An Abstract Mythicist Hypothesis

[Mcreal]

"Meanwhile the church in Rome -in order to consolidate its position as the central Christian church- claimed that Peter, not James, was chosen by Jesus to be the leader of the religion. They consistently marginalised James and built up Peter as "the rock upon which the church will be built" (or whatever)."

What has that to do with the claim that the earliest church was based on dynastic ideas, as I tentatively suggested?

Clearly that contradicts what you claim (what you claim without support, too):

the church in Rome ..claimed that Peter, not James, was chosen by Jesus to be the leader of the religion. They consistently marginalised James and built up Peter as "the rock upon which the church will be built"​

So who is right? the church, or others?

The Church in Rome claimed universal primacy for its own (real or imagined) founder..

The Christian church has more solid history as an eastern Empire church i.e. a Byzantine church

 

[Mcreal]

..

 

[Craig B]

Clearly that contradicts what you claim (what you claim without support, too):

the church in Rome ..claimed that Peter, not James, was chosen by Jesus to be the leader of the religion. They consistently marginalised James and built up Peter as "the rock upon which the church will be built"​

So who is right? the church, or others?


The Christian church has more solid history as an eastern Empire church i.e. a Byzantine church

Obviously I'm claiming, if I'm correct about Jesus' family, that the Roman and Constantinopolitan claims are founded on political considerations, as centres of imperial power, and do not correspond to any primordial state of Christian organisation, whatever that may have been.

 

[Mcreal]

whatever that may have been.

So you don't really have a clue?

Using waffle words -e.g. 'political considerations', 'imperial power', & 'any primordial state' - to try to deflect from obscure history about the early Church doesn't work.

Perhaps "the church in Rome" is a post-Byzantine construct?

 

[Craig B]

So you don't really have a clue?

Using waffle words -e.g. 'political considerations', 'imperial power', & 'any primordial state' - to try to deflect from obscure history about the early Church doesn't work.

Perhaps "the church in Rome" is a post-Byzantine construct?

Emphatically not. The Patriarchate of Constantinople came into independent existence only when the city was founded as Eastern imperial capital in the fourth century.

Prior to the moving of the imperial capital, the bishop of Byzantium had been under the authority of the metropolitan of Heraclea, but beginning in the 4th century, he grew to become independent in his own right.​

Just as one would expect.

 

[Mcreal]

Prior to the moving of the imperial capital​

That is what I was primarily referring to; not to the "bishop of Byzantium" or the "Patriarchate of Constantinople". That is, I was referring to the vague and scant history of 'the Church" in both Jerusalem and in Rome, long before the establishment of the church in the East under Constantine. See Eusebius's Letter on the Council of Nicaea under "our most pious Emperor" who "advised all present to agree to [doctrine]". It suggests previous church history was being 'revised'.

 

[vridar]

When Ignatius of Antioch made a special point of emphasizing that Jesus "really was" a descendant of David (in his letters to the Smyrneans and to the Ephesians) he did so in order to add weight to his anti-docetic argument. Being from David was on a par with being born of a virgin. The royal descent argument is used to buttress an anti-docetic claim.

Similarly in Romans 1:3 we find the concept of descent couched firmly in a type of anti-docetic language, "flesh" is stressed in a manner that is quite unnatural if all one wants to say is that Jesus came from the line of David.

The point in both Ignatius and Paul's Romans letter appears to be that the royal descent is there to counter a view that Jesus was in some sense not of this world. No, no, no, goes the counterclaim -- look, he really was flesh, he was born of Mary, his family line was that of David, . . . . (coincidentally fitting the prophecies, of course) .....

The earliest non-gospel references to Jesus being of a natural royal family have evident apologetic/theological functions. Only an apologist would feel comfortable relying upon such declarations to reconstruct genuine history.

 

[Brainache]

"Meanwhile the church in Rome -in order to consolidate its position as the central Christian church- claimed that Peter, not James, was chosen by Jesus to be the leader of the religion. They consistently marginalised James and built up Peter as "the rock upon which the church will be built" (or whatever)."

Craig covered it:

What has that to do with the claim that the earliest church was based on dynastic ideas, as I tentatively suggested? Obviously when the city of Rome became the centre of the Church, Jesus' family had ceased to count for anything long before that, whether Jesus' community was dynastic or not.

The Church in Rome claimed universal primacy for its own (real or imagined) founder, it goes without saying.

The church in Rome rose in power after the church in Jerusalem had ceased to exist. They retro-fitted Peter as the founder.

I'm trying to understand how your view of Christian origins would explain why the gospels said James was NOT a follower of Jesus.

Did you read the rest of my post? The later Roman Catholic Church who compiled, redacted and edited the NT into its final form was deeply anti-semitic. James was famous for telling people that they had to follow the Laws of Moses in order to follow Jesus. The gospels and acts were rewritten to project a pro-Roman, anti-Jewish viewpoint, therefore they wrote James out of the picture.

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.

 

[vridar]

Did you read the rest of my post? The later Roman Catholic Church who compiled, redacted and edited the NT into its final form was deeply anti-semitic. James was famous for telling people that they had to follow the Laws of Moses in order to follow Jesus. The gospels and acts were rewritten to project a pro-Roman, anti-Jewish viewpoint, therefore they wrote James out of the picture.

Why did the RC Church change the gospels to say James was not a follower of Jesus but still kept Peter and John as followers in the same gospels. Paul lumped these three together as the problem.

ETA: Why did the RC Church leave in so many Jewish things being done and taught by Jesus if they were trying to get rid of positive Jewish teachings?

 

[vridar]

The gospels and acts were rewritten to project a pro-Roman, anti-Jewish viewpoint,

The point I'm trying to make is that your scenario is not impossible, but I would not like to be dogmatic about it and insist that it must be superior to other reconstructions.

For example, if I suggest a passage has been redacted or edited, I try to give several lines of argument in the text itself to argue that case. Then after that I am forced to admit that I have only argued for the possibility of interpolation and not for its certainty.

However, your scenario appears to be making sweeping claims that whole narratives and passages in a number of gospels have all been rewritten etc -- but you do so because making such a claim supports your hypothesis or view of Christian origins. You do not have detailed arguments in each case to argue a particular redaction.

If others were to say that the evidence we have originally said something else and not what we read in it today, surely we cannot accept their arguments as superior to other hypotheses that accept the evidence as we have it -- without assuming it has all been rewritten into something different. But you disagree, I think.

 

[Mcreal]

"Meanwhile the church in Rome -in order to consolidate its position as the central Christian church- claimed that Peter, not James, was chosen by Jesus to be the leader of the religion. They consistently marginalised James and built up Peter as "the rock upon which the church will be built" (or whatever)."

You have misrepresented me and misrepresented yourself there, as that is not my quote. It is your quote of wikipedia (albeit with my emphases via underlining). As such, I have doubt about your ability to discern and represent.

Craig covered it:

... Obviously when the city of Rome became the centre of the Church, Jesus' family had ceased to count for anything long before that, whether Jesus' community was dynastic or not.

The Church in Rome claimed universal primacy for its own (real or imagined) founder, it goes without saying.

The church in Rome rose in power after the church in Jerusalem had ceased to exist. They retro-fitted Peter as the founder.

Eusebius tells us the church in Jerusalem continued after being replenished with Gentile bishops: Hist. eccl. 4.6.4:

And thus, when the city had been emptied of the Jewish nation and had suffered the total destruction of its ancient inhabitants, it was colonized by a different race, and the Roman city which subsequently arose changed its name and was called Ælia, in honor of the emperor Ælius Adrian. And as the church there was now composed of Gentiles, the first one to assume the government of it after the bishops of the circumcision was Marcus.​

1. How did "the Church in Rome claim universal primacy for its own (real or imagined) founder"?

2. What evidence is there that "the city of Rome became the centre of the Church"?

 

[Brainache]

You have misrepresented me and misrepresented yourself there, as that is not my quote. It is your quote of wikipedia (albeit with my emphases via underlining). As such, I have doubt about your ability to discern and represent.

It was in your post and so it appeared in my quote of your post. It wasn't wikipedia, it was my own work. I'm not sure what your problem is here.

Eusebius tells us the church in Jerusalem continued after being replenished with Gentile bishops: Hist. eccl. 4.6.4:

And thus, when the city had been emptied of the Jewish nation and had suffered the total destruction of its ancient inhabitants, it was colonized by a different race, and the Roman city which subsequently arose changed its name and was called Ælia, in honor of the emperor Ælius Adrian. And as the church there was now composed of Gentiles, the first one to assume the government of it after the bishops of the circumcision was Marcus.​

Yes, but it was no longer the original Jerusalem Church as led by James, it was led by Gentiles, not Jews.

1. How did "the Church in Rome claim universal primacy for its own (real or imagined) founder"?

You've never heard that bit about Peter being the rock upon whom the church was built? Whereas all the early Church Historians named James as the successor to Jesus as the "Bishop of Bishops".

2. What evidence is there that "the city of Rome became the centre of the Church"?

Are you kidding me? Have you heard of the Pope? The Roman Catholic Church really has declined lately, but once upon a time it was pretty powerful, just look at the history of the last 2000 years in Europe...

 

[Mcreal]

I'm not sure what your problem is here.

You contradicting Craig B. You being evasive.

Yes, but it was no longer the original Jerusalem Church as led by James, it was led by Gentiles, not Jews.

If there ever had been an original church in Jerusalem.

You've never heard that bit about Peter being the rock upon whom the church was built? Whereas all the early Church Historians named James as the successor to Jesus as the "Bishop of Bishops".

Do you see the contradiction there?

2. What evidence is there that "the city of Rome became the centre of the Church"?

Are you kidding me? Have you heard of the Pope? The Roman Catholic Church really has declined lately, but once upon a time it was pretty powerful, just look at the history of the last 2000 years in Europe...

Yes, the Roman Catholic church has been dominant in Rome for the last several centuries. I was referring to what we have been talking about, i.e. the early church.

We are told there was a church established in Rome in the beginning, but was there? All the Ecumenical Councils, of which the Council of Nicea was the first, were in the East: the 2nd was in Constantinople; the 3rd in Ephesus; the 4th in Chalcedon (which described the hypostatic union of the two natures of Christ, human and divine); the 5th & 6th were in Constantinople; & the 7th was in Nicea (in 787 a.d.).

Does 'Rome' reflect the Empire, more than the city?

 

[Brainache]

Why did the RC Church change the gospels to say James was not a follower of Jesus but still kept Peter and John as followers in the same gospels. Paul lumped these three together as the problem.

The whole thing is a bit haphazard. It doesn't appear to have all happened at once and all with the same intent by a single group. But can you tell me specifically which gospels you are talking about that don't include James?

ETA: Why did the RC Church leave in so many Jewish things being done and taught by Jesus if they were trying to get rid of positive Jewish teachings?

I think it's more a case of Gentile teachings being added, rather than Jewish things being taken out. That's why you can find Jesus saying "Not one jot or tittle shall pass away from the law..." but also saying "render unto Caesar" or eat whatever food you like; these things are incompatible.

The point I'm trying to make is that your scenario is not impossible, but I would not like to be dogmatic about it and insist that it must be superior to other reconstructions.

For example, if I suggest a passage has been redacted or edited, I try to give several lines of argument in the text itself to argue that case. Then after that I am forced to admit that I have only argued for the possibility of interpolation and not for its certainty.

However, your scenario appears to be making sweeping claims that whole narratives and passages in a number of gospels have all been rewritten etc -- but you do so because making such a claim supports your hypothesis or view of Christian origins. You do not have detailed arguments in each case to argue a particular redaction.

If others were to say that the evidence we have originally said something else and not what we read in it today, surely we cannot accept their arguments as superior to other hypotheses that accept the evidence as we have it -- without assuming it has all been rewritten into something different. But you disagree, I think.

None of what I'm saying about the evolution of the canonical texts is particularly new or controversial. It has been acknowledged by Scholars for centuries that the gospels contain interpolations and redactions.

You can start by looking at this article:
http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Bible_interpolation

Bible interpolation, or Bible redaction, is the art of adding words, phrases, or, entire sentences (depending on punctuation) to the Bible.

Some Christians, through a lack of research or willful ignorance, believe that the books of the Bible presented to us today are exactly the same as when they were written 19 or more centuries ago, having been precisely copied over the years. However, comparison with ancient texts indicates that is simply not true. Through biblical criticism scholars have identified additions, omissions, and edits that have been made.

Some changes are due to errors and honest attempts at clarification. Many are due to dishonest attempts on the part of copyists to alter the Bible in order to further their theological agendas. The result is that the Bible we read today may not necessarily convey the message intended by its original author — which is a distinct problem if that original author is, by extension or not, a wrathful tyrant...

But apart from that, I'm not trying to write a book here, I'm just trying to make a "broad strokes" hypothesis about Christian origins. I'm trying to make it a bit more detailed than the hypothesis in the Opening post of this thread, which I believe I have done.

I haven't even gotten to the good bit yet...

 

[Mcreal]

I'm trying to make it a bit more detailed than the hypothesis in the Opening post of this thread, which I believe I have done.

So your series of questionable posts are a point-scoring exercise?

I haven't even gotten to the good bit yet...

God help us. It would have been appropriate for you to discuss the OP directly, or to start your own thread.

 

[vridar]

None of what I'm saying about the evolution of the canonical texts is particularly new or controversial. It has been acknowledged by Scholars for centuries that the gospels contain interpolations and redactions.

You can start by looking at this article:
http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Bible_interpolation

You missed my point. I tried to explain that when interpolations and redactions are posited they are done so on a case by case basis along with a pile of detailed supporting argument to justify each case. I have recently suggested certain key passages are interpolations but have done so only by adding six or more detailed points of argument, of reasons to believe interpolation has happened in each case. Nothing arbitrary about it.

I don't think you have done anything like that. You have made a sweeping statement about the gospels being re-written etc for certain agendas. But you need to be able to go through the gospels and show us what bits were original and what bits were changed and what was an interpolation -- by means of argument in each case.

That's how it works in scholarship. Otherwise anyone could simply claim the evidence supports their hypothesis and if you see details that don't then that's just because the gospels were re-written or interpolated!

That would be quite arbitrary, don't you think?

 

[vridar]

TBut can you tell me specifically which gospels you are talking about that don't include James?

I was at the point of bowing out of this discussion but it has been suggested to me that I clarify. I unfortunately assumed we knew the gospels without having to point to chapter and verse.

Mark names James as a brother of Jesus, and Mark also says Jesus' family, brothers included, thought he was mad - Mark 3. In Mark 6 James is included among the brothers who did not believe in Jesus.

In the Gospel of John we also read about Jesus' brothers not believing in him -- John 7:5.

 

[Mcreal]

Mark names James as a brother of Jesus, and Mark also says Jesus' family, brothers included, thought he was mad - Mark 3.

Mark names a James as a brother of Jesus.

Mark 3 names two James among the twelve apostles:

13 Jesus went up on a mountainside and called to him those he wanted, and they came to him. 14 He appointed twelve [apostles] that they might be with him and that he might send them out to preach 15 and to have authority to drive out demons. 16 These are the twelve he appointed: Simon (to whom he gave the name Peter), 17 James, son of Zebedee, and his brother John (to them he gave the name Boanerges, which means “sons of thunder”), 18 Andrew, Philip, Bartholomew, Matthew, Thomas, James, son of Alphaeus, Thaddaeus, Simon the Zealot, 19 and Judas Iscariot, who betrayed him.

.
Then the section in Mark 3 where his family say "He is out of his mind":

20 Then Jesus entered a house, and again a crowd gathered, so that he and his disciples were not even able to eat. 21 When his family heard about this, they went to take charge of him, for they said, “He is out of his mind.”

.
Then the teachers of the law say he is possessed by Beelzebul, the prince of demons":

22 And the teachers of the law who came down from Jerusalem said, “He is possessed by Beelzebul! By the prince of demons he is driving out demons.”

23 So Jesus called them over to him and began to speak to them in parables: “How can Satan drive out Satan? 24 If a kingdom is divided against itself, that kingdom cannot stand. 25 If a house is divided against itself, that house cannot stand. 26 And if Satan opposes himself and is divided, he cannot stand; his end has come. 27 In fact, no one can enter a strong man’s house without first tying him up. Then he can plunder the strong man’s house. 28 Truly I tell you, people can be forgiven all their sins and every slander they utter, 29 but whoever blasphemes against the Holy Spirit will never be forgiven; they are guilty of an eternal sin.”

.
Lastly, Jesus denies his family (Mark 3):

30 He said this because they were saying, “He has an impure spirit.”

31 Then Jesus’ mother and brothers arrived. Standing outside, they sent someone in to call him. 32 A crowd was sitting around him, and they told him, “Your mother and brothers are outside looking for you.”

33 “Who are my mother and my brothers?” he asked.

34 Then he looked at those seated in a circle around him and said, “Here are my mother and my brothers! 35 Whoever does God’s will is my brother and sister and mother.”

 

[Brainache]

So your series of questionable posts are a point-scoring exercise?

Not at all. It's just me trying to explore these ideas and write them down into some kind of coherent narrative.

God help us. It would have been appropriate for you to discuss the OP directly, or to start your own thread.

I did discuss the OP directly. I wasn't going to put this in this thread, but then you said it was OK.

You missed my point. I tried to explain that when interpolations and redactions are posited they are done so on a case by case basis along with a pile of detailed supporting argument to justify each case. I have recently suggested certain key passages are interpolations but have done so only by adding six or more detailed points of argument, of reasons to believe interpolation has happened in each case. Nothing arbitrary about it.

I don't think you have done anything like that. You have made a sweeping statement about the gospels being re-written etc for certain agendas. But you need to be able to go through the gospels and show us what bits were original and what bits were changed and what was an interpolation -- by means of argument in each case.

That's how it works in scholarship. Otherwise anyone could simply claim the evidence supports their hypothesis and if you see details that don't then that's just because the gospels were re-written or interpolated!

That would be quite arbitrary, don't you think?

You don't seem to be getting what I'm saying. Most of what I'm talking about is the fact that the gospels were not written by Jews. They contain many things which come from an anti-semitic mindset. They appear to be written around a core of genuine second temple Jewish teachings, but there are obvious additions like the stuff about Peter being the founder of the church:
http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Bible_interpolation

Matthew 16:18-19
Matthew 16:18-19 reads, "And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it. And I will give unto thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth shall be bound in heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven." This evidence of Peter's leadership role among the apostles does not appear in the parallel gospel accounts and interrupts the natural flow of the passage. It is doubtful Jesus would have used "church" to refer to Christianity, since it did not yet exist, and in fact the only other verse in the gospels where the word is used is in Matthew 18:17, itself a likely interpolation. Additionally, the phrase "gates of hell" appears nowhere else in the Bible...

Or this little gem of pro-Roman anti-semitism:

24 So when Pilate saw that he was gaining nothing, but rather that a riot was beginning, he took water and washed his hands before the crowd, saying, “I am innocent of this man's blood; see to it yourselves.” 25 And all the people answered, “His blood be on us and on our children!” 26 Then he released for them Barabbas, and having scourged[c] Jesus, delivered him to be crucified.

Pilate was a brutal governor who would have had no problem nailing up someone like Jesus and the idea of a big crowd of Jews yelling at the kindly Roman governor: "Blame us! Blame our kids! We killed him!" is absurd beyond belief.

That attitude is consistent throughout the gospels.

I was at the point of bowing out of this discussion but it has been suggested to me that I clarify. I unfortunately assumed we knew the gospels without having to point to chapter and verse.

Mark names James as a brother of Jesus, and Mark also says Jesus' family, brothers included, thought he was mad - Mark 3. In Mark 6 James is included among the brothers who did not believe in Jesus.

In the Gospel of John we also read about Jesus' brothers not believing in him -- John 7:5.

But as soon as we look outside of the NT canon we see references to James as the Bishop in Jerusalem in all the Histories of the period. So someone has tried to wash him out of the bible stories.

 

[Mcreal]

I wasn't going to put this in this thread, but then you said it was OK.

I said it was OK not realising it as going to be a multi-post serial.

A lot of what you have said is spurious eg. overstating the Ebionites.

But as soon as we look outside of the NT canon we see references to James as the Bishop in Jerusalem in all the Histories of the period. So someone has tried to wash him out of the bible stories.

Those two sentences are a non-sequitur. Don't you think the real issue is that someone has tried to write 'James' into the Christian story?