show_no_mercy

I heard that hypothesis before... but the DSS writings were written sometime around 100 BCE by the Essenes. This puts James as the Teacher of Righteousness in the same time period as "Yeshua ha-Notzri" the sorcerer hanged on the eve of Passover according to the Talmud, not during the reign of Tiberius.

Jedi Mind Trick

Eisenman addresses this also. He says that the internal evidence better supports that much of the DSS literature was contemporaneous with the Roman occupation.

spin

Actually, Eisenman doesn't address very much at all. He tends to wear his readers down through endless repetition intertwined with textual materials vaguely related to what he is repeating. You don't get time to see how the data actually relates to his thesis because he's too busy sending more at you mixed with repetition.

I think he basically said it all with his James the Just and the Habbakuk Pesher, but, hey, he gets paid to publish -- even doorstoppers such as James the Brother of Jesus. I can't begrudge him the cash.

The sad thing is that as the Pesher Habbakuk comes in with a pre first century C14 dating, his thesis has been falsified, so Eisenman tries to tacks, first he back-peddles from the James = ToR claim and he supports weird C14 analyses such as the one his name is attached to along with Joe Atwill which try to place the C14 data into a different context. Both are pretty vain.


spin

DaBuster

According to both Eusebius and Jerome, it appears that Hegesippus believed James was high priest because of his piety, possibly part of what sounds like a lifetime Nazirite vow. However, in the 1st century the High Priest was largely a political appointment made by the reigning “governor” of Judea (either Archelaus, Herod Agrippa I, the Roman prefects and procurators, or, lastly, the rebels in control of Jerusalem during the war of 67-70 CE.) Yes, the High Priest participated in the temple rituals, particularly at Yom Kippur, but the holder of the position was also an administrator expected by the Romans and the Herodians to act as their representative in ensuring the orderly functioning of the temple and its environs. Also, lists of High Priests of the 1st century, such as the one found on pg 492 of VanderKam’s From Joshua to Caiaphas (or via: amazon.co.uk), make no mention of anyone named James (or Yaakov, Jacob, etc.) as High Priest.

Finally, if James in fact “did not use the bath” as indicated by Hegesippus, then this would seem to rule out the possibility that James was the High Priest, since ritual immersion was an integral part of the rites required of the High Priest before entering the Holy of Holies on Yom Kippur. In fact, it would seem that the basic requirements of ritual purity would prevent anyone who did not bathe from participation in the temple rites at any level.

spin

Josephus in the infamous James passage (AJ 20.200 (20.9.1)) says that James died at the impetus of Ananus the high priest. Josephus also tells us that Ananus replaced Joseph Cami (AJ 20.103 (20.5.2)). Hegesippus is probably and piously mistaken.


spin