Jay Raskin is 21st century, as I recall. A bit late.Charles Wilson wrote:We have Jay Raskin, who shows that "Hegesippus" in Eusebius was a forgery of Eusebius to enable him to quote an authority that Eusebius himself created.Peter Kirby wrote:Neither James nor Hegesippus are pre-70; both may be second century
Do we have anything else?
CW
The so-called " error" is, according to your own words, a "second century legend". Remove it and you have only James saying, during his lifetime, something about "the door of Jesus" which he connected to salvation. From http://historical-jesus.info/83.htmlboth may be second century; one is ambiguous; one contradicts your account and is, thus, alleged to be in error.
I already answered that in my previous post.Do we have anything else?
I do not see any ambiguity here. From http://historical-jesus.info/10.html:But this also seems ambiguous at best.A) Did Paul consider James, Peter, John & Church of Jerusalem members as Christian(s)?
Despite many opportunities in his epistles, Paul never said those were "in the Lord", or "in Christ", or just "brothers". But he used often these expressions to qualify other(s) as "Christian(s)".
http://www.amazon.com/Evolution-Christs ... 1413497918Peter Kirby wrote:Jay Raskin is 21st century, as I recall. A bit late.Charles Wilson wrote:We have Jay Raskin, who shows that "Hegesippus" in Eusebius was a forgery of Eusebius to enable him to quote an authority that Eusebius himself created.Peter Kirby wrote:Neither James nor Hegesippus are pre-70; both may be second century
Do we have anything else?
Do you have a link?
Well that's interesting, but it also makes the non-representative nature of the letter (attributing things to James that you say James did not hold, such as Jesus as the Lord Christ) much more intractable.Bernard Muller wrote:to Peter,
Neither James nor Hegesippus are pre-70.
How do you know James is not pre-70? I made some points in http://historical-jesus.info/38.html
The authenticity of James' letter is contested.
Some scholars see it as an anti-Pauline tract written around 80-90C.E. Also, they assert it is inspired from the Wisdom literature of the O.T. Apocrypha, in particular Hobit 4:5-19. But the differences in style & themes and the few analogies (such as charity for the poor) make the later claim very debatable.
Others (and myself) think that a large part of the epistle contains a rendition of Jesus' brother homilies or/and exhortations: despite being written in excellent Greek, the letter is disorganized, with reoccurring tenets & themes, as like a collection of randomly placed "sayings".
It was likely put together by someone who heard (and admired) James, in order to be read among Jewish Christians outside Palestine (as in Syria). Because the letter mentions repeatedly the contemporaries of James will be alive when the Kingdom comes (with God's wrath and very soon!), a date of issue beyond 70C.E. (when most people in Jerusalem perished) does not make sense. Rather, a date of writing prior to, or soon after, James' death is probable.
Also, in the epistle, God himself is the Judge of the coming Day (4:12, 5:7-11). This is typical of early Christian writings, as Paul's letters (Ro 2:3, 5-6, 5:16, 14:10b,12) and 'Hebrews' (12:23). However in later ones, written around 85-100 C.E, gMatthew (25:31-46), gJohn (5:25-30) and 'Acts' (10:42), Jesus has become that Judge.
The whole account of Hegesippus is a second century legend. Obviously.Bernard Muller wrote:The so-called " error" is, according to your own words, a "second century legend". Remove it
Bernard Muller wrote:I do not see any ambiguity here. From http://historical-jesus.info/10.html:
Paul mentioned the Church of Jerusalem and members several times (1 Cor 16:1,3; 2 Cor 8:4, 13-15; 9:1, 12-15; Ga l2:1-10; Ro 15:25-26, 31) and acknowledged them as "saints" (1 Cor 16:1; 2 Cor 8:4; 9:1, 12; Ro 15:25, 26, 31). But despite these many opportunities in his epistles, Paul never said those were "in the Lord", or "in Christ", or just "brothers". However he used often these expressions to qualify other(s) as "Christian(s)": 1 Th 2:14, 3:8, 4:16, 5:12; 1 Cor 3:1, 4:15, 17, 9:1-2, 15:18,58, 16:19, 24; 2 Cor 1:21, 2:14, 17, 12:2; Php 1:14, 3:1, 4:1-2, 4, 10, 21; Phm 1:6, 8, 16, 20, 23; Gal 1:22, 3:14, 26, 28; 5:10; Ro 8:1, 12:5, 16:3, 7-13, 22
Certainly that is interesting. I suppose that this falls under your (E), the messianic secret.Bernard Muller wrote:Another remark from gMark:
Mk 8:29-30: "He said to them, "But who do you say that I am?" Peter answered and said to Him, "You are the Christ". Then He strictly warned them [the disciples] that they should tell no one about Him."
That would explain why Peter & other disciples never said Jesus is/was Christ, for the remainder of their lives!
Cordially, Bernard
My own conclusion (and thus explanation for the general lack of knowledge regarding Hegesippus in church fathers other than Clement of Alexandria, Origen, or Eusebius) is that "Hegesippus" (by way of "Josephus") is a false name that came to be attached to the fifth book of Papias' famous work, transmitted separately, with the original error taking place in Alexandria/Egypt.Charles Wilson wrote:http://www.amazon.com/Evolution-Christs ... 1413497918
Footnote 36:
"It is hard to know if Eusebius has wholly made up the text of Hegesippus or has drastically changed the text of a real historian to reflect his point of view. Since nobody else mentions Hegesippus before Eusebius and it is difficult to say anybody ever read him after Eusebius, the more sober judgment for the moment is that he never existed. Eusebius is just taking text from other sources to create him."
Thanx, PK.Peter Kirby wrote:My own conclusion (and thus explanation for the general lack of knowledge regarding Hegesippus in church fathers other than Clement of Alexandria, Origen, or Eusebius) is that "Hegesippus" (by way of "Josephus") is a false name that came to be attached to the fifth book of Papias' famous work, transmitted separately, with the original error taking place in Alexandria/Egypt.
So, yes, I guess I agree that "he never existed" as such, if we accept that the book was written by a man with another name.
NO Jesus as a teacher, NO 'sacrifice', NO Jesus in heaven, NO future resurrections, NO Son of God," in James' epistle: what are the chances, if James was to be depicted as a Christian, these notions would not appear in the epistle?Well that's interesting, but it also makes the non-representative nature of the letter (attributing things to James that you say James did not hold, such as Jesus as the Lord Christ) much more intractable.
Don't you cut things also? I remember that recently you cut some verses of gJohn because it went against your docetist theory.Legend is not a synonym for falsehood, but you are the one using this as evidence for your version of James.
But you have to cut out bits. What justifies cutting out those bits? Why not cut out more, or less?
I think you might have a good argument that the collection wasn't exclusively for believers in Jesus as Christ, etc.
But that really is separate from the argument regarding Cephas.
Which I suppose would have to be, itself, considered separately from the case of James.
I'm just asking questions. Based on your answers, it looks like you're willing to look past the points where your sources contradict your hypothesis regarding James (and your sources do), as you view these contrary indications as less important than their silence regarding other things.Bernard Muller wrote:to Peter,NO Jesus as a teacher, NO 'sacrifice', NO Jesus in heaven, NO future resurrections, NO Son of God," in James' epistle: what are the chances, if James was to be depicted as a Christian, these notions would not appear in the epistle?Well that's interesting, but it also makes the non-representative nature of the letter (attributing things to James that you say James did not hold, such as Jesus as the Lord Christ) much more intractable.
BTW, "Lord Jesus Christ" is not the same as Lord Jesus the Christ. And one could be anointed (as chosen) by God just to be a prophet and nothing else.
Don't you cut things also? I remember that recently you cut some verses of gJohn because it went against your docetist theory.Legend is not a synonym for falsehood, but you are the one using this as evidence for your version of James.
But you have to cut out bits. What justifies cutting out those bits? Why not cut out more, or less?
Legend is not falsehood. So why would that legend be not representative of what James was not a Christian despite the efforts of Hesesippus to prove otherwise. I noticed also Hegesippus did not dare to put the word Christ in the mouth of James. And if the legend was entirely a second century fabrication, how can we explain that Hegesippus did not have James as a long time self-avowed Christian, who was martyred for not denying his Christian beliefs?
It doesn't say "church." It says that the collection is for "the poor" and "the saints" and "the Lord's people in Jerusalem." It was your own argument that this doesn't show any particular theological orientation. Charity work doesn't have to be directed exclusively to the in-group. James and Peter, and Paul with the collection, could be supporting the poor. You know, by supporting the poor.Bernard Muller wrote:I think you might have a good argument that the collection wasn't exclusively for believers in Jesus as Christ, etc.
But that really is separate from the argument regarding Cephas.
Which I suppose would have to be, itself, considered separately from the case of James.
James & Peter were pillars of the same church. The Church of Jerusalem included Peter. What are the chances, on matter of the greatest importance, they were not sharing the same beliefs?
Did you notice the declaration of James is made of cut & paste from Acts and gMatthew? And right after many Jews would say "Hosanna to the Son of David" as in gMatthew. That's a good reason for me to reject that declaration as a total invention.I'm just asking questions. Based on your answers, it looks like you're willing to look past the points where your sources contradict your hypothesis regarding James (and your sources do), as you view these contrary indications as less important than their silence regarding other things.
The Lord's people would mean the Church of Jerusalem members. Yes it may be that the collection were not only supporting the members of that church, but others in need. We cannot be sure. Certainly Acts is having Paul delivering the collection to James and the elders. Do you think the saints of Jerusalem or the poor of Jerusalem did not include the members of the Church?It doesn't say "church." It says that the collection is for "the poor" and "the saints" and "the Lord's people in Jerusalem." It was your own argument that this doesn't show any particular theological orientation. Charity work doesn't have to be directed exclusively to the in-group. James and Peter, and Paul with the collection, could be supporting the poor. You know, by supporting the poor.
But that's not much of an argument in favor of the saints of Jerusalem being Christians.On the other hand, if you're now saying that terms such as "saints" and "the Lord's people" have theological freight (and why not), then there's not much reason to regard them as radically different from the "saints" elsewhere (and Paul does not reserve this term for the people in the collection).
Maintaining that Hegesippus is unreliable tends to undermine your argument that he can tell us anything about James, but this does at least explain why you reject parts of the testimony / legendary account of Hegesippus.Bernard Muller wrote:That's a good reason for me to reject that declaration as a total invention.
Nobody claimed that it is. The matter of the "saints" discussed here is about your argument that you understand what they were.But that's not much of an argument in favor of the saints of Jerusalem being Christians.