James 1.1 and 2.1.

[Ulan]

I'm turning into a staunch defender of Hegesippus, not because he calls James the brother of the Lord and I want James to be the brother of Jesus, but because a) he is the earliest church historian, b) I find what he says in other respects holds water, and c) he is said to have known (and quoted from) the Gospel of the Hebrews (which in my view pre-dates Papias) and "other matters as taken from the unwritten tradition of the Jews."

I think it's dangerous to just follow one's instincts in this one. In the end, you even have to pick and choose even if you believe those stories of Hegesippus.

According to Hegesippus, James was in the temple every single day and had access to the Holy of Holies. Or, in other words, James was a High Priest, as only those had access there. This makes the group around James one of the high priestly households. If you then roll with Andrew's suggestion, John and Cephas may be his colleagues.

Then we can go the next step and weave this with other NT texts. If you think of the story Stephanos, that one starts with building up the Jewish members of the community treating the gentile faction badly. In a weird switch, Stephanos then gets killed by the High Priest. If you now inject Hegesippus here, the weird switch disappears, as James is the High Priest, so he ordered the killing.

I should write a book about this. For a better text on the sleeve, I have to postulate that Stephanos was actually Paul, the "crown" of the early Christian movement, and that's why the last thing we hear from him in Romans that he will go to Jerusalem and fears for his life. His life obviously ended there by the hand of James and consorts. Given the state of publishing, someone probably already wrote all of this and I just missed it.

In the light of free association games like this, I can understand the urge to just roll with the mainstream consensus. Just keep in mind that you always have to drop some information from more or less all sources to have them play well with each other. One of the largest disconnects between gospels and the following tradition I see is how, with the leader of some Galilean fishermen, who was estranged from his family and crucified for treason, his fearless followers found no better course of action than to open up permanent residence next door to the Roman court in order to worship that traitor. Oh, and they elected the brother of that enemy of the state, who thought of the deceased as crazy, as their leader. Makes totally sense.

[Ben C. Smith]

What I would like to know from those who think James is definitely a Christian epistle is how the following verses are to be treated:

James 3.9: 9 With it we bless our Lord and Father, and with it we curse men, who have been made in the likeness of God.

James 4.12: 12 There is only one Lawgiver and Judge, the One who is able to save and to destroy; but who are you who judge your neighbor?

James 5.7-10: 7 Therefore be patient, brethren, until the coming of the Lord. The farmer waits for the precious produce of the soil, being patient about it, until it gets the early and late rains. 8 You too be patient; strengthen your hearts, for the coming of the Lord is near. 9 Do not complain, brethren, against one another, so that you yourselves may not be judged; behold, the Judge is standing right at the door. 10 As an example, brethren, of suffering and patience, take the prophets who spoke in the name of the Lord.

If there is only one Lawgiver and Judge, and the Judge is standing right at the door, is that Judge not the same as the Lawgiver? This one who is both Lawgiver and Judge must be Yahweh, right? And does it not appear that Yahweh is also both the Lord and the Father?

(John, I am pretty sure you would equate Jesus cleanly with Yahweh, but then you would have to acknowledge that James uses the title Lord both of Jesus and of his Father, correct, and sometimes somewhat confusingly?)

If James is a Christian epistle, why is Jesus not the one coming? Why is it Yahweh? Are you prepared to equate Jesus and Yahweh like John does for this epistle (and I tentatively do for other epistles, though not for this one yet)? Or is Jesus simply ignored in one of his most important Christian roles, his coming in glory? If so, why? Did someone writing up this epistle as a Christian piece of pseudepigrapha deliberately replace Jesus with his Father for some reason?

[pavurcn]

What I would like to know from those who think James is definitely a Christian epistle is how the following verses are to be treated:

James 3.9: 9 With it we bless our Lord and Father, and with it we curse men, who have been made in the likeness of God.

James 4.12: 12 There is only one Lawgiver and Judge, the One who is able to save and to destroy; but who are you who judge your neighbor?

James 5.7-10: 7 Therefore be patient, brethren, until the coming of the Lord. The farmer waits for the precious produce of the soil, being patient about it, until it gets the early and late rains. 8 You too be patient; strengthen your hearts, for the coming of the Lord is near. 9 Do not complain, brethren, against one another, so that you yourselves may not be judged; behold, the Judge is standing right at the door. 10 As an example, brethren, of suffering and patience, take the prophets who spoke in the name of the Lord.

All these things sound very similar to things Jesus said. Hence, they seem at least Ur-Christian. This letter feels very much like what I suspect Jesus's own preaching was. So, very early, very "Jewish." The overlap in content and tone makes it Christian. The lack of developed Christian theology makes it seem early.

People can have different takes on others: consider the image of Socrates in Plato, Xenophon, and Aristophanes.

[John2]

Ulan wrote:

According to Hegesippus, James was in the temple every single day and had access to the Holy of Holies. Or, in other words, James was a High Priest, as only those had access there. This makes the group around James one of the high priestly households. If you then roll with Andrew's suggestion, John and Cephas may be his colleagues.

Hegesippus does not say that James entered the Holy of Holies (nor that he was a priest). What Hegesippus says is, "He [James] alone was permitted to enter the holy place." What does he mean by "holy place" (ἅγιον τόπον)? This is commonly interpreted to mean the Holy of Holies, and this is something I had always accepted without giving it much thought. But now I'm thinking that it doesn't mean the Holy of Holies.

The same Greek words are used in Acts 21:28, and it doesn't appear to mean the Holy of Holies there.

Moreover, he [Paul] even brought Greeks into the temple [ἱερὸν] and has defiled this holy place [ἅγιον τόπον].

Here it appears to be another way of saying "the Temple," unless this means that Paul bringing Greeks into the Temple defiled only the Holy of Holies. But as a comment on the biblehub says:

... that part of the temple, which they supposed Paul had brought Greeks or Gentiles into, could not be the most holy place, for into that only the high priest went, once a year; nor that part of the holy place called the court of the priests, for into that only priests went, and other Israelites were not admitted, unless on some particular occasions; as to lay hands on the sacrifice, for the slaying of it, or waving some part of it; but it must be either the court of the Israelites, or the court of the women, into which Paul, with the four men that had the vow, entered ...

http://biblehub.com/commentaries/acts/21-28.htm

And Lange writes:

This expression is falsely interpreted as designating the holiest of holies. The expression may admit of such an interpretation, but the Jewish law forbids it. The acknowledged Nazarite might probably go with the priests into the temple proper ...

https://books.google.com/books?id=zdI3A ... us&f=false

This understanding seems to be supported by Hegesippus' following statement that "He [James] used to enter the sanctuary [ἱερὸν] alone," which is the same word used for the Temple in Acts above.

And Bauckham writes:

Hegesippus probably meant that James, because of his ascetic sanctity and because he dressed like the priests in linen, was the only man other than the priests who was allowed to enter the holy place ... So the opening statement of the passage quoted above from Epiphanius, Pan. 78.13 is clearly an interpretive re-writing of the first nine words of the passage just quoted from Hegesippus ... This secondary interpretation of Hegesippus therefore supposes that James was permitted to officiate on the day of atonement as only the high priest may, entering the holy of holies as if he were high priest.

https://books.google.com/books?id=OdAVD ... es&f=false

I find that if you stick to Hegesippus he is very reliable.

[John2]

What I would like to know from those who think James is definitely a Christian epistle is how the following verses are to be treated:

James 3.9: 9 With it we bless our Lord and Father, and with it we curse men, who have been made in the likeness of God.

James 4.12: 12 There is only one Lawgiver and Judge, the One who is able to save and to destroy; but who are you who judge your neighbor?

James 5.7-10: 7 Therefore be patient, brethren, until the coming of the Lord. The farmer waits for the precious produce of the soil, being patient about it, until it gets the early and late rains. 8 You too be patient; strengthen your hearts, for the coming of the Lord is near. 9 Do not complain, brethren, against one another, so that you yourselves may not be judged; behold, the Judge is standing right at the door. 10 As an example, brethren, of suffering and patience, take the prophets who spoke in the name of the Lord.

If there is only one Lawgiver and Judge, and the Judge is standing right at the door, is that Judge not the same as the Lawgiver? This one who is both Lawgiver and Judge must be Yahweh, right? And does it not appear that Yahweh is also both the Lord and the Father?

(John, I am pretty sure you would equate Jesus cleanly with Yahweh, but then you would have to acknowledge that James uses the title Lord both of Jesus and of his Father, correct, and sometimes somewhat confusingly?)

If James is a Christian epistle, why is Jesus not the one coming? Why is it Yahweh? Are you prepared to equate Jesus and Yahweh like John does for this epistle (and I tentatively do for other epistles, though not for this one yet)? Or is Jesus simply ignored in one of his most important Christian roles, his coming in glory? If so, why? Did someone writing up this epistle as a Christian piece of pseudepigrapha deliberately replace Jesus with his Father for some reason?

In my view, once you accept the idea that Jesus was thought to be divine (based on Daniel's divine/angelic "son of man," as per Boyarin) then Jesus and God are one and the same and there isn't any difference (in James' mind) between saying that "the Lord" is coming to judge and Jesus is coming to judge. To quote an expression I've seen a lot, "Jesus is Lord."

[John2]

Compare Paul in 1 Cor. 10:1-5:

For I do not want you to be ignorant of the fact, brothers and sisters, that our ancestors were all under the cloud and that they all passed through the sea. They were all baptized into Moses in the cloud and in the sea. They all ate the same spiritual food and drank the same spiritual drink; for they drank from the spiritual rock that accompanied them, and that rock was Christ. Nevertheless, God was not pleased with most of them; their bodies were scattered in the wilderness.

[John2]

Something similar seems to be going on in 2 Cor. 3:13-18:

We are not like Moses, who would put a veil over his face to prevent the Israelites from seeing the end of what was passing away. But their minds were made dull, for to this day the same veil remains when the old covenant is read. It has not been removed, because only in Christ is it taken away. 15Even to this day when Moses is read, a veil covers their hearts. But whenever anyone turns to the Lord, the veil is taken away. Now the Lord is the Spirit, and where the Spirit of the Lord is, there is freedom. And we all, who with unveiled faces contemplate the Lord’s glory, are being transformed into his image with ever-increasing glory, which comes from the Lord, who is the Spirit.

And 1 Cor. 2:8:

None of the rulers of this age understood it, for if they had, they would not have crucified the Lord of glory.

And 1 Cor. 15:49:

And just as we have borne the image of the earthly man, so shall we bear the image of the heavenly man.

And James 2:1:

My brothers, do not with partiality hold the faith of our Lord Jesus Christ of glory.

And Jude 1:24-25:

Now to Him who is able to keep you from stumbling and to present you unblemished in His glorious presence, with great joy to the only God our Savior be glory, majesty, dominion, and authority, through Jesus Christ our Lord, before all time, and now, and for all eternity.

And 1 Cor. 12:1-14:

Now about the gifts of the Spirit, brothers and sisters, I do not want you to be uninformed. You know that when you were pagans, somehow or other you were influenced and led astray to mute idols. Therefore I want you to know that no one who is speaking by the Spirit of God says, “Jesus be cursed,” and no one can say, “Jesus is Lord,” except by the Holy Spirit.

There are different kinds of gifts, but the same Spirit distributes them. There are different kinds of service, but the same Lord. There are different kinds of working, but in all of them and in everyone it is the same God at work.

Now to each one the manifestation of the Spirit is given for the common good. To one there is given through the Spirit a message of wisdom, to another a message of knowledge by means of the same Spirit, to another faith by the same Spirit, to another gifts of healing by that one Spirit, 10to another miraculous powers, to another prophecy, to another distinguishing between spirits, to another speaking in different kinds of tongues, and to still another the interpretation of tongues. All these are the work of one and the same Spirit, and he distributes them to each one, just as he determines.

Just as a body, though one, has many parts, but all its many parts form one body, so it is with Christ. For we were all baptized by one Spirit so as to form one body—whether Jews or Gentiles, slave or free—and we were all given the one Spirit to drink.

[Ben C. Smith]

In my view, once you accept the idea that Jesus was thought to be divine (based on Daniel's divine/angelic "son of man," as per Boyarin) then Jesus and God are one and the same and there isn't any difference (in James' mind) between saying that "the Lord" is coming to judge and Jesus is coming to judge. To quote an expression I've seen a lot, "Jesus is Lord."

As you know, I tend to accept this overall view when it comes to Paul and to certain other authors, but I am not so sure about James.

[John2]

Ben wrote;

As you know, I tend to accept this overall view when it comes to Paul and to certain other authors, but I am not so sure about James.

Alright, but the earliest commenter on the Letter of James (in my view) is Hegesippus. Compare EH 2.20.6 and 12-13 and 3.20.6 with the Letter of James:

Now some of the seven sects, which existed among the people and which have been mentioned by me in the Memoirs, asked him, 'What is the gate of Jesus?' and he replied that he was the Saviour.

The aforesaid Scribes and Pharisees therefore placed James upon the pinnacle of the temple, and cried out to him and said: 'You just one, in whom we ought all to have confidence, forasmuch as the people are led astray after Jesus, the crucified one, declare to us, what is the gate of Jesus.'

And he answered with a loud voice, 'Why do you ask me concerning Jesus, the Son of Man? He himself sits in heaven at the right hand of the great Power, and is about to come upon the clouds of heaven.'

And when they [the grandsons of Jesus' brother Jude] were asked concerning Christ and his kingdom, of what sort it was and where and when it was to appear, they answered that it was not a temporal nor an earthly kingdom, but a heavenly and angelic one, which would appear at the end of the world, when he should come in glory to judge the quick and the dead, and to give unto every one according to his works.

James 5:3-9:

You have hoarded wealth in the last days ... Be patient, then, brothers and sisters, until the Lord’s coming. See how the farmer waits for the land to yield its valuable crop, patiently waiting for the autumn and spring rains. You too, be patient and stand firm, because the Lord’s coming is near. Don’t grumble against one another, brothers and sisters, or you will be judged. The Judge is standing at the door!

James 2:14-26:

What good is it, my brothers and sisters, if someone claims to have faith but has no deeds? Can such faith save them? Suppose a brother or a sister is without clothes and daily food. If one of you says to them, “Go in peace; keep warm and well fed,” but does nothing about their physical needs, what good is it? In the same way, faith by itself, if it is not accompanied by action, is dead.

But someone will say, “You have faith; I have deeds.”

Show me your faith without deeds, and I will show you my faith by my deeds. You believe that there is one God. Good! Even the demons believe that—and shudder.

You foolish person, do you want evidence that faith without deeds is useless? Was not our father Abraham considered righteous for what he did when he offered his son Isaac on the altar? You see that his faith and his actions were working together, and his faith was made complete by what he did. And the scripture was fulfilled that says, “Abraham believed God, and it was credited to him as righteousness,” and he was called God’s friend. You see that a person is considered righteous by what they do and not by faith alone.

In the same way, was not even Rahab the prostitute considered righteous for what she did when she gave lodging to the spies and sent them off in a different direction? As the body without the spirit is dead, so faith without deeds is dead.

James 3:13:

Who is wise and understanding among you? Let them show it by their good life, by deeds done in the humility that comes from wisdom.

[Ulan]

Ulan wrote:

According to Hegesippus, James was in the temple every single day and had access to the Holy of Holies. Or, in other words, James was a High Priest, as only those had access there. This makes the group around James one of the high priestly households. If you then roll with Andrew's suggestion, John and Cephas may be his colleagues.

Hegesippus does not say that James entered the Holy of Holies (nor that he was a priest). What Hegesippus says is, "He [James] alone was permitted to enter the holy place." What does he mean by "holy place" (ἅγιον τόπον)? This is commonly interpreted to mean the Holy of Holies, and this is something I had always accepted without giving it much thought. But now I'm thinking that it doesn't mean the Holy of Holies.

The same Greek words are used in Acts 21:28, and it doesn't appear to mean the Holy of Holies there.

Moreover, he [Paul] even brought Greeks into the temple [ἱερὸν] and has defiled this holy place [ἅγιον τόπον].

Here it appears to be another way of saying "the Temple," unless this means that Paul bringing Greeks into the Temple defiled only the Holy of Holies. But as a comment on the biblehub says:

... that part of the temple, which they supposed Paul had brought Greeks or Gentiles into, could not be the most holy place, for into that only the high priest went, once a year; nor that part of the holy place called the court of the priests, for into that only priests went, and other Israelites were not admitted, unless on some particular occasions; as to lay hands on the sacrifice, for the slaying of it, or waving some part of it; but it must be either the court of the Israelites, or the court of the women, into which Paul, with the four men that had the vow, entered ...

http://biblehub.com/commentaries/acts/21-28.htm

And Lange writes:

This expression is falsely interpreted as designating the holiest of holies. The expression may admit of such an interpretation, but the Jewish law forbids it. The acknowledged Nazarite might probably go with the priests into the temple proper ...

https://books.google.com/books?id=zdI3A ... us&f=false

This understanding seems to be supported by Hegesippus' following statement that "He [James] used to enter the sanctuary [ἱερὸν] alone," which is the same word used for the Temple in Acts above.

And Bauckham writes:

Hegesippus probably meant that James, because of his ascetic sanctity and because he dressed like the priests in linen, was the only man other than the priests who was allowed to enter the holy place ... So the opening statement of the passage quoted above from Epiphanius, Pan. 78.13 is clearly an interpretive re-writing of the first nine words of the passage just quoted from Hegesippus ... This secondary interpretation of Hegesippus therefore supposes that James was permitted to officiate on the day of atonement as only the high priest may, entering the holy of holies as if he were high priest.

https://books.google.com/books?id=OdAVD ... es&f=false

I find that if you stick to Hegesippus he is very reliable.

I find it interesting how differently people read the stuff they quote. Bauckham actually stresses the point that James was allowed to wear the sacerdotal plate, of which there was only one for the use of the High Priest, which makes any speculations about the Holy of Holies moot. Who knows what is from Hegesippus and what from Epihanius. Anyway, Bauckham also talks at length about the point that Polycrates of Ephesos unambiguously identifies John as a High Priest. I guess my attempt at exaggeration has already been preempted.