Let me add that even though all of these varied elements of his death scene have Judaic precedents (scriptural or mishna or talmud etc), to have all four of them ALL AT ONCE seems a little over the top, wouldn't most people think?I guess it is possible something like this could have been inflicted upon the James the Just described by Hegesippus (as quoted/paraphrased by Eusebius), but these rules originated after the destruction of the Temple. Since it is unsettled whether the Sanhedrin had the authority to put people to death, I cannot put much faith in attempts to take these practices as those employed by a HP before the destruction, after the Romans took control in 6 CE.Jona Lendering, who contributed an article on Josephus to Livius.org … does cite a couple of sources to illuminate the possibility that the account reflects actual practices:
He cites the "third or fourth century" "Tannaite tradition" preserved in the Talmud at "Keth. 30a" (by way of "Strack-Billerbeck ii 197") to the effect: "... whosoever is guilty of being stoned either falls from the roof or a wild beast tramples him to death ..." which includes other examples of those convicted of death, when there was no power to enforce the decision, accidentally (on purpose) getting killed.
[Bab. Kethuboth 30a-b http://www.come-and-hear.com/kethuboth/ ... th_30.html
(a) Did not R. Joseph say, and R. Hiyya teach: Since the day of the destruction of the Temple, although the Sanhedrin ceased, the four forms of capital punishment have not ceased? 'They have not ceased,' [you say]? Surely they have ceased! But [say] (b) the judgment of the four forms of capital punishment has not ceased. He who would have been sentenced to stoning, either falls down from the roof or a wild beast treads him down. He who would have been sentenced to burning, either falls into a fire or a serpent bites him. He who would have been sentenced to decapitation, is either delivered to the government or robbers come upon him. He who would have been sentenced to strangulation, is either drowned in the river or dies from suffocation.
See also Bab. Sotah 8b http://www.come-and-hear.com/sotah/sotah_8.html
MISHNAH. IN THE MEASURE with which a man measures it is meted out to him. She adorned herself for a transgression; the holy one, blessed be he, made her repulsive. She exposed herself for a transgression; the holy one, blessed be he, held her up for exposure. She began the transgression with the thigh and afterwards with the womb; therefore she is punished first in the thigh and afterwards in the womb, nor does all the body escape.
GEMARA. R. Joseph said: Although the measure has ceased, [the principle] IN THE MEASURE has not ceased. For R. Joseph said, and similarly taught R. Hiyya: From the day the Temple was destroyed, although the Sanhedrin ceased to function, the four modes of execution did not cease. But they did cease! — [The meaning is:] The judgment of the four modes of execution did not cease. He who would have been condemned to stoning either falls from a roof [and dies] or a wild beast tramples him [to death]. He who would have been condemned to burning either falls into a fire or a serpent stings him. He who would have been condemned to decapitation is either handed over to the [Gentile] Government or robbers attack him. He who would have been condemned to strangulation either drowns in a river or dies of a quinsy [from Gk kunankhē = dog collar that controls by strangling, latter meaning c 1300 tonsillitis with abscesses].
Then he cites "Tosephta Kelim, i. 1. 6; Bab. kam., 1 (middle)" to the effect: "...according to an affirmation on oath of R. 'Eli'ezer, the first pupil of R. Johanan b. Zakkai and therefore an inhabitant of Jerusalem contemporary with James the Just, 'even a high priest' who on entering the sanctuary is guilty of any breach of the purity laws of the precincts must have 'his skull split with a wooden club.' The barbarous punishment here threatened, like the 'fall from the roof' of the man condemned to be stoned, at once recalls the fate of the 'high priest' James, who was beaten to death with a wooden club by a man whom the Christians regarded as a 'fuller' accidentally on the spot."
[R. Jacob Neusner, The Tosefta: Translated from the Hebrew, Hendrickson: 2002 (KTAV 6 v., 1977-86), vol 2, pg 1576, Sixth Division, Tohorot (Order of Purities), Kelim Baba Qamma 1:6 H.
"He [R. Eliezer, the first pupil of R Johanan b. Zakkai and therefore an inhabitant of Jerusalem contemporary with James the Just] said to him [R. Simon the Modest] 'By the [sacred] service! Even the high priest [who without washing his hands and feet enters the area between the porch and the alter] - they break his head with clubs.'"]
The point is this, if Hegesippus' punishments of James were from an era after the destruction, then he was basically presenting a collection of Judaic writings of his day (early 2nd century?) which he used to weave a narrative. How can we believe that James was known for justice in those pre-war days if we cannot be sure when the tradition was first current. The types of death we know post date the period James may have died.
This does tie in with my suggestion that the place where the death of a single individual is attributed as the reason for the destruction of the city, the person was Ananus son of Ananus in War 4.228-270 (Ananus and Jesus his lieutenant priest insult the Idumeans from the city wall, and how the rebels opened the gates for them); 314-320 (they hunted down and killed Ananus and Jesus his lieutenant, casting their dead bodies to the base of the wall and not allow anyone to bury them.
Why was Ananus' death significant? 4:318-319a:
318 I should not mistake if I said that the death of Ananus was the beginning of the destruction of the city, and that from this very day may be dated the overthrow of her wall, and the ruin of her affairs, whereon they saw their high priest, and the procurer of their preservation, slain in the midst of their city. 319 He was on other accounts also a venerable, and a very just man ...
Wherever Origen got this idea that it applied to James, not Ananus, would seem to have to do with a comparison between this passage in War 4 and the passage in Ant 20.200 etc., relaying the trial of a certain James the brother of Jesus the one called "anointed" in Ant 20.200 etc. That person was also said to have been very just, and it is the very same Ananus who he had praised in 4:318-319, now portrayed completely negatively in Ant 20:200 etc.
I'm sticking to the idea that a marginal note was on a mss of either War 4.318 or Ant 20.200 etc., asking the rhetorical question "Could this man (meaning Ananus) be the same man as described in the other book?" The note writer was perhaps incredulous because they are polar opposite pictures of the same man. "Which to believe?"
When Origen saw it, his Christian brain saw it as a reference to James the brother of Jesus, who just HAD to be Jesus Christ of the Christian lore. I don't think he was even making the connection to War 4, so he likely saw it in the margin of Ant 20. Believing it was a note by Josephus himself (maybe he bought the copy from a slick bookseller - "Yeah, See that scribble there? That's Joe-ceephus' very own signature. This manuscript is worth twice what I am charging you for it!") and proceeded accordingly.
DCH
Statistics: Posted by DCHindley — Sat Feb 24, 2024 11:52 am