Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Re: [XTalk] New Letter from Bob Eisenman for posting

Expand Messages
  • Jack Kilmon
    ... From: John Lupia To: Sent: Sunday, November 03, 2002 12:52 PM Subject: [XTalk] New Letter from Bob
    Message 1 of 18 , Nov 3, 2002
    • 0 Attachment
      ----- Original Message -----
      From: "John Lupia" <jlupia2@...>
      To: <crosstalk2@yahoogroups.com>
      Sent: Sunday, November 03, 2002 12:52 PM
      Subject: [XTalk] New Letter from Bob Eisenman for posting



      > importance of James. I have written a 1000 page book
      > on this. Let me just repeat: people may have spoken
      > about James from the 3-4th c. on like this but not in
      > the lst century. That's all I was saying. I know
      > that the best proof of the historicity of Jesus is the
      > fact that he had a brother called James! Thanks very
      > much for giving me the opportunity to respond to your


      I am having a hard time understanding the claim that James was not known as
      the brother of Jesus prior to the 3/4th centuries. The earliest account
      outside of Josephus xx is Paul in Galatians 1:19. I also don't understand
      the confusion between Ya'akov bar Halfy (James, the son of Alphaeus/Clopas.
      "the lesser") with Ya'akov bar Yosef. The two were cousins...perhaps named
      after their mutual grandfather recorded by Matthew.

      Jack
    • LARRY SWAIN
      ... I meant some time today to ask several questions of Dr. Eisenman s post, including this one. It didn t happen, perhaps tomorrow. In the interim, allow me
      Message 2 of 18 , Nov 3, 2002
      • 0 Attachment
        --- Jack Kilmon <jkilmon@...> wrote:

        I meant some time today to ask several questions of
        Dr. Eisenman's post, including this one. It didn't
        happen, perhaps tomorrow.

        In the interim, allow me to offer that I think that
        what he is objecting to is that James is known as
        either "brother of the Lord" OR following Josephus as
        "James the Righteous"; not as James, the brother of
        Jesus. Thus, one of the "evidences" suggesting that
        the inscription may be older, 3-4 century.

        The questions I would like to ask in this regard are
        as follows:

        1) Where in the 3-4 or later centuries is James known
        as "James, the brother of Jesus"? To my knowledge,
        this is NOT how he is referred to in this time period.
        Thus, it presents the same problem as Dr. Eisenman
        raises for a first century dating based on the fact
        that James was not called "the brother of Jesus" in
        the extant records.

        2) Further, where is "jesus" simply referred to as
        "jesus" in the 3-4 centuries. He is always referred
        to as Christ, Jesus Christ, or Christ Jesus; the Lord,
        the Savior, etc, but not as simply "Jesus". For me
        this reduces the likelihood that it is a late antique
        inscription

        3) Hypothetically, IF (big if)the inscription were
        done in 63 AD, how would we suppose James were known
        then? Paul calls him consistently "James, the brother
        of the Lord" presumably to distinguish him from the
        other James. But is this name the only one possible?
        At what point and by whom would he be called James the
        Righteous? If it is his family who are gathering the
        bones after his demise, would the family call him
        James the Just? James the brother of the Lord, or
        James the brother of Jesus? If we assume a familial
        burial, the latter seems more likely to me.

        In a related question, Dr. Eisenman pionted out that
        "we know where James was buried" pointed to Hegessipus
        and later Eusebius and Jerome who state that James was
        interred under the pinnacle of the Temple. I'm afraid
        I can not give credence to Hegessipus' claim. If
        James were pushed off the top of the temple and landed
        in the street, and beaten to death, do you really
        think that they would have buried him on the spot,
        right there in the middle of the street, ritually
        descrating not only the street, but the temple? This
        isn't even to wonder how seriously to take H's
        information from an historical perspective. But it
        seems implausible that they buried on a public street.
        As for fourth and fifth century writers who say that
        his headstone was still there, we must remember that
        already there was heavy traffic of Christians to
        Jerusalem, and of course someone at some time very
        soon after James' death marked the spot, the marker of
        the site of his death mistaken for his headstone.

        Just .05.

        Larry Swain

        >
        > > importance of James. I have written a 1000 page
        > book
        > > on this. Let me just repeat: people may have
        > spoken
        > > about James from the 3-4th c. on like this but not
        > in
        > > the lst century. That's all I was saying. I know
        > > that the best proof of the historicity of Jesus is
        > the
        > > fact that he had a brother called James! Thanks
        > very
        > > much for giving me the opportunity to respond to
        > your
        >
        >
        > I am having a hard time understanding the claim that
        > James was not known as
        > the brother of Jesus prior to the 3/4th centuries.
        > The earliest account
        > outside of Josephus xx is Paul in Galatians 1:19. I
        > also don't understand
        > the confusion between Ya'akov bar Halfy (James, the
        > son of Alphaeus/Clopas.
        > "the lesser") with Ya'akov bar Yosef. The two were
        > cousins...perhaps named
        > after their mutual grandfather recorded by Matthew.
        >
        > Jack
        >
        >
        > The XTalk Home Page is http://ntgateway.com/xtalk/
        >
        > To subscribe to Xtalk, send an e-mail to:
        > crosstalk2-subscribe@yahoogroups.com
        >
        > To unsubscribe, send an e-mail to:
        > crosstalk2-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
        >
        > List managers may be contacted directly at:
        > crosstalk2-owners@yahoogroups.com
        >
        >
        >
        > Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to
        > http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
        >
        >
      • DaGoi@aol.com
        In a message dated 11/03/2 2:39:27 PM, Robert Eisenman, through John Lupia, wrote:
        Message 3 of 18 , Nov 3, 2002
        • 0 Attachment
          In a message dated 11/03/2 2:39:27 PM, Robert Eisenman, through John Lupia,
          wrote:

          << People in the first century would just
          not have thought to refer to James in this way. >>

          Perhaps, but the audience addressed on a funeral inscription necessarily
          looks forward to non-contemporaries. The point of the text of the
          inscription itself (disregarding what can be shown concerning a 4th-5th
          century hand) should probably not be that much of a concern. As has been
          said, these are very common names, and seeing that names as such run in
          families, such a distinction may probably be legitimately expected. Of the
          numerous things which could be said about James, this would sum it up
          (especially though if there were also a cross, or hro-chi - oh well).

          Bill Foley
          Woburn
        • Rochelle I. Altman
          ... Well, actually, quite plausible... folk beliefs and all that. Bury warlocks and witches at crossroads to keep them from rising; bury an enemy(ies) under
          Message 4 of 18 , Nov 4, 2002
          • 0 Attachment
            Swain wrote:

            >I can not give credence to Hegessipus' claim. If
            >James were pushed off the top of the temple and landed
            >in the street, and beaten to death, do you really
            >think that they would have buried him on the spot,
            >right there in the middle of the street, ritually
            >descrating not only the street, but the temple? This
            >isn't even to wonder how seriously to take H's
            >information from an historical perspective.But it
            >seems implausible that they buried on a public street.

            Well, actually, quite plausible... folk beliefs and all that.
            Bury warlocks and witches at crossroads to keep them from rising;
            bury an enemy(ies) under passing feet to show that he(they) has(have)
            been thoroughly conquered and will never rise again... and so on.
            There are more reasons around for burial in the public street;
            but all have the same general purpose: keep the buried down -- no
            resurrection.

            >As for fourth and fifth century writers who say that
            >his headstone was still there, we must remember that
            >already there was heavy traffic of Christians to
            >Jerusalem, and of course someone at some time very
            >soon after James' death marked the spot, the marker of
            >the site of his death mistaken for his headstone.
            >Just .05.
            >Larry Swain

            Do they say headstone or do they say marker?

            Rochelle (with her folklore-lit hat on)
            --
            Dr. R.I.S. Altman, co-coordinator, IOUDAIOS-L risa3@...
          • John Lupia
            ... ip[p]us claim. ... How do you figure this was a desecration of the street or temple? What evidence of the period is this view based on? I can only think
            Message 5 of 18 , Nov 4, 2002
            • 0 Attachment
              --- "Rochelle I. Altman" <risa3@...>
              wrote:
              > Swain wrote:
              >
              > >I can not give credence to Heges[omit s]
              ip[p]us' claim.
              > If
              > >James were pushed off the top of the temple and
              > landed
              > >in the street, and beaten to death, do you
              > really
              > >think that they would have buried him on the
              > spot,
              > >right there in the middle of the street,
              > ritually
              > >descrating not only the street, but the temple?
              >

              How do you figure this was a desecration of the street
              or temple? What evidence of the period is this view
              based on?

              I can only think of two concepts in Judaism that
              might suggest some credence to the story but it
              appears very strained to anyone's imagination that
              Hegesippus' story is true. Falling off a high place
              onto a pavement would have splattered his skull
              leaving him in a pool of blood. Jewish tradition on
              blood Leviticus 17:11 dispensed with the taharah at
              burial for those violently killed covered in blood and
              all the blood must be buried with the deceased.
              Another Jewish tradition is the deceased must be
              buried as quickly as possible. If this was a practice
              i.e. burying a bloodied martyr on the spot where they
              were slain we should expect to hear the same being
              said in regards to St. Stephen who was stoned to death
              in a bloody manner. It is very likely that what we
              see in Hegesippus some symbolic or metaphorical
              meaning like the blood of the first Christian martyrs
              is splattered over the temple since they fell from
              their faith. Yes the pun is intended. Similarly, I
              recall Bishop Sheen recounting the death of John
              Neumann who died on the sidewalk mentioned a story,
              perhaps apocryphal that he said, "bury me under the
              sidewalk since people have been walking all over me
              for years". The puns made by martyrs like St.
              Lawrence who was burned alive on a grill said, "turn
              me over I'm done on this side". Hegesippus' colorful
              story appears to have this sort of heroic levity to
              it, that St. James who fell from the temple with a
              double meaning was to be stepped on by Jews who
              refused to believe in Jesus as the Messiah since they
              had walked all over him [James] for years.

              Best regards,
              John

              =====
              John N. Lupia, III
              501 North Avenue B-1
              Elizabeth, New Jersey 07208-1731 USA
              Phone: (908) 994-9720
              Email: jlupia2@...
              Editor, Roman Catholic News
              http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Roman-Catholic-News

              __________________________________________________
              Do you Yahoo!?
              HotJobs - Search new jobs daily now
              http://hotjobs.yahoo.com/
            • LARRY SWAIN
              ... Good folklore and it would indeed be of interest were we talking about the display of an Anglo-Saxon king s arm and head or the Maori. But we aren t.
              Message 6 of 18 , Nov 4, 2002
              • 0 Attachment
                --- "Rochelle I. Altman" <risa3@...>
                wrote:
                > Swain wrote:
                >
                > >I can not give credence to Hegessipus' claim.
                > If
                > >James were pushed off the top of the temple and
                > landed
                > >in the street, and beaten to death, do you
                > really
                > >think that they would have buried him on the
                > spot,
                > >right there in the middle of the street,
                > ritually
                > >descrating not only the street, but the temple?
                > This
                > >isn't even to wonder how seriously to take H's
                > >information from an historical perspective.But
                > it
                > >seems implausible that they buried on a public
                > street.

                Altman replies:
                > Well, actually, quite plausible... folk beliefs and
                > all that.
                > Bury warlocks and witches at crossroads to keep them
                > from rising;
                > bury an enemy(ies) under passing feet to show that
                > he(they) has(have)
                > been thoroughly conquered and will never rise
                > again... and so on.
                > There are more reasons around for burial in the
                > public street;
                > but all have the same general purpose: keep the
                > buried down -- no
                > resurrection.
                >

                Good folklore and it would indeed be of interest were
                we talking about the display of an Anglo-Saxon king's
                arm and head or the Maori. But we aren't. We're
                speaking of first century Jerusalem. Can you show me
                1) archaeological evidence of burials in the streets
                or public areas of Jerusalem from this time period and
                2) somewhere in the literature where such is a common
                practice. Or to put the question another way, is it
                plausible within FIRST CENTURY JUDAISM IN JERUSALEM
                WITHIN THE TEMPLE PRECINCTS, not just generally
                plausible out there somewhere. Let us be specific
                about the context.

                > >As for fourth and fifth century writers who say
                > that
                > >his headstone was still there, we must remember
                > that
                > >already there was heavy traffic of Christians to
                > >Jerusalem, and of course someone at some time
                > very
                > >soon after James' death marked the spot, the
                > marker of
                > >the site of his death mistaken for his
                > headstone.
                > >Just .05.
                > >Larry Swain
                >
                > Do they say headstone or do they say marker?

                Hegessipus in Eusebius says headstone, and Eusebius
                nothing in addition to that. I haven't checked
                Jerome, but I would be surprised that he would deviate
                much from Eusebius in this regard.

                From a folklore perspective Hegessipus makes perfect
                sense, since he has James die in the Temple, buried
                just outside the sanctuary (not the outer courts note)
                and according to H James is the ONLY ONE allowed
                within the Holy of Holies. All of this strengthens
                his very evident and obvious conclusion that Jerusalem
                was sacked because of James' murder. However, Dr.
                Eisenman in his letter to which I reacted wants to
                treat it as history, and from that perspective my
                objection I believe stands: it is implausible that in
                first century Jerusalem they would bury someone in the
                street much less next to the Sanctuary in the Temple.

                Larry Swain
              • LARRY SWAIN
                ... We don t need to go far John. Numbers 19:16, for example: Also, anyone who in the open field touches one who has been slain with a sword or who has died
                Message 7 of 18 , Nov 4, 2002
                • 0 Attachment
                  --- John Lupia <jlupia2@...> wrote:
                  >
                  > > Swain wrote:
                  > >
                  > > >I can not give credence to Heges[omit s]
                  > ip[p]us' claim.
                  > > If
                  > > >James were pushed off the top of the temple
                  > and
                  > > landed
                  > > >in the street, and beaten to death, do you
                  > > really
                  > > >think that they would have buried him on the
                  > > spot,
                  > > >right there in the middle of the street,
                  > > ritually
                  > > >descrating not only the street, but the
                  > temple?
                  > >
                  >
                  > How do you figure this was a desecration of the
                  > street
                  > or temple? What evidence of the period is this view
                  > based on?

                  We don't need to go far John. Numbers 19:16, for
                  example: 'Also, anyone who in the open field touches
                  one who has been slain with a sword or who has died
                  naturally, or a human bone or a grave, shall be
                  unclean for seven days.'

                  Now since the good Hegesippus has James buried "by the
                  Sanctuary" and his headstone is "by the Sanctuary"
                  anyone coming close to his grave becomes unclean, and
                  do you think seriously that the priesthood is going to
                  have a grave close enough to the Sanctuary in the
                  Temple precincts that might cause even accidental
                  pollution for the entire place, if someone should
                  touch it, become unclean, and then defile other
                  buildings and objects? Particularly in the heightened
                  tensions of the early 60s? We won't even go into a
                  discussion of the Mishnah and how to avoid pollution
                  with the dead. And since H has James buried "by" (not
                  nearby, or in the vicinity) there is a chance that the
                  building and grave touch in his account, thus defiling
                  the Sanctuary. Historically speaking, how likely do
                  you think this?

                  > I can only think of two concepts in Judaism that
                  > might suggest some credence to the story but it
                  > appears very strained to anyone's imagination that
                  > Hegesippus' story is true.

                  The fact that it is so very different from Josephus
                  doesn't exercise you any? Or that the Pharisees are
                  the ones who engineer the leader of the Christians to
                  speak from the pinnacle of the Temple to the Passover
                  crowds and they somehow fully expect James to
                  cooperate with them? This does not give you reason to
                  pause? And that James, the brother of Jesus is only
                  person allowed into the Holy of Holies? There is much
                  in Hegesippus' account vis a vis Judaism that is
                  questionable.

                  Falling off a high place
                  > onto a pavement would have splattered his skull
                  > leaving him in a pool of blood.

                  Which is precisely what Hegesippus DOES NOT SAY. a)
                  he did not fall, he was thrown off and b) he survived
                  the fall, and they began to stone him (in the Temple
                  precincts), and when he prayed for them, one of them
                  just happened to have his fuller's stick with him on
                  his way to the Temple and coshed him on the head.
                  This is no mere fall off a high place, but a murder in
                  the Temple itself.


                  Jewish tradition on
                  > blood Leviticus 17:11 dispensed with the taharah at
                  > burial for those violently killed covered in blood
                  > and
                  > all the blood must be buried with the deceased.

                  This isn't what Lev. 17:11 is about: this verse is the
                  reason why no flesh is to be eaten with blood in it.
                  It does not refer to the dead or those who have been
                  killed violently. Are you thinking of a Mishnaic
                  interpretation of this verse, or perhaps another text
                  altogether?


                  > Another Jewish tradition is the deceased must be
                  > buried as quickly as possible. If this was a
                  > practice
                  > i.e. burying a bloodied martyr on the spot where
                  > they
                  > were slain we should expect to hear the same being
                  > said in regards to St. Stephen who was stoned to
                  > death
                  > in a bloody manner.

                  Sure, and note that when they stone Stephen they take
                  him outside the city. Hegesippus specifically tells
                  us that James was stoned NEXT TO THE SANCTUARY IN THE
                  TEMPLE PRECINCTS. Not quite the same situation as
                  with Stephen.

                  It is very likely that what we
                  > see in Hegesippus some symbolic or metaphorical
                  > meaning like the blood of the first Christian
                  > martyrs
                  > is splattered over the temple since they fell from
                  > their faith.

                  I agree, I think H's account is very symbolic and
                  metaphorical. But I don't think it is very
                  historical, and that is the way Dr. Eisenman is taking
                  it in his letter when he states that Hegesippus tells
                  us exactly where James is buried and no one mentions
                  an ossuary. What he fails to mention is that the
                  place where H has James buried is next to the
                  Sanctuary. Thus, my problem with his objection to the
                  ossuary on the grounds of what Hegesippus says.

                  " The puns made by martyrs like St.
                  > Lawrence who was burned alive on a grill said, "turn
                  > me over I'm done on this side".
                  > Hegesippus' colorful story appears to have this sort
                  of heroic levity to
                  > it, that St. James who fell from the temple with a
                  > double meaning was to be stepped on by Jews who
                  > refused to believe in Jesus as the Messiah since
                  > they
                  > had walked all over him [James] for years.

                  Lawrence's story is one of my favorites. And I think
                  you are correct in your understanding of what
                  Hegesippus is about and the metaphors and multivalent
                  meanings of the text. But I don't think it offers
                  much of historical value as to where James was
                  actually buried.

                  Regards,

                  Larry Swain
                • David C. Hindley
                  ... distinguish him from the other James.
                  Message 8 of 18 , Nov 4, 2002
                  • 0 Attachment
                    Larry Swain says:

                    >>Paul calls him consistently "James, the brother of the Lord" presumably to
                    distinguish him from the other James.<<

                    One time, Gal 1:19. If you mean distinguishing him from James the brother of
                    John who was killed by "Herod the king" (meaning Herod Agrippa I, who ruled
                    in Jerusalem between 41-44 CE) this one is nowhere mentioned or alluded to
                    in any of the letters of Paul. James the brother of John *is* mentioned in
                    Acts 1:13 (upper room) & 12:2 (his death). When Peter is miraculously busted
                    out of prison in 12:17, he says "Tell this [account of how "the Lord had
                    brought [him] out of the prison"] to James and to the brethren." The James
                    of Gal 1:19, probably the same as that mentioned in Acts 15:13 & 21:18, must
                    be different than James the brother of John, and is generally believed to be
                    James the Just.

                    Paul's visit with James, mentioned in Gal 1:19, occurred no earlier than
                    about 33 CE, and probably before 36 CE, while Paul's correspondence with the
                    Galatian churches was at the very least 14 years after that date (Gal 2:1),
                    or at least after 50 CE. Would they know of James the brother of John in a
                    manner that would necessitate differentiating him from James the Just?

                    For what it is worth, Acts 12:17 has Lord, James and brother(s) in one
                    verse, which may be significant if one might assert that "brother of the
                    Lord" is somehow a gloss based on Acts 12:17, *or* that the term "brothers"
                    is a designation for a group (not necessarily related by blood, as the
                    semantic range is not limited to this) that once included Jesus and James
                    the Just, making them all effectively "brothers" of one another.

                    >>1) Where in the 3-4 or later centuries is James known as "James, the
                    brother of Jesus"? To my knowledge, this is NOT how he is referred to in
                    this time period. Thus, it presents the same problem as Dr. Eisenman raises
                    for a first century dating based on the fact that James was not called "the
                    brother of Jesus" in the extant records.<<

                    Here I'd agree that Eisenman is a bit vague. The index to _James the Brother
                    of Jesus_, under "James as Jesus' brother" equates "brother of the Lord"
                    with "brother of Jesus." I searched a bit among the ante-Nicene church
                    fathers and could not find a phrase like "James the brother of Jesus" except
                    in connection with the account in Josephus' Antiquities 20. Eisenman *does*
                    note that Epiphanius calls James "son of Joseph and brother of the Lord,"
                    and this combination shows up from that point on in authors like Eusebius.

                    >>In a related question, Dr. Eisenman pointed out that "we know where James
                    was buried" pointed to Hegessipus and later Eusebius and Jerome who state
                    that James was interred under the pinnacle of the Temple. I'm afraid I can
                    not give credence to Hegessipus' claim. If James were pushed off the top of
                    the temple and landed in the street, and beaten to death, do you really
                    think that they would have buried him on the spot, right there in the middle
                    of the street, ritually descrating not only the street, but the temple?
                    This isn't even to wonder how seriously to take H's information from an
                    historical perspective. But it seems implausible that they buried on a
                    public street. As for fourth and fifth century writers who say that his
                    headstone was still there, we must remember that
                    already there was heavy traffic of Christians to Jerusalem, and of course
                    someone at some time very
                    soon after James' death marked the spot, the marker of the site of his death
                    mistaken for his headstone.<<

                    Eisenman means he was buried in Jerusalem (as opposed to Qumran*), probably
                    at the foot of the temple, near the base of the Mount of Olives, where there
                    *are* tombs. A rather large mausoleum in that area, now known to be the tomb
                    of Bene Hezir, was popularly thought to be that of James the Just in later
                    centuries. He also says that an ossuary is not associated with traditions
                    about James the Just, but this last point may not be a significant
                    objection, as I believe there is a complete lack of original burials in that
                    area (i.e., not reburied in ossuaries) that date to that period.

                    * Eisenman is resentful of claims made by others that researchers associated
                    with him, who were involved in the discovery of the Qumran area mausoleum
                    with the zinc coffin, had supposedly speculated that James the Just was
                    buried there. These claims, he told me, are not true but rather sarcasm on
                    the part of his opponents, and he is firmly convinced that James is indeed
                    buried in Jerusalem in the vicinity of the temple.

                    Respectfully,

                    Dave Hindley
                    Cleveland, Ohio, USA
                  • John Lupia
                    ... This does not address the issue of how it would or could desecrate the street or temple. This addresses the issue of an individual becoming unclean if
                    Message 9 of 18 , Nov 4, 2002
                    • 0 Attachment
                      --- LARRY SWAIN wrote:

                      > > How do you figure this was a desecration of the
                      > > street
                      > > or temple? What evidence of the period is this
                      > view
                      > > based on?
                      >
                      > We don't need to go far John. Numbers 19:16, for
                      > example: 'Also, anyone who in the open field touches
                      > one who has been slain with a sword or who has died
                      > naturally, or a human bone or a grave, shall be
                      > unclean for seven days.'


                      This does not address the issue of how it would or
                      could desecrate the street or temple. This addresses
                      the issue of an individual becoming unclean if they
                      were to come in direct physical contact with a grave
                      making them ritually unclean for a week. In neither
                      case is this a desecration nor evidence to give
                      credence to burying James in the temple street or
                      pavement as desecratory. The burial would have been
                      impractical if it were blocking a portal forcing
                      entrants to step on it and become ritually unclean for
                      a week but that still would not desecrate the temple
                      or the street or pavement.

                      Desecration is the divestiture of sacred character
                      which the Temple of Jerusalem has by the power of YHWH
                      who alone consecrates and sanctifies it. Pilates
                      placing Roman shields and standards on the temple
                      would have been an act of desecration since it was an
                      action taken by a representative of a ruling foreign
                      political government that demonstrated that
                      government's intent to transform the temple sacred to
                      YHWH into a temple on a par to the pagan temples of
                      the cults of Rome. It also secularized the temple
                      this way making it a Roman public building. Burying
                      James beneath the pinnacle of the temple does not
                      compare in any way whatsoever to the actions of Pilate
                      or an act that could be construed as desecration.

                      > Now since the good Hegesippus has James buried "by
                      > the
                      > Sanctuary" and his headstone is "by the Sanctuary"
                      > anyone coming close to his grave becomes unclean,
                      > and
                      > do you think seriously that the priesthood is going
                      > to
                      > have a grave close enough to the Sanctuary in the
                      > Temple precincts that might cause even accidental
                      > pollution for the entire place, if someone should
                      > touch it, become unclean, and then defile other
                      > buildings and objects?

                      This would be true if it were physically touching the
                      sanctuary otherwise the rule does not apply.

                      Particularly in the
                      > heightened
                      > tensions of the early 60s?

                      I do not see how a date near the Jewish Revolt should
                      alter a Law or socio-cultural convention about
                      desecration. The oppression by Rome and the ensuing
                      acts of violation and defilement foisted on the Jews
                      is what led to the revolt by brooding and brewing over
                      a century like a tempest in a teapot. None of this
                      altered the Jewish sense of what constitutes
                      desecration. They were pretty firm on this issue and
                      we saw their reaction to Pilate's action that was one
                      of desecration.

                      We won't even go into a
                      > discussion of the Mishnah and how to avoid pollution
                      > with the dead.


                      Good move. Lets not touch the Mishna. None of this
                      explains desecration of street or temple by burials
                      anyway.


                      And since H has James buried "by"
                      > (not
                      > nearby, or in the vicinity) there is a chance that
                      > the
                      > building and grave touch in his account, thus
                      > defiling
                      > the Sanctuary.


                      I see this has been your interpretation from the
                      beginning but it is not required nor necessary. We
                      would have no way of knowing outside of performing an
                      archaeological excavation to determine this.


                      Historically speaking, how likely do
                      > you think this?
                      >
                      > > I can only think of two concepts in Judaism that
                      > > might suggest some credence to the story but it
                      > > appears very strained to anyone's imagination that
                      > > Hegesippus' story is true.
                      >
                      > The fact that it is so very different from Josephus
                      > doesn't exercise you any?


                      No. Each of these different stories or aspects of
                      stories are webs of tissues each with its own thread
                      to follow.

                      Or that the Pharisees are
                      > the ones who engineer the leader of the Christians
                      > to
                      > speak from the pinnacle of the Temple to the
                      > Passover
                      > crowds and they somehow fully expect James to
                      > cooperate with them? This does not give you reason
                      > to
                      > pause? And that James, the brother of Jesus is only
                      > person allowed into the Holy of Holies? There is
                      > much
                      > in Hegesippus' account vis a vis Judaism that is
                      > questionable.


                      You have raised several different issues that have
                      nothing to do with the original discussion and the
                      burial in the street desecrating it and the temple.
                      Stories consist of many webs of tissues and our
                      discussion is about the burial spot of James in
                      Hegesippus.


                      > Falling off a high place
                      > > onto a pavement would have splattered his skull
                      > > leaving him in a pool of blood.
                      >
                      > Which is precisely what Hegesippus DOES NOT SAY.

                      Precisely. Hegesippus wants to make it a severe
                      tragic drama of cruelty and the participation of all
                      of the Jewish religious showing their contempt for
                      Christianity and the Gospels personified in James.
                      But the essence of the point being made above by me is
                      that the blood pool might in some way be the focus of
                      the belief why James *needed* to be buried on the
                      spot. This is the thread focused on among the many
                      tissues of the whole text.

                      a)
                      > he did not fall, he was thrown off and


                      When you hit the pavement your body only knows you
                      fell. This is the focus of the specific tissue of the
                      story the other factors are other threads that need
                      separate discussion and investigation.


                      b) he
                      > survived
                      > the fall, and they began to stone him (in the Temple
                      > precincts), and when he prayed for them, one of them
                      > just happened to have his fuller's stick with him on
                      > his way to the Temple and coshed him on the head.
                      > This is no mere fall off a high place, but a murder
                      > in
                      > the Temple itself.

                      Dying directly from a fall from pushing is murder
                      without the baroque imagery of the masses murdering
                      James. As I said before stories consist of webs of
                      tissues and our focus is on the death of James from
                      the fall and investigating if there is any
                      historio-cultural cause to accept Hegesippus' tale
                      that he was buried on the spot.

                      >
                      > Jewish tradition on
                      > > blood Leviticus 17:11 dispensed with the taharah
                      > at
                      > > burial for those violently killed covered in blood
                      > > and
                      > > all the blood must be buried with the deceased.
                      >
                      > This isn't what Lev. 17:11 is about: this verse is
                      > the
                      > reason why no flesh is to be eaten with blood in it.
                      >
                      > It does not refer to the dead or those who have been
                      > killed violently. Are you thinking of a Mishnaic
                      > interpretation of this verse, or perhaps another
                      > text
                      > altogether?

                      I think its Talmudic but I can't remember exactly
                      which tractate.


                      >
                      > > Another Jewish tradition is the deceased must be
                      > > buried as quickly as possible. If this was a
                      > > practice
                      > > i.e. burying a bloodied martyr on the spot where
                      > > they
                      > > were slain we should expect to hear the same being
                      > > said in regards to St. Stephen who was stoned to
                      > > death
                      > > in a bloody manner.
                      >
                      > Sure, and note that when they stone Stephen they
                      > take
                      > him outside the city. Hegesippus specifically tells
                      > us that James was stoned NEXT TO THE SANCTUARY IN
                      > THE
                      > TEMPLE PRECINCTS. Not quite the same situation as
                      > with Stephen.


                      No. But, if there is an underlying historio-culture
                      cause like the *need* to bury someone murdered or
                      violently slain covered in blood then the rule should
                      apply to both, which was my point.

                      > It is very likely that what we
                      > > see in Hegesippus some symbolic or metaphorical
                      > > meaning like the blood of the first Christian
                      > > martyrs
                      > > is splattered over the temple since they fell from
                      > > their faith.
                      >
                      > I agree, I think H's account is very symbolic and
                      > metaphorical. But I don't think it is very
                      > historical, and that is the way Dr. Eisenman is
                      > taking
                      > it in his letter when he states that Hegesippus
                      > tells
                      > us exactly where James is buried and no one mentions
                      > an ossuary. What he fails to mention is that the
                      > place where H has James buried is next to the
                      > Sanctuary.

                      Is it absolutely positively a fact that the phrase
                      "beneath the pinnacle of the Temple in Jerusalem"
                      means next to (and possibly touching) the sanctuary?

                      My previous post addressed a widely interpreted take
                      on Hegesippus that James was buried in the pavement
                      usually seen as a street-like walkway. But, I am
                      unsure of just exactly what Hegesippus means to say;
                      and if burial beneath a temple pinnacle is something
                      we can expect to be performed in Jerusalem at any
                      period. If so by the directive of what custom or law?

                      Thus, my problem with his objection to
                      > the
                      > ossuary on the grounds of what Hegesippus says.


                      Bob does score an important point. He cites Hegesippus
                      and drives at the issue that James was buried not in a
                      cave-tomb (Khok) where his bones would have been
                      transferred the following year into an ossuary, but in
                      the ground and no ossuary would have been required.
                      Now even if we find difficulty with Hegesippus we must
                      consider the valid point Hegesippus raises and one
                      which I think Eisenman takes seriously, that James was
                      buried in the soil not a tomb.


                      > " The puns made by martyrs like St.
                      > > Lawrence who was burned alive on a grill said,
                      > "turn
                      > > me over I'm done on this side".
                      > > Hegesippus' colorful story appears to have this
                      > sort
                      > of heroic levity to
                      > > it, that St. James who fell from the temple with a
                      > > double meaning was to be stepped on by Jews who
                      > > refused to believe in Jesus as the Messiah since
                      > > they
                      > > had walked all over him [James] for years.
                      >
                      > Lawrence's story is one of my favorites. And I
                      > think
                      > you are correct in your understanding of what
                      > Hegesippus is about and the metaphors and
                      > multivalent
                      > meanings of the text. But I don't think it offers
                      > much of historical value as to where James was
                      > actually buried.

                      As noted above Hegesippus' tale tells us James was
                      buried in the ground. This may be the only web of
                      tissue true to the whole story. Just as the Warren
                      Report is an ingenious work of literary imagination
                      the only fact in it is that JFK was killed by a bullet
                      that hit him in the skull.

                      Best reagrds,
                      John

                      =====
                      John N. Lupia, III
                      501 North Avenue B-1
                      Elizabeth, New Jersey 07208-1731 USA
                      Phone: (908) 994-9720
                      Email: jlupia2@...
                      Editor, Roman Catholic News
                      http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Roman-Catholic-News

                      __________________________________________________
                      Do you Yahoo!?
                      HotJobs - Search new jobs daily now
                      http://hotjobs.yahoo.com/
                    • Rochelle I. Altman
                      Larry, have you seen all the superstitious nonsense in the DSS that was imported from Babylon??? Just the type of stuff Jeremiah railed against. One thing I
                      Message 10 of 18 , Nov 4, 2002
                      • 0 Attachment
                        Larry, have you seen all the superstitious nonsense in
                        the DSS that was imported from Babylon??? Just the type
                        of stuff Jeremiah railed against.

                        One thing I have noticed is that people seem to forget
                        that we are dealing with an eye for eye/ make the
                        punishment fit the crime society back then.

                        It could make a difference in how people read the texts,
                        No???

                        G'night,

                        Rochelle

                        --
                        Dr. R.I.S. Altman, co-coordinator, IOUDAIOS-L risa3@...
                      • LARRY SWAIN
                        ... Right, I thought there was a second reference, but I was thinking of something else. SO I ll amend my statement: Paul calls him James, the brother of the
                        Message 11 of 18 , Nov 4, 2002
                        • 0 Attachment
                          --- "David C. Hindley" <dhindley@...>
                          wrote:
                          > Larry Swain says:
                          >
                          > >>Paul calls him consistently "James, the brother of
                          > the Lord" presumably to
                          > distinguish him from the other James.<<

                          David responds:
                          > One time, Gal 1:19.

                          Right, I thought there was a second reference, but I
                          was thinking of something else. SO I'll amend my
                          statement: Paul calls him "James, the brother of the
                          Lord" presumably to distinguish him from the other
                          James."

                          If you mean distinguishing him
                          > from James the brother of
                          > John who was killed by "Herod the king" (meaning
                          > Herod Agrippa I, who ruled
                          > in Jerusalem between 41-44 CE) this one is nowhere
                          > mentioned or alluded to
                          > in any of the letters of Paul. James the brother of
                          > John *is* mentioned in
                          > Acts 1:13 (upper room) & 12:2 (his death).... The
                          James> of Gal 1:19, probably the same as that
                          mentioned in
                          > Acts 15:13 & 21:18, must
                          > be different than James the brother of John, and is
                          > generally believed to be
                          > James the Just.
                          >
                          > Paul's visit with James, mentioned in Gal 1:19,
                          > occurred no earlier than
                          > about 33 CE, and probably before 36 CE, while Paul's
                          > correspondence with the
                          > Galatian churches was at the very least 14 years
                          > after that date (Gal 2:1),
                          > or at least after 50 CE. Would they know of James
                          > the brother of John in a
                          > manner that would necessitate differentiating him
                          > from James the Just?

                          That's a good question of course. But if there were
                          really travelling evangelists, which both Acts and
                          Paul and the Didache among other texts seem to
                          indicate, then at least some information about the
                          teachings and doings of Jesus and the early days of
                          the church were likely to have been shared and talked
                          about. I'm not sure I would agree with your dates on
                          Paul, but that's another matter altogether. In any
                          case, IF stories of Peter, James, and John went with
                          Jesus into the garden, or the mount of Transfiguration
                          or whatever were told, then James the brother of the
                          Lord, currently heading up the Jerusalem "mother"
                          community would need to be distinguished from the
                          James in the story.


                          > For what it is worth, Acts 12:17 has Lord, James and
                          > brother(s) in one
                          > verse, which may be significant if one might assert
                          > that "brother of the
                          > Lord" is somehow a gloss based on Acts 12:17, *or*
                          > that the term "brothers"
                          > is a designation for a group (not necessarily
                          > related by blood, as the
                          > semantic range is not limited to this) that once
                          > included Jesus and James
                          > the Just, making them all effectively "brothers" of
                          > one another.

                          True enough, but then why isn't anyone distinguished
                          with the "brother of the Lord" moniker, or other
                          leaders such as Peter called "brother". Not a
                          conclusive counter argument, just suggestive.

                          > >>1) Where in the 3-4 or later centuries is James
                          > known as "James, the
                          > brother of Jesus"? To my knowledge, this is NOT how
                          > he is referred to in
                          > this time period. Thus, it presents the same
                          > problem as Dr. Eisenman raises
                          > for a first century dating based on the fact that
                          > James was not called "the
                          > brother of Jesus" in the extant records.<<

                          > Here I'd agree that Eisenman is a bit vague. The
                          > index to _James the Brother
                          > of Jesus_, under "James as Jesus' brother" equates
                          > "brother of the Lord"
                          > with "brother of Jesus." I searched a bit among the
                          > ante-Nicene church
                          > fathers and could not find a phrase like "James the
                          > brother of Jesus" except
                          > in connection with the account in Josephus'
                          > Antiquities 20. Eisenman *does*
                          > note that Epiphanius calls James "son of Joseph and
                          > brother of the Lord,"
                          > and this combination shows up from that point on in
                          > authors like Eusebius.

                          Exactly the point. He is more than vague, his
                          suggestion is simply going in the wrong direction. It
                          is NOT more likely that we'd find "James...brother of
                          Jesus" in a fourth or fifth century context. I think
                          your search detailed above helps demonstrate this.

                          > >>In a related question, Dr. Eisenman pointed out
                          > that "we know where James
                          > was buried" pointed to Hegessipus and later Eusebius
                          > and Jerome who state
                          > that James was interred under the pinnacle of the
                          > Temple. I'm afraid I can
                          > not give credence to Hegessipus' claim. If James
                          > were pushed off the top of
                          > the temple and landed in the street, and beaten to
                          > death, do you really
                          > think that they would have buried him on the spot,
                          > right there in the middle
                          > of the street, ritually descrating not only the
                          > street, but the temple?
                          > This isn't even to wonder how seriously to take H's
                          > information from an
                          > historical perspective. But it seems implausible
                          > that they buried on a
                          > public street. As for fourth and fifth century
                          > writers who say that his
                          > headstone was still there, we must remember that
                          > already there was heavy traffic of Christians to
                          > Jerusalem, and of course
                          > someone at some time very
                          > soon after James' death marked the spot, the marker
                          > of the site of his death
                          > mistaken for his headstone.<<
                          >
                          > Eisenman means he was buried in Jerusalem (as
                          > opposed to Qumran*), probably
                          > at the foot of the temple, near the base of the
                          > Mount of Olives, where there
                          > *are* tombs.

                          I assume your getting this from teh book somewhere,
                          because this is certainly not in the letter to which I
                          responded. In the letter, you'll recall, he questions
                          the box because we know where James was buried acc. to
                          Hegesippus, who DOES NOT SAY buried in Jerusalem, near
                          the base of the Mount of Olives. H says on the spot
                          where he was killed, alongside the Sanctuary.

                          A rather large mausoleum in that area,
                          > now known to be the tomb
                          > of Bene Hezir, was popularly thought to be that of
                          > James the Just in later
                          > centuries. He also says that an ossuary is not
                          > associated with traditions
                          > about James the Just, but this last point may not be
                          > a significant
                          > objection, as I believe there is a complete lack of
                          > original burials in that
                          > area (i.e., not reburied in ossuaries) that date to
                          > that period.

                          Sure, but again in his letter Eisenman didn't mention
                          this tradition (or Jerome's misunderstanding of
                          Hegesippus) in indicating this area. It would be a
                          difficult thing to take H's testimony when he says
                          "beside the sanctuary" as "the bottom of the Temple
                          Mount, in the tombs at the base of the Mount of
                          Olives". These tombs are not "beside the sanctuary".



                          > * Eisenman is resentful of claims made by others
                          > that researchers associated
                          > with him, who were involved in the discovery of the
                          > Qumran area mausoleum
                          > with the zinc coffin, had supposedly speculated that
                          > James the Just was
                          > buried there. These claims, he told me, are not true
                          > but rather sarcasm on
                          > the part of his opponents, and he is firmly
                          > convinced that James is indeed
                          > buried in Jerusalem in the vicinity of the temple.

                          Ok, but I'm not involved in any of that nor did I
                          comment on it. I'm reacting to the letter that you
                          and John Lupia posted which was also in the LA
                          Times--none of this was hinted at there. I ask and
                          press again that I'm not at all certain (in fact
                          certain that we can not) take Hegesippus' testimony as
                          historical, at least not as it is written. We might
                          tease some history from it, but then I would want to
                          see an argument for it, rather than just an assertion.

                          Larry Swain
                        • LARRY SWAIN
                          ... Right, I thought there was a second reference, but I was thinking of something else. SO I ll amend my statement: Paul calls him James, the brother of the
                          Message 12 of 18 , Nov 4, 2002
                          • 0 Attachment
                            --- "David C. Hindley" <dhindley@...>
                            wrote:
                            > Larry Swain says:
                            >
                            > >>Paul calls him consistently "James, the brother of
                            > the Lord" presumably to
                            > distinguish him from the other James.<<

                            David responds:
                            > One time, Gal 1:19.

                            Right, I thought there was a second reference, but I
                            was thinking of something else. SO I'll amend my
                            statement: Paul calls him "James, the brother of the
                            Lord" presumably to distinguish him from the other
                            James."

                            If you mean distinguishing him
                            > from James the brother of
                            > John who was killed by "Herod the king" (meaning
                            > Herod Agrippa I, who ruled
                            > in Jerusalem between 41-44 CE) this one is nowhere
                            > mentioned or alluded to
                            > in any of the letters of Paul. James the brother of
                            > John *is* mentioned in
                            > Acts 1:13 (upper room) & 12:2 (his death).... The
                            James> of Gal 1:19, probably the same as that
                            mentioned in
                            > Acts 15:13 & 21:18, must
                            > be different than James the brother of John, and is
                            > generally believed to be
                            > James the Just.
                            >
                            > Paul's visit with James, mentioned in Gal 1:19,
                            > occurred no earlier than
                            > about 33 CE, and probably before 36 CE, while Paul's
                            > correspondence with the
                            > Galatian churches was at the very least 14 years
                            > after that date (Gal 2:1),
                            > or at least after 50 CE. Would they know of James
                            > the brother of John in a
                            > manner that would necessitate differentiating him
                            > from James the Just?

                            That's a good question of course. But if there were
                            really travelling evangelists, which both Acts and
                            Paul and the Didache among other texts seem to
                            indicate, then at least some information about the
                            teachings and doings of Jesus and the early days of
                            the church were likely to have been shared and talked
                            about. I'm not sure I would agree with your dates on
                            Paul, but that's another matter altogether. In any
                            case, IF stories of Peter, James, and John went with
                            Jesus into the garden, or the mount of Transfiguration
                            or whatever were told, then James the brother of the
                            Lord, currently heading up the Jerusalem "mother"
                            community would need to be distinguished from the
                            James in the story.


                            > For what it is worth, Acts 12:17 has Lord, James and
                            > brother(s) in one
                            > verse, which may be significant if one might assert
                            > that "brother of the
                            > Lord" is somehow a gloss based on Acts 12:17, *or*
                            > that the term "brothers"
                            > is a designation for a group (not necessarily
                            > related by blood, as the
                            > semantic range is not limited to this) that once
                            > included Jesus and James
                            > the Just, making them all effectively "brothers" of
                            > one another.

                            True enough, but then why isn't anyone distinguished
                            with the "brother of the Lord" moniker, or other
                            leaders such as Peter called "brother". Not a
                            conclusive counter argument, just suggestive.

                            > >>1) Where in the 3-4 or later centuries is James
                            > known as "James, the
                            > brother of Jesus"? To my knowledge, this is NOT how
                            > he is referred to in
                            > this time period. Thus, it presents the same
                            > problem as Dr. Eisenman raises
                            > for a first century dating based on the fact that
                            > James was not called "the
                            > brother of Jesus" in the extant records.<<

                            > Here I'd agree that Eisenman is a bit vague. The
                            > index to _James the Brother
                            > of Jesus_, under "James as Jesus' brother" equates
                            > "brother of the Lord"
                            > with "brother of Jesus." I searched a bit among the
                            > ante-Nicene church
                            > fathers and could not find a phrase like "James the
                            > brother of Jesus" except
                            > in connection with the account in Josephus'
                            > Antiquities 20. Eisenman *does*
                            > note that Epiphanius calls James "son of Joseph and
                            > brother of the Lord,"
                            > and this combination shows up from that point on in
                            > authors like Eusebius.

                            Exactly the point. He is more than vague, his
                            suggestion is simply going in the wrong direction. It
                            is NOT more likely that we'd find "James...brother of
                            Jesus" in a fourth or fifth century context. I think
                            your search detailed above helps demonstrate this.

                            > >>In a related question, Dr. Eisenman pointed out
                            > that "we know where James
                            > was buried" pointed to Hegessipus and later Eusebius
                            > and Jerome who state
                            > that James was interred under the pinnacle of the
                            > Temple. I'm afraid I can
                            > not give credence to Hegessipus' claim. If James
                            > were pushed off the top of
                            > the temple and landed in the street, and beaten to
                            > death, do you really
                            > think that they would have buried him on the spot,
                            > right there in the middle
                            > of the street, ritually descrating not only the
                            > street, but the temple?
                            > This isn't even to wonder how seriously to take H's
                            > information from an
                            > historical perspective. But it seems implausible
                            > that they buried on a
                            > public street. As for fourth and fifth century
                            > writers who say that his
                            > headstone was still there, we must remember that
                            > already there was heavy traffic of Christians to
                            > Jerusalem, and of course
                            > someone at some time very
                            > soon after James' death marked the spot, the marker
                            > of the site of his death
                            > mistaken for his headstone.<<
                            >
                            > Eisenman means he was buried in Jerusalem (as
                            > opposed to Qumran*), probably
                            > at the foot of the temple, near the base of the
                            > Mount of Olives, where there
                            > *are* tombs.

                            I assume your getting this from teh book somewhere,
                            because this is certainly not in the letter to which I
                            responded. In the letter, you'll recall, he questions
                            the box because we know where James was buried acc. to
                            Hegesippus, who DOES NOT SAY buried in Jerusalem, near
                            the base of the Mount of Olives. H says on the spot
                            where he was killed, alongside the Sanctuary.

                            A rather large mausoleum in that area,
                            > now known to be the tomb
                            > of Bene Hezir, was popularly thought to be that of
                            > James the Just in later
                            > centuries. He also says that an ossuary is not
                            > associated with traditions
                            > about James the Just, but this last point may not be
                            > a significant
                            > objection, as I believe there is a complete lack of
                            > original burials in that
                            > area (i.e., not reburied in ossuaries) that date to
                            > that period.

                            Sure, but again in his letter Eisenman didn't mention
                            this tradition (or Jerome's misunderstanding of
                            Hegesippus) in indicating this area. It would be a
                            difficult thing to take H's testimony when he says
                            "beside the sanctuary" as "the bottom of the Temple
                            Mount, in the tombs at the base of the Mount of
                            Olives". These tombs are not "beside the sanctuary".



                            > * Eisenman is resentful of claims made by others
                            > that researchers associated
                            > with him, who were involved in the discovery of the
                            > Qumran area mausoleum
                            > with the zinc coffin, had supposedly speculated that
                            > James the Just was
                            > buried there. These claims, he told me, are not true
                            > but rather sarcasm on
                            > the part of his opponents, and he is firmly
                            > convinced that James is indeed
                            > buried in Jerusalem in the vicinity of the temple.

                            Ok, but I'm not involved in any of that nor did I
                            comment on it. I'm reacting to the letter that you
                            and John Lupia posted which was also in the LA
                            Times--none of this was hinted at there. I ask and
                            press again that I'm not at all certain (in fact
                            certain that we can not) take Hegesippus' testimony as
                            historical, at least not as it is written. We might
                            tease some history from it, but then I would want to
                            see an argument for it, rather than just an assertion.

                            Larry Swain
                          • LARRY SWAIN
                            ... Right, I thought there was a second reference, but I was thinking of something else. SO I ll amend my statement: Paul calls him James, the brother of the
                            Message 13 of 18 , Nov 4, 2002
                            • 0 Attachment
                              --- "David C. Hindley" <dhindley@...>
                              wrote:
                              > Larry Swain says:
                              >
                              > >>Paul calls him consistently "James, the brother of
                              > the Lord" presumably to
                              > distinguish him from the other James.<<

                              David responds:
                              > One time, Gal 1:19.

                              Right, I thought there was a second reference, but I
                              was thinking of something else. SO I'll amend my
                              statement: Paul calls him "James, the brother of the
                              Lord" presumably to distinguish him from the other
                              James."

                              If you mean distinguishing him
                              > from James the brother of
                              > John who was killed by "Herod the king" (meaning
                              > Herod Agrippa I, who ruled
                              > in Jerusalem between 41-44 CE) this one is nowhere
                              > mentioned or alluded to
                              > in any of the letters of Paul. James the brother of
                              > John *is* mentioned in
                              > Acts 1:13 (upper room) & 12:2 (his death).... The
                              James> of Gal 1:19, probably the same as that
                              mentioned in
                              > Acts 15:13 & 21:18, must
                              > be different than James the brother of John, and is
                              > generally believed to be
                              > James the Just.
                              >
                              > Paul's visit with James, mentioned in Gal 1:19,
                              > occurred no earlier than
                              > about 33 CE, and probably before 36 CE, while Paul's
                              > correspondence with the
                              > Galatian churches was at the very least 14 years
                              > after that date (Gal 2:1),
                              > or at least after 50 CE. Would they know of James
                              > the brother of John in a
                              > manner that would necessitate differentiating him
                              > from James the Just?

                              That's a good question of course. But if there were
                              really travelling evangelists, which both Acts and
                              Paul and the Didache among other texts seem to
                              indicate, then at least some information about the
                              teachings and doings of Jesus and the early days of
                              the church were likely to have been shared and talked
                              about. I'm not sure I would agree with your dates on
                              Paul, but that's another matter altogether. In any
                              case, IF stories of Peter, James, and John went with
                              Jesus into the garden, or the mount of Transfiguration
                              or whatever were told, then James the brother of the
                              Lord, currently heading up the Jerusalem "mother"
                              community would need to be distinguished from the
                              James in the story.


                              > For what it is worth, Acts 12:17 has Lord, James and
                              > brother(s) in one
                              > verse, which may be significant if one might assert
                              > that "brother of the
                              > Lord" is somehow a gloss based on Acts 12:17, *or*
                              > that the term "brothers"
                              > is a designation for a group (not necessarily
                              > related by blood, as the
                              > semantic range is not limited to this) that once
                              > included Jesus and James
                              > the Just, making them all effectively "brothers" of
                              > one another.

                              True enough, but then why isn't anyone distinguished
                              with the "brother of the Lord" moniker, or other
                              leaders such as Peter called "brother". Not a
                              conclusive counter argument, just suggestive.

                              > >>1) Where in the 3-4 or later centuries is James
                              > known as "James, the
                              > brother of Jesus"? To my knowledge, this is NOT how
                              > he is referred to in
                              > this time period. Thus, it presents the same
                              > problem as Dr. Eisenman raises
                              > for a first century dating based on the fact that
                              > James was not called "the
                              > brother of Jesus" in the extant records.<<

                              > Here I'd agree that Eisenman is a bit vague. The
                              > index to _James the Brother
                              > of Jesus_, under "James as Jesus' brother" equates
                              > "brother of the Lord"
                              > with "brother of Jesus." I searched a bit among the
                              > ante-Nicene church
                              > fathers and could not find a phrase like "James the
                              > brother of Jesus" except
                              > in connection with the account in Josephus'
                              > Antiquities 20. Eisenman *does*
                              > note that Epiphanius calls James "son of Joseph and
                              > brother of the Lord,"
                              > and this combination shows up from that point on in
                              > authors like Eusebius.

                              Exactly the point. He is more than vague, his
                              suggestion is simply going in the wrong direction. It
                              is NOT more likely that we'd find "James...brother of
                              Jesus" in a fourth or fifth century context. I think
                              your search detailed above helps demonstrate this.

                              > >>In a related question, Dr. Eisenman pointed out
                              > that "we know where James
                              > was buried" pointed to Hegessipus and later Eusebius
                              > and Jerome who state
                              > that James was interred under the pinnacle of the
                              > Temple. I'm afraid I can
                              > not give credence to Hegessipus' claim. If James
                              > were pushed off the top of
                              > the temple and landed in the street, and beaten to
                              > death, do you really
                              > think that they would have buried him on the spot,
                              > right there in the middle
                              > of the street, ritually descrating not only the
                              > street, but the temple?
                              > This isn't even to wonder how seriously to take H's
                              > information from an
                              > historical perspective. But it seems implausible
                              > that they buried on a
                              > public street. As for fourth and fifth century
                              > writers who say that his
                              > headstone was still there, we must remember that
                              > already there was heavy traffic of Christians to
                              > Jerusalem, and of course
                              > someone at some time very
                              > soon after James' death marked the spot, the marker
                              > of the site of his death
                              > mistaken for his headstone.<<
                              >
                              > Eisenman means he was buried in Jerusalem (as
                              > opposed to Qumran*), probably
                              > at the foot of the temple, near the base of the
                              > Mount of Olives, where there
                              > *are* tombs.

                              I assume your getting this from teh book somewhere,
                              because this is certainly not in the letter to which I
                              responded. In the letter, you'll recall, he questions
                              the box because we know where James was buried acc. to
                              Hegesippus, who DOES NOT SAY buried in Jerusalem, near
                              the base of the Mount of Olives. H says on the spot
                              where he was killed, alongside the Sanctuary.

                              A rather large mausoleum in that area,
                              > now known to be the tomb
                              > of Bene Hezir, was popularly thought to be that of
                              > James the Just in later
                              > centuries. He also says that an ossuary is not
                              > associated with traditions
                              > about James the Just, but this last point may not be
                              > a significant
                              > objection, as I believe there is a complete lack of
                              > original burials in that
                              > area (i.e., not reburied in ossuaries) that date to
                              > that period.

                              Sure, but again in his letter Eisenman didn't mention
                              this tradition (or Jerome's misunderstanding of
                              Hegesippus) in indicating this area. It would be a
                              difficult thing to take H's testimony when he says
                              "beside the sanctuary" as "the bottom of the Temple
                              Mount, in the tombs at the base of the Mount of
                              Olives". These tombs are not "beside the sanctuary".



                              > * Eisenman is resentful of claims made by others
                              > that researchers associated
                              > with him, who were involved in the discovery of the
                              > Qumran area mausoleum
                              > with the zinc coffin, had supposedly speculated that
                              > James the Just was
                              > buried there. These claims, he told me, are not true
                              > but rather sarcasm on
                              > the part of his opponents, and he is firmly
                              > convinced that James is indeed
                              > buried in Jerusalem in the vicinity of the temple.

                              Ok, but I'm not involved in any of that nor did I
                              comment on it. I'm reacting to the letter that you
                              and John Lupia posted which was also in the LA
                              Times--none of this was hinted at there. I ask and
                              press again that I'm not at all certain (in fact
                              certain that we can not) take Hegesippus' testimony as
                              historical, at least not as it is written. We might
                              tease some history from it, but then I would want to
                              see an argument for it, rather than just an assertion.

                              Larry Swain
                            • LARRY SWAIN
                              ... John, its a basic principle. That which is unclean defiles that which touches it. A grave is unclean. Therefore it makes unclean what it touches. If H
                              Message 14 of 18 , Nov 4, 2002
                              • 0 Attachment
                                --- John Lupia <jlupia2@...> wrote:
                                > --- LARRY SWAIN wrote:
                                >
                                > > > How do you figure this was a desecration of the
                                > > > street
                                > > > or temple? What evidence of the period is this
                                > > view
                                > > > based on?
                                > >
                                > > We don't need to go far John. Numbers 19:16, for
                                > > example: 'Also, anyone who in the open field
                                > touches
                                > > one who has been slain with a sword or who has
                                > died
                                > > naturally, or a human bone or a grave, shall be
                                > > unclean for seven days.'
                                >
                                >
                                > This does not address the issue of how it would or
                                > could desecrate the street or temple. This
                                > addresses
                                > the issue of an individual becoming unclean if they
                                > were to come in direct physical contact with a grave
                                > making them ritually unclean for a week. In neither
                                > case is this a desecration nor evidence to give
                                > credence to burying James in the temple street or
                                > pavement as desecratory. The burial would have been
                                > impractical if it were blocking a portal forcing
                                > entrants to step on it and become ritually unclean
                                > for
                                > a week but that still would not desecrate the temple
                                > or the street or pavement.

                                John, its a basic principle. That which is unclean
                                defiles that which touches it. A grave is unclean.
                                Therefore it makes unclean what it touches. If H is
                                taken at his word, James was killed in the inner court
                                before the sanctuary. If they buried him on the spot
                                beside the sanctuary, we have an unclean grave in the
                                place that is supposed to be clean and always
                                purified. Now narratively, this is exactly what H
                                wants the reader to take away from reading his
                                account: they defiled the Temple itself.
                                Historically, it is not a likely event.


                                > > Now since the good Hegesippus has James buried "by
                                > > the
                                > > Sanctuary" and his headstone is "by the Sanctuary"
                                > > anyone coming close to his grave becomes unclean,
                                > > and
                                > > do you think seriously that the priesthood is
                                > going
                                > > to
                                > > have a grave close enough to the Sanctuary in the
                                > > Temple precincts that might cause even accidental
                                > > pollution for the entire place, if someone should
                                > > touch it, become unclean, and then defile other
                                > > buildings and objects?
                                >
                                > This would be true if it were physically touching
                                > the sanctuary otherwise the rule does not apply.

                                I'm not certain that that is true. Consider Acts
                                21:27ff in which the "Jews" mob Paul because he has
                                "defiled" the Temple by bringing in "Gentiles", how
                                much more so to have a corpse buried there too, making
                                the whole court unclean. Or consider the case of
                                Stephen who desecrated the Temple by "speaking
                                against" it, but you suppose that a corpse and a
                                grave, both of which make anyone and anything touching
                                them unclean, would not create such a reaction or have
                                the effect of making the inner court of the Temple
                                unclean?
                                >
                                > Particularly in the
                                > > heightened
                                > > tensions of the early 60s?
                                >
                                > I do not see how a date near the Jewish Revolt
                                > should
                                > alter a Law or socio-cultural convention about
                                > desecration. The oppression by Rome and the ensuing
                                > acts of violation and defilement foisted on the Jews
                                > is what led to the revolt by brooding and brewing
                                > over
                                > a century like a tempest in a teapot. None of this
                                > altered the Jewish sense of what constitutes
                                > desecration. They were pretty firm on this issue
                                > and
                                > we saw their reaction to Pilate's action that was
                                > one
                                > of desecration.

                                An immaterial point I think. So you stretch the date
                                from 324 BCE to 135 AD, whatever. My only point was
                                that since various factions had formed and were busy
                                observing how the other groups were not conforming to
                                their idea of the Law that one group, according to
                                Hegesippus the Pharisees, who would be touching a
                                corpse and a grave within the Temple precincts,
                                creating a permanent zone of ritual impurity within
                                the Temple precincts would not have gone unnoticed or
                                unprotested especially in that heightened atomosphere.
                                My comment certainly should not be taken as in
                                someway excluding previous decades or centuries of
                                Gentile domination, nor that ideas of desecration had
                                changed.


                                > And since H has James buried "by"
                                > > (not
                                > > nearby, or in the vicinity) there is a chance that
                                > > the
                                > > building and grave touch in his account, thus
                                > > defiling
                                > > the Sanctuary.
                                >
                                >
                                > I see this has been your interpretation from the
                                > beginning but it is not required nor necessary. We
                                > would have no way of knowing outside of performing
                                > an
                                > archaeological excavation to determine this.

                                True, on the other hand good Hegesippus tells us it
                                was PARA TOU NOMOU, beside the Sanctuary, there isn't
                                much wiggle room there.

                                <snipped material>
                                > You have raised several different issues that have
                                > nothing to do with the original discussion and the
                                > burial in the street desecrating it and the temple.
                                > Stories consist of many webs of tissues and our
                                > discussion is about the burial spot of James in
                                > Hegesippus.

                                Not at all John. My original discussion was a
                                reaction to Dr. Eisenman's statement in a public
                                letter that Hegesippus tells us where James is buried.
                                My reaction is that Hegesippus' account is
                                unhistorical and so likely will not tell us where the
                                burial spot of James is. Thus, all those questions
                                you deign not answer address the issue of historicity
                                of several elements of Hegesippus' account. I would
                                say that that is germane to the original discussion
                                that you reacted to.
                                >
                                > > Falling off a high place
                                > > > onto a pavement would have splattered his skull
                                > > > leaving him in a pool of blood.
                                > >
                                > > Which is precisely what Hegesippus DOES NOT SAY.
                                >
                                > Precisely. Hegesippus wants to make it a severe
                                > tragic drama of cruelty and the participation of all
                                > of the Jewish religious showing their contempt for
                                > Christianity and the Gospels personified in James.
                                > But the essence of the point being made above by me
                                > is
                                > that the blood pool might in some way be the focus
                                > of
                                > the belief why James *needed* to be buried on the
                                > spot. This is the thread focused on among the many
                                > tissues of the whole text.

                                Now you're reading into the text. While I don't
                                disagree that H wants to paint some of the Jewish
                                religious in the way you describe, he nowhere mentions
                                the bloody pool or why James should be buried on the
                                spot. If you can provide a definite first century
                                precept that states that a person must be buried on
                                the spot on which they were murdered, I'll change my
                                position and eat my hat.

                                > a)
                                > > he did not fall, he was thrown off and
                                >
                                >
                                > When you hit the pavement your body only knows you
                                > fell. This is the focus of the specific tissue of
                                > the
                                > story the other factors are other threads that need
                                > separate discussion and investigation.

                                Again immaterial and not what you first claimed. Your
                                original claim was that "a fall off the roof would
                                have shattered his skull...." which it would have, but
                                that is not H's account. H's account has James being
                                hit on the head by a club: not all head trauma need
                                cause excessive external bleeding.


                                >
                                > b) he
                                > > survived
                                > > the fall, and they began to stone him (in the
                                > Temple
                                > > precincts), and when he prayed for them, one of
                                > them
                                > > just happened to have his fuller's stick with him
                                > on
                                > > his way to the Temple and coshed him on the head.
                                > > This is no mere fall off a high place, but a
                                > murder
                                > > in
                                > > the Temple itself.
                                >
                                John replied:
                                Dying directly from a fall from pushing is murder
                                without the baroque imagery of the masses murdering
                                James. As I said before stories consist of webs of
                                tissues and our focus is on the death of James from
                                the fall and investigating if there is any
                                historio-cultural cause to accept Hegesippus' tale
                                that he was buried on the spot.

                                Once again John, the question is whether H's account
                                of James burial can be historical. Which means we
                                have to deal with the account as it is, not as we
                                would wish it to be. H doesn't allow for James to die
                                on account of his fall. Nor from stoning. The
                                imagery is baroque, but that isn't the point of the
                                issue I have attempted to raise. Now, you claim that
                                a pool of blood would have created a situation in
                                which the corpse would need to be buried on the spot
                                to keep all the blood with the body. If H's account
                                left room for a whole lot of blood on the ground I
                                might agree, but H's account doesn't leave any room
                                for this.

                                >
                                > Jewish tradition on
                                > > blood Leviticus 17:11 dispensed with the taharah
                                > at
                                > > burial for those violently killed covered in blood
                                > > and
                                > > all the blood must be buried with the deceased.
                                >
                                > This isn't what Lev. 17:11 is about: this verse is
                                > the
                                > reason why no flesh is to be eaten with blood in it.
                                >
                                > It does not refer to the dead or those who have been
                                > killed violently. Are you thinking of a Mishnaic
                                > interpretation of this verse, or perhaps another
                                > text
                                > altogether?

                                John replies:
                                I think its Talmudic but I can't remember exactly
                                which tractate.

                                Ok, if you think it is good to avoid what the Mishnah
                                says, how are you going to demonstrate that this
                                Talmudic interpretation is first century, and why
                                aren't Talmudic understandings of impurity and
                                corpses, the dead, and the grave applicable. They are
                                even more specific that the Torah about zones of
                                impurity and why the dead are buried outside the city
                                etc.


                                Re: Stephen as an analogue:
                                > Sure, and note that when they stone Stephen they
                                > take
                                > him outside the city. Hegesippus specifically tells
                                > us that James was stoned NEXT TO THE SANCTUARY IN
                                > THE
                                > TEMPLE PRECINCTS. Not quite the same situation as
                                > with Stephen.

                                John replies:
                                No. But, if there is an underlying historio-culture
                                cause like the *need* to bury someone murdered or
                                violently slain covered in blood then the rule should
                                apply to both, which was my point.

                                You still have problems: one, providing evidence of
                                the historio-culture cause that you are invoking here
                                and there is nothing in the text to suggest that
                                Stephen was buried where he fell. Unlike in the James
                                story there is "on the spot".



                                > I agree, I think H's account is very symbolic and
                                > metaphorical. But I don't think it is very
                                > historical, and that is the way Dr. Eisenman is
                                > taking
                                > it in his letter when he states that Hegesippus
                                > tells
                                > us exactly where James is buried and no one mentions
                                > an ossuary. What he fails to mention is that the
                                > place where H has James buried is next to the
                                > Sanctuary.

                                John asks:
                                Is it absolutely positively a fact that the phrase
                                "beneath the pinnacle of the Temple in Jerusalem"
                                means next to (and possibly touching) the sanctuary?


                                No. Hegesippus' text says "on the spot, beside the
                                sanctuary." There is no "beneath the pinnacle of the
                                Temple". So, it is absolutely, positively a fact that
                                PARA TOU NOMOU means pretty close beside the
                                Sanctuary.

                                John states:
                                My previous post addressed a widely interpreted take
                                on Hegesippus that James was buried in the pavement
                                usually seen as a street-like walkway. But, I am
                                unsure of just exactly what Hegesippus means to say;
                                and if burial beneath a temple pinnacle is something
                                we can expect to be performed in Jerusalem at any
                                period. If so by the directive of what custom or law?


                                John, this is exactly my question. Can we truly
                                expect at any period that a burial is going to be
                                preformed in the inner court right beside the Temple
                                itself? I seriously doubt it.


                                John points out:
                                Bob does score an important point. He cites Hegesippus
                                and drives at the issue that James was buried not in a
                                cave-tomb (Khok) where his bones would have been
                                transferred the following year into an ossuary, but in
                                the ground and no ossuary would have been required.
                                Now even if we find difficulty with Hegesippus we must
                                consider the valid point Hegesippus raises and one
                                which I think Eisenman takes seriously, that James was
                                buried in the soil not a tomb.

                                The inner court was paved with stones. I don't think
                                this is necessarily a picture of digging a grave, but
                                of rather placing him under the stones, perhaps in a
                                hollowed out space. Granted H doesn't allow for this
                                either, all he says is that they "buried" him. I
                                wouldn't put too much emphasis on "bury" as
                                necessitating that he was put into soil, rather than a
                                tomb.

                                John concludes:
                                As noted above Hegesippus' tale tells us James was
                                buried in the ground. This may be the only web of
                                tissue true to the whole story. Just as the Warren
                                Report is an ingenious work of literary imagination
                                the only fact in it is that JFK was killed by a bullet
                                that hit him in the skull.


                                John, this is the fallacy of false analogy. Further,
                                David Hindley has already pointed out that there is a
                                tradition of James being buried in the tombs at the
                                foot of the Mount of Olives, not in the soil. ANd he
                                at least is citing Eisenman's book to that effect. I
                                don't see in Eisenman's letter a claim that James was
                                buried in a grave as the likely explanation of H's
                                words.

                                Regards,

                                Larry Swain
                              • LARRY SWAIN
                                ... None of which addresses the issues I asked of you. Were we examining Hegesippus for folk lore, for sources, for interpretive value, some of this might
                                Message 15 of 18 , Nov 4, 2002
                                • 0 Attachment
                                  --- "Rochelle I. Altman" <risa3@...>
                                  wrote:
                                  > Larry, have you seen all the superstitious nonsense
                                  > in
                                  > the DSS that was imported from Babylon??? Just the
                                  > type
                                  > of stuff Jeremiah railed against.
                                  >
                                  > One thing I have noticed is that people seem to
                                  > forget
                                  > that we are dealing with an eye for eye/ make the
                                  > punishment fit the crime society back then.
                                  >
                                  > It could make a difference in how people read the
                                  > texts,
                                  > No???
                                  >
                                  > G'night,
                                  >
                                  None of which addresses the issues I asked of you.
                                  Were we examining Hegesippus for folk lore, for
                                  sources, for interpretive value, some of this might
                                  provide interesting and helpful analogues. But the
                                  question is whether Hegesippus' can be relied on as
                                  historically accurate enough for Eisenman to claim
                                  that H tells us where James was buried, and therefore
                                  no bone box was necessary. So if some of those nice
                                  Babylonian "nonsense"s talk about burying corpses in
                                  temple precincts where they would be ritually unclean
                                  and pollute what they touch, by all means point me to
                                  a text. If not, the questions I asked previously are
                                  still unanswered.

                                  Larry Swain
                                • John Lupia
                                  LARRY SWAIN wrote John, its a basic principle. That which is unclean defiles that which touches it. A grave is unclean. Therefore it makes unclean what it
                                  Message 16 of 18 , Nov 5, 2002
                                  • 0 Attachment
                                    LARRY SWAIN wrote
                                    John, its a basic principle. That which is unclean
                                    defiles that which touches it. A grave is unclean.
                                    Therefore it makes unclean what it touches. If H is
                                    taken at his word, James was killed in the inner court
                                    before the sanctuary. If they buried him on the spot
                                    beside the sanctuary, we have an unclean grave in the
                                    place that is supposed to be clean and always
                                    purified. Now narratively, this is exactly what H
                                    wants the reader to take away from reading his
                                    account: they defiled the Temple itself.
                                    Historically, it is not a likely event.

                                    Dear Larry:

                                    I think the problem involves your premise interpreting
                                    Hegesippus as claiming �James was killed in the inner
                                    court before the sanctuary.� He does not say this in
                                    my reading. Consequently we are working from two
                                    different premises. Hegesippus only says that while
                                    James stood �on the summit of the temple� the
                                    Pharisees and scribes �went up and threw down the just
                                    man�; �they buried him on the spot, and the pillar
                                    erected to his memory still remains, close by the
                                    temple.� Carefully looking at Hegesippus� account and
                                    the architectural reconstructions of the Herodian
                                    Temple James could have landed on the pavement in
                                    front but outside of the Temple. This seems to be the
                                    stronger reading since the phrase �close by the
                                    temple� characterizes the memorial erected to James
                                    not the site of his grave specifically whose location
                                    we are told only vaguely that �they buried him on the
                                    spot�; both parts of the statement suggest it is
                                    outside. A more detailed analysis is given below. So
                                    my asking for antique sources regarding desecration
                                    were not directed to finding reasons why it was
                                    allowable to bury anyone within the Temple since not
                                    even Hegesippus makes the claim, only some of his
                                    readers. Much of what follows in our discussion below
                                    repeats these same differences of our opinions
                                    regarding the premise of the argument.

                                    [snip]

                                    LS
                                    > And since H has James buried "by"
                                    > > (not
                                    > > nearby, or in the vicinity) there is a chance that
                                    > > the
                                    > > building and grave touch in his account, thus
                                    > > defiling
                                    > > the Sanctuary.
                                    >

                                    JL
                                    > I see this has been your interpretation from the
                                    > beginning but it is not required nor necessary. We
                                    > would have no way of knowing outside of performing
                                    > an
                                    > archaeological excavation to determine this.

                                    LS
                                    True, on the other hand good Hegesippus tells us it
                                    was PARA TOU NOMOU, beside the Sanctuary, there isn't
                                    much wiggle room there.


                                    JL
                                    Nearby the Temple gives plenty of leeway to place the
                                    grave site and the pillar monument well outside the
                                    walls in the street.

                                    <snipped material>
                                    JL
                                    > You have raised several different issues that have
                                    > nothing to do with the original discussion and the
                                    > burial in the street desecrating it and the temple.
                                    > Stories consist of many webs of tissues and our
                                    > discussion is about the burial spot of James in
                                    > Hegesippus.

                                    LS
                                    Not at all John. My original discussion was a
                                    reaction to Dr. Eisenman's statement in a public
                                    letter that Hegesippus tells us where James is buried.
                                    My reaction is that Hegesippus' account is
                                    unhistorical and so likely will not tell us where the
                                    burial spot of James is. Thus, all those questions
                                    you deign not answer address the issue of historicity
                                    of several elements of Hegesippus' account. I would
                                    say that that is germane to the original discussion
                                    that you reacted to.

                                    JL
                                    I obviously disagree. Stories are complex webs of
                                    tissues. The task of the researcher is to examine
                                    this complex web and investigate each elementary
                                    component. There are at least 12 key components to
                                    the story: (1) Pharisees and scribes escort James to
                                    the summit of the Temple to dissuade the crowds; (2)
                                    James� preaching persuades them of Jesus as Messiah;
                                    (3) the Pharisees and scribes regret their use of
                                    James to dissuade the crowds and realize that James
                                    leads them on as followers of Jesus and so decide to
                                    go back up and throw him down to fall to his death.(4)
                                    they incite the crowd against James (5) they execute
                                    the plan throwing him down but James does not
                                    immediately die. (6) they stone James (7) like St.
                                    Stephen James makes a prayer for his executioners (8)
                                    a Rechabite intervenes asking the stoning be stopped
                                    (9) a fuller throws his staff at James� head (10)
                                    James died (11) he was buried on the spot (12) a
                                    pillar erected to his memory remains near the Temple.

                                    Only seven of the elements are essential to the
                                    question of James�s burial site: nos. 1,5-6,9-12.
                                    (Nos. 1 & 5) That James stood at the highest site in
                                    Jerusalem and fell is important information which must
                                    be tempered by additional information to determine
                                    what this implies. (No. 6) James is stoned suggests
                                    this takes place outside on the street by the very
                                    nature of the act and the need for loose stones
                                    unavailable in an inner court. (No. 9) A fuller
                                    wielding a staff is appropriate on the street but not
                                    within the inner courtyard. See Samuel Kurinsky,
                                    Dye-Making: A Judaic Traditional Art (Fact Paper 21)
                                    �The Fullers and Dyers of Judah� par. 3 ff.
                                    http://www.hebrewhistory.org/factpapers/dyemaking21.html#ch2


                                    (Nos. 10-12) James is buried and a pillar memorial
                                    near the Temple still remained during the time of
                                    Hegesippus.

                                    We are uncertain of the date when Hegesippus� personal
                                    inquiry and investigations into the episode of the
                                    martyrdom of St. James took place. It may have been
                                    as early as 60 years post eventu or as late as 90.
                                    For all we know his account is based on a text
                                    inscribed on the pillar memorial making the dating of
                                    his presence meaningless.

                                    JL
                                    > Precisely. Hegesippus wants to make it a severe
                                    > tragic drama of cruelty and the participation of all
                                    > of the Jewish religious showing their contempt for
                                    > Christianity and the Gospels personified in James.
                                    > But the essence of the point being made above by me
                                    > is
                                    > that the blood pool might in some way be the focus
                                    > of
                                    > the belief why James *needed* to be buried on the
                                    > spot. This is the thread focused on among the many
                                    > tissues of the whole text.

                                    LS
                                    Now you're reading into the text. While I don't
                                    disagree that H wants to paint some of the Jewish
                                    religious in the way you describe, he nowhere mentions
                                    the bloody pool or why James should be buried on the
                                    spot. If you can provide a definite first century
                                    precept that states that a person must be buried on
                                    the spot on which they were murdered, I'll change my
                                    position and eat my hat.

                                    JL
                                    This is the beauty of the artistry of Hegesippus�
                                    rhetorical style which is restrained but provocative.
                                    The portrait of the scene painted by Hegesippus� words
                                    is intended to evoke images of details not recorded in
                                    the text but implied by logic. Hegesippus has no need
                                    to tell us about the pool of blood, it is logically
                                    implied. Nobody falls from the pinnacle of the Temple
                                    at Jerusalem onto the pavement below and perhaps
                                    bouncing off the wall before hitting the ground and
                                    does not suffer from severe hemorrhaging, i.e., blood
                                    flow, ergo, pools of blood. This image is enhanced by
                                    the act of stoning on top of the fall. Finally, a
                                    fuller hurls his staff like a spear hitting James in
                                    the head. It is impossible to read this account and
                                    not see James in your mind bleeding and pools of blood
                                    collecting on the ground. Martin Scorsese or any
                                    other Hollywood director would not have it any other
                                    way if they directed this scene on film. This was a
                                    well known literary technique of rhetorical style to
                                    evoke images within the mind of the reader. Granted
                                    this will be subjective and blood pools, color, and
                                    quantity will vary from one reader�s imagination to
                                    the other.


                                    LS
                                    > a)
                                    > > he did not fall, he was thrown off and


                                    > JL
                                    > When you hit the pavement your body only knows you
                                    > fell. This is the focus of the specific tissue of
                                    > the
                                    > story the other factors are other threads that need
                                    > separate discussion and investigation.

                                    LS
                                    Again immaterial and not what you first claimed. Your
                                    original claim was that "a fall off the roof would
                                    have shattered his skull...." which it would have, but
                                    that is not H's account.

                                    JL
                                    See above comments regarding rhetorical style. Not
                                    mentioning cracked heads and bloody faces is part of
                                    the artistry of storytelling.

                                    LS
                                    H's account has James being
                                    hit on the head by a club: not all head trauma need
                                    cause excessive external bleeding.


                                    JL
                                    He fell 30 feet or more onto a stone pavement; he was
                                    gashed and pummeled by being stoned with rocks; and
                                    then hit in the head by a hard wooden rod thrown like
                                    a spear. He was definitely bleeding profusely. I do
                                    not think he died from cancer, tuberculosis, or
                                    leukemia, but by severe internal and external
                                    hemorrhaging. There was blood everywhere. Hegesippus
                                    painted a baroque gory scene of a street massacre of a
                                    victim who fell from a great height and was brutally
                                    tortured.

                                    LS
                                    > b) he
                                    > > survived
                                    > > the fall, and they began to stone him (in the
                                    > Temple
                                    > > precincts), and when he prayed for them, one of
                                    > them
                                    > > just happened to have his fuller's stick with him
                                    > on
                                    > > his way to the Temple and coshed him on the head.
                                    > > This is no mere fall off a high place, but a
                                    > murder
                                    > > in
                                    > > the Temple itself.
                                    >

                                    JL:
                                    Dying directly from a fall from pushing is murder
                                    without the baroque imagery of the masses murdering
                                    James. As I said before stories consist of webs of
                                    tissues and our focus is on the death of James from
                                    the fall and investigating if there is any
                                    historio-cultural cause to accept Hegesippus' tale
                                    that he was buried on the spot.

                                    LS
                                    Once again John, the question is whether H's account
                                    of James burial can be historical. Which means we
                                    have to deal with the account as it is, not as we
                                    would wish it to be. H doesn't allow for James to die
                                    on account of his fall. Nor from stoning. The
                                    imagery is baroque, but that isn't the point of the
                                    issue I have attempted to raise. Now, you claim that
                                    a pool of blood would have created a situation in
                                    which the corpse would need to be buried on the spot
                                    to keep all the blood with the body. If H's account
                                    left room for a whole lot of blood on the ground I
                                    might agree, but H's account doesn't leave any room
                                    for this.

                                    JL
                                    I clearly disagree. There does not appear to be any
                                    element in Hegesippus� account that contradicts any
                                    historical possibility for its being true. Bob
                                    Eisenman is not wrong for also seeing this as being
                                    probably historical.

                                    [snip]

                                    LS
                                    No. Hegesippus' text says "on the spot, beside the
                                    sanctuary." There is no "beneath the pinnacle of the
                                    Temple". So, it is absolutely, positively a fact that
                                    PARA TOU NOMOU means pretty close beside the
                                    Sanctuary.

                                    JL
                                    My analysis of the 7 key elements of the 12 suggests
                                    outside on the street (ergo, beneath the pinnacle),
                                    which is nearby and not close enough to warrant what
                                    you conclude.

                                    [snip]



                                    Best regards,
                                    John


                                    =====
                                    John N. Lupia, III
                                    501 North Avenue B-1
                                    Elizabeth, New Jersey 07208-1731 USA
                                    Phone: (908) 994-9720
                                    Email: jlupia2@...
                                    Editor, Roman Catholic News
                                    http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Roman-Catholic-News

                                    __________________________________________________
                                    Do you Yahoo!?
                                    HotJobs - Search new jobs daily now
                                    http://hotjobs.yahoo.com/
                                  • LARRY SWAIN
                                    My apologies to the list for both the delay and the length of the following two posts. In discussing the so-called James Ossuary, shrouded in bad argument all
                                    Message 17 of 18 , Nov 10, 2002
                                    • 0 Attachment
                                      My apologies to the list for both the delay and the
                                      length of the following two posts. In discussing the
                                      so-called James Ossuary, shrouded in bad argument all
                                      round and in some quarters nearing conspiracy theory
                                      level (not to mention miraculous grandchildren who
                                      perceive precisely what their ancestor sees, and
                                      nothing more or less), I raised an issue re: what
                                      apparently is Bob Eisenman's literal reading of
                                      Hegesippus as a historical indicator of James' burial
                                      place, leading him to question the authenticity of the
                                      ossuary. The issue I raised was not the issue of
                                      authenticity, but the issue of whether Hegesippus'
                                      report should be taken as history, and therefore
                                      grounds for doubting the ossuary's authenticity.

                                      John Lupia raised several questions on my challenge
                                      and reading of Hegesippus. What follows is a direct
                                      response to his last email from midweek last week, and
                                      this response is in two parts. FOllowing the second
                                      part of my direct response to John is a fuller outline
                                      of how I read Hegesippus particularly on the matter of
                                      James' death and burial in the Temple inner courts as
                                      an integral part of Hegesippus' tale. Thank you for
                                      your indulgence.

                                      --- John Lupia <jlupia2@...> wrote:
                                      >
                                      > LARRY SWAIN wrote
                                      > John, its a basic principle. That which is unclean
                                      > defiles that which touches it. A grave is unclean.
                                      > Therefore it makes unclean what it touches. If H is
                                      > taken at his word, James was killed in the inner
                                      > court before the sanctuary. <snipped>

                                      > Dear Larry:
                                      >
                                      > I think the problem involves your premise
                                      > interpreting Hegesippus as claiming �James was
                                      killed in the inner court before the sanctuary.� He
                                      does not say this in my reading. Consequently we are
                                      working from two different premises.

                                      John,
                                      Yes, we are working from two different premises, I
                                      thought that was very clear. It is a matter of how
                                      one reads Hegesippus. I'll outline, though not fully
                                      argue, my reasons for reading H in the way I do.

                                      Hegesippus only says that while
                                      > James stood �on the summit of the temple� the
                                      > Pharisees and scribes �went up and threw down the
                                      > just man�; �they buried him on the spot, and the
                                      pillar erected to his memory still remains, close by
                                      the temple.� Carefully looking at Hegesippus� account
                                      > and the architectural reconstructions of the
                                      Herodian
                                      > Temple James could have landed on the pavement in
                                      > front but outside of the Temple.

                                      I'm afraid John that this will not quite do. a)
                                      carefully looking at H's account, he describes BOTH
                                      the burial and the positioning of the stele as PARA
                                      TWi NAWi, beside the sanctuary. In fact, the Greek
                                      text repeats this prepositional phrase at each
                                      juncture just to emphasize that the burial happened
                                      beside the sanctuary and the stele is by the
                                      sanctuary.
                                      b) carefully examining maps and reconstructions of
                                      Herod's Temple while there is a chance that James
                                      missed the inner court with a stiff breeze and a good
                                      trajectory et al, a simple push isn't going to give
                                      him enough outward momentum to miss the inner court.
                                      But even if he did, there's that little thing called
                                      the Court of the Gentiles surrounding the inner court,
                                      and the same problems apply there as would apply to
                                      the inner court. Besides, H has very good reason for
                                      the reader to understand that James fell in the inner
                                      court. c) PARA + Dative emphasizes proximity, its
                                      something close by, next to, near. The court of the
                                      Gentiles or the street outside or the bottom of the
                                      Kidron valley don't fit H's description of it being
                                      "beside the sanctuary".


                                      This seems to be
                                      > the stronger reading since the phrase �close by the
                                      > temple� characterizes the memorial erected to James
                                      > not the site of his grave specifically whose
                                      > location we are told only vaguely that �they buried
                                      him on the spot�; both parts of the statement suggest
                                      it is outside.

                                      Interesting John, but unfortunately it will not wash.
                                      First, your separation of the phrase "close by the
                                      temple" from the phrase "they buried him on the spot"
                                      is not what the Greek says. The Greek text reads: KAI
                                      EQAPSEN AUTON EPI TWi TOPWi PARA TWi NAWi KAI ETI
                                      AUTOU (H STHLH MENEI PARA TWi NAWi Thus, reading
                                      Hegesippus' text carefully, we can not separate the
                                      burial site from being PARA TWi NAWi, beside the
                                      Temple. Second, PARA + dative indicates nearness,
                                      proximity, and it would be quite a stretch for that
                                      idea of close proximity to include something down the
                                      street from teh Temple precinct when it says "beside
                                      the Temple". Further, H consistently uses VAOS to
                                      refer to the sanctuary, so we can't even take VAOS in
                                      a larger sense of being the whole Temple complex.

                                      Third, then we must turn to where Hegesippus wants the
                                      reader to see James falling. a) you assume, and I'll
                                      assume with you for a moment, that Hegessipus was
                                      familiar with the Temple precincts, or that his source
                                      was. If we look at the physical locale of the temple,
                                      the Sanctuary is surrounded on 3 sides by the inner
                                      courts, and on the fourth it backs nearly to a wall,
                                      with a part of the wider courth of the Gentiles
                                      running behind it, and then a wall, and outside that
                                      wall is the cliff falling down into the Kidron Valley.
                                      Only if they threw him off the back of the Temple,
                                      with a bit of thrust and direction would he have gone
                                      over that back wall and down into the valley. But in
                                      any other direction he would have landed in the court,
                                      particularly if it was a simple push off the top of
                                      the building. At the very most you could argue that
                                      he landed in the court of the Gentiles, but a burial
                                      and monument erected here is just as problematic as
                                      the inner court: pollution within the Temple
                                      precincts.

                                      JL
                                      > So> my asking for antique sources regarding
                                      desecration
                                      > were not directed to finding reasons why it was
                                      > allowable to bury anyone within the Temple since not
                                      > even Hegesippus makes the claim, only some of his
                                      > readers.

                                      It isn't possible to fall off the highest point in the
                                      sanctuary and land in the street leading up to it.
                                      And while H doesn't make the explicit claim, his tale
                                      is constructed so as to lead to only that conclusion.


                                      > LS
                                      > True, on the other hand good Hegesippus tells us it
                                      > was PARA TOU NAWi, beside the Sanctuary, there
                                      > isn't much wiggle room there. (with corrected
                                      transliteration)

                                      > JL
                                      > Nearby the Temple gives plenty of leeway to place
                                      > the
                                      > grave site and the pillar monument well outside the
                                      > walls in the street.

                                      I don't think so John. PARA + Dative connotes
                                      physical proximity, being beside something as in John
                                      19:25, PARA TWi STAURWi, beside the cross, not down
                                      the hill across the street. I think the error may lay
                                      in the imprecise nature of the translation your
                                      looking at, the Post Nicene Fathers series I would
                                      guess.

                                      > LS
                                      > Not at all John. My original discussion was a
                                      > reaction to Dr. Eisenman's statement in a public
                                      > letter that Hegesippus tells us where James is
                                      > buried.
                                      > My reaction is that Hegesippus' account is
                                      > unhistorical and so likely will not tell us where
                                      > the
                                      > burial spot of James is. Thus, all those questions
                                      > you deign not answer address the issue of
                                      > historicity
                                      > of several elements of Hegesippus' account. I would
                                      > say that that is germane to the original discussion
                                      > that you reacted to.

                                      > JL
                                      > I obviously disagree. Stories are complex webs of
                                      > tissues. The task of the researcher is to examine
                                      > this complex web and investigate each elementary
                                      > component.

                                      Hopefully without losing sight of the whole.

                                      JL
                                      There are at least 12 key components to
                                      > the story: (1) Pharisees and scribes escort James
                                      > to
                                      > the summit of the Temple to dissuade the crowds; (2)
                                      > James� preaching persuades them of Jesus as Messiah;
                                      > (3) the Pharisees and scribes regret their use of
                                      > James to dissuade the crowds and realize that James
                                      > leads them on as followers of Jesus and so decide to
                                      > go back up and throw him down to fall to his
                                      > death.(4)
                                      > they incite the crowd against James (5) they execute
                                      > the plan throwing him down but James does not
                                      > immediately die. (6) they stone James (7) like St.
                                      > Stephen James makes a prayer for his executioners

                                      more like Jesus and in Jesus' own words
                                      > (8)
                                      > a Rechabite intervenes asking the stoning be stopped

                                      the "Rechabite" is incredulous, pointing out that the
                                      holy man prayed for them while they stoned him,
                                      nothing more.

                                      > (9) a fuller throws his staff at James� head

                                      HNEGKEN KATA THS KEPHALHS TOU DIKAIOU, he brought it
                                      down on the head of the righteous,

                                      (10)
                                      > James died (11) he was buried on the spot (12) a
                                      > pillar erected to his memory remains near the
                                      > Temple.
                                      > Only seven of the elements are essential to the
                                      > question of James�s burial site: nos. 1,5-6,9-12.
                                      > (Nos. 1 & 5) That James stood at the highest site in
                                      > Jerusalem and fell is important information which
                                      > must
                                      > be tempered by additional information to determine
                                      > what this implies. (No. 6) James is stoned suggests
                                      > this takes place outside on the street by the very
                                      > nature of the act and the need for loose stones
                                      > unavailable in an inner court.

                                      Its paved with stones, the principle building material
                                      is stone, and the literary model which I think is the
                                      basis of the tale has Zechariah stoned in the Temple.
                                      I don't perceive this as a problem.

                                      (No. 9) A fuller
                                      > wielding a staff is appropriate on the street but
                                      > not
                                      > within the inner courtyard. See Samuel Kurinsky,
                                      > Dye-Making: A Judaic Traditional Art (Fact Paper 21)
                                      > �The Fullers and Dyers of Judah� par. 3 ff.
                                      >
                                      http://www.hebrewhistory.org/factpapers/dyemaking21.html#ch2

                                      a) This bibliography is irrelevant, it does not tell
                                      us anything about what is or is not inappropriate at
                                      the Temple with regards fullers. b) he wasn't
                                      "wielding a staff"; he simply had the implement of his
                                      trade with him, and hit James on the head and c) he
                                      isn't historical anyway (see below)

                                      > We are uncertain of the date when Hegesippus�
                                      > personal
                                      > inquiry and investigations into the episode of the
                                      > martyrdom of St. James took place. It may have been
                                      > as early as 60 years post eventu or as late as 90.
                                      > For all we know his account is based on a text
                                      > inscribed on the pillar memorial making the dating
                                      > of
                                      > his presence meaningless.

                                      His date of inquiry is irrelevant. He is writing the
                                      story close to a century after the fact, even if he
                                      knew the story fifty years before he was writing it,
                                      right about the time we start seeing other Christian
                                      hagiography based on real events appear, also with
                                      miraculous deaths. Further, Jerome tells us nothing
                                      of the story being inscribed on the stele, so that is
                                      an unlikely place to find it. But even if H did find
                                      it there and it disappeared before Jerome, who
                                      actually says the thing is somewhere else that H does,
                                      it doesn't change the fact that the story H tells is
                                      largely hagiographical and fiction, not history.
                                    • LARRY SWAIN
                                      JL ... words ... in ... need ... John, there are plenty of good, rhetorical stories in which these details are supplied, such as the Martyrdom of Polycarp.
                                      Message 18 of 18 , Nov 10, 2002
                                      • 0 Attachment
                                        JL
                                        >This is the beauty of the artistry of Hegesippus�
                                        >rhetorical style which is restrained but provocative.

                                        >The portrait of the scene painted by Hegesippus�
                                        words
                                        >is intended to evoke images of details not recorded
                                        in
                                        >the text but implied by logic. Hegesippus has no
                                        need
                                        >to tell us about the pool of blood, it is logically
                                        >implied.

                                        John, there are plenty of good, rhetorical stories in
                                        which these details are supplied, such as the
                                        Martyrdom of Polycarp. Further, I think you've
                                        misunderstood the story, I'll explain why below. But
                                        in a story like this, the "rhetorical style" is to
                                        leave clues to guide the reader, there are no such
                                        clues here other than your claim. And if this is
                                        supposed to be a miracle tale? What then? What
                                        beloved saint bleeds profusely at a miracle? So you
                                        read it as a modern, putting in the bits of blood and
                                        gore. I'm reading it like its second century
                                        hagiography, no gore.

                                        > Martin Scorsese or any
                                        >other Hollywood director would not have it any other
                                        >way if they directed this scene on film.

                                        Ah, there's the rub. As much as I like Scorsese films
                                        I doubt very much that he would read this text like a
                                        second century Christian. Rather, he'd read it like a
                                        20th century artist. And here, by invoking such an
                                        analogy, (and a logically false one at that) I think
                                        you demonstrate that you too are reading this story as
                                        20th century person, not a second century one.


                                        >>LS
                                        >>Again immaterial and not what you first claimed.
                                        >>Your
                                        >>original claim was that "a fall off the roof would
                                        >>have shattered his skull...." which it would have,
                                        >>but
                                        >>that is not H's account.

                                        >JL
                                        >See above comments regarding rhetorical style. Not
                                        >mentioning cracked heads and bloody faces is part of
                                        >the artistry of storytelling.

                                        Unless of course the author didn't include cracked
                                        heads and bloody faces because he DIDN"T want you to
                                        see them there and wanted you to see something else?


                                        >>LS
                                        >> H's account has James being
                                        >>hit on the head by a club: not all head trauma need
                                        >>cause excessive external bleeding.

                                        >JL
                                        >He fell 30 feet or more onto a stone pavement; he was
                                        >gashed and pummeled by being stoned with rocks; and
                                        >then hit in the head by a hard wooden rod thrown like
                                        >a spear. He was definitely bleeding profusely. I do
                                        >not think he died from cancer, tuberculosis, or
                                        >leukemia, but by severe internal and external
                                        >hemorrhaging. There was blood everywhere. Hegesippus
                                        >painted a baroque gory scene of a street massacre of
                                        a
                                        >victim who fell from a great height and was brutally
                                        >tortured.

                                        But John, where are your clues to this in the text?
                                        Other images of death, such as the gospels, or even
                                        Stephen's stoning, which while it does not mention
                                        blood, has him slowly getting closer to the ground
                                        before the final moment. 4th Maccabbees paints some
                                        grotesque pictures, and even the martyrdom of Polycarp
                                        mentions the smell (by contrast with what they
                                        expected, it smelled like gold being refined) and
                                        blood gushing out of his side. I suppose you could
                                        claim that these stories are not as rhetorically
                                        sophisticated as Hegesippus, but that seems a cheap
                                        move. So what are the rhetorical clues that suggest
                                        to you that we read the text in this way?


                                        LS
                                        No. Hegesippus' text says "on the spot, beside the
                                        sanctuary." There is no "beneath the pinnacle of the
                                        Temple". So, it is absolutely, positively a fact that
                                        PARA TOU NAWi means pretty close beside the
                                        Sanctuary.

                                        JL
                                        My analysis of the 7 key elements of the 12 suggests
                                        outside on the street (ergo, beneath the pinnacle),
                                        which is nearby and not close enough to warrant what
                                        you conclude.

                                        Based, unfortunately John, on a misunderstanding of
                                        the double repetition of the PARA TWi NAWi, and
                                        several other key misunderstandings of the text.
                                        Do keep reading though.

                                        Below is a fuller analysis of Hegesippus' text. My
                                        contention in what follows is that H has taken a few
                                        nuggets of historical fact and woven them into a grand
                                        hagiographical tale that alludes to several NT
                                        passages as well as OT passages in the end: a)
                                        elevating James b) indicting the Pharisees and the
                                        people

                                        A. The Locus of the Action
                                        James is buried in the Temple. There are several
                                        reasons to conclude this from the text.

                                        1. James' relationship to the Temple are among the
                                        most important things that H tells us about him: he
                                        wore linen, holy from his birth, a Nazirite, (remember
                                        a similar vegetarian, holy from birth chap born of a
                                        priestly father, John the Baptist. This may be a
                                        reference to Lk. 1 where John Bapt. is described as
                                        drinking no liquor, and being great in the Lord's
                                        sight). But we are next told he wore linen, since
                                        that is priestly garb, and he ALONE was allowed to
                                        enter the Holy place, and within that sanctuary he
                                        seeks forgiveness for the people, the job of the
                                        priest. Since it should go without too much question
                                        that H's audience was Christian that there was
                                        familiarity with language and the texts. James
                                        relationship to the Temple is well extablished.

                                        2. The location of the action is the Temple. James is
                                        apparently in the Temple when they go to him. The
                                        people are gathered for Passover, and of course the
                                        one place they all come is the Temple in order to buy
                                        the appropriate lamb etc. They take James to the
                                        pinnacle of the temple, and from below in the
                                        courtyard address him, and he replies. When they go
                                        up and "throw him down" in order for the crowds NOT
                                        to be misled by him, they throw him into the Temple.
                                        Otherwise the gathered crowds are not going to see
                                        what happens to heretics. And when James does fall,
                                        they know that he didn't die because they can still
                                        him, not possible if he went over the wall into the
                                        valley.

                                        3. There is one other place in CHristian literature
                                        that the word PTERUGION is used: in the Temptation
                                        scene of Christ in Matt 4 and Lk 4. The repeat use of
                                        the term here undoubtedly is purposeful. In addition
                                        to the repetition of the word PTERUGION, we have
                                        extremely similar narrative scenes: Jesus and James
                                        both stand in the same spot, both have interlocutors,
                                        both have apparent audiences (in the Temptation scene,
                                        no audience is mentioned, but why else would the devil
                                        have Jesus throw himself off if not to display his
                                        "son of God" power to the people). In the Jesus
                                        story, which H's audience was familiar, the devil
                                        cites Ps. 91, that God gives his angels charge lest
                                        the righteous strike a foot on a stone. We'll return
                                        to this image momentarily, but the narrative scenes
                                        and the use of the word literarily tie H's execution
                                        of James with Jesus. For the moment, since this
                                        connection has been made by H, the natural assumption
                                        then is that James, like Jesus, is before an audience.

                                        4) James is described as buried PARA TWi NAWi, as also
                                        is the stele marking his grave. PARA + Dative
                                        indicates close proximity, thus was close to the
                                        Sanctuary, even alongside the sanctuary, not outside
                                        the Temple.

                                        5) Further, it was Passover time. And H concludes the
                                        story by stating that immediately after James' death
                                        that "Vespasian" (sic!) surrounded the city. Now
                                        think of what Passover means, and further consider
                                        that the Temple has been defiled with a grave and that
                                        the religious leaders are unclean for 7 days unable to
                                        take part in the Passover of the Lord. Thus, the
                                        narrative here, with the details left out, indicates
                                        that there is something very serious going on, or
                                        rather not going on, in James' death that influences
                                        te whole complex of the Temple.

                                        6. In yet another use of mimesis, H ties the death of
                                        James to Jesus' words at the end of Matthew 23, the
                                        long indictment of the Scribes and Pharisees. It is
                                        precisely these two groups mentioned by H as
                                        responsible for James' death. James has also been
                                        portrayed by H as the high priest, and James and one
                                        High Priest are known to have been stoned. James the
                                        Righteous and the Zechariah, mentioned in Matthew
                                        23:35 are murdered in the Temple, both were stoned.
                                        Further, in the same verse in Matthew, we have the
                                        mention of Abel the Righteous. Thus, the case of
                                        James reminds the reader of Jesus' words against the
                                        Pharisees, that all righteous blood on earth will fall
                                        on them. Zechariah of course is murdered in 2
                                        Chronicles, 24:22. 2 Chron. 24:23 records the coming
                                        of the Syrian army, overcoming Jerusalem. Thus, the
                                        similarity of narrative and the use of similar
                                        vocabulary indicates H has woven a story that ties
                                        James again directly to the Temple, and his death
                                        directly to the Temple, which has significance for the
                                        conclusion H reaches: the killing of James results in
                                        the sack of the city just as the killing of Zechariah
                                        seems to lead to the sack of the city; and at the same
                                        time to continue an indictment of the Pharisees as the
                                        primary enemies of early Christianity.

                                        For all of these reasons, then, it would seem that
                                        while historically possible that James was carried
                                        outside the Temple or fell outside the Temple and H
                                        just doesn't get explicit about it the "historical"
                                        reading given by John Lupia overlooks the mimetic
                                        weave of allusions, narrative similarities, identical
                                        and obscure words that link passages of the Hebrew
                                        Bible, passages of the Christian writings not yet
                                        Scripture, and his own text.

                                        The historical reading also overlooks the developing
                                        genre of hagiographic literature that appears about
                                        this time in Christian circles. This story by H about
                                        James' death seems to fit that genre like a glove.
                                        This isn't to say that it is completely unhistorical,
                                        there are of course elements of history in the story,
                                        a few of which can be verified from other sources.
                                        But it is unlikely that James was cast from the Temple
                                        top, that he survived a fall, was stoned, and then
                                        finally hit on the head with a club.

                                        While we've focused on the Temple scene above, there
                                        are some other very interesting things in this story
                                        that deserve some mention.

                                        First, as already mentioned James is described as one
                                        who doesn't either oil himself or bathe for
                                        cleanliness. This is to be read on two levels: the
                                        physical and the spiritual. He is so clean he neither
                                        bathes, which of course emphasizes his already
                                        described holiness, his cleanness before God. At the
                                        end of the story James is killed by a blow to the head
                                        from a launderer and his club. What is interesting to
                                        note is that H specifically describes this club as the
                                        one the launderer uses to beat the clothes and so to
                                        clean them. He brings down on the head of James the
                                        club, the same motion he would use to beat the
                                        clothes. In short, James, the clean man, dies by
                                        being cleaned by the launderer!!

                                        Further, GNAPHEUS, is not a common word and occurs in
                                        one place in Christian literature before H: Mark 9:3
                                        at Mark's Transfiguration scene. There Jesus' clothes
                                        are said to have become whiter than any fuller is able
                                        to whiten. H seems to say that James is cleaner than
                                        any fuller is able to clean. In addition, II Peter 1
                                        cites the Transfiguration scene as part of the
                                        author's authority to speak, and it would seem that by
                                        tieing James to the Transfiguration scene, it
                                        increases his authority in the Christian church.

                                        Second, we should note that James' stoning is not like
                                        Stephen's stoning. Stephen, like James, proclaims the
                                        Christian message, is driven out of the city and
                                        stoned. James proclaims the Christian message,
                                        miraculously survives a fall, and is stoned. So far,
                                        some similarities. But both bear similarities to
                                        Jesus, who proclaims his teaching and is killed for
                                        it. So rather than compare James and Stephen, it seems
                                        better to compare James and Stephen to how they
                                        compare to Jesus. And here James does not have a
                                        vision, nor does James merely pray for those who
                                        torture him. a) James has been praying in the
                                        Sanctuary for forgiveness for the people at the very
                                        beginning of the story, cast in high priestly role
                                        just as Jesus is portrayed in Hebrews 7-9 and b) James
                                        here prays for his torturers IN THE VERY WORDS of
                                        Jesus
                                        If we add the connections already mentioned between
                                        James and Jesus: high priest, the Transfiguration, the
                                        top of the Temple etc H is certainly making James out
                                        to be as much like Jesus as possible without making a
                                        direct identification.

                                        Third, as mentioned already, James and Jesus are both
                                        depicted as on the PTERGUION of the Temple. In Jesus
                                        case the devil reminds him that he should throw
                                        himself down and the angels will protect him. In the
                                        James story, James is thrown down (the same invitation
                                        offered to Jesus), since he too like Jesus would not
                                        test God, but I suggest that since H has already
                                        connected James, tempted by the Pharisees to deny
                                        CHrist, with Jesus' temptation that the audience would
                                        hear the echo of the devil's citation of Scripture in
                                        the 2nd temptation of Jesus. And so, when we have
                                        James survive his fall, and H (in contrast to another
                                        piece of hagiography of the same period, Martyrdom of
                                        Polycarp) doesn't mention James bouncing off buildings
                                        and lots of blood on his clean body we are invited to
                                        see the miracle--James has not "stubbed his foot"
                                        according to the Psalmist verse, a Temple psalm by the
                                        way. Rather, than reading into the text buckets of
                                        blood, broken bones, etc, H has already provided the
                                        clues of how the reader is to respond by using
                                        vocabulary, scene, and narrative structure to invite
                                        us the reader to read James on the Temple pinnacle in
                                        the light of Jesus on the Temple pinnacle.

                                        There are some other juicy bits in Hegesippus' story
                                        of James the Just, but these should suffice to
                                        illustrate the author's use of mimesis in constructing
                                        a hagiographical work that points the reader back to
                                        Jesus and the words of Jesus consistently. And so it
                                        against that backdrop that the James story should be
                                        read, not as if it were a history lesson.

                                        Warm Regards,

                                        Larry Swain
                                      Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.