Papias and the disciples of the Lord.

Discussion about the New Testament, apocrypha, gnostics, church fathers, Christian origins, historical Jesus or otherwise, etc.
User avatar
Jax
Posts: 564
Joined: Sun Aug 06, 2017 6:10 am

Re: Papias and the disciples of the Lord.

Post by Jax » Wed May 16, 2018 11:14 am

Secret Alias wrote:
Tue May 15, 2018 10:09 am
Oh come on. The lasting legacy of this forum was to make it self-evident that human beings - by and large - are hopeless narcissists. They don't come to the forum to learn but to expound, even though these people are the furthest thing from experts in the field. My years spent here anticipated the 'hillbilly electorate' that brought Trump into power. People have no deference to expertise. They don't feel knowledge is at all necessary to arrive at the truth or even something as simple as 'the right decision.' Life is a lottery apparently. You just 'pick your number' and wait for it to be called and hope you 'get lucky.' That's why I've grown to prefer sports and training my son for sports. At least where physical activity is involved there's right and wrong, good and bad ...

Look at the debate between Trees of Life and Ben about what is and isn't possible from the Greek text of the Bible, or Ethan's erudite polemic about Zeus being a Hebrew name, or Giuseppe's endless posts denying the existence of Jesus via endless posts denying the existence of Jesus. If I don't mention other crackpots it's because my relentless insults (perhaps) have convinced them to tone down their partisan posting.
I am deeply hurt in your neglect of me. ;)

User avatar
Secret Alias
Posts: 9777
Joined: Sun Apr 19, 2015 8:47 am

Re: Papias and the disciples of the Lord.

Post by Secret Alias » Wed May 16, 2018 11:36 am

You're cool.
“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

User avatar
Jax
Posts: 564
Joined: Sun Aug 06, 2017 6:10 am

Re: Papias and the disciples of the Lord.

Post by Jax » Wed May 16, 2018 2:01 pm

Secret Alias wrote:
Wed May 16, 2018 11:36 am
You're cool.
:D :cheers: 8-)

John2
Posts: 2311
Joined: Fri May 16, 2014 4:42 pm

Re: Papias and the disciples of the Lord.

Post by John2 » Wed May 16, 2018 2:29 pm

This conversation is reminding of this scene from Can't Buy Me Love.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vujUJDKOkAc
Tell me all that you know and I'll show you snow and rain.

User avatar
Jax
Posts: 564
Joined: Sun Aug 06, 2017 6:10 am

Re: Papias and the disciples of the Lord.

Post by Jax » Wed May 16, 2018 3:57 pm

John2 wrote:
Wed May 16, 2018 2:29 pm
This conversation is reminding of this scene from Can't Buy Me Love.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vujUJDKOkAc
Where are you in this?

John2
Posts: 2311
Joined: Fri May 16, 2014 4:42 pm

Re: Papias and the disciples of the Lord.

Post by John2 » Wed May 16, 2018 4:55 pm

Where are you in this?
If by "this" you mean the movie scene, I'd say Kenneth. If you mean this conversation, I don't worry about other people's level of learning or aptitude.
Tell me all that you know and I'll show you snow and rain.

John2
Posts: 2311
Joined: Fri May 16, 2014 4:42 pm

Re: Papias and the disciples of the Lord.

Post by John2 » Thu May 17, 2018 11:45 am

Ben,

I've had so much on my plate (on top of my limited internet time) that it's taking me awhile to address your citations of Bauckham. Now I see that I was going by incomplete information. I gathered from the link I gave upthread that Bauckham only had an issue with the interpretation of Hegesippus' "holy place" to mean the Holies of Holies (by Jerome, Epiphanius and whoever else) because I didn't see anything that indicated that he had one with the interpretation of it as the priestly area of the Temple, but this citation you gave from his chapter in James the Just and Christian Origins (which I had not been able to see previously in its entirety on Google books) puts that idea to rest:
From any knowledge of what occurred in the Temple or even of what the Torah prescribed, it would be incomprehensible that James alone could be admitted to the Temple building, the holy place, which all priests could enter.
Regarding the word Hegesippus uses ("holy place"), it appears to also be used in Hebrews 9:2 and doesn't mean the Holy of Holies:
A tabernacle was set up. In its first room were the lampstand and the table with its consecrated bread; this was called the Holy Place.
A comment about this on the biblehub says:
Sanctuary.—Or, holy place. The same word is applied to the Holy of Holies in Hebrews 8:2; Hebrews 9:8; Hebrews 12:24-25; Hebrews 10:19; and probably in Hebrews 13:11. This verse and the next give the proper names of the two parts of the Tabernacle, which must be used when the one is to be distinguished from the other. Where there is no risk of mistake the simpler designation is sufficient. (See Leviticus 16:2; Leviticus 16:17; Leviticus 16:20.) It will be observed that here and in Hebrews 9:3; Hebrews 9:6-7, these divisions are spoken of as if two distinct Tabernacles.

http://biblehub.com/commentaries/hebrews/9-2.htm
So I'm at least comfortable with the idea (which Bauckham endorses but still thinks is improbable then) that Hegesippus means that James entered the "holy place" where the priests served and not the Holy of Holies. And maybe this is "wacky" too (if somewhat less so), but I'm trying (unsuccessfully so far) to get out of the realm of opinion and find some corroborating evidence that Nazirites were forbidden to enter the "holy place" (meaning not the Holy of Holies). Given all the talk about the similarities between Nazirites and priests, it seems like this might be a grey area (but if not then that's fine). I feel like I'm overlooking something obvious, but so far nothing is jumping out at me, and all I have for support then is Lange (who seems to imply that there is no law against it) and to a lesser extent Chilton (who mentions Nazirites being able to go at least "in the vicinity" of the holy place):
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
... although Hegesippus' assertion that James could actually enter the sanctuary of the temple seems exaggerated, his acceptance of a Nazirite regime, such as Acts 21 explicitly associates him with, would account for such a remembrance of him, in that Nazirites were to be presented in the vicinity of the sanctuary where the sacrifice was offered.

https://books.google.com/books?id=T8LQq ... us&f=false
Regarding Bauckham's opinion that Hegesippus based his account of James on various OT passages (like Ezek. 44), I'm finding that difficult to accept, since Hegesippus specifically mentions the OT when he says something about James that pertains to it regarding his nickname and his death:
Because of his exceeding great justice he was called the Just, and Oblias, which signifies in Greek, 'Bulwark of the people' and 'Justice,' in accordance with what the prophets declare concerning him.
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 why would he not similarly say, "He alone was permitted to enter into the holy place; for he wore not woolen but linen garments, in accordance with what the prophets declare concerning him"?

I look at the parallels this way. Did Hegesippus make up that James did not eat meat or anoint himself with oil because of Dan. 10:3, or did James not eat meat or anoint himself with oil because that is what ascetics like Daniel did? I'm inclined to think it's the latter.

Dan. 10:3:
I ate no delicacies, no meat or wine entered my mouth, nor did I anoint myself at all, for the full three weeks.
EH 2.23.5:
... he drank no wine nor strong drink, nor did he eat flesh ... he did not anoint himself with oil ...
The other parallels Bauckham mentions also seem vague to me. Take John 12:42, for example.
Yet at the same time many even among the leaders believed in him. But because of the Pharisees they would not openly acknowledge their faith for fear they would be put out of the synagogue ...


EH 2.23.10:
Therefore when many even of the rulers believed, 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.
I look at this two ways. First, Eusebius does not say that Hegesippus knew John; and second, if the above was the case in Jesus' time, why couldn't it have been the case in James' time too? And if there is a literary connection between them, how do we know that John wasn't dependent on Hegesippus (as I suspect was the case for Luke/Acts)?

And Luke 20:21-22
So the spies questioned him: “Teacher, we know that you speak and teach what is right, and that you do not show partiality but teach the way of God in accordance with the truth. Is it right for us to pay taxes to Caesar or not?”
EH 2.23.11-12:
Therefore, persuade the multitude not to be led astray concerning Jesus. For the whole people, and all of us also, have confidence in you. Stand therefore upon the pinnacle of the temple, that from that high position you may be clearly seen, and that your words may be readily heard by all the people. For all the tribes, with the Gentiles also, have come together on account of the Passover.'

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.'
Again, Hegesippus is not said to have known Luke. If there was any borrowing I reckon it would have come from Matthew/the Gospel of the Hebrews.

Mt. 22:16-17:
They [the Pharisees] sent their disciples to Him along with the Herodians. “Teacher, they said, “we know that You are honest and that You teach the way of God in accordance with the truth. You defer to no one, because You pay no attention to external appearance. So tell us what You think. Is it lawful to pay taxes to Caesar, or not?”
But even still the connection seems vague to me. It seems similar to suggesting that Hegesippus' reference to James being stoned and beaten with a club is based on 2 Cor. 11:25:
Three times I was beaten with rods, once I was pelted with stones.
To me James' death and Paul's punishment seem more in keeping with the climate of the times (e.g., Pes. 57a above) rather than Hegesippus being dependent on Paul (who he is also not said to have known in any event).

Mt. 4:5-6 seems to have a little more merit (especially since Hegesippus knew Matthew/the Gospel of the Hebrews).
Then the devil took Him to the holy city and set Him on the pinnacle of the temple. “If You are the Son of God,” he said, “throw Yourself down.
I think the difference is that James is said to have been placed on the pinnacle of the Temple so that "from that high position you may be clearly seen, and that your words may be readily heard by all the people. For all the tribes, with the Gentiles also, have come together on account of the Passover." That he was afterwards pushed off was only because of what James said and was not the reason they had placed him on the pinnacle.
And when many were fully convinced and gloried in the testimony of James, 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.'
So alright, maybe, maybe, but I'm not yet convinced.
Tell me all that you know and I'll show you snow and rain.

John2
Posts: 2311
Joined: Fri May 16, 2014 4:42 pm

Re: Papias and the disciples of the Lord.

Post by John2 » Thu May 17, 2018 1:07 pm

Regarding Bauckham's suggestion that James entering the "holy place" is based (partly) on the description of the sons of Zadok in Ezek. 44 (and bearing in mind that the subject in Hegesippus is priests who aren't really priests, i.e, Nazirites and Rechabites), it reminds me that the Damascus Document (in which I see numerous other parallels with Christianity) actually cites part of Ezek. 44 and interprets the sons of Zadok as priests who aren't really priests by changing Ezekiel's one thing ("the priests, the Levites, the sons of Zadok") into three things ("the priests and the Levites and the sons of Zadok").

CD col. 3-4:
"The priests and the Levites and the sons of Zadok, who kept the service of the Temple, when the sons of Israel strayed from me, will offer me the fat and blood" (Ezek. 44:15]. The priests are the penitents of Israel, who went out from the land of Judah and the joiners [nilvim, playing on Ezekiel's "Levites" and who are arguably Gentiles] with them. And the sons of Zadok are the Elect of Israel, called by name, who will stand up in the Last Days.
Cf, James in EH 2.23.6, 17 , 11 and 18:
[He] 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.
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.'

Stand therefore upon the pinnacle of the temple, that from that high position you may be clearly seen, and that your words may be readily heard by all the people. For all the tribes, with the Gentiles also, have come together on account of the Passover.'
He became a true witness, both to Jews and Greeks, that Jesus is the Christ.
So, if Hegesippus is alluding to Ezekiel 44, I think it would be in keeping with all the other parallels I see between the DSS and Christianity.

As Cohen notes regarding the meaning of nilvim:
Isaiah 14:1 ... prophesizes that "strangers (hager) shall join (venilvah) them and shall cleave to the House of Jacob" ... these passages address the eschatological age, when the earth is filled with knowledge of the Lord, and a new cosmic order is being created ... The first and only passage in the Tanakh that would seem to refer clearly to the social integration of the gentile in the historical present is Esther 9:27: "The Judeans undertook and irrevocably obligated themselves and their descendants, and all who might join them, to observe these two days in the manner prescribed and at the proper time each year." Here we have Judeans (yehudim), and gentiles who attach themselves (nilvim aleihem) to them; all alike constitute the community of those bound by the law of the Purim festival.

https://books.google.com/books?id=cvWq4 ... en&f=false
Last edited by John2 on Thu May 17, 2018 1:14 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Tell me all that you know and I'll show you snow and rain.

User avatar
Ben C. Smith
Posts: 5732
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 1:14 pm

John2 wrote:
Thu May 17, 2018 11:45 am
So I'm at least comfortable with the idea (which Bauckham endorses but still thinks is improbable then) that Hegesippus means that James entered the "holy place" where the priests served and not the Holy of Holies. And maybe this is "wacky" too (if somewhat less so), but I'm trying (unsuccessfully so far) to get out of the realm of opinion and find some corroborating evidence that Nazirites were forbidden to enter the "holy place" (meaning not the Holy of Holies).
By law, everybody was forbidden to enter the "holy place" except for priests of the tribe of Levi. This was true of the tabernacle:

Numbers 1.47-54: 47 The Levites, however, were not numbered among them by their fathers' tribe. 48 For the Lord had spoken to Moses, saying, 49 "Only the tribe of Levi you shall not number, nor shall you take their census among the sons of Israel. 50 But you shall appoint the Levites over the tabernacle of the testimony, and over all its furnishings and over all that belongs to it. They shall carry the tabernacle and all its furnishings, and they shall take care of it; they shall also camp around the tabernacle. 51 So when the tabernacle is to set out, the Levites shall take it down; and when the tabernacle encamps, the Levites shall set it up. But the layman/stranger who comes near shall be put to death. 52 The sons of Israel shall camp, each man by his own camp, and each man by his own standard, according to their armies. 53 But the Levites shall camp around the tabernacle of the testimony, so that there will be no wrath on the congregation of the sons of Israel. So the Levites shall keep charge of the tabernacle of the testimony." 54 Thus the sons of Israel did; according to all which the Lord had commanded Moses, so they did.

It was true of the temple:

2 Chronicles 23.3: 3 Then all the assembly made a covenant with the king in the house of God. And Jehoiada said to them, "Behold, the king's son shall reign, as the Lord has spoken concerning the sons of David. 4 This is the thing which you shall do: one third of you, of the priests and Levites who come in on the sabbath, shall be gatekeepers, 5 and one third shall be at the king's house, and a third at the Gate of the Foundation; and all the people shall be in the courts of the house of the Lord. 6 But let no one enter the house of the Lord except the priests and the ministering Levites; they may enter, for they are holy. And let all the people keep the charge of the Lord."

Josephus agrees with it:

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."

Shaye Cohen summarizes:

Shaye Cohen, Temple Culture: In the Temple itself, we have priests, all descending from Aaron, the High Priest, back in time, brother of Moses - the tribe of priests who officiated at the altar. They slaughtered animals, they took the animal carcasses on the altar, roasted the animals, spattered the blood on the corners of the altar, dispensed the meat, and the bones and the blood and so on, and performed other similar tasks inside the Temple. Only the priests were actually able to penetrate the innermost areas of the Temple. Even full blooded religious pious Jews could only go near, just get to the outskirts of the Temple. Further back, even gentiles could attend....

Given that only descendants of Levi could be priests, and that only priests were allowed into the temple proper (the "holy place"), these legalities forbid nonpriests from entering, do they not? What you need is not evidence that Nazirites (provided they were not descended from Levi) were forbidden; we have that; just do the math. What you need is evidence that Nazirites, against everything stated above, were somehow allowed.
ΤΙ ΕΣΤΙΝ ΑΛΕΘΕΙΑ

John2
Posts: 2311
Joined: Fri May 16, 2014 4:42 pm

Re: Papias and the disciples of the Lord.

Post by John2 » Thu May 17, 2018 1:16 pm

Ben wrote:
Given that only descendants of Levi could be priests, and that only priests were allowed into the temple proper (the "holy place"), these legalities forbid nonpriests from entering, do they not? What you need is not evidence that Nazirites (provided they were not descended from Levi) were forbidden; we have that; just do the math. What you need is evidence that Nazirites were allowed.
Awesome. Thanks for all that. I will look into it.
Tell me all that you know and I'll show you snow and rain.

Post Reply