OOPs, I was referring to the James the brother of Jesus passage no the Test Flav.
I just had a brainstorm! Leolaia and Nark check out the article online by Kenneth Humphreys called Radical Jew Sanitized into Pious Christian Martyr. (you'll have tot search the title as I can't make links.) WHAT IF, the interpolation in the James passage in Josephus was the seed to a huge tradition about James? Is is not s nutty as it seems at first. The Josephan story having a James who was a brother to the high priest named Jesus Bar Damneus seems too coincedental. It would seem more conceivable to assume the Josephus account was the inspiration to the whole Xtian tradition. The tradition was after all pliable whereas the Jewish history was not. The interpolated words,"who was the christ" may have been instrumental in spawning the Xtian movement or been a late insertion after the tradition was established ironically having been inspired by the very same passage in Josephus. Read it and tell me what you think. I think I'm on to something. Nothing oo original but maybe a few pieces of the puzzle are falling together in a new way.
Greatest tribulation upon Judaism?
by peacefulpete 22 Replies latest watchtower bible
-
peacefulpete
-
peacefulpete
I've just read more about Eisman's deconstruction of James in a review by Price. I feel like I've been beaten p. While we've discussed theses things I've been picking up bits here and there but missed a bigger picture. Read an online review of his book. Again I'm sorry about not providing links but it is easy to locate using google. Search the words, "Desposyni Robert Eisman's James Brother Jesus Evaluation Robert Price Drew University" Probably much less will get you there but that works for me. Radical but rational. I'll have to get Eisman's book.
-
-
peacefulpete
Thanks for the link Narkissos. If I can ask another favor, would you mind posting another link to the Kenneth Humphreys article, "Brother James- Radical Jew Sanitized into pious Christian Martyr"
Whats your opinion about the idea that the Josephus account spawned the James as brother to Jesus tradition? -
Leolaia
Peacefulpete.....Thanks for the link to Price's review of Eisenman's book. I have always meant to pick up Eisenman's tome but was somewhat intimidated by its length, but now I see what I was missing. Very fascinating synthesis. The thing I liked the most was his taking seriously the obscure Jewish-Christian writings that generally are overlooked (i.e. the Pseudo-Clementines, the Ascents of James, etc.), and treating them on par with Luke's Acts, as well as decentering Jesus from the James traditions. He may have solved some of the identity problems of those in the gospels and Acts, but bifurcation was not the only process involved and conflation of separate personages seems to have been underestimated to some extent. I am quite skeptical of some of the equations between names and some of the postulated etymologies (such as of Boanerges) look a little specious. I am even more dubious of identifying the Qumrun Teacher of Righteousness with James (are all those documents mentioning the ToR really that recent?), but I am not acquainted with the facts of the matter. It would have been something if an independent source like Justus of Tiberias had survived. But with what we have, it seems quite plausible that James was as Eisenman characterizes him, as an Essene or post-Essene Jewish leader affiliated with the Zealots and Nazorean and Ebionite groups. But, as carefully as he locates Peter/Cephas, John, and James in his reconstruction, I wasn't quite sure from Price's review what Eisenman regards as the identity and background of James' brother (son of Cleophas) who is otherwise known as Jesus.
-
Narkissos
http://www.jesusneverexisted.com/james.html
(I'll come back to Eisenman later...)
-
JCanon
The specific "great tribulation" prophesied by Daniel that would occur just before the second coming and before the Jews would be restored to Palestine, happening during the "last generation" (1914-1994) was THE HOLOCAUST.
Matt 24:36 says "Immediately AFTER the tribulation of those days......darkness of the sun and moon.....then the sign of the son of man would arrive." Note "those in Judea must flee to the mountains" is a reference to the displaced central location of relocated Jews, that being in Eastern Europe primarily and in Warsaw, Poland in particular, the largest concentration of Jews by far.
JC
-
Narkissos
Immediately AFTER
Why don't you write "IMMEDIATELY after"?
-
ThiChi
It seems you are proceeding from a number of false assumptions. As an example, the word here translated "world" is kosmos, and it signifies the established order of things.. Jesus was referring to the Jewish kosmos or order, and, certainly, the destruction of Jerusalem in A.D.70 was the greatest disaster ever to befall the nation and city, exceeding anything before or since. For whilst Jerusalem will suffer greatly when taken by Gog (Zech. 14:1), it will be delivered to rise to a greatness never before experienced.
In Mark's account, however, Jesus is represented as saying that the affliction will be greater than that "from the beginning of the creation which God created unto this time, neither shall be" (Mark 13:19). Here, again, the word should not be interpreted to represent what we style creation, namely, that of Genesis 1. The Greek word ktisis was used by the Greeks to define the founding of a city or state as well as to natural creation, and obviously refers to the creation of the Jewish State, which was an act of God. The same word, here translated "creation," is rendered "building" in Hebrews 9:11, and there referred to the Mosaic order of things.
Thus the interpretation of words reconciles what might be otherwise thought a contradiction, and illustrates the true significance of Christ's teaching.
I can also rebut many assumptions you have asserted about the Mark debate, but, alas, I feel lazy today..... later??...... I am grateful that you preface most claims/speculations now with words like "likely" "possible" and the like.....
"Non Nobis Domine Non Nobis"
-
Leolaia
PP .....My impression of the Humphreys article is somewhat mixed. Viewing the term "brother of the Lord" (Galatians 1:19) as referring to a religious or ideological "brotherhood," of which James was a "pillar" (2:9), is all fine and good, and supported somewhat by Acts referring to Jerusalem Christians as "the brethren" (Acts 1:15; 9:30; cf. 1 Corinthians 9:5), but I have trouble accepting the view that this James was a leader outside of the Jesus-centered movement because: (1) Paul presents James as a brother "of the Lord" (genitive kuriou, without "Lord" being qualified in any way), and if a brotherhood is meant by adelphon, it would be one that is centered around a "Lord" that Paul regularly designates as Jesus (cf. 1:3 "the Lord Jesus Christ"); that does not axiomatically mean that James did regard Jesus as Lord, but it strongly suggests that Paul believed he belonged to the community of believers who did; (2) the same sentence designates James as one "of the apostles" (ton apostolon), and thus on par with himself in the movement (cf. 1:1 where he calls himself an apostolos); (3) in 2:6, Paul says that the "leaders" (of which James was one, v. 9) "had nothing to add (prosanethanto)" to his gospel, which he had already stressed in 1:11-12 was given "not by man" but "a revelation of Jesus Christ". In 2:2 Paul also mentions that he "submitted to them the gospel which I preach among the Gentiles," and since this is followed by the statement that they "had nothing to add" (v. 6), and then that they gave them their approval (v. 9), the overall picture is that these leaders were not just political leaders but had some ideological relevance to the gospel Paul was preaching; in fact, Paul's apologia (1:11-2:21) was introduced by a discussion of what the gospel is supposed to be. The rest of the epistle was devoted to refuting the Judaizing claim that Gentiles must follow the Law. James would thus appear to be one who had an opportunity to "add" to Paul?s gospel, and though he by no means necessarily endorsed Paul?s Hellenistic doctrine, Paul does not present him as objecting to his going "to the Gentiles (eis to ethne)" with his gospel (2:9). Humphreys? depictation of James as a bully appears to be overstated.
I am also doubtful that James and the other "Jerusalem pillars" were specifically the "rivals" Paul was resisting in Galatians. In 1:6-7 Paul is quite clear about troublemakers spreading "another gospel" (heteron euangelion) and "distorting the gospel of Christ" (metastrepsai to euangelion tou Khristou), and the overall context shows that this involved insisting Gentiles to follow the Law (cf. "you compel (anagkazeis) the Gentiles to Judaize (ioudaizein)", 2:14); yet Paul specifically says that the Jerusalem pillars "only (monon) exhorted us" to take care of the poor (2:10). Paul thus "opposed" (antesten) Cephas because his actions went against this earlier position and resulted in "hypocrisy" (hupokrisei, v. 13). I think this term hupokrisei is the key to understanding Paul?s ideological relation to these Jerusalem leaders, and shows that he was under the impression that they were originally not opposed to his teaching on the Law. He again alludes to the change in position by saying "if I return to a position I had already abandoned, I should admit I had done something wrong" (2:18). Yet it is not clear whether the troublemakers he opposes in 1:6-7 were synonymous with the "pillars" or instead constitute those who like Cephas began to insist on the Law, or behave as if it were binding. Regarding the earlier incident, Paul does not say whether James himself was behind the actions of the men "from James (apo Iakobou)", or whether James had anything to do with the Gentile mission (2:12; see especially v. 9). More to the point, the polemic in Galatians was not in response to this past crisis in Antioch some years ago but to a different ongoing crisis in the churches of Galatia (cf. 1:6, 3:1-3). The allusions to hypocrisy and changing positions thus pertains to local Galatians who had originally accepted Paul?s gospel and point of view but later embraced Judaizing positions.
Humphreys calls the Galatians? adoption of circumcision as a "James gang motif", but nowhere does Paul relate the circumcision controversy to James and mentions it only with reference to the current crisis in Galatia. James is only mentioned with reference to the controversy in Antioch, which centered not around circumcision but "eating with the Gentiles (sunesthien meta ton ethnon)," and while Paul refers to "the men from James" as "those of the circumsion" (2:12), does this mean that they were enforcers of circumcision or merely Jews who were circumcised (as the term means in v. 9, of James going "to the circumcised")? Indeed, the phrase is literally tous ek peritomes "those out of the circumcision," which suggests these were Jewish converts from among those circumcised at birth. Humphreys also claims that Galatians says nothing about food laws and describes this concern as an invention in Acts, yet Paul equates "eating with the Gentiles" with "living like the Gentiles (huparkhon ethnikos) and not like the Jews" (v. 14), and surely ignoring food laws was the chief way in which the act of eating would make one "not like the Jews". Moreover Paul repeatedly recommended flouting the food law on eating meat sacrificed to idols (Romans 14:13-20; 1 Corinthians 8:4-13, 10:25-31; Colossians 2:16), as long as one doesn?t ask the source of the meat and as long as flouting the law doesn?t stumble one?s brother. That Paul understood the issue in terms of purity laws is suggested especially by his statement in Romans 14:14-15 that in the case of "food" (broma) "nothing is unclean in itself," which reflects the same concern in the Q community about the cleanness of food (cf. Matthew 15:10-11).
Paul?s use of the term ioudaizein "judaize" in Galatians 2:14 (and his reference to "Judaism" (Ioudaismo) as his "former manner of life" in 1:13) suggests that he understood his opponents as promoting conversion to Judaism while he regarded his faith as outside Judaism. The term ioudaizein occurs once in the LXX to refer to Persian converts to Judaism (Esther 8:17), and Josephus also refers to "Judaizers" as Gentiles aligned with the Jews (Bel. Jud. 2.18.2). Plutarch similarly uses the term ioudaizein in reference to a freedman named Caecilius who "was said to be given to Jewish practices" (Cic., 7). According to rabbinical literature, there were three prerequisites for conversion to Judaism: (1) mikveh immersion, (2) sacrifice, and (3) circumcision (Maimonides, Hilkh. Iss. Biah 13.5). Immersion and circumcision were both regarded as "seals", and debate raged within Judaism of whether immersion was sufficient as a seal of conversion or whether circumcision was necessary - the Zealots requiring the latter while liberal Jews accepted immersion in its place (cf. Josephus, Ant. Jud. 13.9.1, 13.11.3, 20.2.3-4; Yeb. 46a, 46b, 47b; Shab 137a).
The dispute over circumcision in early Christianity was thus an extension of a preexisting dispute within Judaism. That this was the central issue in Galatia is indicated in Galatians 5:2-6 and especially 6:12, which condemns those who "want to force (anagkazousin) circumcision on you" (compare 2:14). In Philippians 3:2 such people are condemned as "dogs" and "evil workers". Paul however confuses the matter and actually conflates two different issues in his objection. First of all, there was disagreement between those who see the faith in Jesus as a new way of practicing the Law within Judaism (e.g. Ebionite Christians, the Q community) and those who see faith in Jesus as rendering the whole Law unnecessary (e.g. Pauline Christians). In 2:16 Paul alludes to the Jewish-Christian position as "justification (dikaioutai) by works of the Law (ergon nomou)," and again in 5:4 refers to those "seeking to be justified by the Law". The actual Jewish-Christian position, as revealed in Q and Ebionite writings, was that the Old Covenant (as given to Israel and invested in the authority of the Pharisees and Temple cult) was dead but the Law itself, as reinterpreted by Jesus, was still central to the new faith. Q, and especially the Matthean redaction of Q (which is often thought to have an Antioch provenance), has extensive polemic against the Pharisees who reject the way of Jesus (cf. Q 10:13-15, 11:32, 16:17), but it also expresses a strident polemic against Paul by explicitly rejecting the claim that Jesus had come to abolish the Law (Matthew 5:17-20) and condemning those "wolves in sheep?s clothing" who profess faith in Jesus, who prophesied in the name of Jesus, who drove out demons in the name of Jesus, but who are really "workers of lawlessness (anomian)," that is, Christian missionaries who fail to observe the Law (Matthew 7:15-22). The Q community thus finds itself differentiating itself from both the Pharisees and the Paulinists. The same anti-Paul attitude is also found in the Ebionite Pseudo-Clementines. However in Galatians, Paul conflates those who continue to abide by the Law with those who "want to force circumcision" on the Galatians. In reality, Jewish-Christians were divided as well on the matter of circumcision (just as Jews were outside of the Jesus movement), and many law-abiding Christians rejected circumcision for Gentiles. The Jewish-Christian cultic didache of Matthew 6:1-18 (which presents rules for almsgiving, prayer, and fasting) defines a position within the confines of the Law that nowhere defends circumcision and dietary laws, and the Didache manual similarly insists on immersion but not circumcision. In the Ebionite Kerygmata Petrou, we also read that "a worshipper of God does the will of God, and observes the precepts of his Law. For in God?s estimation he is not a Jew who is called a Jew among men, nor is he a Gentile that is called a Gentile, but he who, believing in God, fulfills his Law and does his will, though he is not circumcised " (Ps.-Cl. Rec. 5.34 ). The Thomas community also outlined a position on circumcision that is strikingly similar to that of Paul:
"His disciples said to him, ?Is circumcision beneficial or not?? He said to them, ?If it were beneficial, their father would beget them already circumcised from their mother. Rather, the true circumcision in spirit has become completely profitable." (Gospel of Thomas 53:1-2; cf. Romans 2:28-29, Philippians 3:3)
Paul indicates that those insisting on circumcision were not Pharisees or those outside the Jesus movement because he says that "every man who receives circumcision is under obligation to keep the whole Law (holon ton nomon)," yet "those who have been circumcised do not even keep the Law themselves," a likely allusion to law-abiding Jewish Christians who, like the Q Christians, practiced the Law in a way that disregarded certain traditional regulations (5:3; 6:13). Paul insisted that faith in Christ united Gentiles and Jews in a New Covenant that rejected the Law (cf. Galatians 2:19-21, 3:38; 2 Corinthians 3:6), while other law-abiding Christians believed that the New Covenant was based on the Law as reinterpreted and fulfilled by Jesus and involved abandoning those elements of Judaism (circumcision, eating laws, sacrifical offering, absolute Sabbath observance) that had made it exclusive to Jews (cf. Pr. Pet., Strom. 6.5; KP, Rec. 5.9-10, 34). It is thus hard to say on the evidence of Galatians alone what James? stance on circumcision would have been, since many law-abiders did not insist on circumcision. The Epistle of James, to whatever extent it is connected to the James of Galatians, is strongly focused on observing "the supreme law of scripture" and "the law of freedom" in a manner closely reminiscent of Q (James 2:8-9; 2:12; 4:11), and in particular mentions as does Q "keeping the whole of the Law" (2:10), and refers to the Lord as the "only Lawgiver" (4:12; cf. the Kerygmata Petrou), but since it addresses only Jews or Jewish-Christians attending synagogues (2:1), it has nothing to say on what would be required of Gentiles. That the author disputes Paul?s theory on justification in faith alone (cf. Galatians 2:15-21) can be seen in James 2:16 where the author declares that "faith without works is dead" (cf. Galatians 2:16?s "works of the Law"). Whereas Paul said that "a man is justified through faith and not by doing something that the Law tells him to do" (Romans 3:28), James 2:24 declares that "it is by doing something good, and not only by believing, that is man is justified." But as we already saw, this conflict does not extend necessarily to circumcision for Gentiles (despite Paul?s conflation of the issues). On the other hand, it is possible that the author tried to recast what could have been a deeper-seated dispute between James and Paul into more acceptable terms for Paulinists.
Humphreys also identifies the James of Galatians with the James mentioned by Josephus (Antiq. 20.9.1) as the "real James." He points out that "who is called the Christ" is a later Christian interpolation, but then takes its lead in equating the two. It is certainly true that the Josephus passage influenced later Christians to indentify the two: Hegesippus (c. A.D. 160-180), for instance, states that James was thrown from the Temple, then stoned, and then beaten with a club. The stoning motif probably derives from Josephus. Hegesippus and Epiphanius also both describe James the Just as a high priest who went into the Holy of Holies for Yom Kippur; this tradition also seems to be related to Josephus? description of James as related to one of the high priests (though Josephus? James was not a high priest himself). But I suspect that two separate identities may have merged in the tradition. The Hegesippus account of James? death is obviously composite, combining Clement of Alexandria?s description of death by being tossed from the Temple with Josephus? stoning. Clement insists that there were two different people named James, but the other was beheaded. It makes better sense to recognize the role of Josephus? James, a literal brother of a Jesus (probably, though not certainly, Jesus bar-Damneus), in contributing to the growing Christian tradition than regard the James of Galatians as identical to this James because later Christian tradition says so and because Paul designates this James as the non-literal "brother" of Christ. Indeed, if Paul?s James was simply the "spiritual brother" of the Lord, he could have been any number of people named James in Jerusalem, as Hegesippus admits "there were many that bore the name of James" (Eus. Eccl. Hist. 2:23:4-6). There were also many that bore the name Jesus; the list of high priests Humphreys provides includes 4 with the name of Jesus. Although the reference to "who is called the Christ" may be an interpolation, it is not clear what it replaced: whether in the original James was stated as the brother of Jesus bar-Damneus or whether some other Jesus was meant. Just because Jesus bar-Damneus was installed as high priest afterward does not entail that he had anything to do with the James mentioned earlier, and Josephus does nothing to tie the two together at that point. So there appear to be many uncertainties in connecting the James of Galatians to any other James of history.