Biblical Criticism & History Forum - earlywritings.com

Ben wrote:

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.

I don't think it's a matter of adding stuff to Hegesippus' statement as it is taking what precedes it into consideration, which is that James "succeeded to the government of the Church in conjunction with the apostles" and "there were many that bore the name of James" but that "he alone was permitted to enter into the holy place."

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.

Who then "permitted" him to go into the holy place/holies if the real priests were absent or in dereliction of duty?

John2 wrote: ↑Sat May 05, 2018 5:50 pm

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.

Who then "permitted" him to go into the holy place/holies if the real priests were absent or in dereliction of duty?

The people? The scribes and Pharisees? The Rechabites? Who knows?? That is part of the point. How is a conscientious historian supposed to authenticate loosey-goosey stuff like this?

And some parts of the story can be pretty soundly disauthenticated without difficulty, like the bits so obviously borrowing from the trial of Jesus.

John2 wrote: ↑Sat May 05, 2018 5:45 pmI don't think it's a matter of adding stuff to Hegesippus' statement as it is taking what precedes it into consideration, which is that James "succeeded to the government of the Church in conjunction with the apostles" and "there were many that bore the name of James" but that "he alone was permitted to enter into the holy place."

There is little sense in saying that James was the only one by that name allowed to enter. The part about there being many with the name of James is not connected with his entry into "the holies" at all, anyway. Here is the real connection: "He has been called the Just by all from the times of the Lord to the present day, for there were many that bore the name of James." He had a nickname ("the Just") because men with such a common name have to be distinguished from one another. It has nothing to do with some arbitrary rule about people named James entering the sanctuary.

And some parts of the story can be pretty soundly disauthenticated without difficulty, like the bits so obviously borrowing from the trial of Jesus.

What bits? That James calls Jesus the Son of Man who will come on the clouds of heaven? As a leader of the Church, why wouldn't he say that too if that's what Jesus' message was?

John2 wrote: ↑Sat May 05, 2018 6:16 pm

And some parts of the story can be pretty soundly disauthenticated without difficulty, like the bits so obviously borrowing from the trial of Jesus.

What bits? That James calls Jesus the Son of Man who will come on the clouds of heaven? As a leader of the Church, why wouldn't he say that too if that's what Jesus' message was?

That is the main line, yes. I have written a lot about the Mishnaic implications of the Marcan version of this line, and "the power" is, in my judgment, a substitute (like "Jose" in the Mishnah) for the divine name actually uttered by Jesus in the original story. At Jesus' trial, then, the immediate charge of blasphemy makes perfect sense, since he uttered the divine name; at James' trial no such charge is forthcoming. Why not? Because "the great power" does not have that same function in this pericope; rather, it is derived from the Marcan story.

If you wish to dispute my interpretation of the Marcan version, that is perfectly fine. That thread is still available: viewtopic.php?f=3&t=2397. But as long as that interpretation remains the one which explains the most Marcan data, as I believe it still is, then the overlap of wording between Hegesippus' account of James and Mark's account of Jesus is most easily explained by Hegesippus' dependence upon something like what we find in Mark (maybe it was in Mark itself, or maybe it was in the Hebrew gospel). Stories got recycled and reapplied to other people all the time in early Christianity.

What still perplexes me is your starting point with Hegesippus. Where do you start with the authentication process for the traditions that he relays? What is the first foothold, so to speak, the first verifiable datum which simultaneously gives you confidence in the other data?

There is little sense in saying that James was the only one by that name allowed to enter. The part about there being many with the name of James is not connected with his entry into "the holies" at all, anyway. Here is the real connection: "He has been called the Just by all from the times of the Lord to the present day, for there were many that bore the name of James." He had a nickname ("the Just") because men with such a common name have to be distinguished from one another. It has nothing to do with some arbitrary rule about people named James entering the sanctuary.

But that is only part of what precedes "he alone was permitted to enter the holy place"; the other part is that he ""succeeded to the government of the Church in conjunction with the apostles" but "he alone was permitted to enter the holy place."

John2 wrote: ↑Sat May 05, 2018 6:30 pm

There is little sense in saying that James was the only one by that name allowed to enter. The part about there being many with the name of James is not connected with his entry into "the holies" at all, anyway. Here is the real connection: "He has been called the Just by all from the times of the Lord to the present day, for there were many that bore the name of James." He had a nickname ("the Just") because men with such a common name have to be distinguished from one another. It has nothing to do with some arbitrary rule about people named James entering the sanctuary.

But that is only part of what precedes "he alone was permitted to enter the holy place"; the other part is that he ""succeeded to the government of the Church in conjunction with the apostles" but "he alone was permitted to enter the holy place."

I am completely missing the connection you are making here. Hegesippus himself does not connect this conjunction with the apostles with James' entry into "the holies." If you are making this connection, what is the basis?

This is the connection that Hegesippus does make: "He alone was permitted to enter into the holy place, for [γάρ] he wore not woolen but linen garments." What Jewish legal custom does this derive from? Why, simply for wearing priestly linen, is James allowed the prerogative of a priest?

At Jesus' trial, then, the immediate charge of blasphemy makes perfect sense, since he uttered the divine name; at James' trial no such charge is forthcoming. Why not? Because "the great power" does not have that same function in this pericope; rather, it is derived from the Marcan story.

If you wish to dispute my interpretation of the Marcan version, that is perfectly fine. That thread is still available: viewtopic.php?f=3&t=2397. But as long as that interpretation remains the one which explains the most Marcan data, as I believe it still is, then the overlap of wording between Hegesippus' account of James and Mark's account of Jesus is most easily explained by Hegesippus' dependence upon something like what we find in Mark (maybe it was in Mark itself, or maybe it was in the Hebrew gospel). Stories got recycled and reapplied to other people all the time in early Christianity.

I don't dispute your interpretation of the Marcan version. I like it and think there is something to it (i.e., that Mark was familiar, in my view via Peter, with the Mishnaic procedure for blasphemy). But I'm thinking the blasphemy charge has more to do with Jesus saying "I am" rather than "Power" though. And if Mark was aware of what Jesus' message was at his trial, why couldn't James? And why wouldn't he give the same message as Jesus (that the Son of Man would come on the clouds of heaven)?

The blasphemy angle doesn't need to apply to James because he wasn't killed for blasphemy but rather because it was thought that "there was danger that the whole people would be looking for Jesus as the Christ ... And when many were fully convinced and gloried in the testimony of James [that Jesus is the Son of Man and will come on the clouds of heaven], and said, 'Hosanna to the Son of David,' these same Scribes and Pharisees said again to one another, 'We have done badly in supplying such testimony to Jesus. But let us go up and throw him down, in order that they may be afraid to believe him.' "

What still perplexes me is your starting point with Hegesippus. Where do you start with the authentication process for the traditions that he relays? What is the first foothold, so to speak, the first verifiable datum which simultaneously gives you confidence in the other data?

I used to think holy place/holies was the Holy of Holies too, because that's what most people say (including Eisenman, btw) and I didn't consider other points of view, and only recently have I changed my mind in response them. I suppose I start by reading what Hegesippus says and comparing it with other Jewish Christian writings (the Letter of James, Matthew and Revelation) and the procedure for stoning and description of near-anarchy in the priesthood during this period in the Talmud, and they seem to fit hand in glove to me.

It's not cut and dried, and you're giving me plenty to think about, but all things considered I don't have the impression that Hegesippus is saying that James entered the Holy of Holies.

I am completely missing the connection you are making here. Hegesippus himself does not connect this conjunction with the apostles with James' entry into "the holies." If you are making this connection, what is the basis?

This is the connection that Hegesippus does make: "He alone was permitted to enter into the holy place, for [γάρ] he wore not woolen but linen garments." What Jewish legal custom does this derive from? Why, simply for wearing priestly linen, is James allowed the prerogative of a priest?

I need to sleep on this. You've given me a lot to think about today. Thanks.