Apostle Rehab: could James or Peter write a line? (of Greek)

[Ben C. Smith]

Ben wrote:

But my estimation of the accuracy of people writing in the second century about things that happened in the first is not extremely high, unless some sort of chain can be established. If we could surmise that Hegesippus found this information in the gospel of the Hebrews, for example, and then could date that gospel reasonably well, then we might have something of a chain extending back. Do we have something like this for what James said about the door and the judge? Or does the buck stop with Hegesippus?

My understanding is that all Christian writings are unattested until the second century CE and Hegesippus should be treated like any other writer from that time period (for good or bad).

I have already (at least provisionally) made this stipulation....

What sets him apart in my view though is that we do have a chain. As Eusebius puts it:

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.

This is a chain. Is it a chain which you can demonstrate carried the actual datum about Jesus being the judge or having a door? (Just because I have sources does not mean that every single thing I write comes from one of them. Nor does it mean that I always choose the best of them, or the ones which connect the furthest back in historical time.)

When was the gospel of the Hebrews written? I don't know, but Hegesippus does not appear to me to know (and is not said by Eusebius to have known) any of the NT gospels or Paul and does appear to know the Letter of James, and it's interesting that he knows stories (perhaps via the "unwritten tradition of the Jews") about the grandsons of Jude (who is called the brother of James in the NT letter of that name) who are said to have lived up to the time of Trajan, which is around the time that Hegesippus was born or even within his lifetime.

Precisely because he is closer to being a contemporary with the grandsons of Jude, I would be more likely to take his account of them as reflecting history in some way. (Relative term there: more likely.) But Hegesippus knowing about them and Hegesippus knowing about their great-uncle are two different things, are they not?

I would say the buck stops with the Letter of James (and Paul), but I think Hegesippus is a good resource for understanding what the Letter of James means.

The letter of James does not give us James' last words. And I am not sure what would make Hegesippus a good interpreter of it even if it did.

[John2]

Ben,

I was agreeing with your stipulation and should have made that clearer. And I appreciate all your concerns. There are just some things we can't know and I'm making guesses based on what we have. But the grandsons of Jude do seem like a pretty good link in the chain, and they are said to have "ruled the churches because they were witnesses and were also relatives of the Lord" from the time of Domitian to Trajan (and Josephus was still alive during the time of Domitian).

[John2]

I've been thinking about the account of the grandsons of Jude in Hegesippus and noticed that they are said to have been farmers.

Then he [Domitian] asked them how much property they had, or how much money they owned. And both of them answered that they had only nine thousand denarii, half of which belonged to each of them; and this property did not consist of silver, but of a piece of land which contained only thirty-nine acres, and from which they raised their taxes and supported themselves by their own labor. Then they showed their hands, exhibiting the hardness of their bodies and the callousness produced upon their hands by continuous toil as evidence of their own labor.

Immediately after this they are asked about Jesus and they mention that he is coming at the End of Days to judge the world.

And when they were asked concerning Christ and his kingdom, of what sort it was and where and when it was to appear, they answered that it was not a temporal nor an earthly kingdom, but a heavenly and angelic one, which would appear at the end of the world, when he should come in glory to judge the quick and the dead, and to give unto every one according to his works.

This seems similar to the situation in James 5, which begins with a condemnation of the rich and refers to farm workers.

James 5:4:

Look! The wages you failed to pay the workers who mowed your fields are crying out against you. The cries of the harvesters have reached the ears of the Lord Almighty.

This is followed by the reference to the coming of the Lord and another reference to farming.

James 5:7-9:

Be patient, then, brothers and sisters, until the Lord’s coming. See how the farmer waits for the land to yield its valuable crop, patiently waiting for the autumn and spring rains. You too, be patient and stand firm, because the Lord’s coming is near. Don’t grumble against one another, brothers and sisters, or you will be judged. The Judge is standing at the door!

Then this is followed by the reference to Elijah (which has arguable messianic significance) and yet another reference to farming.

James 5:17-18:

Elijah was a human being, even as we are. He prayed earnestly that it would not rain, and it did not rain on the land for three and a half years. Again he prayed, and the heavens gave rain, and the earth produced its crops.

So the account of the grandsons of Jude in Hegesippus is in keeping with the concern for farm workers in the Letter of James, and in both cases they include references to the coming of "the Lord" and/or Jesus at the End of Days to judge the world.

[Peter Kirby]

the fact remains that Paul nowhere actually states that James said or knew anything about Jesus Christ except in passages that are suspect on other grounds (1 Corinthians 15.7; Galatians 1.17 is not explicit but may be implicit, but this verse was probably lacking in Marcion).

Galatians 2:9 ... James and Cephas and John, who seemed to be pillars ...

Galatians 2:12 For before certain men came from James, he was eating with the Gentiles; but when they came he drew back and separated himself, fearing the circumcision party.

We don't get exactly the "statement" that we'd want to contradict this idea, but this looks like enough to say that James was "in," as was Cephas.

[spin]

the fact remains that Paul nowhere actually states that James said or knew anything about Jesus Christ except in passages that are suspect on other grounds (1 Corinthians 15.7; Galatians 1.17 is not explicit but may be implicit, but this verse was probably lacking in Marcion).

Galatians 2:9 ... James and Cephas and John, who seemed to be pillars ...

Galatians 2:12 For before certain men came from James, he was eating with the Gentiles; but when they came he drew back and separated himself, fearing the circumcision party.

We don't get exactly the "statement" that we'd want to contradict this idea, but this looks like enough to say that James was "in," as was Cephas.

In another thread I pointed to the fact that Paul gives a dichotomy between following Christ and following the law/circumcision. James reflects the circumcision that caused Cephas to toe the line. While the position of Cephas is ambivalent James is outside the pale. If justification were through the law then Christ died for nothing (Gal 2:21). You can't both submit to the law and to Christ. In Paul's cult circumcision and uncircumcision have no meaning, but not so to the circumcision, of which James seems to be a significant figure. James appears to me not a follower of Jesus.

[Peter Kirby]

In another thread I pointed to the fact that Paul gives a dichotomy between following Christ and following the law/circumcision.

A polemic effective in a context where value is placed on following Christ.

The opponents agreed in principle regarding the idea of following Christ, which is what made the rhetoric effective.

[spin]

In another thread I pointed to the fact that Paul gives a dichotomy between following Christ and following the law/circumcision.

A polemic effective in a context where value is placed on following Christ.

The opponents agreed in principle regarding the idea of following Christ, which is what made the rhetoric effective.

I don't think this last claim is supported by Paul's text. You can't follow both the law and Jesus. Being messianists doesn't mean following Jesus, just accepting that there will be (and has been, according to Paul) a Christ. The one gospel, the one Paul preaches, requires not obedience to the law, but faith in Jesus. Nothing at all suggests the James and his supporters had faith in Jesus. In fact, judging by the circumcision's adherence to table fellowship over Cephas in Antioch, this James shows no awareness of Jesus's attitude to table fellowship as evinced in the gospels with his eating with the ritually unclean.

[Peter Kirby]

Nothing at all suggests the James and his supporters had faith in Jesus.

There's only a couple references to James in Paul's letters, and those references aren't intended to give an account of his beliefs.

On the other hand, those references show that James, like Cephas and John, was an important figure who was shaping the movement ("James and Cephas and John, who seemed to be pillars").

Being messianists doesn't mean following Jesus, just accepting that there will be (and has been, according to Paul) a Christ.

Correct. These "apostles," however, got their claim to fame by claiming to have seen "Jesus" (1 Cor 9:1).

Am I not free? Am I not an apostle? Have I not seen Jesus our Lord?

Paul is in competition for shaping the views of this movement with "the other apostles and the brothers of the Lord and Cephas."

Paul is pitted against those who would follow the law and restrict the movement to the circumcision, but those who follow only the law and the circumcision would have no claim to authority over the people Paul is evangelizing unless they also had some kind of claim to speak about the gospel regarding "Jesus." If not, they don't have authority.

[Peter Kirby]

This idea also obviously relies on the shaky assumption that 1 Cor 15:7 (and surrounding) is interpolated.

Then he appeared to James, then to all the apostles

[Peter Kirby]

Jesus's attitude to table fellowship as evinced in the gospels with his eating with the ritually unclean.

I'm not sure what the gospel story has to do with anything. We're not supposing this was actually "Jesus's attitude" or something, are we?