An Abstract Mythicist Hypothesis

[Craig B]

I Craig B's & Brainache's assertions about James are not supported.

You have selectively quoted me. I wrote in full

One or two sources suggest it was dynastic: that Jesus was indeed a traditional messiah to his followers. A King sent to redeem Israel. That was the view of the late Hyam Maccoby. I'm sympathetic to it.

And when Jesus died, his brother simply succeeded him. There are sources suggesting that the earliest Christian leaders were blood relatives of Jesus.

Now there are sources for such suggestions, and I give two of them in my post, as I stated was possible. But if you don't accept them, that's up to you.

 

[Mcreal]

Craig B's & Brainache's assertions about James are not supported.

You have selectively quoted me. I wrote in full

One or two sources suggest it [the early Jesus movement] was dynastic: that Jesus was indeed a traditional messiah to his followers. A King sent to redeem Israel. That was the view of the late Hyam Maccoby. I'm sympathetic to it.

That is as clear as mud - what was the view of the late Hyam Maccoby?

a. "Jesus was a king sent [by G_d?] to redeem Israel"?
b. "Jesus was indeed a traditional messiah"?
c. "the early Jesus movement was dynastic"?​

And when Jesus died, his brother simply succeeded him. There are sources suggesting that the earliest Christian leaders were blood relatives of Jesus.

Now there are sources for such suggestions, and I give two of them in my post, as I stated was possible. But if you don't accept them, that's up to you.

Which "earliest Christian leaders were blood relatives of Jesus"? One of the five James? and who else??

btw: opinions or vague apologetics are not 'sources'.

Are you a devout Christian?​

 

[Mcreal]

You mean I pointed out he was sidelined in later texts.

No. I reiterate that vridar has pointed out that James was sidelined in many of the NT texts. James primacy, before his later sidelining is not, as you try to assert.

You seem to have comprehension or cognitive issues; or are being willfully belligerent, or adversarial.​

I get the idea that he was a figure of note because he was mentioned all over the place outside of the bible.

Which James was which? ie. I have repeatedly pointed out it is not clear there was one James -

Most scholars would agree that it is unlikely that James, the Bishop of Jerusalem, would have been the Apostle James Zebedee who was martyred circa AD 42 since James the Bishop is alive and active in the Church until his martyrdom circa AD 62 (or possibly sometime between 62 and 69).

... the title "James the Less" is given to both James son of Alphaeus and James the Bishop but it is possible both men were identified as "the Less" to distinguish them from the elder and/or more important man in the hierarchy of the Apostles, James Zebedee. Those who identify James, son of Alphaeus, with James, the son of Mary of Clopas, assume that Alphaeus and Clopas were the same man, an assumption for which there is no Biblical evidence.

The identification of the Apostle James -"the younger" or "the lesser"- as a son of a man named Alphaeus, who was also called Clopas, and therefore a "brother" of Jesus is based upon three unsupported suppositions:

1. The assumption that Mary of Clopas refers to the wife of Clopas. Since the text does not identify her as the "wife" of Clopas she could be Clopas' daughter or sister or even his mother.
2. The assumption that Mary [wife, sister, daughter, or mother] of Clopas is the sister/kinswoman of the Virgin Mary.
3. The assumption that James in Mark 15:40 is the same man as the James of Mark 3:18

These are too many unsupported assumptions to make this theory credible.

http://www.agapebiblestudy.com/charts/The%20James%20of%20the%20New%20Testament.htm

and

There is no clear indication which 'James' was which.

There is no indication there was a single James who was

..(i) Jesus' brother/Apostle, and

.(ii) the leader of a post-Jesus church (there is no evidence for such a church beyond later assertions), and

(iii) the James killed in the 60s a.d as outlined by Jospehus (writing in the late 1st C) or by Hegesippus (in the 2nd C)​

'James the Just' is a later construct.

I'm not sure why you want to dispute this. It is as well documented as anything in ancient history.

Between those two sentences and your first sentence - "You mean I pointed out he was sidelined in later texts" - you're verballing me and gaslighting.​

 

[Craig B]

... Are you a devout Christian?

Firstly, keeping repeating that does not annoy me, and is merely foolish. Secondly to make it effective you may add another element, which vridar does from time to time, as I criticise here.

I don't think that criticism is justified. I address your points fairly, and now I will do that once more with your next observation. You keep asserting that I must be a religious apologist or motivated by malice in order to disagree with you, and now you are stating that only religious belief ...

Now if people want to read my posts and draw the weird conclusion from them, that I am a devout Christian, why should I give a toss?

I am interested to know why James is described as the leader of Jesus' followers after his death. My quoting the suggestion (by among others a secular Jew, Hyam Maccoby) that the Jesus community leadership may have been Messianic-Dynastic is not a sign of my being a "devout Christian" that any informed person is likely to discern, since devout Christians believe no such thing. So your remark is a waste of time, apart from anything else.

 

[Brainache]

No. I reiterate that vridar has pointed out that James was sidelined in many of the NT texts. James primacy, before his later sidelining is not, as you try to assert.

You seem to have comprehension or cognitive issues; or are being willfully belligerent, or adversarial.​

Please stop the personal attacks.

Which James was which? ie. I have repeatedly pointed out it is not clear there was one James -
...

You keep quoting these Christian Apologists who quote the book of Acts as if it is serious history.

There is good reason to suspect that all of these other Jameses are later inventions as part of the Church's agenda to minimise the central role of James.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James,_brother_of_Jesus

Hegesippus (c.110–c.180), wrote five books (now lost except for some quotations by Eusebius) of Commentaries on the Acts of the Church. In describing James's ascetic lifestyle, Eusebius's Ecclesiastical History (Book II, 23) quotes Hegesippus' account of James from the fifth book of Commentaries on the Acts of the Church:
James, the Lord's brother, succeeds to the government of the Church, in conjunction with the apostles. He has been universally called the Just, from the days of the Lord down to the present time. For many bore the name of James; but this one was holy from his mother's womb. He drank no wine or other intoxicating liquor, nor did he eat flesh; no razor came upon his head; he did not anoint himself with oil, nor make use of the bath. He alone was permitted to enter the holy place: for he did not wear any woollen garment, but fine linen only. He alone, I say, was wont to go into the temple: and he used to be found kneeling on his knees, begging forgiveness for the people-so that the skin of his knees became horny like that of a camel's, by reason of his constantly bending the knee in adoration to God, and begging forgiveness for the people.[61][62]
Since it was unlawful for anyone but the High Priest of the Temple to enter the Holy of Holies, and then only once a year on Yom Kippur, Jerome's quotation from Hegesippus indicates that James was considered a High Priest. The Pseudo-Clementine Recognitions suggest this.[63]...

Between those two sentences and your first sentence - "You mean I pointed out he was sidelined in later texts" - you're verballing me and gaslighting.​

I have no idea what you mean by verballing or gaslighting. I'm just pointing out that I was the one who first mentioned in this thread that James was sidelined in the bible. Mostly because of the Catholic claims of apostolic succession from Peter.

James is more prominent in the Greek and eastern Orthodox church.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James,_brother_of_Jesus

...Eusebius records that Clement of Alexandria related, "This James, whom the people of old called the Just because of his outstanding virtue, was the first, as the record tells us, to be elected to the episcopal throne of the Jerusalem church."[25][26][27][28][29] Other epithets are "James the brother of the Lord, surnamed the Just,"[11] and "James the Righteous."
He is sometimes referred to in Eastern Christianity as "James Adelphotheos" (Greek: Iάκωβος ο Αδελφόθεος) (James the Brother of God). The oldest surviving Christian liturgy, the Liturgy of St James, uses this epithet.[30]...

 

[Mcreal]

There is no clear indication which 'James' was which.

There is no indication there was a single James who was

..(i) Jesus' brother/Apostle, and

.(ii) the leader of a post-Jesus church (there is no evidence for such a church beyond later assertions), and

(iii) the James killed in the 60s a.d. as outlined by Josephus (writing in the late 1st C) or by Hegesippus (in the 2nd C)​

'James the Just' is a later construct.

Gal 2 arguably indicates that James was probably considered amongst the leadership group, if not the leader:

Gal 2:9
And when James, Cephas, and John, who seemed to be pillars, perceived the grace that was given unto me, they gave to me and Barnabas the right hands of fellowship; that we should go unto the heathen, and they unto the circumcision.​

So that group seemed to possess the authority to grant Paul and others to preach to the Gentiles.

Well, to grant Paul and Barnabas, at least, authority to preach to Gentile-heathens.

But note that James, Cephas, and John were to go 'unto the circumcision'.

Moreover:

Gal 2
11 But when Peter was come to Antioch, I withstood him to the face, because he was to be blamed.
12 For before that certain men came from James, he did eat with the Gentiles: but when they were come, he withdrew and separated himself, fearing them which were of the circumcision.​

Peter changes his behaviour when people from James came along. This seems to suggest that James had at least the authority level of Peter, if not greater.

Again there's the 'gentile' v 'those of the circumcision' divide-dynamic.

Finally, Paul tells us what happened when he first converted:

Gal 1
13 For ye have heard of my conversation in time past in the Jews' religion, how that beyond measure I persecuted the church of God...
15 But when it pleased God, who separated me from my mother's womb, and called me by his grace,
16 To reveal his Son in me, that I might preach him among the heathen; immediately I conferred not with flesh and blood:
17 Neither went I up to Jerusalem to them which were apostles before me, but I went away into Arabia, and returned again to Damascus.

18 Then after three years I went up to Jerusalem to visit Cephas and remained with him fifteen days. 19 But I saw none of the other apostles except James the Lord's brother. 20 (In what I am writing to you, before God, I do not lie!) 21 Then I went into the regions of Syria and Cilicia. 22 And I was still unknown in person to the churches of Judea that are in Christ.​

Paul seems to have addressing the expectation that, as soon as he converted, he should go to Jerusalem. Again, this suggests that the Jerusalem group had some kind of central authority.

There has been scholarly commentary that these passages reflect, like aspects of Acts, a Pauline sect and a Petrine sect coming together as the genesis of orthodoxy.

There are hints about what happens to these 'Jewish Christians' later, but [the Paul writings] provides .. evidence that there was such a group, and that this group had the authority to approve others to preach to the Gentiles.

Tying that group to the Ebionites, perhaps as proto-Ebionites, is a logical step, though no direct evidence remains.

Although Irenaeus is the first to use the term "Ebionites" to describe a heretical judaizing sect, stubbornly clinging to the Law.

 

[Mcreal]

I am interested to know why James is described as the leader of Jesus' followers after his death.

My quoting the suggestion (by among others a secular Jew, Hyam Maccoby) that the Jesus community leadership may have been Messianic-Dynastic ...

is still as clear as mud (your other tangental waffle isn't relevant). I asked you -

"what was the view of the late Hyam Maccoby?" Was it

a. "Jesus was a king sent [by G_d?] to redeem Israel"? or
b. "Jesus was indeed a traditional messiah"? or
c. "the early Jesus movement was dynastic"?
​

eta: and I asked -

Which "earliest Christian leaders were blood relatives of Jesus"? One of the five James? and who else??​

 

[Craig B]

is still as clear as mud (your other tangental waffle isn't relevant). I asked you -

"what was the view of the late Hyam Maccoby?" Was it

a. "Jesus was a king sent [by G_d?] to redeem Israel"? or
b. "Jesus was indeed a traditional messiah"? or
c. "the early Jesus movement was dynastic"?
​

You really want to receive further contributions that you can dismiss as "tangential waffle", don't you? So there's little point in my sending you anything. Maccoby's quite interesting, so read him yourself and make up your own mind, since you attach so little weight to my opinion.

 

[Mcreal]

You keep quoting these Christian Apologists who quote the book of Acts as if it is serious history.

Rubbish. That^ is a pathetic side-step to my direct question -

"Which James was which?" (ie. I have repeatedly pointed out it is not clear there was one James)​

Is

There is good reason to suspect that all of these other Jameses are later inventions as part of the Church's agenda to minimise the central role of James.

your answer to my question: "Which James was which?"

You then cite wikipedia.org's entry James, brother of Jesus which cites Eusebius's Ecclesiastical History (Book II, 23) quote [of] Hegesippus' account of James from the fifth book of 'Commentaries on the Acts of the Church':

James, the Lord's brother, succeeds to the government of the Church, in conjunction with the apostles. He has been universally called the Just, from the days of the Lord down to the present time. For many bore the name of James; but this one was holy from his mother's womb. He drank no wine or other intoxicating liquor, nor did he eat flesh; no razor came upon his head; he did not anoint himself with oil, nor make use of the bath. He alone was permitted to enter the holy place: for he did not wear any woollen garment, but fine linen only.

That does not address the fact that there is no clear indication who James the Lord's brother was i.e. which James he was.

See http://www.agapebiblestudy.com/charts/The%20James%20of%20the%20New%20Testament.htm

I'm just pointing out that I was the one who first mentioned in this thread that James was sidelined in the bible.

Which is a separate issue to what vridar said. Can't you see the point vridar made??! Can't you acknowledge it??!

Mostly because of the Catholic claims of apostolic succession from Peter.

Which is at odds with what the quote of Eusebius's quote of Hegesippus [above] said viz.:

"James, the Lord's brother, succeeds to the government of the Church, in conjunction with the apostles."​

Which is it?

James is more prominent in the Greek and eastern Orthodox church.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James,_brother_of_Jesus

Which is also the same mere assertions. See -

.... Those who identify James, son of Alphaeus, with James, the son of Mary of Clopas, assume that Alphaeus and Clopas were the same man, an assumption for which there is no Biblical evidence.

The identification of the Apostle James -"the younger" or "the lesser"- as a son of a man named Alphaeus, who was also called Clopas, and therefore a "brother" of Jesus is based upon three unsupported suppositions:

• The assumption that Mary of Clopas refers to the wife of Clopas. Since the text does not identify her as the "wife" of Clopas she could be Clopas' daughter or sister or even his mother.
• The assumption that Mary [wife, sister, daughter, or mother] of Clopas is the sister/kinswoman of the Virgin Mary.
• The assumption that James in Mark 15:40 is the same man as the James of Mark 3:18

These are too many unsupported assumptions to make this theory credible.

via THE MEN NAMED JAMES IN THE NEW TESTAMENT

 

[Mcreal]

Maccoby's quite interesting ..

1. What was the view of the late Hyam Maccoby? Was it

a. "Jesus was a king sent [by G_d?] to redeem Israel"? or
b. "Jesus was indeed a traditional messiah"? or
c. "the early Jesus movement was dynastic"?​

2. Which "earliest Christian leaders [pl.] were blood relatives of Jesus"? One of the five James? and who else??

 

[Mcreal]

The Ebionites and Choba

2. Ebionites

2.1. The First Recognized Christians in Antiquity

The first Christians were the Jews who believed that Jesus was the Jewish messiah. In his earliest work which mentions the Ebionites, Eusebius before 313CE writes that in a village called Choba, "there are Hebrews who believed in Christ, called Ebionites"3. They used an early Gospel of Matthew, and their beliefs are in accordance with the earliest reports of the gospels of Luke and Matthew, and with Jewish prophecy.

The term Ebionite "was at first [...] a common name for all Christians, as Epiphanius (d. 403) testifies (Adv. Haer., xxix. 1)."4 and it was "used by the Christian bishop Irenaeus of Lyons (Gaul) in the late second century to designate a Jewish Christian sect". Although some later Christians thought that it came from a person called Ebion, this is not the correct root of the word. Ebionites may mean "austere ones" but the origin of the term is obscure5.

http://www.vexen.co.uk/religion/ebionites.html

Hobah

Ho'bah (Heb. Chobah', חוֹבָה, hiding-place; Sept.. Χοβά), a place to the northward of Damascus (לדִמֶּשֶׂק מַשּׂמאֹל, lit. on the left), whither Abraham pursued the kings who had taken Lot captive (Ge 14:15); perhaps the Chobai or Choba mentioned in the Apocrypha. (Χωβαϊv, Judith 15:4; Χωβά, 4:4). Eusebius (Onomast. s.v. Choba) confounds this place with Cocaba, the seat of the Ebionites in the 4th century; and Burckhardt- (Syria, p. 312) found a village called Kokab, probably the same, which, however, lies south of Damascus. This is apparently also the village Hoba, visited in the year 1666 by Ferd. von Troilo, who says,

"It lies a quarter of a (German) mile north from the town, on the left hand. Near the city of Damascus is seen a large hill, where the patriarch Abraham overtook and defeated the army of the four kings. There formerly dwelt here a sect of Jews, converted to the (Christian) faith, who were called Ebionites; but at present the place is inhabited by a great number of Moors (Arabs) who have a mosque. In the neighborhood is a cave, in which the patriarch offered to the Divine Majesty his thanksgivings for the victory" (Travels, p. 584).​

http://www.biblicalcyclopedia.com/H/hobah.html

 

[Mcreal]

More on the Ebionites

In Epiphanius' polemic against the Ebionites found in Panarion 30, a complex picture emerges of the beliefs and practices of the 4th century Ebionites that cannot easily be separated from his method of combining together disparate sources.[n 14] While scholars such as Hans-Joachim Schoeps literally interpreted Epiphanius' account as describing a later syncretic development of Ebionism,[n 67][n 68] more recent scholarship has found it difficult to reconcile his report with those of the earlier Church Fathers, leading to a conjecture by scholar Petri Luomanen that a second group of Hellenistic-Samaritan Ebionites may also have been present.[n 8][n 69][n 70] The rejection of the Jewish sacrifices and the implication of an end-time prophet Christology due to the lack of a birth narrative lend support for the association of the Gospel of the Ebionites with a group or groups different from the Ebionites known to Irenaeus.[n 71]

Scholarship in the area of Jewish Christian studies has tended to be based on artificial constructs similar to those developed by the early Christian heresiologists, with the underlying assumption that all of the beliefs and practices of these groups were based on theology.[n 72] This has led to the perpetuation of ideological definitions that fail to take into account the pluriformity of these groups,[24] reflecting differences in geography[n 73][n 74], time periods in history[n 75], and ethnicity[n 76]. With respect to Epiphanius, and the Ebionites in particular, insufficient attention has been paid to the highly speculative nature of his theological constructs[n 77] and his mixing together of disparate sources[n 78], including his use of a gospel harmony that may have had nothing to do with the Ebionite sect known to Irenaeus[n 79]. In the end, he presents an enigmatic picture of the Ebionites and their place in early Christian history.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gospel_of_the_Ebionites#Inferences_about_the_Ebionites

 

[vridar]

You keep asserting that I must be a religious apologist or motivated by malice in order to disagree with you,

I have never asserted that. Please read carefully what I say and respond to my actual words.

 

[vridar]

II entreat you to respond sincerely to this question: when did you last peruse the Synoptic accounts of that "natural event"? These blast your contention of "naturalism" to pieces.

Mark 1:12 Immediately the Spirit impelled Him to go out into the wilderness. 13 And He was in the wilderness forty days being tempted by Satan; and He was with the wild beasts, and the angels were ministering to Him ...

Matthew 4:1 Then Jesus was led up by the Spirit into the wilderness to be tempted by the devil. 2 And after He had fasted forty days and forty nights, He then became hungry.

Luke 4:1 Jesus, full of the Holy Spirit, returned from the Jordan and was led around by the Spirit in the wilderness 2 for forty days, being tempted by the devil. And He ate nothing during those days, and when they had ended, He became hungry.​

I will refrain from saying any more about this.

Did you read what I said was the "natural event" in question? Are you aware of how biblical scholarship in general (apart from the literalists) interprets gospel accounts of natural events that are couched in the language of miracles?

 

[Craig B]

I have never asserted that. Please read carefully what I say and respond to my actual words.

I will respond in whatever way I see fit, to the meaning I attribute to your posts, and if you think I am infringing the rules you may report me to the mods.

 

[vridar]

These considerations and others like them form the basis of the "embarrassment" argument by which some scholars attempt to determine what, if any, parts of the gospel story have a basis in fact. You can easily see that, I suppose.

It goes like: Statement x is contrary to Christian doctrine regarding the nature of Jesus. Therefore presumably it was not invented by Christian redactors, or interpolated by Christian copyists, of these Gospels. So where does it come from ...? Perhaps x is a real historical element which, for one reason or another, turned out to be ineluctable. Or if not, then what? Such things make the study of these texts all the more interesting.

That is a highly imaginative way of re-interpreting what is in fact nothing more than an application of Occam's Razor and a method that is found regularly in historical and literary discussions that I have ever read.

If you read that same argument by a Burton Mack or a Paula Fredriksen would you choose do discard their logic and re-interpret their point as somehow related to a criterion of embarrassment etc?

 

[Craig B]

Did you read what I said was the "natural event" in question?

Yes.

Are you aware of how biblical scholarship in general (apart from the literalists) interprets gospel accounts of natural events that are couched in the language of miracles?

Yes.

 

[vridar]

..

 

[Craig B]

That is a highly imaginative way of re-interpreting what is in fact nothing more than an application of Occam's Razor and a method that is found regularly in historical and literary discussions that I have ever read.

If you read that same argument by a Burton Mack or a Paula Fredriksen would you choose do discard their logic and re-interpret their point as somehow related to a criterion of embarrassment etc?

Yes.

 

[Brainache]

Rubbish. That^ is a pathetic side-step to my direct question -

"Which James was which?" (ie. I have repeatedly pointed out it is not clear there was one James)​

It is my opinion that there was only one important James in the earliest Church. ie: The James mentioned by Paul. The James mentioned by all the early histories, Clement, the gnostic gospels and the gospel of Thomas:
http://gnosis.org/naghamm/gosthom.html

The disciples said to Jesus, "We know that you are going to leave us. Who will be our leader?"

Jesus said to them, "No matter where you are you are to go to James the Just, for whose sake heaven and earth came into being."

Is

your answer to my question: "Which James was which?"

You then cite wikipedia.org's entry James, brother of Jesus which cites Eusebius's Ecclesiastical History (Book II, 23) quote [of] Hegesippus' account of James from the fifth book of 'Commentaries on the Acts of the Church':

That does not address the fact that there is no clear indication who James the Lord's brother was i.e. which James he was.

He was the real James, not those other made-up Jameses who were invented by the Catholic church in an attempt to minimise the importance of James to the early Jesus movement.

See http://www.agapebiblestudy.com/charts/The%20James%20of%20the%20New%20Testament.htm



Which is a separate issue to what vridar said. Can't you see the point vridar made??! Can't you acknowledge it??!

What point was that? Was it that later texts were written by people who wanted to minimise James' position in the early church?

Which is at odds with what the quote of Eusebius's quote of Hegesippus [above] said viz.:

"James, the Lord's brother, succeeds to the government of the Church, in conjunction with the apostles."​

Which is it?

What is the problem here? Hegesippus ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hegesippus_(chronicler) ) wrote that James led the early church. Everyone except the Catholic church accepts that. The Catholic church claim that Jesus handed control of the church to Peter, that way they claim direct apostolic succession and that the Pope has some kind of authority inherited from Peter.

Which is also the same mere assertions. See -

Well, call it what you will, I prefer to try to look at these things logically rather than accept the biblical text at face value. I don't think it is logical to accept the idea that Jesus' mum was a (perpetual) virgin or that she had a sister who was also named Mary...

The Ebionites and Choba

More on the Ebionites

What was the point of that?

I have an Ebionite link too:
http://www.preteristarchive.com/BibleStudies/DeadSeaScrolls/4Q171_pesher_psalms.html

"Then the meek will inherit the earth and enjoy all the abundance that peace brings" (37:11).

This refers to the company of the poor who endure the time of error but are delivered from all the snares of Belial. Afterwards they will enjoy all the [ . . . ] of the earth and grow fat on every human luxury.
...
"The wicked borrow and do not repay; 9but the righteous give generously, for those whom God blesses will inherit the earth, but: those whom He curses will be exterminated" (37:21-22).

This refers to the company of the poor, w[ho will ge]t the possessions of all [ . . . ], who will inherit the lofty mount of Is[rael and] enjoy His holy mount. ["Those whom He curses] will be exterminated": these are the cruel Jews, the w]icked of Israel who will be exterminated and destroyed forever...