Biblical Criticism & History Forum - earlywritings.com

Posted: **Sat Feb 28, 2015 4:52 pm**

DCHindley wrote:
Now I had come to the conclusion (completely independently of this evidence under discussion) that the Cephas, James & John which Paul claims to have conferred with were not followers of Jesus but, rather, priests in Jerusalem in charge of managing the activity of financial apostles. Paul was pitching to them his idea that God-fearing gentiles could be considered part of greater Israel if these priests would accept their freewill offerings, which Paul hoped to collect as a financial apostle. This is all kind of speculative, based on known practices of later times (the Jewish Patriarch in Galilee was permitted by the Roman authorities to accept freewill offerings to help fellow Judeans, collected by folks called apostles) which I believe were also likely practiced in pre-war times.

... the change from Cephas to Peter, as the Pauline tradition is adopted, and adapted, into the Christian tradition.

So, in other words, the Peter, James & John, disciples (actually relatives) of Jesus, are melded with the Cephas, James and John of Galatians, who were not the same animals at all.

But, that's just me ...

DCH

I think this is likely too: ie. the biblical characters are based on others part of or immersed in the emerging faith

Posted: **Sat Feb 28, 2015 5:19 pm**

Bernard Muller wrote:To Peter
Your table here:

http://historical-jesus.info/48.html

Has only "The Kingdom will..." "come soon," "be on earth," and "Submit to the Mosaic Law" under Nazarenes.

Is that all you think we can say?
Yes, according to my research, that's about it. I got a NO for them in all the other elements of my table.
I can add here that they regarded Jesus as a dead prophet, who talked about the Kingdom will come soon (on earth), and will benefit only the poor Jews.

Cordially, Bernard

Can you say one thing or another regarding whether they might have been willing to take action in order that the Kingdom will arrive soon?

Could there be any political element to them?

Another question:

Could they have believed that Jesus would be part of the eschatological drama (i.e., that Jesus would return)?

Posted: **Sat Feb 28, 2015 7:42 pm**

to Peter,

Can you say one thing or another regarding whether they might have been willing to take action in order that the Kingdom will arrive soon?

No, according to my research, absolutely not.
But that may have been the case for the first leaders of the Church of Jerusalem (and most of its members then), activist/hellenistic Diaspora Jews. That would explain why they were persecuted by other Jews and chased out of Jerusalem (35 CE), 7 years after the Crucifixion. Or, at least, they were feared they would do so.

Could there be any political element to them?

Likely, about these activist/hellenistic Diaspora Jews.

Another question:

Could they have believed that Jesus would be part of the eschatological drama (i.e., that Jesus would return)?

Very likely, about these activist/hellenistic Diaspora Jews.
For them, Jesus was supposed to the King in the near future (when the Kingdom of God comes) (see Lk 19:11b). But he had been crucified. Would that be the end of it for the Jews who acclaimed him as King at a particular place when he was approaching Jerusalem?
Of course not, that would make them fools.
Solution: Jesus had to be saved in heaven and will come back as the King and finally rule (on behalf of God).

Cordially, Bernard

Posted: **Sat Feb 28, 2015 11:59 pm**

I notice that you use the Epistle of James as evidence.

Where do you situate the author of the Epistle of James? What group does he belong to, what does he believe?

Also, off-hand, I wonder what you think is the best evidence for the people ("Nazarenes") that did not believe anything about Jesus coming back, etc.

Posted: **Sun Mar 01, 2015 10:36 am**

To Peter,

Where do you situate the author of the Epistle of James? What group does he belong to, what does he believe?

I figure the author had been a member of the church of Jerusalem for a long time. Later he became a Jewish Christian, but still a great admirer of James. He recorded what James said, which later became most of the James' epistle. The epistles was probably used and read where James had a lot of influence, such as among Jewish Christians and even Jews in places like Antioch & Syria.
In the epistle, the author tried to have James looking like a Christian (through mentions of "Lord Jesus Christ" (1:1) and "Lord Jesus Christ, the Lord of glory" (2:1).

Also, off-hand, I wonder what you think is the best evidence for the people ("Nazarenes") that did not believe anything about Jesus coming back, etc.

I think all my points on http://historical-jesus.info/108.html contribute significantly to that conclusion.
But the most direct are point B) and G) (again James' epistle).
About James' epistle, it is often believed that James 5:7a would indicate James expected Jesus to come back.
"Be patient, therefore, brethren, until the coming of the Lord."
But under close examination, that Lord is most likely God himself:

"God [the Lord] is the "Law-giver and Judge". (4:12, 5:9), "able to save and destroy" (4:12) at Judgment Day (5:9) and the Lord (Job's God, 5:11) is coming soon (5:7-8) and "the Judge is standing at the doors" (5:9). But "The Lord is full of compassion and mercy" (5:11) and "Mercy triumphs over judgment!" (2:13). See next note:

Note: In James 5:4, God is the Lord of hosts ('Sabaoth'), as he is in Ro 9:29. The next mention of "Lord" (in 5:7a) "the coming of the Lord" (being near) has to refer to God, the Lord of hosts. The next mention of "Lord" is in 5:10 & 5:11 and "Lord" stands for God:
"As an example of suffering and patience, brethren, take the prophets who spoke in the name of the Lord. Behold, we call those happy who were steadfast. You have heard of the steadfastness of Job, and you have seen the purpose of the Lord, how the Lord is compassionate and merciful."
"James" asked his audience to follow the example for patience (despite suffering) from Job and expect, as Job got, compassion and mercy from God. So it looks "Lord" means always "God" in 5:4-11.
And the Judge standing at the doors (plural) is also God. There is no indication that Judge (God as in 4:12) is Jesus. Actually, Jesus is not mentioned after 2:1.

I think the statement in 5:7a was ambivalent enough through a quick reading (or listening) so the ones who wanted to believe that James was a Christian would be satisfied. And that's probably what the author wanted, without really saying James expected bro to come back (because many in his audience were thinking James would not believe in that!).

Cordially, Bernard

Posted: **Sun Mar 01, 2015 11:21 am**

James 5:7 does seem like it could refer to God; you're right about that. But it's not completely certain.

(And even if it were completely certain, it wouldn't necessarily mean that the "Lord Jesus Christ" wasn't also part of it.)

You also refer to Hegesippus:

http://historical-jesus.info/83.html

On account of these words
[and nothing else! Let's not forget Hegesippus would have loved to show James as a Christian. Instead, he only had at his disposal (as likely believed also by Jewish Christians & Ebionites then) "the door of Jesus" with some notion of salvation associated to it]

some believed that Jesus is the Christ. But the sects mentioned above did not believe either in a resurrection or in one's coming to give to every man according to his works.
[Jewish Christians in Hegesippus' times believed in Jesus as the Judge (Matthew 26:31-46)]

But as many as believed did so on account of James [and "the door of Jesus"!]. Therefore when many even of the rulers believed, there was a commotion among the Jews and Scribes and Pharisees, who said that there was danger that the whole people would be looking for Jesus as the Christ. Coming therefore in a body to James they said, 'We entreat you, restrain the people; for they are gone astray in regard to Jesus, as if he were the Christ. We entreat you to persuade all that have come to the feast of the Passover concerning Jesus; for we all have confidence in you. For we bear you witness, as do all the people, that you are just, and does not respect per sons. Do you therefore persuade the multitude not to be led astray concerning Jesus. For the whole people, and all of us also, have confidence in you.
[the author knew James never said Jesus is/was the Christ. Here, these Jews, scribes & Pharisees hope James is going to declare Jesus as not being the Christ]

Stand therefore upon the pinnacle of the temple, that from that high position you may be clearly seen, and that your words may be readily heard by all the people. For all the tribes, with the Gentiles also, are come together on account of the Passover.' The aforesaid Scribes and Pharisees therefore placed James upon the pinnacle of the temple, and cried out to him and said: you just one, in whom we ought all to have: confidence, forasmuch as the people are led, astray after Jesus, the crucified one, declare to us,what is the door of Jesus.'

And he answered with a loud voice, 'Why do you ask me concerning Jesus, the Son of Man? He himself sit in heaven at the right hand of the great Power,
[similar wording as in Acts 7:56, for Stephen "the Son of Man standing at the right hand of God"]

and is about to come upon the clouds of heaven.
[as in Matthew 24:30 "the Son of Man coming on the clouds of the sky".
The declaration (in bold letters) would be typical of proto-Christian belief. The "is about to come" is puzzling as written about one century after James' death: was Hegesippus upgrading a much earlier text?]

Hegesippus has James referring to Jesus, the son of man, seated at the right hand of God and about to come upon the clouds of heaven.

This detail you refer to "Jewish Christians & Ebionites" then.

But do we have any materials directly from the circle of James, which would verify their particular ideas (or lack thereof)?

So far we have an ambiguous Letter of James (not by him) and an unambiguous statement of Hegesippus (though it is second century legend).

Does it get any better than that?

Posted: **Sun Mar 01, 2015 12:30 pm**

To Peter,

Hegesippus has James referring to Jesus, the son of man, seated at the right hand of God and about to come upon the clouds of heaven.

This detail you refer to "Jewish Christians & Ebionites" then.

But do we have any materials directly from the circle of James, which would verify their particular ideas (or lack thereof).

So far we have an ambiguous Letter of James (not by him) and an unambiguous statement of Hegesippus (though it is second century legend).

Does it get any better than that?

I explained fully about Hegesippus' James passage and the alleged declaration of James (a "second century legend" according to your own words) before his execution here: http://historical-jesus.info/83.html
And why would it be any ambiguity in James' epistle if James had been heard his bro was expected to come back (consequently resurrected) and that was known all over?

But do we have any materials directly from the circle of James, which would verify their particular ideas (or lack thereof)

You know we don't. Also, why would you expect to have surviving clear-cut & undoubtable evidence saying that James, Peter, John, etc ... were not Christians and did not believe in the Resurrection?

Does it get any better than that?

I already told you it was the two best evidence. But the rest of my points in http://historical-jesus.info/108.html, more so A), C), D) & E) showing these "Nazarenes" were not Christians and did not have any reason to become Christians (therefore not believing in a resurrected Jesus, in order for him to come back).

Cordially, Bernard

Posted: **Sun Mar 01, 2015 12:38 pm**

I didn't say that I expect anything. I'm just wondering what we have to support such a reconstruction.

And why would it be any ambiguity in James' epistle if James had been heard his bro was expected to come back (consequently resurrected) and that was known all over?

The "ambiguity" refers to the state of our knowledge of the epistle and its references. That doesn't mean the epistle has deliberate ambiguity. It just means that we have incomplete knowledge. However, as you've noticed, the epistle does refer to the "Lord Jesus Christ," so it is not ambiguous in the sense that the epistle could be a representative of the type of belief that you suggest existed [no belief in Jesus as Christ, etc.]--it cannot be a representative of that.

Neither James nor Hegesippus are pre-70; both may be second century; one is ambiguous regarding the return of the "Lord" (but clearly contradicts your account regarding belief in Jesus as Christ); one contradicts your account (regarding the return of Jesus as the son of man) and is, thus, alleged to be in error. Keep in mind that these are the references that you are using, or trying to use, to support your case.

Do we have anything else?

You refer to this:

A) Did Paul consider James, Peter, John & Church of Jerusalem members as Christian(s)?
Despite many opportunities in his epistles, Paul never said those were "in the Lord", or "in Christ", or just "brothers". But he used often these expressions to qualify other(s) as "Christian(s)".

But this also seems ambiguous at best.

Posted: **Sun Mar 01, 2015 12:51 pm**

Indeed, sections of Paul may mitigate against this interpretation of Cephas. (I don't know about James and John, as they appear briefly only in Galatians.)

1 Cor 9 [ESV]
1 Am I not free? Am I not an apostle? Have I not seen Jesus our Lord? Are not you my workmanship in the Lord? 2 If to others I am not an apostle, at least I am to you, for you are the seal of my apostleship in the Lord. 3 This is my defense to those who would examine me. 4 Do we not have the right to eat and drink? 5 Do we not have the right to take along a believing wife,[a] as do the other apostles and the brothers of the Lord and Cephas?
[a] 1 Corinthians 9:5 Greek a sister as wife

This comes pretty close to declaring Cephas a brother who takes "a sister as wife." That seems to be the natural sense.

There are not many other reference to Cephas. He appears also in 1 Cor 1:12, 3:22, in Galatians (and in the 1 Cor 15 passage/interpolation).

From these references, it seems bizarre to conclude that Cephas was not a brother, in the Lord, or in Christ, due to the absence of these particular phrases. One of the only examples, 1 Cor 1:12, pairs Cephas against Paul, Apollos, and Christ. Apollos elsewhere is said to have "watered" what Paul planted. What are we to suppose that the Cephas party meant? Apparently it is supposed to mean a vanilla Judaism, expecting the end of the world and saying nothing of Jesus as Christ. But you'd be hard pressed to find any actual evidence of it here.

Also, why would you expect to have surviving clear-cut & undoubtable evidence saying that James, Peter, John, etc ... were not Christians and did not believe in the Resurrection?

Now it seems that you're saying that there is no explicit evidence but that we shouldn't expect it to be preserved. Is that right? Well then how do we distinguish between that state of affairs, of suppressed evidence, and no evidence at all... because the reconstruction is incorrect?

Posted: **Sun Mar 01, 2015 1:06 pm**

Peter Kirby wrote:Neither James nor Hegesippus are pre-70; both may be second century
Do we have anything else?

We have Jay Raskin, who shows that "Hegesippus" in Eusebius was a forgery of Eusebius to enable him to quote an authority that Eusebius himself created.

CW

Biblical Criticism & History Forum - earlywritings.com

Peter & James & the Church of Jerusalem not Christian?

Re: Peter & James & the Church of Jerusalem not Christian?

Re: Peter & James & the Church of Jerusalem not Christian?

Re: Peter & James & the Church of Jerusalem not Christian?

Re: Peter & James & the Church of Jerusalem not Christian?

Re: Peter & James & the Church of Jerusalem not Christian?

Re: Peter & James & the Church of Jerusalem not Christian?

Re: Peter & James & the Church of Jerusalem not Christian?

Re: Peter & James & the Church of Jerusalem not Christian?

Re: Peter & James & the Church of Jerusalem not Christian?

Re: Peter & James & the Church of Jerusalem not Christian?