An Abstract Mythicist Hypothesis

[dejudge]

Traces of James remain in Josephus, Origen, Irenaeus, Hegesippus, Clement and parts of the NT. They even included a letter supposedly written by him in the NT, so they couldn't quite erase him entirely.

The claim that there are traces of James in Origen, Hegesippus, Clement and parts of the NT is of no real historical value. The are traces of the Holy Ghost, God of the Jews, and the devil in those same writings. In fact, the NT is a compilation of fiction and apologetic sources are compilations of non-contemporary implausible fiction about characters called Paul, James, the apostles and Jesus.

Christian writers have also publicly admitted or claimed their James was alive c 68-69 CE--- years after James was stoned to death in Antiquities of the Jews 20.9.1. James in AJ 20.9.1 was stoned c 62-64 CE.

In addition, James in Antiquities of the Jews 20.9.1 is not James in the NT.

Jesus the brother of James in Antiquities of the Jews 20.9.1 was alive in the time of Nero.

 

[Craig B]

Jesus the brother of James in Antiquities of the Jews 20.9.1 was alive in the time of Nero.

That is simply not stated in the text. You are hallucinating. There are about fifteen people called Jesus in the works of Josephus. One of them was Jesus, a high priest.

Ananus was of this disposition, he thought he had now a proper opportunity [to exercise his authority] ... so he assembled the sanhedrim of judges, and brought before them the brother of Jesus, who was called Christ, whose name was James ...

... Whereupon Albinus complied with what they said, and wrote in anger to Ananus, and threatened that he would bring him to punishment for what he had done; on which king Agrippa took the high priesthood from him, when he had ruled but three months, and made Jesus, the son of Damneus, high priest.​

That was probably in year 63 CE. But it is not stated in this text either that (a) the Jesus who was brother of the James was still alive at the time; and it is certainly not implied that (b) he is the same person as the priest Jesus son of Damnaeus. See Ananus Ben Ananus^WP.

 

[Mcreal]

They even included a letter supposedly written by him [James] in the NT, so they couldn't quite erase him entirely.

The author identifies himself as "James, a servant of God and of the Lord Jesus Christ," who is writing to "the twelve tribes scattered abroad" (James 1:1).

Authorship

There are four views concerning authorship and dating of the Epistle of James [via Wikipedia]:

• that the letter was written by James before the Pauline Epistles,
• that the letter was written by James after the Pauline Epistles,
• that the letter is pseudonymous,
• that the letter comprises material originally from James but reworked by a later editor.[4]

The writer refers to himself only as "James, a servant of God and of the Lord Jesus Christ."[Jas 1:1] There are seven possible authors of James. As many as six different men may be referred to in the Bible as James,[5] and if none of them wrote this letter, a seventh man not mentioned in the Bible by the name of James could be the author.

4 McCartney, Dan G (2009). Robert W Yarbrough and Robert H Stein, ed. Baker Exegetical Commentary on the New Testament: James. Grand Rapids: Baker Academic. ISBN 0801026768.

5 The Men Named James in The New Testament via www.agapebiblestudy.com

The words, i, 1, "to the twelve tribes" can mean the whole Jewish nation; but the words following, "which are scattered abroad", designate clearly the Jews of the Dispersion, which would suggest this epistle was written after the fall of the Temple ie. after the death of any of the James mentioned in the NT or mentioned by Josephus eg. Antiquities 20.9.1., as per the Catholic Encylopedia -

To whom addressed

St. James wrote his Epistle for the Jewish Christians outside Palestine, who, for the greater part, were poor and oppressed. This we gather with certitude from the inscription (i, 1), and from various indications in the text.

A. The words, i, 1, "to the twelve tribes" can mean the whole Jewish nation; but the words following, "which are scattered abroad", designate clearly the Jews of the Dispersion. The Jews in Palestine, surrounded by Gentiles, were not considered as "scattered abroad". That he addressed the 'Jewish Christians' only becomes evident by the fact that the author styles himself "the servant of God, and of our Lord Jesus Christ", and by this title he indicates clearly that he writes to the disciples of Christ only.

B. That the readers were Jewish appears still more evidently from the Epistle itself. St. James takes for granted that those whom he addressed were well versed in the writings of the Old Testament. Moreover, he calls them not only his "brethren", which name taken by itself does not remove all doubt, but he so clearly shows them to be Christians that it is incomprehensible how any critics understand unconverted Jews to be the "brethren" to whom the Epistle was written ...

C. The context does not reveal who were the particular Jewish converts, to whom the Epistle was addressed. We gather, however, that St. James appeals to certain Christians, labouring under the stress of particular circumstances, in order to warn them against special perils ..
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/08275b.htm

it is hard to know who exactly wrote the Epistle of James included in the NT or where it was written.

eta -

What a strange character James is! There is no indication that he followed Jesus at all during Jesus' earthly lifetime. After the resurrection, however, he is one of the leading figures in the church ...

However, James is odd in other respects. Unlike the twelve, he never left Jerusalem. History says he was appointed as overseer there by the apostles. Acts, though, leaves us with the impression that he carried as much or more authority than the apostles who appointed him!

Not only did he not leave Jerusalem, but surely he was the most Jewish of the apostles. (James is called an apostle in Scripture—e.g., Gal. 1:19—but he was not one of the twelve.) While he acknowledged that the Gentiles did not need to keep the Law, he was always the one most on the side of the Law. Peter refused to eat with Gentiles out of fear of James (Gal. 2:11-12), and James asked Paul to buy the sacrifices for men about to take a Nazirite vow (and Paul complied – Acts 21:18-26!!!).

James remained the leader of the Jerusalem church until his death around A.D. 62. This is the account of his martyrdom according to Hegesippus (a 2nd century Christian about whom little is known), which is quoted in Eusebius' Ecclesiastical History, vol. II, ch. 23 (A.D. 323).

..Eusebius gives three versions of the death of James: one from Clement of Alexandria, one from Hegesippus, and one from Josephus (yes, Josephus' Antiquities was being quoted way back then!). [Goes on to give] Hegesippus' version, which Eusebius judge[d] the most accurate.

Historians, however, prefer Josephus' account of the death of James ...

http://www.christian-history.org/death-of-james.html

 

[Mcreal]

Some scholars argue for a pseudononymous author of the Epistle of James. Reasons cited for such a view could be any of the following:

• There is a lack of reference to Jesus Christ Himself in the letter.
• The superior level of Greek in the letter seems beyond what James, brother of Jesus, could have produced.
• The reverence for the Law issue is countered with a discussion on whether or not the works referred to in James are works of the Mosaic Law or general good works.
• The author appears to be well-versed in current Hellenistic philosophies.

http://www.theopedia.com/epistle-of-james

 

[Craig B]

Some scholars argue for a pseudononymous author of the Epistle of James. Reasons cited for such a view could be any of the following:

• There is a lack of reference to Jesus Christ Himself in the letter.
• The superior level of Greek in the letter seems beyond what James, brother of Jesus, could have produced.
• The reverence for the Law issue is countered with a discussion on whether or not the works referred to in James are works of the Mosaic Law or general good works.
• The author appears to be well-versed in current Hellenistic philosophies.

http://www.theopedia.com/epistle-of-james

I'm sure you're right, and that the Epistle was not written by James. Whether it reflects his philosophy can not be shown. But that is not Brainache's point, which was

... Traces of James remain in Josephus, Origen, Irenaeus, Hegesippus, Clement and parts of the NT. They even included a letter supposedly written by him in the NT, so they couldn't quite erase him entirely.

Attributing a letter to James is an indication that the redactors who performed the attribution were aware of the existence of a James, and were not trying to conceal the fact of this existence.

 

[Mcreal]

With regard to Antiquities 20.9.1 -

"A few scholars question the authenticity of the reference, based on various arguments, but primarily based on the observation that various details in The Jewish War differ from it.[8][9] L. Michael White considers the account to be spurious on the grounds that no [other?] parallel account exists in the Antiquities of the Jews.[10]"

.8. Habermas 1996, pp. 33-37.
.9. Wells 1986, p. 11.
10. L. Michael White, From Jesus to Christianity: How Four Generations of Visionaries & Storytellers created the New Testament and Christian Faith (San Francisco: HarperCollins, 2004). ISBN 0-06-052655-6

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ananus_ben_Ananus

Note the comments from this webpage -http://www.christian-history.org/death-of-james.html- that Eusebius judged Hegeseppius's account of James' death to have been the most accurate -

Eusebius' Ecclesiastical History, vol. II, ch. 23​

.

 

[Mcreal]

Attributing a letter to James is an indication that the redactors who performed the attribution were aware of the existence of a James, and were not trying to conceal the fact of this existence.

Attributing a letter to James, along with the apparent re-writing of history about a James as the James, is an indication the compilers of church history were re-writing church history, particularly, in this case, to embellish it.

 

[Mcreal]

This is an interesting summary -

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 to this theory credible.

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

 

[Craig B]

Attributing a letter to James, along with the apparent re-writing of history about a James as the James, is an indication the compilers of church history were re-writing church history, particularly, in this case, to embellish it.

That is perfectly consistent with what I have written. Why was an elaboration of references to James an embellishment? Probably because there was a reference to a "James" in the original material available to the redactors.

 

[Mcreal]

Attributing a letter to James, along with the apparent re-writing of history about a James as the James, is an indication the compilers of church history were re-writing church history, particularly, in this case, to embellish it.

Why was an elaboration of references to James an embellishment? Probably because there was a reference to a "James" in the original material available to the redactors.

I can't understand your rhetorical question, but you have previously claimed that

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

and Brainache has claimed that

... all the early Church Historians named James as the successor to Jesus as the "Bishop of Bishops".

vridar had asked/said -

If James had been the brother of Jesus then how can he have taken over the movement when all the indications in the gospels are that he was not a follower of Jesus?

Was it because he claimed that his deceased brother belatedly appeared to him after he was dead -- after he had heard the stories of his followers having those hallucinations?

It doesn't sound very plausible that Jesus' followers would accept such a James as their leader.

You responded with

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

Brainache responded with

I think it is the other way around. I think James' theology is closer to Jesus' than Paul's is. The later gospels follow Paul's ideas because they were written in the Gentile world, not Palestine.

then Brainache appealed to vague Ebionite ties to James to try to support his case.

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

 

[Brainache]

The author identifies himself as "James, a servant of God and of the Lord Jesus Christ," who is writing to "the twelve tribes scattered abroad" (James 1:1).

The words, i, 1, "to the twelve tribes" can mean the whole Jewish nation; but the words following, "which are scattered abroad", designate clearly the Jews of the Dispersion, which would suggest this epistle was written after the fall of the Temple ie. after the death of any of the James mentioned in the NT or mentioned by Josephus eg. Antiquities 20.9.1., as per the Catholic Encylopedia -

it is hard to know who exactly wrote the Epistle of James included in the NT or where it was written.

eta -

What a strange character James is! There is no indication that he followed Jesus at all during Jesus' earthly lifetime. After the resurrection, however, he is one of the leading figures in the church ...

However, James is odd in other respects. Unlike the twelve, he never left Jerusalem. History says he was appointed as overseer there by the apostles. Acts, though, leaves us with the impression that he carried as much or more authority than the apostles who appointed him!

Not only did he not leave Jerusalem, but surely he was the most Jewish of the apostles. (James is called an apostle in Scripture—e.g., Gal. 1:19—but he was not one of the twelve.) While he acknowledged that the Gentiles did not need to keep the Law, he was always the one most on the side of the Law. Peter refused to eat with Gentiles out of fear of James (Gal. 2:11-12), and James asked Paul to buy the sacrifices for men about to take a Nazirite vow (and Paul complied – Acts 21:18-26!!!).

James remained the leader of the Jerusalem church until his death around A.D. 62. This is the account of his martyrdom according to Hegesippus (a 2nd century Christian about whom little is known), which is quoted in Eusebius' Ecclesiastical History, vol. II, ch. 23 (A.D. 323).

..Eusebius gives three versions of the death of James: one from Clement of Alexandria, one from Hegesippus, and one from Josephus (yes, Josephus' Antiquities was being quoted way back then!). [Goes on to give] Hegesippus' version, which Eusebius judge[d] the most accurate.

Historians, however, prefer Josephus' account of the death of James ...

http://www.christian-history.org/death-of-james.html

That Christian History author that you quote seems to assume that James should have shared Paul's idea of "Christ Jesus'" resurrection, but the depiction of him in the Clementine writings shows something else. James was still awaiting the resurrection, when as per Daniel: The son of man would appear coming in glory on the clouds of heaven (or whatever the quote is).

James and Paul were in conflict. Paul was telling people that :
https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Galatians 3

.... For all who rely on works of the law are under a curse; for it is written, “Cursed be everyone who does not abide by all things written in the Book of the Law, and do them.” 11 Now it is evident that no one is justified before God by the law, for “The righteous shall live by faith.”[d] 12 But the law is not of faith, rather “The one who does them shall live by them.” 13 Christ redeemed us from the curse of the law by becoming a curse for us—for it is written, “Cursed is everyone who is hanged on a tree”— 14 so that in Christ Jesus the blessing of Abraham might come to the Gentiles, so that we might receive the promised Spirit[e] through faith...

but James was saying:

What good is it, my brothers, if someone says he has faith but does not have works? Can that faith save him? 15 If a brother or sister is poorly clothed and lacking in daily food, 16 and one of you says to them, “Go in peace, be warmed and filled,” without giving them the things needed for the body, what good is that? 17 So also faith by itself, if it does not have works, is dead.

18 But someone will say, “You have faith and I have works.” Show me your faith apart from your works, and I will show you my faith by my works. 19 You believe that God is one; you do well. Even the demons believe—and shudder! 20 Do you want to be shown, you foolish person, that faith apart from works is useless? 21 Was not Abraham our father justified by works when he offered up his son Isaac on the altar? 22 You see that faith was active along with his works, and faith was completed by his works; 23 and the Scripture was fulfilled that says, “Abraham believed God, and it was counted to him as righteousness”—and he was called a friend of God. 24 You see that a person is justified by works and not by faith alone

https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=James+2&version=ESV

Apparently this phrase "works of the Law" also appears in the DSS which reflect the same attitude as James' letter.

 

[Mcreal]

... but the depiction of him in the Clementine writings shows something else.​

The depiction of who in the Clementine writings? James?​

 

[Brainache]

The depiction of who in the Clementine writings? James?

Yes, the man we are talking about: James.

 

[Mcreal]

but James was saying:​

You do realise we don't really know who wrote the Epistle of James.

The Epistle of James cannot be used as evidence for any 'James'.​

 

[Mcreal]

Yes, the man we are talking about: James.​

lol. There is no evidence there is one man 'James'.

It would be appropriate for you to properly read the previous posts on this page of this thread.

eg post #163, the next post #164, and post #168​

 

[Brainache]

lol. There is no evidence there is one man 'James'.

It would be appropriate for you to properly read the previous posts on this page of this thread.

eg post #163, the next post #164, and post #168​

I read them.

Whether or not that epistle was written by James or his followers, it presents a "Jewish Christian" attitude which is markedly different to that of Paul.

As has been pointed out already James is named as the leader of the Jerusalem Church after Jesus in all of the early histories. He is also named as such in other apocrypha like the gnostic gospels and the Clementine writings.

The ancient histories differ on some details, but that is par for the course in these things.

I'm not sure where you get the idea that James the Just didn't exist, or that the gospels present reliable history.

 

[Mcreal]

As has been pointed out already James is named as the leader of the Jerusalem Church after Jesus in all of the early histories. He is also named as such in other apocrypha like the gnostic gospels and the Clementine writings.

As has been pointed out, there are various 'histories', and they are often vague or contradictory. You are seeking to reify things that are abstract.​

.

I'm not sure where you get the idea that ... the gospels present reliable history.​

I don't. You're misrepresenting me, or gaslighting.
​

.

I'm not sure where you get the idea that James the Just didn't exist ..

I'm not sure where you get the idea he was really a figure of note.

vridar has pointed out he was sidelined in many of the texts.​

 

[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 Jospehus (writing in the late 1st C) or by Hegesippus (in the 2nd C)​

'James the Just' is a later construct.

 

[GDon]

There is no indication there was a single James who was

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

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.

 

[Brainache]

As has been pointed out, there are various 'histories', and they are often vague or contradictory. You are seeking to reify things that are abstract.​

.

I don't. You're misrepresenting me, or gaslighting.
​

.

I'm not sure where you get the idea he was really a figure of note.

vridar has pointed out he was sidelined in many of the texts.​

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

I get the idea that he was a figure of note because he was mentioned all over the place outside of the bible.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James,_brother_of_Jesus

...In a 4th-century letter pseudographically ascribed[9] to the 1st century Clement of Rome, James was called the "bishop of bishops, who rules Jerusalem, the Holy Assembly of Hebrews, and all assemblies everywhere".[10] Hegesippus, in his fifth book of his Commentaries, mentions that James was made a bishop of Jerusalem but he does not mention by whom: "After the apostles, James the brother of the Lord surnamed the Just was made head of the Church at Jerusalem."[11] But, like the rest of the early Christians, information about his life is scarce and ambiguous. Clement of Alexandria wrote in the sixth book of his Hypotyposes that James the Just was chosen as a bishop of Jerusalem by Peter, James (the Greater) and John: "For they say that Peter and James and John after the ascension of our Saviour, as if also preferred by our Lord, strove not after honor, but chose James the Just bishop of Jerusalem." But the same writer, in the seventh book of the same work, relates also the following concerning him: "The Lord after his resurrection imparted knowledge (gnōsin) to James the Just and to John and Peter, and they imparted it to the rest of the apostles, and the rest of the apostles to the seventy, of whom Barnabas was one."[12]
According to Eusebius James was named a bishop of Jerusalem by the apostles: "James, the brother of the Lord, to whom the episcopal seat at Jerusalem had been entrusted by the apostles".[13] Jerome wrote the same: "James... after our Lord's passion.. ordained by the apostles bishop of Jerusalem..." and that James "ruled the church of Jerusalem thirty years".[14]
The Oxford Dictionary of the Christian Church claims that James the Just was "from an early date with Peter a leader of the Church at Jerusalem and from the time when Peter left Jerusalem after Herod's attempt to kill him, James appears as the principal authority who presided at Council of Jerusalem".[15]
Apart from a handful of references in the synoptic Gospels, the main sources for the life of James the Just are the Acts of the Apostles, the Pauline epistles, Eusebius and Jerome, who also quote the early Christian chronicler Hegesippus and Epiphanius.[16] James is a principal author of the Apostolic Decree of Acts 15, and the Epistle of James in the New Testament is traditionally attributed to him. In the extant lists of Pseudo-Hippolytus of Rome,[17] Dorotheus of Tyre, the Chronicon Paschale, and Dimitry of Rostov, he is the first of the Seventy Apostles though some sources, such as the Catholic Encyclopedia,[18] state that "these lists are unfortunately worthless"...

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