Yes, I agree with all that. I think the destruction of Jerusalem shook up all the different Christian (as well as Jewish) communities. The Ebionites were the result of what happened to the first Jewish Christians after that event, and I agree we can't assume their later beliefs were a direct continuation of the earlier Jewish Christians.Ken Olson wrote: ↑Thu Feb 01, 2024 2:05 pmI think that's plausible and hold a similar theory myself. I think the Jerusalem Church Paul visited in Galatians was very different from Pauline Christianity and there may indeed be institutional continuity between the law-observant Jerusalem church and the later law observant (Jewish Ebionites). I would hesitate to simply equate the Jerusalem church with the later Ebioites because the mentions we have of the Ebionites are later and they almost certainly underwent some changes over time, particularly after the destruction of Jerusalem. I think, for example, that the so-called Ebionite gospel did not exist at the time Paul visited Jerusalem and may be post-70 and maybe a reaction to other gospels in circulation.GakuseiDon wrote: ↑Thu Feb 01, 2024 1:05 pmMy interest in James is because I believe he was part of the "original" Christians, which IMHO later became the Ebionites. The Ebionites apparently revered James, and I think it is safe to assume they had their own traditions about him. Origen was aware of the Ebionites. I don't think it is unreasonable to assume Origen knew something about those traditions about James, as did Hegesippus.
That's fine, but for the topic of our discussion I don't think we should confuse what Hegesippus wrote and what really happened.Ken Olson wrote: ↑Thu Feb 01, 2024 2:05 pmYes, Hegesippus is writing pious fiction. I cannot rule out the possibility that he had an earlier source for his pious fiction (i.e., there is a greater than zero chance that someone else originated it), but he is writing pious fiction. Two pieces of evidence for this:GakuseiDon wrote: ↑Thu Feb 01, 2024 1:05 pmSo Hegesippus is writing pious fiction when he wrote that James "has been universally called the Just, from the days of the Lord down to the present time"?
<snipped>
According to Hegesippus, James has taken over the role of High Priest of the Jerusalem temple, so either he was the High Priest (and we have pretty good records of the succession of High Priests in Josephus) or the Jews just decided that James was so righteous (and we have no evidence of this apart from Hegesippus) they would just set aside the Torah and let James go into the sanctuary to pray for them. The more reasonable conclusion would be that this is pious fiction.
I think it's fair to say that at some point before Origen there was a claim that James the Just was regarded as righteous by both Jews and Christians. If you like, let's say it originated with Hegesippus. (I don't think so personally; there was about 100 years after the destruction of Jerusalem for legendary claims to evolve around James before they reached Hegesippus). Origen then accepted Hegesippus' claims and viewed Josephus' work through that lens.
This is what Josephus wrote in Antiquities Book XX Chapter 9.1:
Here we see Jewish people protesting about Ananus' treatment of James. If Origen had Hegesippus' story in mind when he read Josephus, I'd argue that he imported the view from Hegesippus that the "most equitable of the citizens" objected to Ananus' actions and disliked what was done because they recognised James' righteousness.
No worries and no hurrys.