Jesus' appearances to Peter and James

Discussion about the New Testament, apocrypha, gnostics, church fathers, Christian origins, historical Jesus or otherwise, etc.
Post Reply
User avatar
rakovsky
Posts: 1180
Joined: Mon Nov 23, 2015 8:07 pm
Location: USA
Contact:

Jesus' appearances to Peter and James

Post by rakovsky » Sat Jan 02, 2016 10:55 pm

Sometimes I would just love to go in a time machine to see what the real story was with the gospels. In fact, I would be interested just to know how the early Christians portrayed some simple, easy things, particularly:
1. What was Jesus' appearance to Peter about? Where did it happen? According to Paul, it happened to Peter before it happened to the rest of the apostles.
2. Why does there seem to be some Peter-bashing in the gospels? Did he become disgraced? There is nothing really to say that directly, but some exegetes think he is portrayed strangely negatively in the gospels.
3. What was Jesus' appearance to James about? It isn't in the gospels, only in 1 Cor 15:7.

My research on the prophecies of the Messiah's resurrection: http://rakovskii.livejournal.com

Metacrock
Posts: 206
Joined: Sat May 03, 2014 2:33 am
Location: Dallas
Contact:

Re: Jesus' appearances to Peter and James

Post by Metacrock » Sun Jan 03, 2016 1:23 am

rakovsky wrote:Sometimes I would just love to go in a time machine to see what the real story was with the gospels. In fact, I would be interested just to know how the early Christians portrayed some simple, easy things, particularly:
1. What was Jesus' appearance to Peter about? Where did it happen? According to Paul, it happened to Peter before it happened to the rest of the apostles.
2. Why does there seem to be some Peter-bashing in the gospels? Did he become disgraced? There is nothing really to say that directly, but some exegetes think he is portrayed strangely negatively in the gospels.
3. What was Jesus' appearance to James about? It isn't in the gospels, only in 1 Cor 15:7.
Maybe he was telling them to accept Pau (in advance). Crossan thought there was a pre Mark tradition of James as witness before the women were talked about. He does not argue that Mark made up the womem I don't think. He does think they were added in latter. I don't. Mark seems like raw data terms of the women and the others are refined tellings.

1 cor 15:7 says James and then the Apostles. where do you get a separate appearance to Peter?
http://metacrock.blogspot.com/

User avatar
rakovsky
Posts: 1180
Joined: Mon Nov 23, 2015 8:07 pm
Location: USA
Contact:

Re: Jesus' appearances to Peter and James

Post by rakovsky » Sun Jan 03, 2016 11:02 am

Metarock, You asked:
1 cor 15:7 says James and then the Apostles. where do you get a separate appearance to Peter?
It is in 1 Cor 15:6 where it mentions Cephas, which is Aramaic for Peter in Greek and the Rock in English. This was the name that the Bible says the Aramaic speaking Jesus gave to Simon Peter.

My research on the prophecies of the Messiah's resurrection: http://rakovskii.livejournal.com

John2
Posts: 3107
Joined: Fri May 16, 2014 4:42 pm

Re: Jesus' appearances to Peter and James

Post by John2 » Sun Jan 03, 2016 12:03 pm

Rakovsky,

You asked:

"3. What was Jesus' appearance to James about? It isn't in the gospels, only in 1 Cor 15:7."

Though I figure you mean the appearance to James isn't in the canonical gospels, Jerome mentions seeing one in the Gospel of the Hebrews:

"Also the Gospel according to the Hebrews, lately translated by me into Greek and Latin speech, which Origen often uses, tells, after the resurrection of the Saviour: 'Now the Lord, when he had given the linen cloth unto the servant of the priest, went unto James and appeared to him (for James had sworn that he would not eat bread from that hour wherein he had drunk the Lord's cup until he should see him risen again from among them that sleep)', and again after a little, 'Bring ye, saith the Lord, a table and bread', and immediately it is added, 'He took bread and blessed and brake and gave it unto James the Just and said unto him: My brother, eat thy bread, for the Son of Man is risen from among them that sleep'" (Illustrious Men 2).
May the four winds blow you home again.

User avatar
rakovsky
Posts: 1180
Joined: Mon Nov 23, 2015 8:07 pm
Location: USA
Contact:

Re: Jesus' appearances to Peter and James

Post by rakovsky » Sun Jan 03, 2016 12:39 pm

Thanks. This story is interesting and could be what Paul meant.

4 problems are:
1. Jesus' linen appears carefully laid in the tomb in the gospels, not given directly to a priest's servant.
2. Paul makes the appearance to James sound last
3. I tend to think that the gospel to the Hebrews is a later rewriting of Matthew in the second century
4. In the gospels Jesus is the one who swears to fast until the Resurrection.

My research on the prophecies of the Messiah's resurrection: http://rakovskii.livejournal.com

User avatar
Ben C. Smith
Posts: 7149
Joined: Wed Apr 08, 2015 2:18 pm
Location: USA
Contact:

Re: Jesus' appearances to Peter and James

Post by Ben C. Smith » Sun Jan 03, 2016 1:51 pm

rakovsky wrote:I tend to think that the gospel to the Hebrews is a later rewriting of Matthew in the second century.
The title "gospel according to the Hebrews" appears to be a catch-all for at least 3 separate texts:
  1. The gospel of the Ebionites.
  2. The gospel of the Nazoraeans.
  3. The gospel of the Hebrews proper.
(To this list may be added some patristic references to a putative original gospel of Matthew in Hebrew.) Those three links lead to pages on this forum that I put together a while ago. I divided the texts according to A. F. J. Klijn, Jewish-Christian Gospel Tradition. In his way of dividing up the various patristic quotations, the appearance to James actually derives from the gospel according to the Hebrews proper, which, to proceed only on the basis of its seven extant quotations, seems to have little if anything to do with the gospel of Matthew (whereas both the Ebionite gospel and especially that of Nazoraeans do seem to be based on Matthew).

Now, of course Klijn may be wrong in how he reads the evidence, and his division of references may thus be mistaken. But it seems worth pointing out that those references to the gospel of the Hebrews proper, according to Klijn, come from a solid stream of Alexandrian tradition (Clement, Origen, Didymus the Blind) plus Jerome before he stumbled upon the Nazoraean gospel in 392.

Ben.
ΤΙ ΕΣΤΙΝ ΑΛΗΘΕΙΑ

Adam
Posts: 641
Joined: Fri Oct 04, 2013 3:28 pm

Re: Jesus' appearances to Peter and James

Post by Adam » Sun Jan 03, 2016 2:22 pm

Being that I believe that the canonical gospels are, in the main, written by eyewitnesses (discussed at length at the old FRDB and available at bcharchives.com, not accepted by anyone but never really attempted refuting, especially by spin who got off on a peripheral issue), then what Paul says becomes merely secondary and no proof remains there ever was a separate Resurrection appearance to either Peter or James. The supposed Luke 24:34 was to a Simon, more careful study showing this was another Simon the second of the two at Emmaus. I don't believe there ever was a separate appearance to Simon. As for Bishop James, we don't even know if he was the James being specified at I Corinthians 15:7.
As for the Peter-bashing, I've always assumed that's the standard proper Christian humility of confessing one's own faults and frailties. Supposedly Rome is where Peter and Mark got together to prepare the finished canonical Mark (through 16:8).

User avatar
rakovsky
Posts: 1180
Joined: Mon Nov 23, 2015 8:07 pm
Location: USA
Contact:

Re: Jesus' appearances to Peter and James

Post by rakovsky » Sun Jan 03, 2016 4:40 pm

Ben C. Smith wrote:
rakovsky wrote:I tend to think that the gospel to the Hebrews is a later rewriting of Matthew in the second century.
The title "gospel according to the Hebrews" appears to be a catch-all for at least 3 separate texts:
  1. The gospel of the Ebionites.
  2. The gospel of the Nazoraeans.
  3. The gospel of the Hebrews proper.
(To this list may be added some patristic references to a putative original gospel of Matthew in Hebrew.) Those three links lead to pages on this forum that I put together a while ago. I divided the texts according to A. F. J. Klijn, Jewish-Christian Gospel Tradition. In his way of dividing up the various patristic quotations, the appearance to James actually derives from the gospel according to the Hebrews proper, which, to proceed only on the basis of its seven extant quotations, seems to have little if anything to do with the gospel of Matthew (whereas both the Ebionite gospel and especially that of Nazoraeans do seem to be based on Matthew).

Now, of course Klijn may be wrong in how he reads the evidence, and his division of references may thus be mistaken. But it seems worth pointing out that those references to the gospel of the Hebrews proper, according to Klijn, come from a solid stream of Alexandrian tradition (Clement, Origen, Didymus the Blind) plus Jerome before he stumbled upon the Nazoraean gospel in 392.

Ben.

I read an essay proposing that these three gospels were in fact one single gospel, which the ebonites and nazarenes both used.
In any case I tend to think that the gospel of the Hebrews is a revised version of Matthews gospel from the second century.

To give an example, I think at one point it says that Jesus says to his mother that he was carried by a hair to Mt tabor the holy mount, in gHebrews. But really I tend to think that tabor was not originally the holy mount of transfiguration, and that the transfiguration was on Mt hermon. Also the part about being carried on a hair is a bit gnostic. Then if I am not mistaken, gHebrews changes the mention of John Baptist to say he ate mmon, not locusts because the ebonites were vegetarians.

GHEBREWS says jesus appeared to James the just who we know is jesus' brother. But I've learned that this is also a second century title for jesus' brother james.

My research on the prophecies of the Messiah's resurrection: http://rakovskii.livejournal.com

User avatar
rakovsky
Posts: 1180
Joined: Mon Nov 23, 2015 8:07 pm
Location: USA
Contact:

Re: Jesus' appearances to Peter and James

Post by rakovsky » Sun Jan 03, 2016 4:45 pm

Adam wrote: The supposed Luke 24:34 was to a Simon, more careful study showing this was another Simon the second of the two at Emmaus.
Even more careful study based on the grammar of the word legontas in that verse shows that the Simon named was not in fact one of the two travelers.
I don't believe there ever was a separate appearance to Simon. As for Bishop James, we don't even know if he was the James being specified at I Corinthians 15:7.
Yes, for Paul, the name James by default refers to jesus' brother, the pillar of the church as Paul calls him elsewhere.

My research on the prophecies of the Messiah's resurrection: http://rakovskii.livejournal.com

User avatar
Ben C. Smith
Posts: 7149
Joined: Wed Apr 08, 2015 2:18 pm
Location: USA
Contact:

Re: Jesus' appearances to Peter and James

Post by Ben C. Smith » Sun Jan 03, 2016 4:54 pm

rakovsky wrote:
Ben C. Smith wrote:
rakovsky wrote:I tend to think that the gospel to the Hebrews is a later rewriting of Matthew in the second century.
The title "gospel according to the Hebrews" appears to be a catch-all for at least 3 separate texts:
  1. The gospel of the Ebionites.
  2. The gospel of the Nazoraeans.
  3. The gospel of the Hebrews proper.
(To this list may be added some patristic references to a putative original gospel of Matthew in Hebrew.) Those three links lead to pages on this forum that I put together a while ago. I divided the texts according to A. F. J. Klijn, Jewish-Christian Gospel Tradition. In his way of dividing up the various patristic quotations, the appearance to James actually derives from the gospel according to the Hebrews proper, which, to proceed only on the basis of its seven extant quotations, seems to have little if anything to do with the gospel of Matthew (whereas both the Ebionite gospel and especially that of Nazoraeans do seem to be based on Matthew).

Now, of course Klijn may be wrong in how he reads the evidence, and his division of references may thus be mistaken. But it seems worth pointing out that those references to the gospel of the Hebrews proper, according to Klijn, come from a solid stream of Alexandrian tradition (Clement, Origen, Didymus the Blind) plus Jerome before he stumbled upon the Nazoraean gospel in 392.

Ben.

I read an essay proposing that these three gospels were in fact one single gospel, which the ebonites and nazarenes both used.
Did that essay explain the different baptism stories, then?
In any case I tend to think that the gospel of the Hebrews is a revised version of Matthews gospel from the second century.

To give an example, I think at one point it says that Jesus says to his mother that he was carried by a hair to Mt tabor the holy mount, in gHebrews. But really I tend to think that tabor was not originally the holy mount of transfiguration, and that the transfiguration was on Mt hermon.
First of all, why do you think it was Hermon? Second, it is not even clear that the whisking away of Jesus by one of his hairs pertains to the transfiguration; another option is the temptation; scholars have argued for both, but none of them with any sense of final certainty, because our information is just too slender.
Also the part about being carried on a hair is a bit gnostic.
Why? What makes that part gnostic? And why would it being gnostic make the gospel more likely to be a later reworking of Matthew? (Why not of John, for example? Or why not just its own thing?)
Then if I am not mistaken, gHebrews changes the mention of John Baptist to say he ate mmon, not locusts because the ebonites were vegetarians.
That is from the gospel of the Ebionites.
GHEBREWS says jesus appeared to James the just who we know is jesus' brother. But I've learned that this is also a second century title for jesus' brother james.
Of course it is. It is a rather common title for him from that century.

I would highly recommend reading Klijn, if you can.
ΤΙ ΕΣΤΙΝ ΑΛΗΘΕΙΑ

Post Reply