The Legend of James the Just and His Martyrdom

[Peter Kirby]

Ascents of James is most consistent with being influenced by a story of the death of James by smiting (Recognitions 1.70.8):

Then, in the great flight that ensued, some fell upon others and others were smitten. There were not a few who died so that much blood poured forth from those who had been killed. Now the enemy threw James from the top of the stairs. Since he fell and was as if dead, he did not smite him a second time.

This tends to support the idea in the diagram that the story was influenced by a legend of James being killed by smiting blows.

The smiting also helps prove that Paul was a paladin.

[John2]

Hegesippus: this source combines pre-existing stories, including a story about the death of James involving the fuller's club and a different story of stoning from the Second Apocalypse of James.

I think these stories go together, given that servants of priests are said to have beaten people with clubs during James' time (including those of the priestly family that killed James).

The power of these households stemmed from the fact that the fathers were High Priests, and their sons were the Temple treasurers, and their sons-in-law were Temple overseers. And their servants strike the people with clubs, and otherwise act inappropriately.


https://www.sefaria.org/Pesachim.57a.9?lang=bi

Cf. Hegesippus:

And while they were thus stoning him ... one of them, who was a fuller, took the club with which he beat out clothes and struck the just man on the head.

The difference between the attack on James in the Recognitions and his stoning in the Second Apocalypse is that James doesn't die in the former, since it goes to say (1.70-71):

But our friends lifted him [James] up, for they were both more numerous and more powerful than the others ... and we returned to the house of James.

So for me this beating is a separate event in James' life unique to the Recognitions (is James' death even mentioned in the Clementine writings? I don't recall offhand and maybe I've missed something in this thread). James' stoning and beating in Hegesippus seems like a complete story to me, given that Ananus' servants routinely beat people with clubs during this time. James didn't die from his fall from the pinnacle of the Temple (as sometimes happened according to San. 45a), so he was stoned (as per Sa, 45a) and a priestly servant finished him off with a club (as per Pes. 57a).


And for all we know (as far as I can tell, to judge from the following translation), the Second Apocalypse of James could have mentioned the clubbing part too, since the text appears to break off at that point.

And he stretched out his hands and said this prayer [which I will spare you] ... After he spoke, he fell silent [...] word [...] afterward [...] the discourse [...]."


http://gnosis.org/naghamm/2ja.html

Cf. Hegesippus:

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.'

And one of them, who was a fuller, took the club with which he beat out clothes and struck the just man on the head.

So I don't think the beating of James in the Recognitions relates to the other accounts of the stoning and clubbing of James. I see it as an account about the time that Paul says he had "persecuted the church of God and tried to destroy it" (Gal. 1:13), since the "enemy" mentioned there is commonly thought t be Paul, and that would fit the anti-Paul message that Ebionites espoused (since the Clementines are thought to have Ebionite sources).

I may be misunderstanding everything in this thread, but this is my attempt to understand what you are suggesting.

[Ken Olson]

Ascents of James is most consistent with being influenced by a story of the death of James by smiting (Recognitions 1.70.8):

Then, in the great flight that ensued, some fell upon others and others were smitten. There were not a few who died so that much blood poured forth from those who had been killed. Now the enemy threw James from the top of the stairs. Since he fell and was as if dead, he did not smite him a second time.

This tends to support the idea in the diagram that the story was influenced by a legend of James being killed by smiting blows.

The smiting also helps prove that Paul was a paladin.

2 Cor 10.10 For someone says,“His letters are weighty and strong, but his bodily presence is weak and his speech contemptible.”

He lacks the requisite characteristics.

[Peter Kirby]

So for me this beating is a separate event in James' life unique to the Recognitions (is James' death even mentioned in the Clementine writings? I don't recall offhand and maybe I've missed something in this thread). James' stoning and beating in Hegesippus seems like a complete story to me, given that Ananus' servants routinely beat people with clubs during this time. James didn't die from his fall from the pinnacle of the Temple (as sometimes happened according to San. 45a), so he was stoned (as per Sa, 45a) and a priestly servant finished him off with a club (as per Pes. 57a).

Are you referring to this ("as per Pes. 57a")?

With regard to the prominent priests and those like them, Abba Shaul ben Batnit said in the name of Abba Yosef ben Ḥanin: Woe is me due to the High Priests of the house of Baitos, woe is me due to their clubs. Woe is me due to the High Priests of the house of Ḥanin; woe is me due to their whispers and the rumors they spread. Woe is me due to the High Priests of the house of Katros; woe is me due to their pens that they use to write lies. Woe is me due to the servants of the High Priests of the house of Yishmael ben Piakhi; woe is me due to their fists. The power of these households stemmed from the fact that the fathers were High Priests, and their sons were the Temple treasurers, and their sons-in-law were Temple overseers [amarkalin]. And their servants strike the people with clubs, and otherwise act inappropriately.

Why are you referring to this?

You're combining other material with a description (outside of the context of a stoning) of people being hit with clubs as an inappropriate action, where it is not even described as a fatal action.

[John2]

So for me this beating is a separate event in James' life unique to the Recognitions (is James' death even mentioned in the Clementine writings? I don't recall offhand and maybe I've missed something in this thread). James' stoning and beating in Hegesippus seems like a complete story to me, given that Ananus' servants routinely beat people with clubs during this time. James didn't die from his fall from the pinnacle of the Temple (as sometimes happened according to San. 45a), so he was stoned (as per Sa, 45a) and a priestly servant finished him off with a club (as per Pes. 57a).

Are you referring to this ("as per Pes. 57a")?

With regard to the prominent priests and those like them, Abba Shaul ben Batnit said in the name of Abba Yosef ben Ḥanin: Woe is me due to the High Priests of the house of Baitos, woe is me due to their clubs. Woe is me due to the High Priests of the house of Ḥanin; woe is me due to their whispers and the rumors they spread. Woe is me due to the High Priests of the house of Katros; woe is me due to their pens that they use to write lies. Woe is me due to the servants of the High Priests of the house of Yishmael ben Piakhi; woe is me due to their fists. The power of these households stemmed from the fact that the fathers were High Priests, and their sons were the Temple treasurers, and their sons-in-law were Temple overseers [amarkalin]. And their servants strike the people with clubs, and otherwise act inappropriately.

Why are you referring to this?

Because James getting hit with a club fits the context of his time, since Ananus belonged to "the house of Hanin" and his servants went around beating people with clubs. It's not something that Hegesippus would need to make up or combine with another story about James.

[Peter Kirby]

So for me this beating is a separate event in James' life unique to the Recognitions

I may be misunderstanding everything in this thread, but this is my attempt to understand what you are suggesting.

I had not considered that anyone would be attempting to defend the historicity of the details in any of these stories.

I did not bother to try to argue against their historicity.

[Peter Kirby]

It's not something that Hegesippus would need to make up or combine with another story about James.

And I'm not sure I'm interested in arguing about whether Hegesippus wasn't making stuff up.

[Peter Kirby]

Wolf-Peter Funk provides this after the prayer of James in the Second Apocalypse of James in The Nag Hammadi Scriptures:

When he finished speaking, [he] fell silent. After this his word [was written down. This is] the account . . .

[DCHindley]

These links are probably out of date (harvested in 2007), but with regard to the sources that may lie behind all those variegated means of death that James was supposed to have suffered, hereare some sources I located then:

12/22/07 http://bcharchive.org/2/thearchives/sho ... a1c-2.html
Jona Lendering, who contributed an article on Josephus to Livius.org … does cite a couple of sources to illuminate the possibility that the account reflects actual practices:

He cites the "third or fourth century" "Tannaite tradition" preserved in the Talmud at "Keth. 30a" (by way of "Strack-Billerbeck ii 197") to the effect: "... whosoever is guilty of being stoned either falls from the roof or a wild beast tramples him to death ..." which includes other examples of those convicted of death, when there was no power to enforce the decision, accidentally (on purpose) getting killed.

[Bab. Kethuboth 30a-b http://www.come-and-hear.com/kethuboth/ ... th_30.html

[a.] Did not R. Joseph say, and R. Hiyya teach: Since the day of the destruction of the Temple, although the Sanhedrin ceased, the four forms of capital punishment have not ceased? 'They have not ceased,' [you say]? Surely they have ceased! But [say] [b.] the judgment of the four forms of capital punishment has not ceased. He who would have been sentenced to stoning, either falls down from the roof or a wild beast treads him down. He who would have been sentenced to burning, either falls into a fire or a serpent bites him. He who would have been sentenced to decapitation, is either delivered to the government or robbers come upon him. He who would have been sentenced to strangulation, is either drowned in the river or dies from suffocation.

See also Bab. Sotah 8b http://www.come-and-hear.com/sotah/sotah_8.html

MISHNAH. IN THE MEASURE with which a man measures it is meted out to him. She adorned herself for a transgression; the holy one, blessed be he, made her repulsive. She exposed herself for a transgression; the holy one, blessed be he, held her up for exposure. She began the transgression with the thigh and afterwards with the womb; therefore she is punished first in the thigh and afterwards in the womb, nor does all the body escape.

GEMARA. R. Joseph said: Although the measure has ceased, [the principle] IN THE MEASURE has not ceased. For R. Joseph said, and similarly taught R. Hiyya: From the day the Temple was destroyed, although the Sanhedrin ceased to function, the four modes of execution did not cease. But they did cease! — [The meaning is:] The judgment of the four modes of execution did not cease. He who would have been condemned to stoning either falls from a roof [and dies] or a wild beast tramples him [to death]. He who would have been condemned to burning either falls into a fire or a serpent stings him. He who would have been condemned to decapitation is either handed over to the [Gentile] Government or robbers attack him. He who would have been condemned to strangulation either drowns in a river or dies of a quinsy [from Gk kunankhē = dog collar that controls by strangling, latter meaning c 1300 tonsillitis with abscesses].

Then he cites "Tosephta Kelim, i. 1. 6; Bab. kam., 1 (middle)" to the effect: "...according to an affirmation on oath of R. 'Eli'ezer, the first pupil of R. Johanan b. Zakkai and therefore an inhabitant of Jerusalem contemporary with James the Just, 'even a high priest' who on entering the sanctuary is guilty of any breach of the purity laws of the precincts must have 'his skull split with a wooden club.' The barbarous punishment here threatened, like the 'fall from the roof' of the man condemned to be stoned, at once recalls the fate of the 'high priest' James, who was beaten to death with a wooden club by a man whom the Christians regarded as a 'fuller' accidentally on the spot."

[R. Jacob Neusner, The Tosefta: Translated from the Hebrew, Hendrickson: 2002 (KTAV 6 v., 1977-86), vol 2, pg 1576, Sixth Division, Tohorot (Order of Purities), Kelim Baba Qamma 1:6 H.

"He [R. Eliezer, the first pupil of R Johanan b. Zakkai and therefore an inhabitant of Jerusalem contemporary with James the Just] said to him [R. Simon the Modest] 'By the [sacred] service! Even the high priest [who without washing his hands and feet enters the area between the porch and the alter] - they break his head with clubs.'"]

At the time, I suggested that these lent some credibility to Hegesippus' story, in that rabbinic sources corroborated it, but in hindsight it may also indicate that the story was assembled from bits and pieces of rabbinic sources or scuttlebutt. In other words, these details added "verisimilitude," and were more or less "fill." Where he got this kind of information, I don't know. I have at one time stated that I felt that all of these things happening to James the Just simultaneously was overkill by Hegessippus.

It is often assumed he had at least some Aramaic language skills (reading it), but since his explanation for "Oblias" seems to be wrong I question that.

The Hebrew word that Eusebius claims Hegesippus paraphrased as "Oblias" (ὠβλίας), would appear to be the Hebrew verb " יָבַל " (yabal) to bring, carry, lead, conduct. Yet Eusebius said the transliterated word "Oblias" conveyed the meaning "περιοχὴ" (periokhE), a containing, enclosing. The actual Hebrew word for an idea of a defensive edifice would be something like " מְצוּרָה " (mesura) stronghold.

DCH

[DCHindley]

Going back to Hegesippus' Hebrew or Aramaic skills, the Hebrew word that Eusebius claims Hegesippus paraphrased as "Oblias" (ὠβλίας), would appear to be the Hebrew verb " יָבַל " (yabal) to bring, carry, lead, conduct. The Greek word I'd expect would be ὁδηγήσει (hodegesei). Yet Eusebius said the transliterated word "Oblias" conveyed the meaning "περιοχὴ" (periokhE), a containing, enclosing. The actual Hebrew word for an idea of a defensive edifice would be something like " מְצוּרָה " (mesura) stronghold.

This does not make any sense at first. I have read many an attempt to explain what Hegesippus meant by "Oblias," and if one were to ask me, they all have problems.
Matti Myllykosk, ‘James the Just in History and Tradition' Pt 1, (Currents in Biblical Research 2006, 5.1, 73-122)
http://cbi.sagepub.com/cgi/content/abstract/5/1/73
Matti Myllykosk, ‘James the Just in History and Tradition' Pt 2 (Currents in Biblical Research, 2007, 6.1.11-98)
http://cbi.sagepub.com/content/6/1/11

So, I get this unthinkable thought, "what if this was refrencing a passage from Hebrew holy writings that contained both words, and Hegesippus (or Eusebius) confused these words?"

Here is what Eusebius quotes or paraphrases Hegesippus as saying:

History of the Church 2.23.7:

7) Because of his exceeding great justice	7) διά γέ τοι τὴν ὑπερβολὴν τῆς δικαιοσύνης αὐτοῦ
he was called the just,	ἐκαλεῖτο ὁ δίκαιος
and oblias,	καὶ ὠβλίας,
which in Greek signifies a bulwark of the people,	ὅ ἐστιν Ἑλληνιστὶ περιοχὴ τοῦ λαοῦ,
and justice,	καὶ δικαιοσύνη,
in accordance with what the prophets declare concerning him. (From “and oblias” to end, an allusion to Isaiah 3:10?)	ὡς οἱ προφῆται δηλοῦσιν περὶ αὐτοῦ. (From “and oblias” to end, an allusion Isaiah 3:10 Lxx?)

Figuring I better start with Greek LXX/OG, I looked up use of περιοχὴ alone but was not getting anywhere in other places in Eusebius (at least the works covered by the Perseus.org databases) or Josephus, so I also searched that word in BibleWorks 8 LXX (Rahlfs). As I started to step through the list of 25 hits, I got to LXX Psalm 59:11 (60:09 in RSV and Hebrew WTT = LXX Psalm 107:11/108:10 in RSV/108:11 WTT), and found something that I consider interesting.

LXX Psalm 59:11	Brenton Psalm 60:9	WTT Psalm 60:11 (transliterated)	RSV Psalm 60:9
τίς ἀπάξει με	Who will lead me	mi yobileni	Who will bring me
εἰς πόλιν περιοχῆς	into the fortified city?	`ir masor	to the fortified city?
τίς ὁδηγήσει με	who will guide me	mi nahani	Who will lead me
ἕως τῆς Ιδουμαίας	as far as Idumea?	`ad-´edom	to Edom?

There is was, in the Hebrew, yobileni & masor together in the same verse. I quickly stepped through the other search hits to see if there were others, and only returned the duplicate psalm in WTT 108.11. This might be the solution for how Hegesippus came up with "Oblias:" He had a source in Hebrew which cited Psalm 108:11 but could not read the Hebrew. He took a stab at it, using what little Aramaic he had picked up (but was primarily fluent in Greek), and he selected the wrong word, "yobileni" instead of "masor."

But how would this have anything to do with Hegesippus' account of the death of James the Just? What exactly did he think he had in front of him? What did he actually have in front of him? I am more inclined to think he had some document about someone named Jakob that had quoted this Psalm, upon which he used to construct his account of the death of James the Just, than that he himself spun the James death account off of this Psalm on his own. The document was apparently bilingual (Hebrew or Aramaic with Greek), unless his Hebrew/Aramaic was better than I gave him credit for.

While I think I have identified a candidate for the subject of this document Hegesippus used, and have posted my findings elsewhere on this and other boards, I'll summarize for good or ill. You see, I think Hegesippus was a mere storyteller. He kept notebooks as he traveled on his patron's business in Asia Minor, Syria & Rome, and liked to discuss early Christian traditions with the local bishops & presbyters he met wherever he went. Later in life, he would have "put these in order" (as writers did then) and published them for the edification of the saints. He may have accumulated a large collection of such notes, and perhaps curios he obtained from booksellers he encountered as he passed through. He, at least, thought they were relevant to James the Just of Christian tradition. He may have just been mistaken, or he was only interested in telling a good story. At least he didn't add any cheesy characters like "Scar" in Mystery of Mar Saba.

What I ultimately concluded he actually had in front of him was a trial transcript of the trial of a Jakob all right, but not Jakob the Just of Christian tradition supposedly tried in early 60s CE of Ant 20:200 as if it actually referred to him. It may have been on a public billboard in a market when the Romans took control. Soldiers taking souvenirs, shocking ... then they end up in the bookseller's shops, the kind that sell anything to make a few obols. I'm sure Hegesippus thought he had James the Just's actual transcript, from the trial mentioned in Ant 20:200, as there was a Jesus, a Jacob, and Ananus of course. "What else could it be?" he asks rhetorically, apparently unaware of War 4 & War 6 where the Idumean story was given.

This fellow tried in the document was apparently Jakob an Idumean commander in charge of several troops of Idumean soldiers that was formerly serving Simon bar Giora. He had tried to negotiate surrender on terms with the Romans, at least one of his messengers were intercepted by Simon's other troops, and he and his co-commanders were all arrested for treason by Simon in 70 CE, just before Jerusalem fell to the Romans. He disappears from the record after his arrest, but I have to assume that there had been a trial, where Jacob had to "confess" his sins before execution.

Before Simon was even in Jerusalem in the final year or so, Jacob and four other Idumean commanders had responded to an invitation to participate in the revolt by a representative of the the rebel faction who had made the arduous trek to Idumea's main town to deliver the invitation.

The key factors were speeches given from the city wall by HP Ananus and his 2nd in command, a certain chief priest named Jesus. Ananus had ordered the gates closed to the Idumeans, and announced over the wall that "You are not welcome unless you check your weapons at the gate." They took offense.

When they didn't get the message, then Jesus the 2nd in command stood at the top of the wall and belittled the Idumeans below as second class Judeans and not worthy to participate, being nothing more than an unruly mob. As the Idumeans seethed in anger, there was a fierce rainstorm and the Idumeans were soaked to the bone, and almost left, before some sappers from the rebel ranks overcame Ananus' guards and opened the gate.

The enraged Idumeans poured in and sought out Ananus and Jesus, and summarily killed them for their contemptuous speeches against them. Their dead bodies were thrown off the wall into the valley below, and people were forbidden to try to retrieve their bodies for burial.

Only later did he and his fellow Idumean commanders transfer loyalty to the last leader of the rebels in the holy city, Simon bar Giora, where they served as Simon's armed enforcers and troops that fought his rivals for full control of the city.

Simon, from what I hear,* fancied himself a "son of man." In the trial, he would be mocked ""Ha! Maybe Jesus the second ranking HP was right about you and your kind after all!" and was likely compelled to say "I see the son of man (Simon) coming on the clouds of glory (as God's chosen king, followed by god's angels)" (maybe to save his spouse/children/unit-commanders).

I have compared this to one E.T. of a formally published transcript of one of the most notable show trials ever, that of Bakunin (drafter of the Soviet constitution) before the Judges appointed by Joseph Stalin. He was made to say "Yeah, I'm a stinker, Joe was right, I fully expect to be executed for my haughtiness in opposing him. I wish Mr. Stalin the best." He really said stuff like this!

DCH

*(Riegel, John I & John H Jordan) Simon Son of Man (1917). More than slightly kooky, but interesting. I have looked at the Aramaic** they give to show how "Giora" was not his real name (perhaps Josephus' attempt to smear his name), but a pun on the terms he used of himself, "son of man" (as in average human being) who just happened to be chosen by God to effect a new world order. Simon was a humble megalomaniac, but so was Stalin. R & J proposed that the Jesus story of the Gospels was told with some details borrowed from Simon bar Giora's career, projected back in time. Uh oh, another time shift scenario! <aarrgghh!>

**viewtopic.php?p=42686#p42686