An Abstract Mythicist Hypothesis

[Mcreal]

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:

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.

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

Hegesippus 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.

I have some sympathy for these views, and how you may have come to them, as it is clear the early history of both Christianity and the so-called early Church has been re-written and so is obscure.

The people writing the history that we have been led to believe is true were writing a few generations or more after the beginnings of Christianity, so they were more concerned with doctrine, and how the narrative would fit with that doctrine, than with accurate history itself.

I think the narratives started in the 2nd century and became to be set in the 1st century.

 

[dejudge]

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. 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 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.

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...​

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 are hints about what happens to these Jewish Christians later, but Paul provides strong 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.

The letters under the name of Paul are compilation of forgeries, false attribution and fiction.

 

[Craig B]

The letters under the name of Paul are compilation of forgeries, false attribution and fiction.

Was there in your view, ever such a person as Paul?

 

[Brainache]

OK, I might as well carry on... Part Whatever:

So we have a community of Jesus followers hanging out around Jerusalem waiting for the return of their Messiah. As described in the Clementine writings, they had seen him in his "humble" form and were expecting him to return on the clouds of heaven in "glory". Then he would destroy all the wicked sons of darkness and then the good guys (sons of light) would finally inherit the kingdom of God on Earth... Yay! They just needed to keep the law and observe all the purity rules etc etc to ensure that there was no stain of corruption or impurity in their midst and God and all the angels would come and purge the world of the unrighteous. Any day now...

Their numbers were growing, there were a lot of disaffected, disenfranchised and "radicalised" youth in Judea. Unemployment was rife, the bloody Romans were taxing everything and the Priesthood was busy lining their own pockets and getting fat while the great majority of the population lived in abject poverty.

The Priests may have been corrupt fat cats skimming the cream from the theocratic gravy train (erm yes a mixed metaphor, sorry), but they weren't blind. They could see the potential threat in this burgeoning apocalyptic Messiah movement, so they set about persecuting them. Josephus tells us about a minor Herodian called "Saulus" who was given the task:
http://www.biblestudytools.com/history/flavius-josephus/antiquities-jews/book-20/chapter-9.html

... Costobarus also, and Saulus, did themselves get together a multitude of wicked wretches, and this because they were of the royal family; and so they obtained favor among them, because of their kindred to Agrippa; but still they used violence with the people, and were very ready to plunder those that were weaker than themselves. And from that time it principally came to pass that our city was greatly disordered, and that all things grew worse and worse among us...

Acts tells us that:
https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Acts+8&version=ESV

... But Saul was ravaging the church, and entering house after house, he dragged off men and women and committed them to prison...

Then of course the High Priest sends Saul out to arrest the leaders of the community of "The Way" out in "Damascus" and somewhere along the way he has his "Road To Damascus" moment. He claims (according to Acts) that he had a vision of Jesus telling him to stop persecuting the Church and he carries on to "Damascus" to spread the good news of his vision of the risen Christ...

The details get a little fuzzy here, but he appears to make some kind of impression on this community. Paul tells us that he gained a few allies, one of whom he calls "Barnabas". They get sent out to preach to the "uncircumcised"...

I think Paul is "The man of lies" in the DSS:
http://www.preteristarchive.com/BibleStudies/DeadSeaScrolls/4Q397-399_MMT_eisenman.html

... "Likewise: the interpretation of the word [concerns the trai]tors in the last days. They shall be violators of [the coven]ant who will not believe when they hear all that is going [to happen to] the final generation, from the mouth of the Priest whom God has placed wi[thin the Community,] to foretell the fulfillment of all the words of his servants, the prophets, [by] means of whom God has declared all that is going to happen to his people, [Israel]." (2.5-10) Obviously, this group of "traitors" didn't buy the apocalyptic predictions of the Teacher.

The reference to this group called "traitors" allows us to broaden our understanding of the dispute by noting the reference to them in the commentator's interpretation of Habakkuk 1.13b: "'Why are you staring, traitors, and you maintain your silence when a wicked person consumes someone more upright than himself?' Its interpretation is the House of Absalom and the members of his council, who kept silent at the time of the reproach of the Teacher of Righteousness, and did not help him against the Man of Lies, who rejected the law in the midst of their whole Comm[unity.]" (5.8-12)...

As for the figure of "the Man of Lies," another passage in this Pesher suggests that this individual was intent on converting people to his cause. The text from Habakkuk 2.12-13 is cited first: "'Woe to him who builds a city with blood and founds a town on a misdeed! Does this not stem from *YHWH* of Hosts? The people wear themselves out for fire and the nations are exhausted for nothing.'" Now the comment: "The interpretation of the word concerns the Spreader of Deceit, who has misdirected man, building a useless city with blood and erecting a community by subterfuge for his own renown, wearing out many by useless work and by making them conceive acts of deceit, so that their labors are for nothing; so that those who derided and insulted God's chosen will go to the punishment of fire." (10.5-13)

By the way, the words translated "Spreader of Deceit" are not as removed from "the Man of Lies" in Hebrew as in English. "Spreader of Deceit" is metiph hakazab, while "Man of Lies" is 'ish hakazab. metiph simply describes this person as an agent of falsehood: he proclaims the Lie. The important charge is that he deals in falsehood, with the result that he "has misdirected humans," leading such "to the punishment of fire."

Paul had a buddy called "Manaen" with him at Antioch:
https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Acts+13&version=ESV

Now there were in the church at Antioch prophets and teachers, Barnabas, Simeon who was called Niger,[a] Lucius of Cyrene, Manaen a lifelong friend of Herod the tetrarch, and Saul.

I think this "Manaen" might have actually been "Manahem":
http://www.biblestudytools.com/history/flavius-josephus/war-of-the-jews/book-2/chapter-17.html

In the mean time, one Manahem, the son of Judas, that was called the Galilean, (who was a very cunning sophister, and had formerly reproached the Jews under Cyrenius, that after God they were subject to the Romans,) took some of the men of note with him, and retired to Masada, where he broke open king Herod's armory, and gave arms not only to his own people, but to other robbers also. These he made use of for a guard, and returned in the state of a king to Jerusalem; he became the leader of the sedition, and gave orders for continuing the siege...

...As for Manahem himself, he ran away to the place called Ophla, and there lay skulking in private; but they took him alive, and drew him out before them all; they then tortured him with many sorts of torments, and after all slew him, as they did by those that were captains under him also, and particularly by the principal instrument of his tyranny, whose name was Apsalom.

Apsalom/Absalom, is that the same name?

Manaen/Manahem, is that the same name?

That's enough for now.