Jesus' appearances to Peter and James

Discussion about the New Testament, apocrypha, gnostics, church fathers, Christian origins, historical Jesus or otherwise, etc.
andrewcriddle
Posts: 1734
Joined: Sat Oct 05, 2013 12:36 am

Re: Jesus' appearances to Peter and James

Post by andrewcriddle » Thu Jan 14, 2016 11:03 am

perseusomega9 wrote:
Wiki - The Talmud relates that Elisha ben Abuyah (a rabbi and Jewish religious authority born in Jerusalem sometime before 70 CE), also called Acher (אחר, "other", as he became an apostate), entered Paradise and saw Metatron sitting down (an action that is not done in The Presence of God). Elishah ben Abuyah therefore looked to Metatron as a deity and said heretically: "There are indeed two powers in Heaven!"[15]
Are these hints that Jews killed followers of the Two Powers in Heaven?
There is AFAIK no hint that his fellow Jews killed or attempted to kill Elisha ben Abuyah.

Andrew Criddle

John2
Posts: 2746
Joined: Fri May 16, 2014 4:42 pm

Re: Jesus' appearances to Peter and James

Post by John2 » Thu Jan 14, 2016 12:33 pm

"Jesus was not brought before the Sanhedrin, That is a completely fictional trial with no historicity."

He is brought before the Sanhedrin in the literature is all I mean. I'm not arguing for historicity.
Show me something built to last.

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

Re: Jesus' appearances to Peter and James

Post by Adam » Fri Jan 15, 2016 10:50 pm

Diogenes the Cynic wrote: ]Jesus was not brought before the Sanhedrin, That is a completely fictional trial with no historicity.
I am intrigued to see you put aside the agreement here among the three Synoptics and opt for the fourth available canonical version in GJohn. I see John2 also speaks for the literature rather than historicity.
Always in the Synoptics it's in near the end of the third chapter from the end of each gospel that the story is told of the trial before the Sanhedrin. It's most pronounced in Matthew 26;59: "The chief priests and the whole Sanhedrin were looking for false evidence against Jesus so that they could put him to death," almost identical to Mark 14:55, just dropping the word "false"." This agrees with my theory that the first two Synoptics share the same original (expanded by GMatthew and abridged by GMark). Not entirely different is Luke 22:52: "Then Jesus said to the chief priests, the officers of the temple guard, and the elders, who had come for him..." and 22:54: "Then seizing him, they led him away and took him into the house of the high priest." One would assume that the officers and/or elders came along, implicitly a Sanhedrin or similar. As it continues at Luke 22:66: "At daybread the council of the elders of the people, both the chief priests and teachers of the law, met together, and Jesus was led before them." QED (NIV)
in contrast the sparer narrative in John 18 does not enumerate elders nor teachers of the law. We see this in John 18:13 "They bound him and broght him firs to Annas, who was the father-in-law of Caiaphas, the high priest that year." At most we see at John 18:22 "...one of the officials nearby struck him in the face..." Right, no Sanhedrin apparent here. So Diogenes and John2 agree in a sparer narrative than in the Synoptics, which is supported by GJohn. I don't make a point myself of denying the Synoptics, but wherever I compare the Passion Narratives I find the chapters 18 through 21 in John to be closer to the original written text that underlies all four gospels.

Diogenes the Cynic
Posts: 482
Joined: Sun Oct 06, 2013 10:59 pm
Location: Twin Cities, MN

Re: Jesus' appearances to Peter and James

Post by Diogenes the Cynic » Sat Jan 16, 2016 11:16 am

The Synoptics only "agree" because Matthew and Luke copied Mark. Mark is really the only source for a trial. There are a number of legal and historical implausibilities and impossibilities in the description of Mark's trial. There could have been no trial at night, or on the Passover or away from the Temple. There could have been no death sentence on the same day as a trial, and most significantly, Mark has Jesus convicted of blasphemy for claiming to e the Messiah, but claiming to be the Messiah was not blasphemy under Jewish law, and was not illegal at all. It was a Roman crime, however and John and the Synoptics are unanimous in saying that the formal Roman charge against Jesus was claiming to be the King of the Jews - a Roman crime, not a Jewish one.

John's Gospel, which has the the Temple authorities arresting Jesus, then turning him over to Pilate after a brief, informal interrogation by the High Priest is at least historically plausible.

Oh, and by the way, who was supposed to have witnessed that trial and made a transcript?

John2
Posts: 2746
Joined: Fri May 16, 2014 4:42 pm

Re: Jesus' appearances to Peter and James

Post by John2 » Sat Jan 16, 2016 1:08 pm

Diogenes asked:

"Oh, and by the way, who was supposed to have witnessed that trial and made a transcript?"

I noticed these details as I was reading about Jesus' trial in Mark:

"Peter followed him [Jesus] at a distance, right into the courtyard of the high priest. There he sat with the guards and warmed himself at the fire" (14:54).

And:

"While Peter was below in the courtyard" (14:66).

I don't know if this means that Peter could see or hear the trial, but I took it that way initially and thought it was a nice touch (artistically speaking) and it appears to be taken this way in commentaries as well:

"The place where Jesus stood before the high priest may have been an open room, or place of audience on the ground floor, in the rear or on one side of the court; such rooms, open in front, being customary. It was close upon the court, for Jesus heard all that was going on around the fire, and turned and looked upon Peter (Lu 22:61)."

http://biblehub.com/mark/14-54.htm

"At the upper end of this court, probably, would be the memorable chamber in which the trial was held—open to the court, likely, and not far from the fire (as we gather from Lu 22:61), but on a higher level; for (as our verse says) the court, with Peter in it, was "beneath" it. The ascent to the Council chamber was perhaps by a short flight of steps."

http://biblehub.com/mark/14-66.htm

And the first thing that came to my mind when I saw these verses was Papias' statement that Mark got his information from Peter:

"Mark having become the interpreter of Peter, wrote down accurately whatsoever he remembered. It was not, however, in exact order that he related the sayings or deeds of Christ. For he neither heard the Lord nor accompanied Him. But afterwards, as I said, he accompanied Peter, who accommodated his instructions to the necessities [of his hearers], but with no intention of giving a regular narrative of the Lord's sayings."

But I don't know if these verses had anything to do with this tradition.
Show me something built to last.

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

Re: Jesus' appearances to Peter and James

Post by Adam » Sat Jan 16, 2016 7:58 pm

Diogenes the Cynic wrote:John's Gospel, which has the the Temple authorities arresting Jesus, then turning him over to Pilate after a brief, informal interrogation by the High Priest is at least historically plausible.
Oh, and by the way, who was supposed to have witnessed that trial and made a transcript?
My Thesis that seven eyewitnesses to Jesus WROTE accounts includes that John Mark (probably the naked young man in Mark 14:51-52 and the disciple known to the High Priest in John 18:15-16) wrote a Passion Diary immediately. It is best preserved as the Aramaic source underlying the Passion Narrative in John. He was an eyewitness. As he may have been a Sadducee, he might not have known or carried to mention the Pharisees who were there at the Trial of Jesus.
Eyewitnesses may give a less complete account than a later summarizer. Thus I don't deny that a Sanhedrin trial took place, just that Higher Criticism does not prove it happened.

User avatar
rakovsky
Posts: 1164
Joined: Mon Nov 23, 2015 8:07 pm
Location: USA
Contact:

Re: Jesus' appearances to Peter and James

Post by rakovsky » Mon Jan 18, 2016 10:44 am

Getting back to the opening post - the explanations that I see for the two missing appearances are as follows. Each of them or some version have been proposed by different scholars.

Peter

1. Jesus appeared to Peter at the tomb along with or even instead of to the women, since Paul lists the vision to Peter first and doesn't mention the women in his list of appearances in 1 Cor.
2. Peter saw Jesus somewhere and/or sometime else in Jerusalem on Sunday. (the canonical story suggests this)
3. In the original story, Peter first saw Jesus on the sea of Galilee as per John 21 and the Gospel of Peter before the apostles as a group saw Jesus. Then John 21 was later edited to make this appearance Jesus' "third" one to the disciples and put onto the end of John's gospel as a later edition.

James
1. Jesus privately appeared to James after appearing to the rest of the apostles (as per Paul's chronology in Corinthians) (the canonical story suggests this)
2. Jesus privately appeared to James before appearing to the apostles, and came to eat with James (as per the Gospel of Hebrews)

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

John2
Posts: 2746
Joined: Fri May 16, 2014 4:42 pm

Re: Jesus' appearances to Peter and James

Post by John2 » Wed Jan 20, 2016 12:11 pm

Rakovsky,

You wrote two options concerning the appearance to James:

"1. Jesus privately appeared to James after appearing to the rest of the apostles (as per Paul's chronology in Corinthians) (the canonical story suggests this)
2. Jesus privately appeared to James before appearing to the apostles, and came to eat with James (as per the Gospel of Hebrews)"

I think the reason the canonical story is more or less in line with Paul (and vice versa) is because these are post-70 CE writings that represent orthodox beliefs, like the Gospel of the Hebrews is a post-70 CE writing that represents Jewish Christian beliefs. In my view it seems like you prefer (or give precedence and thus more value to) the former over the latter and consequently seek to defend their point of view.

Like the Gospel of the Hebrews, the earliest references to the canonical gospels are from the second century CE, and the earliest surviving texts of the latter are also dated to the second century CE. As I've said, in my view all Christian writings besides Paul (and some of the Dead Sea Scrolls and perhaps the letters of James and Jude) are post-70 CE and thus represent the beliefs of people who lived post-70 CE (and largely outside of Judea).

So when I see everyone here talking about this or that post-70 CE, non-Judean writing I think, Why are they trying to figure out what happened in pre-70 CE Judea from writings that come from Gaul or Egypt or Turkey or Italy in the second century CE? See, I assume that Christianity started in pre-70 CE Judea, so I look for its roots (or existence) in writings that come from pre-70 CE Judea, and the most important of these, I feel, are the Dead Sea Scrolls. That's just my outlook.

You say if James was called the Just pre-70 CE then why isn't that mentioned in the NT? I look at it the other way around. Why isn't this mentioned in the NT when it's mentioned in so many non-canonical Christian writings? And the answer seems obvious to me: Because the former are biased towards Paul.

I cut through these post-70 CE biases by looking at the Dead Sea Scrolls (in tandem with Josephus). There I get at least a better picture of the situation in pre-70 CE Judea, even if the DSS sect was not proto-Christian. But they do look proto-Jewish Christian to me, and I generally defer to them when it comes to trying to figure out what "really" happened in pre-70 CE Judea.

And these writings give me the impression that Paul existed in the first century CE, even though there are otherwise no clear references to Paul until perhaps the late first century CE. So the DSS are evidence of Paul's existence for me (as well as the existence of a pro-Law sect that didn't like him led by someone called the Just).
Show me something built to last.

User avatar
rakovsky
Posts: 1164
Joined: Mon Nov 23, 2015 8:07 pm
Location: USA
Contact:

Re: Jesus' appearances to Peter and James

Post by rakovsky » Thu Jan 21, 2016 11:27 am

This book looks good:
https://books.google.com/books?id=HQGsx ... ce&f=false
Just James: The Brother of Jesus in History and Tradition
By John Painter

He does a good job on p. 16 showing that Jesus' brothers were probably close associates with Jesus before the resurrection, but that they, like the disciples, were not "full" believers at that point in the evangelists' views.

His writing style feels a bit boring and didactic. Too bad, because very interesting ideas he has.

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

John2
Posts: 2746
Joined: Fri May 16, 2014 4:42 pm

Re: Jesus' appearances to Peter and James

Post by John2 » Thu Jan 21, 2016 7:46 pm

I read Painter's book a long time ago and linked to it earlier in this thread.

But I don't think it matters if James became a believer only after an appearance from Jesus because so did Paul. And I don't think James' title "the Just" (zaddik) has anything to do with his belief in Jesus (though I'm not sure if you are arguing for this) because it is used in Judaism:

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

Eisenman points out that the language used to describe zaddiks in Judaism is similar to the description of James in Christian writings:

"...the tzaddik is referred to as a "pillar connecting heaven and earth." It is this pillar, firmly implanted in the ground of Creation, that comprises the very foundation of the universe"

https://books.google.com/books?id=g-igv ... th&f=false

"This foundation stone is also called a "pillar," that connects the earthly and heavenly realms. The Bahir offers the following insight, connecting the pillar (foundation) to Tzaddik, and stating that the measure of God's blessing is tied to the measure of righteousness in the world."

http://www.yashanet.com/studies/revstudy/rev5g.htm

"James, Cephas and John, those esteemed as pillars" (Gal. 2:9).

"Jesus said to them, "No matter where you are you are to go to James the Just, for whose sake heaven and earth came into being" (Gospel of Thomas 12).

Painter notes on page 344 that Eisenman's "observation that the understanding of James as a "pillar" and "Oblias" is illuminated by the tradition of the righteous sufferers, the Zaddikim" is "helpful."

So I don't think James' title is necessarily contingent on his belief in Jesus.

And I've changed my mind about the canonical story being more in line with Paul's account of the appearance to James in 1 Cor. 15 than the Gospel of the Hebrews, because Paul says he saw Jesus after James and the apostles:

"Then he appeared to James, then to all the apostles, and last of all he appeared to me also, as to one abnormally born."

Yet Acts mentions Jesus' appearance to Paul (in great detail) but not the appearance to James, and I think this is another indication of the NT's bias towards Paul.
Show me something built to last.

Post Reply