Biblical Criticism & History Forum - earlywritings.com

John2 wrote: ↑Sat May 05, 2018 7:14 pm

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.

In my view, in the original story, Jesus did not say "power." He said "Yahweh."

And if Mark was aware of what Jesus' message was 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)?

This is another one of those "could" arguments I mentioned, another "why not" argument. You seem to think that Jesus really said that at his trial, and that James really knew what Jesus said (either at his trial or overall), and that both Mark and Hegesippus simply recorded accurately what was said in each case. But why is that a better conclusion than literary dependence of Hegesippus upon Mark (or something like Mark)? What makes you reach for one but not for the other? What is the tiebreaker?

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 ...

So, in your view, James really said "power" and not "Yahweh," as I argue for Jesus, right?

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.

Okay, that is fine, but disarming a potential objection to the story does not automatically make the story accurate, right? For example, a glass slipper is a rather unlikely detail in the story of Cinderella, but there is a theory that the original word in the story was not verre (French for glass), but rather vair (which is a fancy kind of squirrel fur). I am not going to attack or defend this theory; my point is that, even if it is true, and the weird detail of footwear made of glass disappears, that does nothing to authenticate the story of Cinderella as something that actually happened. It is still just a fairy tale.

My view, then, is that even if you are right about Hegesippus not trying to imply that James entered the holy of holies, that is not enough to ensure that the story is not merely a legend. So where do you start to authenticate the story?

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

No problem at all. Cheers.

Ben C. Smith wrote: ↑Sat May 05, 2018 6:36 pm What Jewish legal custom does this derive from? Why, simply for wearing priestly linen, is James allowed the prerogative of a priest?

Wool was the thread of choice for the Roman Toga. Linen was (evidently) given to initiates.

Mark 14: 51 - 52 (RSV):

[51] And a young man followed him, with nothing but a linen cloth about his body; and they seized him,
[52] but he left the linen cloth and ran away naked.

This, I believe, is at the Coup Attempt in 4 BCE. The Thackeray translation tells of obtaining recruits in a room off from the main area of the Temple before the ordering of the soldiers by Archelaus (presumably) to clear the Temple area:

"The promoters of the mourners for the doctors stood in a body in the temple, procuring recruits for their faction..."

This differs from the Whiston translation. Next, you have to accept that the Markan Passage refers to this moment at the Temple Slaughter of4 BCE. This would imply that James is an initiate although I claim no expertise in the larger argument concerning James. It does remind me of Peter's Denial. Peter sits at the door getting warm in the Synoptics. He is standing in John and talking to Rulers, an indication of the Historical Record concerning which side of the door you happen to be on. Anyone could sit outside. The Priests frequently slept outside of this door at the Chamber of the Hearth. Inside, they had to stand and only Priests (and Royalty) could be here, in the Chamber of the Flames. (See previous Posts on this.)

The larger Symbolic Argument would be that no Roman (of the wool) could be allowed into the Holy of Holies whereas someone accepted into the Priesthood would be. There would also be the Placement of an Initiate into a particular Mishmarot Group.

CW

No problem at all. Cheers.

Before I go I want to add something that came to mind regarding James entering the "holies" because he wore linen clothes. I see these clothes as being part of the other aspects that Hegesippus mentions about James just prior to this (i.e., that he did not cut his hair and didn't drink). Yes, the linen clothes are "priestly," but they needn't necessarily suggest that James was a priest. As Neusner notes regarding Nazirites:

... to whom is the Nazirite comparable? ... the Nazirite turns out to be like the priest in particular, since he or she accepts some of the disciplines of the priesthood -the sector of the priesthood ready to serve at the altar. The Nazirite has to keep himself or herself suitable for service at the altar and at the climax of the vow, the hair cutting and the offering attendant thereon, he or she is as much like a priest as a lay Israelite or as a woman ever can be.

https://books.google.com/books?id=W9NHh ... ts&f=false

Given the other aspects of James (no razor, not drinking), I'm inclined to see his linen clothes as being "priestly," yes, but in a Nazirite "priestly" way rather than just priestly.

John2 wrote: ↑Sat May 05, 2018 7:58 pm

No problem at all. Cheers.

Before I go I want to add something that came to mind regarding James entering the "holies" because he wore linen clothes. I see these clothes as being part of the other aspects that Hegesippus mentions about James just prior to this (i.e., that he did not cut his hair and didn't drink). Yes, the linen clothes are "priestly," but they needn't necessarily suggest that James was a priest.

I completely agree. Hegesippus does not present James as a priest; he presents James as having, for what seem to be pretty weird reasons, the same rights and prerogatives as a priest.

I have a little more time so I thought I'd address some things you say above.

In my view, in the original story, Jesus did not say "power." He said "Yahweh."

Oh, right, I forgot.

You seem to think that Jesus really said that at his trial, and that James really knew what Jesus said (either at his trial or overall), and that both Mark and Hegesippus simply recorded accurately what was said in each case. But why is that a better conclusion than literary dependence of Hegesippus upon Mark (or something like Mark)? What makes you reach for one but not for the other? What is the tiebreaker?

Hegesippus is not said to have known Mark. His sources are given in EH 4.22.7-8:

And he wrote of many other matters, which we have in part already mentioned, introducing the accounts in their appropriate places. And from the Syriac Gospel according to the Hebrews he quotes some passages in the Hebrew tongue, showing that he was a convert from the Hebrews, and he mentions other matters as taken from the unwritten tradition of the Jews.

And not only he, but also Irenæus and the whole company of the ancients, called the Proverbs of Solomon All-virtuous Wisdom. And when speaking of the books called Apocrypha, he records that some of them were composed in his day by certain heretics.

To me this is similar to Papias being said to have known only Mark and Matthew (of the gospels; and I include the reference to him knowing the Gospel of the Hebrews with his awareness of Matthew). Maybe he knew Luke and John too, as some argue, but I don't get that impression and the lack of a direct reference to Luke and John supports this. I suppose one could say that since Eusebius does not mention the OT here that it was not known to Hegesippus, but there is at least evidence of it because he says that James was called the Just "in accordance with what the prophets declare concerning him." I don't think the "power" language is enough to say that Hegesippus knew Mark.

So, in your view, James really said "power" and not "Yahweh," as I argue for Jesus, right?

Sure. But in any event, whether James said "power" or YHWH, he wasn't killed for blasphemy but because his testimony that Jesus was the Son of Man and Christ was dangerous.

I'm fine with Mark saying "power" and see the "I am" as being the blasphemy instead.

Ben wrote;

You seem to think that Jesus really said that at his trial, and that James really knew what Jesus said (either at his trial or overall), and that both Mark and Hegesippus simply recorded accurately what was said in each case. But why is that a better conclusion than literary dependence of Hegesippus upon Mark (or something like Mark)? What makes you reach for one but not for the other? What is the tiebreaker?

Here's my take (after sleeping on it). I think that Mark probably made up what Jesus said at his trial and Hegesippus made up what James said at his stoning, what they felt was appropriate to the situation, which we know was a normal thing to do in antiquity. I think the two accounts are similar only because Jesus being the Son of Man who will come on the clouds of heaven is the central message of Christianity. I see their use of the word "power" as being like Hegesippus' use of the word Savior to describe Jesus, which is also used that way in the NT. Was Hegesippus dependent on the NT (outside of Matthew) or was it just something that was commonly known to Christians? While I don't think it is out of the question that Hegesippus could have known the letters of Paul and 1 John, I don't think he was necessarily dependent on them to know that Jesus was called Savior. Likewise I don't think he would have necessarily needed Mark to know that Jesus was thought to be the Son of Man sitting at the right hand of the "great power" who will come on the clouds of heaven. As noted here, "Rabbinic texts also sometimes use "power" as a circumlocution for God" (https://books.google.com/books?id=oqTHA ... on&f=false). It may be unique, but it's not that unique, and Mark seems hip to rabbinic traditions (which in my view came via Peter), and Hegesippus is also said to have been familiar with Jewish oral traditions, so maybe they could have been aware of it independently that way.


EH 2.23.4:

James, the brother of the Lord, succeeded to the government of the Church in conjunction with the apostles. He has been called the Just by all from the time of our Saviour to the present day.

EH 2.23.8:

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.

Php. 3:20;

But our citizenship is in heaven. And we eagerly await a Savior from there, the Lord Jesus Christ ...

1 John 4:14:

And we have seen and testify that the Father has sent his Son to be the Savior of the world.

Ben wrote:

You call him [Hegesippus] 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.

I had to give this some thought. It sounds like a good point when you put it that way. But in the big picture I look at it this way. Eusebius had more than just that fact to make his assessment, since he says that Hegesippus "wrote of many other matters, which we have in part already mentioned, introducing the accounts in their appropriate places." So he came away with this impression based on Hegesippus' work as a whole. Has anyone had the impression that Jerome was a Jewish Christian based on his works as a whole?

EH 4.22.7:

And he wrote of many other matters, which we have in part already mentioned, introducing the accounts in their appropriate places. And from the Syriac Gospel according to the Hebrews he quotes some passages in the Hebrew tongue, showing that he was a convert from the Hebrews, and he mentions other matters as taken from the unwritten tradition of the Jews.

Ben wrote:

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?

I don't feel like I'm making a connection so much as just reading what is there. To me it seems like you are making a disconnection, somewhat like it seems you are doing regarding his linen clothes. I don't get the impression that James was allowed to enter the "holies" (however you define it) because (or solely because) he wore linen clothes, but that he wore linen clothes because he was a holy lifelong Nazirite and such, all of which allowed for him to enter the "holies."

Let's look at the whole passage again.

EH 2.23.4-6:

4. James, the brother of the Lord, succeeded to the government of the Church in conjunction with the apostles. He has been called the Just by all from the time of our Saviour to the present day; for there were many that bore the name of James.

5. He was holy from his mother's womb; and he drank no wine nor strong drink, nor did he eat flesh. No razor came upon his head; he did not anoint himself with oil, and he did not use the bath.

6. He alone was permitted to enter into the holy place; for he wore not woolen but linen garments. And he was in the habit of entering alone into the temple, and was frequently found upon his knees begging forgiveness for the people, so that his knees became hard like those of a camel, in consequence of his constantly bending them in his worship of God, and asking forgiveness for the people.

I can't "disconnect" sections 4 and 5 from section 6. If just wearing linen clothes was enough to allow a non-priest to go into the "holies," how would that distinguish James from Essenes (for example)? To me it seems like we are both making assumptions that are affecting our interpretation of Hegesippus. I'm assuming (based on his apparent connection to Jewish Christianity and bearing in mind Eusebius' comment that he "lived immediately after the apostles [and] gives the most accurate account"), that Hegesippus was aware that only a high priest was allowed to go into the Holy of Holies and that if he had meant the Holy of Holies he would have said so (and the word he does use does not mean Holy of Holies in Acts 21:28).

My impression is that because James was so holy (and consequently topped it off by wearing linen clothes), he was allowed (unlike other apostles or Christians, some of whom were also named James) to enter the priestly "holy place," or zone number 3 in this model:

https://www.bible-history.com/court-of- ... ation.html

To me your interpretation of "holies" as the Holy of Holies involves the assumption that Hegesippus could or did not know that only a high priest could enter the Holy of Holies, and all things considered it's hard for me to believe that.

If "he alone was permitted to enter into the holy place" means that only James and no one else did it, does the next sentence also mean that only James "was in the habit of entering" the temple? If so, then who "found him upon his knees begging for forgiveness for the people"? Likewise, who "permitted" James "to enter the holy place" if not the people in charge of the Temple?

Hegesippus is not said to have known Mark. His sources are given in EH 4.22.7-8....

....

I think the two accounts are similar only because Jesus being the Son of Man who will come on the clouds of heaven is the central message of Christianity.

Remember, I also stipulated that perhaps the Jewish Christian gospels had that same pericope. The main thing for me is that the connection seems to be literary:

• Both Mark and Hegesippus are conflating Psalm 109/110.1 and Daniel 7.13.
• Both Mark and Hegesippus differ from those verses by using "power" as a substitute for Yahweh.
• Both Mark and Hegesippus speak of the son of man, not of one as a son of man.
• Both Mark and Hegesippus frame the cloud travel as future, whereas Daniel frames it as past as part of the vision.
• Both Mark and Hegesippus place these words on the lips of a man who is about to be sentenced to death.
• The "power" in Mark is integral to the pericope, on my reading (= Gundry's reading), whereas for Hegesippus it is merely a substitute, implying a direction of dependence.

Numbers 3 and 4 are perhaps just features of Christian preaching, but you keep saying that Daniel 7.13 is the central message of Christianity, and that does not cover the similarities. Even if you are right, after all, there is also Psalm 109/110.1; and there is also the "power" issue. Too many things are coming together here; the connection looks literary to me. Where else do Psalm 109/110.1 and Daniel 7.13 come together with the "power" issue on the lips of a man about to die?

I'm fine with Mark saying "power" and see the "I am" as being the blasphemy instead.

The Mishnah says that only saying the name counts as capital blasphemy. What evidence is there that "I am" constitutes capital blasphemy?

Eusebius had more than just that fact to make his assessment, since he says that Hegesippus "wrote of many other matters, which we have in part already mentioned, introducing the accounts in their appropriate places." So he came away with this impression based on Hegesippus' work as a whole. Has anyone had the impression that Jerome was a Jewish Christian based on his works as a whole?

EH 4.22.7:

And he wrote of many other matters, which we have in part already mentioned, introducing the accounts in their appropriate places. And from the Syriac Gospel according to the Hebrews he quotes some passages in the Hebrew tongue, showing that he was a convert from the Hebrews, and he mentions other matters as taken from the unwritten tradition of the Jews.

Sure, Eusebius had more, but the fact remains that he links his assessment of Hegesippus as a Hebrew to Hegesippus' use of the Hebrew tongue and of a Hebrew gospel. This link is grammatical and undeniable (the participle ἐμφαίνων modifies the understood subject of the verb τίθησιν). There is no such link between Hegesippus' use of Hebrew and his having written of "many other matters," except insofar as his use of the Hebrew gospel is a subset of his "many other matters." The grammar, in other words, demands that his use of Hebrew and of a Hebrew gospel be a reason for understanding the man himself as a Hebrew, but does not demand that the "many other matters" also provide further reasons; you are reading that part into it.

I don't feel like I'm making a connection so much as just reading what is there.

But you are making the connection, and literally so. The grammar is not. But let us follow you in this and connect sections 4-5 with section 6. James was the successor to the government of the church with the apostles, was called "the Just" because of how many other men bore the same name, was holy from birth in what must be some kind of Nazirite vow, and wore linen instead of wool. Even after you connect all of those things together, why was James the only one allowed into "the holies," whatever that phrase may refer to? He is not a priest, as you yourself pointed out. This is what I meant when I asked what Jewish legal custom is at work here. You rightly scoff at the idea that merely wearing linen would give James such priestly privilege:

If just wearing linen clothes was enough to allow a non-priest to go into the "holies," how would that distinguish James from Essenes (for example)?

But what else on that list would give him priestly privilege? I am merely taking your insight to its logical conclusion: not one thing on that list about James ought to convey this privilege, nor does any combination of things on that list convey such a privilege.

To me your interpretation of "holies" as the Holy of Holies involves the assumption that Hegesippus could or did not know that only a high priest could enter the Holy of Holies, and all things considered it's hard for me to believe that.

No, I think that Hegesippus (or his tradition) imagines James as so holy that he was made an exception to the priestly rules. We, as unbiased observers standing outside the tradition, can easily see how unlikely it is that such an exception was made (pending, of course, evidence from you as to what Jewish legal custom may be at play).

If "he alone was permitted to enter into the holy place" means that only James and no one else did it, does the next sentence also mean that only James "was in the habit of entering" the temple?

No, of course not. The grammar is totally different (τούτῳ μόνῳ ἐξῆν versus μόνος εἰσήρχετο). In the first case, the "alone" (μόνῳ) limits who was allowed to enter (ἐξῆν). In the second case, the "alone" (μόνος) limits who actually entered (εἰσήρχετο) on those occasions. "I alone was allowed to watch the movie" is different than "I watched the movie alone."

Excellent responses, Ben. I will take everything into consideration, but I only have time to respond to one part at the moment.

But what else on that list would give him priestly privilege? I am merely taking your insight to its logical conclusion: not one thing on that list about James ought to convey this privilege, nor does any combination of things on that list convey such a privilege.

The part that says, "He was holy from his mother's womb; and he drank no wine nor strong drink, nor did he eat flesh. No razor came upon his head."

Three of these elements pertain to his naziritism, and we already agree that nazirites had a priest-like status. Additionally, his vegetarianism may have also had priest-like connotations (or in any event was at least related to ritual purity), since this is something priests engaged in to maintain their purity, as Josephus mentions in Life 3:

At the time when Felix was procurator of Judea there were certain priests of my acquaintance, and very excellent persons they were, whom on a small and trifling occasion he had put into bonds, and sent to Rome to plead their cause before Caesar. These I was desirous to procure deliverance for, and that especially because I was informed that they were not unmindful of piety towards God, even under their afflictions, but supported themselves with figs and nuts.

Add linen, and James seems exceptionally "holy," enough so, it appears to me, to enter the "holy place" in front of the Holy of Holies, where lay people were not normally allowed, as noted on page 384 here:

The people were forbidden to enter either the holy place or the holy of holies; they could only see the priests in the sanctuary performing their daily ministrations through the curtain, which was drawn back. The most holy was closed for ever against the foot and gaze of even the priests; and when the high-priest entered on the day of atonement, no one was allowed to remain in the holy place."

https://books.google.com/books?id=DwUdA ... ts&f=false

Here is a model of the first Temple, which shows the "holy place," which is also called "sanctuary" (both of which are the same words Hegesippus uses).

https://books.google.com/books?id=polW0 ... ts&f=false

To me it's kind of like interpreting Mt. 27:51-52. There appears to be no "non-wacky" way to interpret this. I get the impression that Matthew means exactly what he says there, that dead people came back life and went into Jerusalem and were seen by people. That's because, in my view, and in this respect, Matthew was "wacky," and I can accept that. Yet in Hegesippus's case, it seems to me like a "wacky" interpretation is being read into him, because there is (or seems to be) a perfectly "non-wacky" way to interpret him, which is that James was so holy, so priest-like, that he alone (of Christians and/or laypeople) was allowed to enter the "holy place" with the real priests. This is why he was seen to be praying, because, as the above book notes, people could "see the priests in the sanctuary performing their daily ministrations through the curtain, which was drawn back," which would have been impossible for people to do if James was praying in the Holy of Holies.