davidlau17 wrote: ↑Sat Jan 15, 2022 7:49 pm
Is James consistently presented as a moderate regarding the "Torah for everyone" policy though? Paul says that the "false brethren" were sent to Antioch by James, after all.
Paul says that "certain men came from James" and does not call them false brothers (and that Peter and the other Jews and Barnabas joined them).
And the Epistle of James, which at the very least was written by someone partial to the philosophy of James, emphasized following of the law to every last point (James 2:10: "For whoever shall keep the whole law, and yet stumble in one point, he is guilty of all.")
The letter of James (which I think is genuine) is addressed to Jews ("To the twelve tribes of the Dispersion"), in keeping with what Paul says in Gal. 2:9 ("James, Cephas and John... gave me and Barnabas the right hand of fellowship, so that we should go to the Gentiles,
and they to the circumcised").
If we look beyond the NT, Hegisippus depicted James as someone who adhered strictly to a Nazarite vow.
Right, and I think this is why James is presented as being concerned about Nazirite Christians in Acts 21:23-24.
"Therefore do what we advise you. There are four men with us who have taken a vow. Take these men, purify yourself along with them, and pay their expenses so they can have their heads shaved.
Basically, I'm somewhat skeptical regarding whether James as presented in Acts is an entirely accurate depiction of the man. If James and Paul had very strong disagreements regarding the applicability Mosaic Law, and if both men were both respected figures to varying degrees among different subgroups of a still emerging Christian community, then the author(s) of Act would have decent reason to try to reconcile those differences. Whoever authored Acts is clearly partial to Paul's philosophy, and as you alluded to, Paul was flexible when it came to the following of Mosaic Law.
Acts approves of Paul and is pro-Jewish Torah observance and calls Christians Nazarenes, and these are characteristics of Nazarene Jewish Christianity. I do think Acts (naturally enough) wants to put the best spin on Christian history, but it doesn't seem to contradict anything in the letters of James and Paul.
And the letter of James ends by saying, "My brothers, if one of you should wander from the truth and someone should bring him back, consider this: Whoever turns a sinner from the error of his way will save his soul from death and cover over a multitude of sins," and I think this would apply to Paul overstepping his bounds by ""teach[ing] all the Jews who live among the Gentiles to forsake Moses, telling them not to circumcise their children or observe our customs" (as Acts 21:21 puts it).
As for whether Acts can be properly characterized as a Nazarene (or pro-Nazarene) text, this would depend on how you define the term "Nazarene". Tertullian and Jerome indicate that the Jews originally called the Christians "Nazarenes" on account of Jesus being born in Nazareth. Epiphanius refers to a "heretical" sect called the Nazarenes as Christian adherents of Mosaic Law, and he further suggests that, at one time, all Christians were known as Nazarenes, though I doubt they chose to refer to themselves as such. At Paul's trial in chapter 24, he is accused of being the ringleader of the "Nazarenes", but Acts tends to call the early Christians "followers of the Way". Paul similarly refers to his sect as "the Way" at that same trial.
Jewish Christians are presented as being pro-Torah and accepting Paul and are called Nazarenes in Acts (among other things), and these are characteristics of Nazarene Jewish Christianity according to church writers. Nazarenes did not call
themselves Nazarenes, but they were okay with other Christians calling them that, which is why I think Acts is a pro-Nazarene writing, because it espouses the views of what church writers call Nazarene Jewish Christianity.