in the Temple (as per Sanhedrin above).

Ant. 13.10.6:
Now there was one Jonathan, a very great friend of Hyrcanus's, but of the sect of the Sadducees, whose notions are quite contrary to those of the Pharisees. He told Hyrcanus that Eleazar had cast such a reproach upon him, according to the common sentiments of all the Pharisees, and that this would be made manifest if he would but ask them the question, What punishment they thought this man deserved? for that he might depend upon it, that the reproach was not laid on him with their approbation, if they were for punishing him as his crime deserved. So the Pharisees made answer, that he deserved stripes and bonds, but that it did not seem right to punish reproaches with death. And indeed the Pharisees, even upon other occasions, are not apt to be severe in punishments.
But both Josephus and Hegesippus present James' death as occurring during a near-anarchic state of affairs (with the former being instigated by a Sadducee), which is also in keeping with Pes. 57a above.

Ant. 20.8.8 (right before the James passage):
And now arose a sedition between the high priests and the principal men of the multitude of Jerusalem; each of which got them a company of the boldest sort of men, and of those that loved innovations about them, and became leaders to them; and when they struggled together, they did it by casting reproachful words against one another, and by throwing stones also. And there was nobody to reprove them; but these disorders were done after a licentious manner in the city, as if it had no government over it. And such was the impudence and boldness that had seized on the high priests, that they had the hardiness to send their servants into the threshing-floors, to take away those tithes that were due to the priests, insomuch that it so fell out that the poorest sort of the priests died for want. To this degree did the violence of the seditious prevail over all right and justice.
Ant. 20.9.2 and 4 (right after the James passage):
But as for the high priest, Ananias [the father of the priest who killed James], he ... had servants who were very wicked, who joined themselves to the boldest sort of the people, and went to the thrashing-floors, and took away the tithes that belonged to the priests by violence, and did not refrain from beating such as would not give these tithes to them. So the other high priests acted in the like manner, as did those his servants, without any one being able to prohibit them; so that [some of the] priests, that of old were wont to be supported with those tithes, died for want of food.
Costobarus also, and Saulus [who I think could be Paul], did themselves get together a multitude of wicked wretches, and this because they were of the royal family; and so they obtained favor among them, because of their kindred to Agrippa; but still they used violence with the people, and were very ready to plunder those that were weaker than themselves. And from that time it principally came to pass that our city was greatly disordered, and that all things grew worse and worse among us.
EH 2.23.10:
... there was a commotion among the Jews and Scribes and Pharisees, who said that there was danger that the whole people would be looking for Jesus as the Christ.

EH 2.23.16-18:
And they cried out, saying, 'Oh! Oh! The just man is also in error.' And they fulfilled the Scripture written in Isaiah, 'Let us take away the just man, because he is troublesome to us: therefore they shall eat the fruit of their doings.'

So they went up and threw down the just man, and said to each other, 'Let us stone James the Just' ... And one of them, who was a fuller, took the club with which he beat out clothes and struck the just man on the head. And thus he suffered martyrdom.
Pes. 57a:
Woe is me due to the High Priests of the house of Baitos, woe is me due to their clubs. Woe is me due to the High Priests of the house of Ḥanin [the family that killed James]; woe is me due to their whispers and the rumors they spread. Woe is me due to the High Priests of the house of Katros; woe is me due to their pens that they use to write lies. Woe is me due to the servants of the High Priests of the house of Yishmael ben Piakhi; woe is me due to their fists. The power of these households stemmed from the fact that the fathers were High Priests, and their sons were the Temple treasurers, and their sons-in-law were Temple overseers. And their servants strike the people with clubs, and otherwise act inappropriately.
So it was a crazy situation and all the rules did not necessarily apply. Maybe some (more lenient) Pharisees were cool with a Nazirite being in the "holy place" and other people weren't given these circumstances, and the people who did not like James (like the people who killed lower priests in Josephus) used this opportunity to kill him. In other words, I don't think priestly or legal procedures were necessarily being carried out by the book during this time, and it was also more of an ad hoc assembly that "came together" to take out James. And maybe this has something to do with why Ananus (who was a Sadducee) "had formed an accusation against them [James and others] as breakers of the law."

Ant. 20.9.1:
But this younger Ananus, who, as we have told you already, took the high priesthood, was a bold man in his temper, and very insolent; he was also of the sect of the Sadducees, who are very rigid in judging offenders, above all the rest of the Jews, as we have already observed; when, therefore, Ananus was of this disposition, he thought he had now a proper opportunity [to exercise his authority]. Festus was now dead, and Albinus was but upon the road; so he assembled the sanhedrim of judges, and brought before them the brother of Jesus, who was called Christ, whose name was James, and some others, [or, some of his companions]; and when he had formed an accusation against them as breakers of the law, he delivered them to be stoned.
EH 2.23.10:
... there was a commotion among the Jews and scribes and Pharisees ... Coming therefore in a body to James ...
Cf. Mk. 14:53 regarding the trial of Jesus, which uses the same word Hegesippus uses above (and likewise mentions three groups of people, with "the elders" presumably being Pharisees, as per Mk. 7:5):
They took Jesus to the high priest, and all the chief priests, the elders and the scribes came together.
Ant. 20.9.1:
... but as for those who seemed the most equitable of the citizens, and such as were the most uneasy at the breach of the laws, they disliked what was done.
Cf. EH 2.23.18:
And while they were thus stoning him one of the priests of the sons of Rechab, the son of the Rechabites, who are mentioned by Jeremiah the prophet, cried out, saying, 'Stop. What are you doing? The just one prays for you.'
Last edited by John2 on Thu May 17, 2018 3:59 pm, edited 8 times in total.
Tell me all that you know and I'll show you snow and rain.

John2
Posts: 2363
Joined: Fri May 16, 2014 4:42 pm

Re: Papias and the disciples of the Lord.

Post by John2 » Thu May 17, 2018 3:24 pm

Also, I quoted Josephus as mentioning a barrier which was "for the exclusion of the multitude from coming into the temple, and showing that it was a place that was free and open only for the priests [εἴρξοντα μὲν τοὺς πολλοὺς τῆς εἰς τὸ ἱερὸν εἰσόδου, μόνοις δὲ ἀνειμένην αὐτὴν τοῖς ἱερεῦσι σημανοῦντα]." If nonpriests are allowed in the temple, who is being excluded?
I'll get to your other citations in due time, and thanks for all the great feedback, Ben.
Tell me all that you know and I'll show you snow and rain.

User avatar
Secret Alias
Posts: 10001
Joined: Sun Apr 19, 2015 8:47 am

Re: Papias and the disciples of the Lord.

Post by Secret Alias » Thu May 17, 2018 3:48 pm

It should be noted though that Philo of Alexandria and the Toledoth Yeshu (of all documents) have a strange agreement about a strange ritual associated with making proselytes which seems to have involved showing people the inner sanctum of some building where the Tetragrammaton was located. Maybe the location wasn't in Jerusalem or wasn't in a temple per se.
“Finally, from so little sleeping and so much reading, his brain dried up and he went completely out of his mind.”
― Miguel de Cervantes Saavedra, Don Quixote

John2
Posts: 2363
Joined: Fri May 16, 2014 4:42 pm

Re: Papias and the disciples of the Lord.

Post by John2 » Thu May 17, 2018 3:49 pm

Ben cited:
Josephus, Antiquities 8.3.9 §95: 95 Solomon made all these things for the honor of God, with great variety and magnificence, sparing no cost, but using all possible liberality in adorning the temple; and these things he dedicated to the treasures of God. He also placed a partition round about the temple, which in our tongue we call Gison, but it is called Thrigcos by the Greeks, and he raised it up to the height of three cubits; and it was for the exclusion of the multitude from coming into the temple, and showing that it was a place that was free and open only for the priests.

Josephus, Antiquities 9.10.4 §224a: 224a Accordingly, when a remarkable day was come, and a general festival was to be celebrated, he put on the holy garment, and went into the temple to offer incense to God upon the golden altar, which he was prohibited to do by Azariah the high priest, who had fourscore priests with him, and who told him that it was not lawful for him to offer sacrifice, and that "none besides the posterity of Aaron were permitted so to do."
The first one seems applicable (though it refers to the first Temple), but the second one only refers to offering sacrifices and incense and such, which "none besides the posterity of Aaron were permitted so to do," and James is not said to have offered sacrifices, only to have prayed.
Tell me all that you know and I'll show you snow and rain.

User avatar
Ben C. Smith
Posts: 5843
Joined: Wed Apr 08, 2015 2:18 pm
Location: USA
Contact:

Re: Papias and the disciples of the Lord.

Post by Ben C. Smith » Thu May 17, 2018 4:08 pm

John2 wrote:
Thu May 17, 2018 3:23 pm
So it was a crazy situation and all the rules did not necessarily apply. Maybe some (more lenient) Pharisees were cool with a Nazirite being in the "holy place" and other people weren't given these circumstances, and the people who did not like James (like the people who killed lower priests in Josephus) used this opportunity to kill him. In other words, I don't think priestly procedures were necessarily being carried to by the book during this time, and it was also more of an ad hoc assembly that "came together" to take out James.
Perhaps, but why does Hegesippus specify that James was the only one allowed into the holy place? (Hegesippus' very wording suggests that some kind of procedure was being followed, one which allowed James in but no one else.) This is one thing that puzzles me about your investigation into the Nazirites in this connection: what is such an investigation even capable of obtaining for you when Hegesippus specifically contradicts the notion that Nazirites (plural) would be allowed into the holy place?

You can dismiss Bauckham's literary connections at will, but for this datum, at least, his literary explanation works superbly.
John2 wrote:
Thu May 17, 2018 3:24 pm
I'll get to your other citations in due time, and thanks for all the great feedback, Ben.
No problem. :) I appreciate the chance to revisit this issue. I have not dealt with Hegesippus on this particular matter for quite a while.
ΤΙ ΕΣΤΙΝ ΑΛΕΘΕΙΑ

Post Reply