Excusing James the Just from the Last Supper.

Discussion about the New Testament, apocrypha, gnostics, church fathers, Christian origins, historical Jesus or otherwise, etc.
User avatar
Ben C. Smith
Posts: 8994
Joined: Wed Apr 08, 2015 2:18 pm
Location: USA
Contact:

Re: Excusing James the Just from the Last Supper.

Post by Ben C. Smith »

davidmartin wrote: Fri Apr 30, 2021 4:03 am sorry if this is off topic, wasn't Hegeseppius one of the candidates to write epistle of Hebrews?
Why would he be a candidate for that?
gryan
Posts: 233
Joined: Fri Jun 01, 2018 4:11 am

Re: Excusing James the Just from the Last Supper.

Post by gryan »

Ben C. Smith wrote: Thu Apr 29, 2021 5:56 pm Jerome is generally cited as our only source for the pericope in the so called Gospel of the Hebrews...

I had to look these passages up for myself in the online scans because Klijn, in Jewish-Christian Gospel Tradition, records the presence of a correction in the Munich manuscript. I have to admit that it almost looks to me as if the second correction is going in the way opposite to what Klijn records (it is his corrections which my footnotes are capturing), with domini being corrected to dominus, but working from an online image can be deceptive (and my eye may be influenced by the letter s being so much bigger than the letter i in the text), and in either case we have, at around 800, evidence for both readings: (A) James drinking from the cup of the Lord and (B) the Lord himself drinking from the cup.

Finally, Sedulius seems to testify in agreement with the Latin:

Sedulius Scotus, comment on 1 Corinthians 15.7 (century X): § Next, James the son of Alphaeus, who testified that he would not eat bread from the table of the Lord until he saw Christ rising, just as we read in the gospel according to the Hebrews. / § Deinde Iacobo, Alphaei filio, qui se testatus est a coena domini non cemesurum panem usquequo videret Christum resurgentem, sicut in evangelio secundum Hebraeos legimus.

J. B. Lightfoot had stated on page 274 of Galatians that he accepted dominus as the original reading in Jerome. Against this hypothesis stands the combined weight, apparently, of all the Latin manuscripts. In its favor stands the Greek translation and the earliest witnesses from outside that manuscript tradition. The manuscripts seem to date to century VII and later. Call me crazy, but I think that Lightfoot was probably right: the original was ab illa hora quia biberat calicem dominus, not ab illa hora quia biberat calicem domini, and our extant Latin manuscripts must all descend from the same corrupted copy.
Re: This excellent critical reading of the text of Gospel of Hebrews in agreement with J. B. Lightfoot
https://www.google.com/books/edition/St ... %20dominus

Does the confusion of dominus vs domini, have to do with whether James, the Lord's brother is identified with James, son of Alphaeus (who was at the last supper--thus "domini") or not (thus, "dominus")?
User avatar
Ben C. Smith
Posts: 8994
Joined: Wed Apr 08, 2015 2:18 pm
Location: USA
Contact:

Re: Excusing James the Just from the Last Supper.

Post by Ben C. Smith »

gryan wrote: Fri Apr 30, 2021 7:18 am
Ben C. Smith wrote: Thu Apr 29, 2021 5:56 pm Jerome is generally cited as our only source for the pericope in the so called Gospel of the Hebrews...

I had to look these passages up for myself in the online scans because Klijn, in Jewish-Christian Gospel Tradition, records the presence of a correction in the Munich manuscript. I have to admit that it almost looks to me as if the second correction is going in the way opposite to what Klijn records (it is his corrections which my footnotes are capturing), with domini being corrected to dominus, but working from an online image can be deceptive (and my eye may be influenced by the letter s being so much bigger than the letter i in the text), and in either case we have, at around 800, evidence for both readings: (A) James drinking from the cup of the Lord and (B) the Lord himself drinking from the cup.

Finally, Sedulius seems to testify in agreement with the Latin:

Sedulius Scotus, comment on 1 Corinthians 15.7 (century X): § Next, James the son of Alphaeus, who testified that he would not eat bread from the table of the Lord until he saw Christ rising, just as we read in the gospel according to the Hebrews. / § Deinde Iacobo, Alphaei filio, qui se testatus est a coena domini non cemesurum panem usquequo videret Christum resurgentem, sicut in evangelio secundum Hebraeos legimus.

J. B. Lightfoot had stated on page 274 of Galatians that he accepted dominus as the original reading in Jerome. Against this hypothesis stands the combined weight, apparently, of all the Latin manuscripts. In its favor stands the Greek translation and the earliest witnesses from outside that manuscript tradition. The manuscripts seem to date to century VII and later. Call me crazy, but I think that Lightfoot was probably right: the original was ab illa hora quia biberat calicem dominus, not ab illa hora quia biberat calicem domini, and our extant Latin manuscripts must all descend from the same corrupted copy.
Re: This excellent critical reading of the text of Gospel of Hebrews in agreement with J. B. Lightfoot
https://www.google.com/books/edition/St ... %20dominus

Does the confusion of dominus vs domini, have to do with whether James, the Lord's brother is identified with James, son of Alphaeus (who was at the last supper--thus "domini") or not (thus, "dominus")?
Not that I can see. It is about whether it was James, whichever James you please, who drank the (literal) cup or whether it was the Lord who drank the (metaphorical) cup (of death).
User avatar
Ben C. Smith
Posts: 8994
Joined: Wed Apr 08, 2015 2:18 pm
Location: USA
Contact:

Re: Excusing James the Just from the Last Supper.

Post by Ben C. Smith »

gryan wrote: Fri Apr 30, 2021 7:18 amDoes the confusion of dominus vs domini, have to do with whether James, the Lord's brother is identified with James, son of Alphaeus (who was at the last supper--thus "domini") or not (thus, "dominus")?
First, ab illa hora quia biberat calicem domini = "from that hour when he drank the chalice of the Lord."
Second, ab illa hora quia biberat calicem dominus = "from that hour when the Lord drank the chalice."
User avatar
Ben C. Smith
Posts: 8994
Joined: Wed Apr 08, 2015 2:18 pm
Location: USA
Contact:

Re: Excusing James the Just from the Last Supper.

Post by Ben C. Smith »

Ben C. Smith wrote: Thu Apr 29, 2021 9:00 pm
Peter Kirby wrote: Thu Apr 29, 2021 8:45 pm
Ben C. Smith wrote: Thu Apr 29, 2021 5:56 pm At any rate, the net result of this inquiry would be that the Gospel of the Hebrews did not (necessarily) record that James the Just attended the Last Supper and drank of the eucharistic cup.
I didn't read this closely enough the first time to get the answer... does this also mean that Gospel of the Hebrews had James at the cross? Or, more generally, what does it imply about what Gospel of the Hebrews had instead?
It is possible, on my reading, that the Gospel of Hebrews had James at the cross, but there is no way that I can see right now to be sure. All we would be told is that James, sometime (presumably very soon) after the crucifixion, swore not to eat bread until the resurrection. Him being at the cross would work, but I imagine that so would his mom telling him (Mark 15.40), for example, and I am sure the possibilities could be multiplied.

ETA: Gregory of Tours says that James saw the Lord on the cross. He is the only one who specifies this detail. Maybe it is valid, or maybe he is interpreting a bit. Unsure.
Interesting:

First Apocalypse of James, Nag Hammadi codex 5, 29.4b-28, 30.1-30, 31.1-14a:

29.4b-28 The Lord said, “James, I praise your understanding and your fear. If you continue to be distressed, do not be concerned for anything else except your redemption. For behold, I shall complete this destiny upon this earth as I have said from the heavens. And I shall reveal to you your redemption.”

James said, “Rabbi, how, after these things, will you appear to us again? After they seize you, and you complete this destiny, you will go up to Him-who-is.” The Lord said, “James, after these things I shall reveal to you everything, not for your sake alone but for the sake of the unbelief of men, so that faith may exist in them. For a multitude will attain to faith and they will increase in [...]. 30.1-30 And after this I shall appear for a reproof to the archons. And I shall reveal to them that he cannot be seized. If they seize him, then he will overpower each of them. But now I shall go. Remember the things I have spoken and let them go up before you.” James said,“Lord, I shall hasten as you have said.” The Lord said farewell to him and fulfilled what was fitting.

When James heard of his suffering and was much distressed, they awaited the sign of his coming. And he came after several days. And James was walking upon the mountain which is called Gaugelan [ⲅⲁⲩⲅⲏⲗⲁⲛ], with his disciples, who listened to him because they had been distressed, and he was [...] a comforter, saying, “This is [...] second [...]” Then the crowd dispersed, but James remained [...] prayer [...], as 31.1-14a was his custom.

And the Lord appeared to him. Then he stopped (his) prayer and embraced him. He kissed him, saying, “Rabbi, I have found you! I have heard of your sufferings, which you endured. And I have been much distressed. My compassion you know. Therefore, on reflection, I was wishing that I would not see this people. They must be judged for these things that they have done. For these things that they have done are contrary to what is fitting.”

Nils Arne Pedersen, "The Legendary Addai and the First Apocalypse of James," Agypten Und Der Christliche Orient: Peter Nagel Zum 80, pages 194-195: 194-195 In fact Schoedel also opened up for a Syriac background of the 1 Apoc. Jas. when he gave a tentative explanation of the name of the mountain ⲅⲁⲩⲅⲏⲗⲁⲛ in NHC V, 30,20–21 as the hill or mountain Golgotha. .... The form in CT 17,9, ⲅⲁⲗⲅⲏ[ⲗⲁ]ⲙ̄, may also, as far as I can see, be reconciled with Golgotha if we assume that the CT and NHC V versions are translations of different Greek recensions of 1 Apoc. Jas. which reflect fluctuating Aramaic forms. / Brankaer and Bethge assume that Schoedel’s identification of the mountain with Golgotha cannot be reconciled with the James traditions and the narrative situation in 1 Apoc. Jas. .... While a story about James on Golgotha is otherwise unknown, it is not correct that the text implies that Jesus came back at the same place as where he left James. And this appearance of Jesus for James after the passion (CT 17,19ff., NHC V,31,2ff.) should presumably also be understood as an interpretation of the tradition about James seeing the resurrected Jesus, cf. 1 Cor 15:7; the Gospel of the Hebrews in Jerome, De vir. inlustr. 2. James is the first to see the risen Lord in the Gospel of the Hebrews, and he has been waiting for him. Likewise James is waiting for his coming in CT 17,4–5 (..., “that is, the longing for his coming”; cf. NHC V, 30,16–17). It is true that it is not on Golgotha that Jesus appears for James in the Gospel of the Hebrews, but if 1 Apoc. Jas. knew the tradition in Jn 19:41 that Jesus’ tomb was in a garden at the place where he died, then Golgotha would be the right place to wait for him. In CT 17,6 it is also said, ..., “and two days passed”, which must mean that Jesus’ appearance took place on the third day (the text in NHC V, 30,17–18 is, however, only ..., “after some days”). Finally. the words of Jesus in CT 29,12–15 (and to some degree their parallel in NHC V, 42,14–19) also seem to presuppose that the first appearance of the risen Lord for James was followed by more appearances for other disciples.

In the First Apocalypse of James, of course, James merely hears of Jesus' sufferings rather than, apparently, being an eyewitness to them. But the possible connection to Golgotha merits consideration, at least. Pedersen deals only with the standard text of Jerome in his article.

At the very least we seem to be dealing with a branch of Christianity, its remnants mostly lost to us, in which James the Just loomed large as the recipient of the first (or at least one of the main) appearances of the Lord. The details probably varied as much for him as they did, say, for Peter (Galilee versus Judea, fishing trip versus quarters in the city) on the side of the movement which survived in canon, patristics, and Western history.
perseusomega9
Posts: 864
Joined: Tue Feb 04, 2014 7:19 am

Re: Excusing James the Just from the Last Supper.

Post by perseusomega9 »

Looks like it lends further credence to those who suspect the list of appearances in 1 Corinthians is later with competing legends of who the Risen Jesus appeared to and in what order.
User avatar
Ben C. Smith
Posts: 8994
Joined: Wed Apr 08, 2015 2:18 pm
Location: USA
Contact:

Re: Excusing James the Just from the Last Supper.

Post by Ben C. Smith »

perseusomega9 wrote: Mon May 03, 2021 3:47 am Looks like it lends further credence to those who suspect the list of appearances in 1 Corinthians is later with competing legends of who the Risen Jesus appeared to and in what order.
I have been thinking much the same thing, although, to be honest, I may already be too far gone on 1 Corinthians 15.3-11, anyway. It just looks less and less original every time it crops up as a parallel to something I am studying.
User avatar
Secret Alias
Posts: 13531
Joined: Sun Apr 19, 2015 8:47 am

Re: Excusing James the Just from the Last Supper.

Post by Secret Alias »

How could a claim of a dead person talking to a live person be treated in the same way as two living people. Meaning, it's nonsense. Nonsense can be made up at any time. Not sure the rules of historical reporting apply to fictitious events.
Ken Olson
Posts: 468
Joined: Fri May 09, 2014 9:26 am

Re: Excusing James the Just from the Last Supper.

Post by Ken Olson »

I understand why the Gospel of Hebrews and the other accounts of the appearance(s) to James would suggest there were other appearance traditions than that/those in 1 Cor. 15.3-11, but why would that imply that the 1 Cor. 15.3-11 is an interpolation and/or post-Pauline?
User avatar
Secret Alias
Posts: 13531
Joined: Sun Apr 19, 2015 8:47 am

Re: Excusing James the Just from the Last Supper.

Post by Secret Alias »

Also if James had a visionary experience like Paul's why does the Clementine Literature find the Pauline visionary experience so reprehensible juxtaposing Peter's historical encounter with Jesus against it? Either James and Paul were typical (i.e. all Jesus experiences were visionary and ahistorical) and the Clementine distinction between real and visionary experiences was an anachronism made up from a period where the author only knew the gospel narrative OR the Clementine Literature reflected a "Jewish Christian" emphasis on the historical Jesus and James never had a visionary encounter with Jesus and it was added to Corinthians to assist in the inclusion and reconciliation of Paul with his enemies. I lean toward the latter but may have been influenced by pre-existent scholarly prejudices.
Post Reply