What was the fatal error of James the Just?

[Stephan Huller]

The right answer is baba. The text was written in Aramaic and shows signs of being badly translated into Greek elsewhere. What is the point of having blind people judge an art contest? The transposition of 'door' to 'father' is demonstrable in contemporary literature. For some reason (which I can't explain) baba meaning 'father' isn't easily demonstrable in Jewish Aramaic. Jastrow doesn't even mention it. This even though people were called 'Baba' in the 3rd - 5th centuries. Nevertheless baba = father survives in Samaritan Aramaic and Syriac and must have existed in Jewish Aramaic in the earlier period (the time Hegesippus wrote). It also brings up the use of Abba to mean Father. Something happened to Jewish Aramaic which is difficult to explain. But for fuck's sake Hegesippus didn't write in Greek. http://books.google.com/books?id=GiUGA8 ... ic&f=false

[John2]

Thanks, Bernard. I had noticed these "doors" but didn't know what to make of them given that I don't know Greek and so many translations put them as "door." I'm going to chew on what you've said here and look at everything with fresh eyes.

[John T]

Thanks to all for responding to my topic.

I have read very closely the responses including the links. Clearly a lot of thought from years of study were used in forming those opinions. For sharing those, I’m very grateful.

Although I agree with the author of the link that Bernard Muller cited, in that Eusebius was taking some liberty/editing of the writings of Hegesippus, I tend to think that Eusebius got the jest of the conflict correctly. So, I am still stumped as to the meaning of the ‘door to Jesus’ and the fatal error of James interpretation thereof.

I think Stephan Huller is on the right trail by suggesting the answer lies in the translation/meaning of Aramaic idioms, of which I have very little knowledge.

What I have little doubt about is, at the time the martyr of James, (approx. 62 A.D.) that the people knew from the Essenes via the Book of Enoch chapter 47-48 and Dan 7:14 that the role of the Son of Man was an agent of salvation and kingship of judgment. To accept the name of the Messiah would result in salvation or protection from death, Enoch 48:11. However, the nagging question was, who will that person be? Clearly, James the Just claimed that the Son of Man to be none other than his brother Jesus and a rapidly growing sect of the people agreed.
So, it was the job of the Pharisees to disprove Jesus as the Son of Man. No doubt the question put before James the Just was a well thought out one with a deadly aim. The phrase ‘door to Jesus’ if it is interpreted correctly is the key to his perceived error. However, Hegesippus does not explain the meaning of ‘door of Jesus’. Or perhaps he did but it was edited out by Eusebius. Still, (if the story is true at all) you can infer that the Pharisees, James the Just and the people knew full well the expression.

If I was to take a guess; this ‘door to Jesus’ is a physical door/gate to a wall of a physical kingdom. Jesus controls the door and only through him can one enter into or out of the kingdom which he and his heavenly hosts will bring down from the clouds onto the Temple Mount.

Again, I thank you for your time in trying to help me understand the phrase, “door to Jesus” but it remains a mystery to me.

Sincerely,
John T

[John2]

Bernard,

I've digested what you said regarding the issue of door vs. doors, and I think the difference doesn't matter much.

If Mk. 13:29 should be translated as doors instead of door, and "What is at the doors (plural) is the advent of the Kingdom with many signs, which includes more than the coming of the Son of man," I think it is fair to presume that the Son of Man can only go through one of these doors.

It seems like the same logic would apply to James 5:8-9, in which, as you point out, "the Lord's coming" and the Judge "standing at the doors" may refer to God and not Jesus. Since James was a Christian (1:1, 2:1) and believed in the last days (5:3), it seems reasonable to assume that he believed that Jesus would have something to do with the Lord's coming, because the idea of the coming of the Lord in the last days is generally associated with the coming of the Messiah in the OT.

So, if what is at the "doors" in Mk. 13:29 includes "more than the coming of the Son of man," then presumably there is more to the "the Lord's coming" and the Judge "standing at the doors," and it seems fair to think that it includes Jesus in some manner. And if there is more than one door here too, then it also seems fair to presume that Jesus could only go through one of them.

As far as Hegesippus goes, the expression "door of Jesus" is only uttered by the Scribes and Pharisees, not James, so it is not necessarily an official expression. They are simply asking about the door of Jesus, which James associates with Jesus being the Savior and the coming of the Son of Man on the clouds of heaven only, and not "more than the coming of the Son of man" (something which, as you pointed out, may include more than one door in Mk. 12:39).

But even if we set this aside, there is, as you acknowledge, Rev. 3:20: "I stand at the door and knock. If anyone hears my voice and opens the door, I will come..."

So I still think the "door of Jesus" reference in Hegesippus is "more in line with" at least this verse, but also arguably with Mk. 12:39 and James 5:8-9, than with John 10, because they all seem to "present the door as something that Jesus will come through."

[Bernard Muller]

to John 2,
Well I have to let you have your own opinion on the matter. I presented my case the best I could and I do not want to go back to my arguments.
Yes 1:1 and 2:1 mention Christ (as a surname), but that's about all for obvious Christian stuff in the epistle. The letter was not written by James so there is no evidence this Christ thing was part of James' beliefs. If read to some Jewish Christian audiences, then a minimum of Christianization had to be put in the letter.
The "coming of the Lord" in verses 5:7 & 8 has "Lord" as God if we look at the whole context of these 2 verses. But it can be "seen" as mentioning a second coming of Jesus, more so if you are a Christian. I suppose the author was deliberately ambivalent on purpose.
As I mentioned in my blog,"But let's notice NO parable, NO Jesus as a teacher, NO "sacrifice", NO Jesus in heaven, NO future resurrections, NO Son of God, essentially reflecting James was not a Christian ..."
http://historical-jesus.sosblogs.com/Hi ... b1-p41.htm

About a coming of God on earth in the future:
Isa 24:23b "... the Lord Almighty will reign on Mount Zion and in Jerusalem and before its elders, gloriously."
Joel 3:1-21 "... Then you will know that the Lord your God dwell in Zion, my holy hill. Jerusalem will be holy; never again will foreigners invade her"
Mic 4:1-8 "... The law will go out from Zion, the word of the Lord from Jerusalem ..."; "... The Lord will rule over them in Mount Zion from that day and forever ..."
Zec 14:1-21 "... The Lord will be king over the whole earth ..."; "... Then the survivors from all the nations that have attacked Jerusalem will go up year after year to worship the King, the Lord Almighty ..."

Cordially, Bernard

[John2]

Bernard,

I look at the issue of whether James was a Christian the same way I do the issue of whether Paul was a Pharisee. That Paul says he had been "as to the law, a Pharisee" in Php. 3:5, that he zealously followed "the traditions of my fathers" in Gal. 1:14 (an expression used to describe the practices of the Pharisees in Josephus, the NT and rabbinic writings), and that Acts (whether it is historically accurate or not) presents him as a Pharisee, makes me think that he was more likely than not a Pharisee.

James doesn't just mention the name Jesus Christ. He calls himself "a servant of ... the Lord Jesus Christ" (1:1) and a believer "in our glorious Lord Jesus Christ" (2:1). So even if there is nothing else, that is enough for me to think that he was a Christian.

Regarding the OT books you cited, most of the them connect the last days with a Messiah figure who is distinct from God.

For example, Micah also says: "The former dominion will be restored to you; kingship will come to Daughter Jerusalem ... you, Bethlehem Ephrathah ... out of you will come for me one who will rule over Israel ... He will stand and shepherd his flock in the strength of the Lord, in the majesty of the name of the Lord his God" (4:8-5:4).

And Isaiah says that "in that day" the Root of Jesse will judge and "stand as a banner for the peoples" (11:1-10).

And Zechariah says about "that day" (9:16) that "your king comes to you ... I will take away the chariots from Ephraim ... He will proclaim peace to the nations. His rule will extend from sea to sea" (9:9-10).