James Still

Your hesitation probably stems from the mistaken notion that skeptics are people for whom the entire body of internal evidence is unreliable. This stereotype pervades your writing. In truth, skeptics are hostile to extraordinary claims, critical of attempts to reshape the kerygma, more forgiving on matters that fit the criterion of embarrassment, and highly charitable toward matters that have no apologetical purpose or otherwise seem not to be the product of post-Easter church building. The claim that Jesus appointed a group treasurer and insisted on communal property (and individual poverty) belongs to this latter category.


And yet there are several instances in the gospels and in Paul's letters where such laws are downplayed or discarded. The surprise is that there develops so quickly a gulf between Jesus the Jew and the post-Easter Christ of the gentiles. Throw into this mix the Jewish Christian extracanonical writings that Bill and Earl mention and you begin to understand why they claim that second and third generation Christianity rewrote the history of the Jesus movement.

As for baptism I did not say that it took place only after a three year initiation. Purity rituals with water were extremely important to these people and they routinely engaged in baptism.

In the case of Jesus, his ministry doesn't begin until after he seeks out John and receives baptism for the forgiveness of sins. Then, after a forty day prep he's ready to go out into the world...

Ish will no doubt berate me for reading between the lines but when I read Acts 2:42-46 I get the sense that the disciples and those who followed them shared their property as well as communal meals every day much in the same way that the Essenes did. The text certainly doesn't hint at any sort of Eucharistic notion behind these shared meals. Instead we are told merely that they "partook of food with glad and generous hearts." I think a good argument can be made that the meals represent the body and blood of Christ is a post-Easter addition to the movement. Jesus the Jew certainly would not have advocated such an impure (gentile) understanding of the communal meal.


This is sloppiness on my part. I should have said that I suspect strongly that this is why Paul spends three years in "Arabia," not modern Saudi Arabia of course but Nabataea, near Petra, Qumran, and the Dead Sea...

The superstructure of your conclusion is crushing the weight of your argument I'm afraid. You seem to have a habit of making extraordinary claims on the basis of nothing more than received orthodoxy and then demanding ironclad evidence from the critic for every little thing they say. And when I have brought up instances of this in the past you merely switch the subject or repeat the statement dogmatically.

That's what happened in our exchange concerning Apollonius and the Gospel of John. You still cannot accept my position even though I explained it numerous times. It is worth repeating that the Gospel of John may contain elements of eyewitness accounts but everything we know about the gospel (and about the transmission of the oral tradition in general) tells us that it was largely reworked, fictionalizes the life of Jesus, and was not the product of an eyewitness author. That's all I have to say on John -- if you disagree with me on this point then your argument is with mainstream scholarship not me.

Earl

Focussing on the pseudo-Clementines is a red herring because at most late Ebionite writings might confirm the predominance of Jewish Christianity in certain areas, the Ebionites being a sect which a number of scholars believe traced its intellectual roots to James and Jesus but which was shut out by the rising centrist Church headed by Constantine and Eusebius. Centrist, or "Catholic," Christianity had to steer between the two poles of Jewish Christianity and Gnosticism (Hellenism). Eisenmann focuses on the way James was shut out of nominal Christianity in a real battle that orthodox Christians have learned to downplay after centuries of practice. Nomad can be placed in this orthodox tradition of whitewashing Church history, because he accepts the authority of the centrist NT Christianity and denies the fragmentary nature of early Church history. There certainly is evidence of this fragmentation right in the NT, though. Eisenmann and others amass all sorts of evidence from the NT itself.

(Regarding the terms "liberal" and "conservative," so long as these are used narrowly with respect to particular disagreements there need be no confusion. I've been using them regarding the issue of early Church fragmentation. Jewish and skeptical scholars will line up on the "liberal" side, while Catholic and perhaps Evangelical scholars will accept the orthodox picture, that is, the "apostolic tradition" as set out in Acts. The same split will be found regarding the problem of how much of the NT to accept as literal history. In any case, these labels aren't central to this thread's argument. We can just as well use the terms "orthodox" and "heterodox.")

I'll pick out a few pieces of evidence from the James and Galatians epistles, and then I'll get into some detailed points of contrast raised by Eisenmann. In Galatians, Paul viciously attacks the Christians there for falling back into old Jewish habits having been "bewitched" by "eternally condemned" teachers. A number of scholars believe that these Judaizers were in league with James' Church in Jerusalem. Although there is little evidence as to the identity of these Judaizers, we have at least two hints in Galatians. Paul says that when he went to Jerusalem he preached his gospel in secret because of its originality (2:2). But the matter of circumcision came up because "some false brothers had infiltrated our ranks to spy on the freedom we have in Christ Jesus and to make us slaves" (2:4). The second clue is Gal.2:12, "Before certain men came from James, he [Peter] used to eat with the Gentiles. But when they arrived, he began to draw back and separate himself from the Gentiles because he was afraid of those who belonged to the circumcision group." These two points show that James' group was indeed watching Paul, trying to introduce Jewish elements at every turn, and carried great authority. The placement of these two clues in Galatians is significant, a point I'll go over again below. For now, I'll just note that immediately after Paul launches into his complaints against the Galatians he goes into his background with James and the Jerusalem Church, reassuring the Galatians that he had James' approval. There is a connection here between those Paul thought were trying to steal away Paul's followers to Jewish Christianity and Paul's flashback regarding his interactions with James. The connection is that Paul suspected that these Judaizers were either sent directly by James or were at least acting in line with Jewish Christianity in Jerusalem.

Look at the harsh language Paul uses against the Judaizers. "Evidently some people are throwing you into confusion and are trying to pervert the gospel of Christ. Put even if we or an angel from heaven should preach a gospel other than the one we preached to you, let him be eternally condemned! As we have already said, so now I say again: If anybody is preaching to you a gospel other than what you accepted, let him be eternally condemned!" (Gal.1:7-9).

What can we learn of this "other gospel" from Paul's objections to it in Galatians? See Gal.3:1-3: "You foolish Galatians! Who has bewitched you? Before your very eyes Jesus Christ was clearly portrayed as crucified. I would like to learn just one thing: Did you receive the Spirit by observing the law, or by believing what you heard? Are you so foolish? After beginning with the Spirit, are you now trying to attain your goal by human effort?" See also 4:9-10, "But now that you know God--or rather are known by God--how is it that you are turning back to those weak and miserable principles? Do you wish to be enslaved by them all again? You are observing special days and months and seasons and years!"

What does the epistle James say? Is there any focus on Jesus or Paul's theology of the cross? None. Is there any peculiarly non-Jewish doctrine about the necessity of faith before deeds or salvation by an emphasis on faith apart from deeds? None. Is there an emphasis on the central importance of the Jewish law? Oh yes. As Mack points out in Who Wrote the NT? "James did not need the authority of Jesus to undergird his Torah instruction….Instead, James says, 'If any of you is lacking in wisdom, ask God, who gives to all generously and ungrudgingly, and it will be given to you' (James 1:5). What James and his community thought about the 'Lord Jesus Christ' is therefore very uncertain. The real 'Lord' for these people was not Jesus but the God of the Israel epic. As James puts it, 'Was not our ancestor Abraham justified by works when he offered his son Isaac on the altar?…Thus the scripture was fulfilled that says, "Abraham believed God, and it was reckoned to him as righteousness,' and he was called the friend of God" (James 2:21-23)" (214).

Wasn't Jewish Christianity nevertheless focussed like Paulinism upon Jesus' rather than just Abraham's faith and obedience? Not in James. Mack goes on, echoing Eisenmann: "James sounds like a treatise written against the Pauline notion that Christian faith opposed the 'works of the law.' James 2:14-16 is a famous tirade against such an idea, arguing for the insight that 'faith by itself, if it has no works, is dead' (2:17). How could Christians in the Pauline and centrist traditions have thought that way or accepted a letter that said that? Or so NT scholars have wondered. The answer is that Pauline Christians were not the only Christians during the first century, and that centrist Christians of the next two centuries did accommodate the kind of thinking represented by James" (214).

But if the letter of James is so foreign to Paul why was James included in the canon? For one thing, the fact that James was so theologically foreign and yet nevertheless included shows that Jewish Christianity was very powerful at the time. This is further evidenced by the slew of early writings, including Gnostic ones, that attach their authority to James. The Gospel of Thomas, for example, has this remarkable statement about who would lead after Jesus' departure: "go to James the Just, for whose sake heaven and earth came into being" (12). James' importance would seem to indicate a pressure on the centrists somehow to accommodate James in the canon. And as Mack writes, "By itself, the apostolic Letter of James may not have been any more acceptable than the Gospel of Thomas. But it was easier to read in the light of the gospel of Matthew and the instructional literature of the so-called postapostolic period, such as 1 Clement and the Didache. This literature shows that the centrist position turned to Hellenistic-Jewish ethical codes in order to spell out the appropriate behaviour for Christians….[The Letter of James] was, at any rate, an instructional exhortation with which the bishops could be comfortable, and to regard it as an apostolic letter was a sure way to appropriate the authority of James for the church instead of losing him to other groups who would not fit under the centrist umbrella" (215).

Nomad has tried to show that there is no conflict between Paul's doctrine as stated, for example, thus: we "know that a man is not justified by observing the law, but by faith in Jesus Christ. So we, too, have put our faith in Christ Jesus that we may be justified by faith in Christ and not by observing the law, because by observing the law no on will be justified" (Gal.2:16), "Clearly no one is justified before God by the law, because, 'The righteous will live by faith.' The law is not based on faith; on the contrary, 'The man who does these things will live by them' Christ redeemed us from the curse of the law…" (Gal.3:11-13), and James' teaching: "faith, if it is not accompanied by actions, is dead" (2:17).

Notice, first, the difference between their interpretations of Abraham. Paul says about Abraham that "'he believed God, and it was credited to him as righteousness.' Understand, then, that those who BELIEVE are children of Abraham. The Scripture foresaw that God would justify Gentiles by FAITH, and announced the gospel in advance" (Gal.3:6-7). But what does James say? "Do you want evidence that faith without deeds is useless? Was not our ancestor Abraham considered righteous for what he DID when he offered his son Isaac on the altar? You see that his faith and his actions were working together, and his faith was made complete by what he did…a person is justified by what he does and not be faith alone" (2:20-24). Contrast Paul's "those who believe are children of Abraham" and James' "You believe that there is one God. Good! Even the demons believe that--and shudder" (2:19).

Notice also the striking contrast between Paul's "All who rely on observing the law are under a curse, for it is written: 'Cursed is everyone who does not continue to do everything written in the Book of the Law'…how is it that you are turning back to those weak and miserable principles? Do you wish to be enslaved by them all over again?" (Gal.3:10-11; 4:9) and James' "For whoever keeps the whole law and stumbles at just one point is guilty of breaking all of it….If you do not commit adultery but do commit murder, you have become a lawbreaker. Speak and act as those who are going to be judged by the law that gives freedom" (2:10-12). Whereas Paul takes the wholeness of the law as a curse, a burden, and a reason to seek an alternative means of salvation through faith in Jesus, James cites' the wholeness of the law with approval, calling it "the law that gives freedom"!

Nomad points to 1 Thess.1:3 to show that there is no great difference here, but of course this verse is about merely what establishes the Thessalonians in Paul's memory, not what serves to justify anyone in God's eyes. That doesn't count against Paul's massive theological emphasis on faith apart from the law, works, or anything else one could "boast" about. As for what Jesus taught, according to those scholars who point to the early fragmentation, Jesus was on James' rather than Paul's side, so any quotation from Jesus that points to the centrality of deeds rather than faith doesn't help Nomad's case.

One other point before I go into a few of Eisenmann's arguments about James and Galatians. Why does Paul in Galatians launch right from his bitter remarks against the "eternally condemned" teachers who have led the Galatians astray, into his reassurances regarding his connection with James and the Jerusalem Church? (I mentioned this point above regarding the "two clues.") That to me is not arbitrary. What Paul is saying in Galatians in effect seems to be this: 'You Galatians have fallen under the spell of Judaizing Christians who, I suspect, probably have some connection to James' Church. But don't worry: even if I can say only that James, Peter and John are "reputed to be pillars" (Gal.2:9) and "seemed" to be "leaders" and "important" (2:2, 6) I have their blessing (2:6-10)! So you can equate the importance of my gospel with theirs. Don't oppose them, of course, but at the very least trust me that I've only extended the theology of the Jerusalem Church.' By going right away into his background with James and Peter and even mentioning an incident in which he, Paul, corrected Peter regarding his hypocrisy, Paul seems to acknowledge that the source of the Judaizers disturbing his gentile Church may very well be none other than the Jerusalem Church headed by James. Paul can call the Judaizers' "eternally condemned" without condemning James directly, because Paul is in the difficult position of having to pay respect to James and the Jerusalem Church, the center of early Christianity, and yet disagreeing in fundamental ways with that Church. Paul was likely free to believe also that the Judaizers were not sent directly by James even though these Judaizers acted for the sake of James.

This leads into Eisenmann who points to all kinds of detailed points of conflict right in the NT between James and Paul. For example, James attacks "the tongue" as a "little member, which boasts great things," "a fire," "a restless evil, full of deadly poison" (3:5, 8). James also uses "wind" imagery in his metaphor of the boat controlled by the small rudder. Eisenmann sees this as an attack on the Pauline version of Pentecost in the first two chapters of Acts, as against the Damascus Document version in the Dead Sea Scrolls. In Acts, of course, the Holy Spirit descends upon the whole community, giving the mission to all the Nations. In the Damascus Document the festival which occurs at the same time, the Feast of Weeks, is on the contrary a form of a rededication to the Covenant of Moses and a "cursing" of those who would "reject" or "stray either to the right or left of the Law" (quoted in Eisenmann's "James," 205). The Holy Spirit is central to Paul's claim to authority, and Acts describes Pentecost with reference to "a sound like the blowing of a violent wind," "tongues of fire," and the miracle of speaking in tongues. Compare James' "The tongue also is a fire, a world of evil among the parts of the body. It corrupts the WHOLE PERSON, sets the whole course of his life on fire" with Acts' "They saw what appeared to be tongues of fire that separated and came to rest on each of them. All of them were FILLED with the Holy Spirit and began to speak in tongues as the Spirit enabled them" (2:3-4). Eisenmann notes also Paul's idea of being "one member" of "the members of one body" in 1 Cor.12:14-27 (278).

There are also several points in Paul's letters where he is apparently aware of James' other accusations against him. James uses the tongue metaphor as an attack against boasting, and Paul in 2 Cor.11:10 and 12:11 is brought to boasting. James also says "Don't you know that making the world your friend makes God your enemy. Whosoever chooses the world for his friend turns himself into an enemy of God" (4:4). Perhaps James in mind had something like 1 Cor.16-22, which brings together the question of boasting, pragmatism, and befriending the world rather than God. As Paul says, "Not that I boast of preaching the Gospel, since it is a duty which has been laid on me…for being free from all, I have made myself the slave of all so as to win the most. And to the Jews, I became as a Jew to win the Jews. To those under the Law, I who am not a subject to the Law, made myself a subject to the Law, to win those who are subjects of the Law. To those without the Law, I was free of the Law myself--though not free from God's Law being under the Law of Christ--to win those without the Law. For the weak I made myself weak. To all these, I made myself all things to all men that by all means some I might save." And in Gal.4:16 Paul is apparently aware of the "enemy" charge, since he asks "Have I your enemy become, by speaking Truth to you?" It should be noted that "enemy of God" is the definition of "heretic," and so Eisenmann's point here ties in with Ludemann's argument in "Heretics" about the reversal of orthodox establishments in early Christianity. Paul is directly called an "enemy" in the pseudo-Clementines (Rec.1.70-71). James' attack on the "friend of the world" can be seen as a play on Paul's theme of Abraham as the "friend of God." See Eisenmann, 278-9.

Nomad

Here is exactly what you said:



I see no qualifier in this statement, and the idea that the three year initiation was important prior to baptism is very clear from your words. You now wish to back away from that position. Such is your right, but your dramatic change in tone and emphasis is quite interesting.

At the same time, I am curious to see if you attach the same level of credibility to the Ebionite writings offered by Earl as he does. If so, why do you accept them as representing James’ thought, but reject the Canonicals as representing Jesus’ thought? Do you have evidence that connects them to James in some fashion?

Well, this tradition dates back to the first generation of Christians (see 1 Corinthians 11), so I wonder why you think it was instituted by third and forth generation Christians. On the other hand, IF you accept that first generation Christians did institute this tradition against the wishes and beliefs of Jesus Himself, perhaps you could offer your evidence as to where they aquired such an impure gentile understanding of their most sacred communal meal.

And as for your understanding of early Christians sharing meals together (as shown in Acts), I don’t think that this is a stretch. My point was that the Essenes had nothing comparable to the Eucharist, and you appear to agree.

Since Paul never tells us about being initiated into Christianity, and all that we have is that he was baptized (just as all other new converts were baptized as soon as possible), where did you aquire this belief? Outside of the fact that it fits your theories, there is no evidence that Paul was initiated. Nor do we have any idea (either from Scripture, the non-Canonicals, nor your posts) as to who would have done this initiation. After all, the Apostles themselves were in Jerusalem, and that is why Paul went there after his three year trip to Arabia. Paul certainly does not support your belief:

Galatians 1:11-12 I want you to know, brothers, that the gospel I preached is not something that man made up. I did not receive it from any man, nor was I taught it; rather, I received it by revelation from Jesus Christ.

Once again, I see no evidence of any kind of initiation. Certainly not one that lasted three years. So I will ask again: Do you have such evidence that Paul underwent a three year initiation?

Galatians 1:15-17 But when God, who set me apart from birth and called me by his grace, was pleased to reveal his Son in me so that I might preach him among the Gentiles, I did not consult any man, nor did I go up to Jerusalem to see those who were apostles before I was, but I went immediately into Arabia and later returned to Damascus.

Now do you better understand my curiosity as to how you form your beliefs against the available evidence?

What you snipped was the central part of this part of my post, yet you failed to address it, and even clipped it so that you could try to ignore it. I will repost it again so that you may have a second opportunity to do so:

I have placed the key point in bold so that it is easier to find my emphasis. If you can demonstrate that the Essenes did not oppose worship at the Temple (under the existing Temple leadership of their day), then you would go a long ways towards establishing a plausible link between James and the Essenes. Since you have not even tried to do this, and I assume that you knew that the Essenes refused to go to Jerusalem (let alone LIVE there), then perhaps you can tell me why you did not address this issue.

As I said, you link of James to the Essenes is extremely weak, and seemly without foundation. The evidence actually runs counter to your current beliefs. You are correct in that we ran into similar difficulties during the discussion of the “Life of Apollonius” and the Gospel of John. It is your inconsistency in such matters that most intrigues me. Basically, what I see is that when the question is not one that confirms the validity of a claim made by Christians, you are happy to accept it. Therefore, you accept that James may have been an Essene, and that Philostratus used an eye witness account in his book on Apollonius. Yet, when we have clear evidence that James was not an Essene, and that the Gospel of John also used an eyewitness account, you reject the claims.

Sadly, in the case of the latter, when I offered my post of June 22, 2001 10:02 AM you did not even do me the courtesy of responding to my post (or any subsequent ones by me) to help clarify your views. So far as I am aware, you did not even read my post at all. Additionally, you did not even acknowledge that you had misrepresented my position from your opening post, claiming that I had argued that John was authored by the son of Zebedee, when you knew full well that I had argued only that John had been written based on an eye witness account (IOW, the exact same claim you had made for Philostratus and the “Life of Apollonius&#8221 .

Given your demonstrated unwillingness to either read my posts, or to respond to them, I am not surprised that you draw hasty conclusions about the validity of my arguments. At the same time, if you would actually address them (and not just straw man versions of them), your criticisms might actually carry more credibility.

The problem, of course, was that this was really all you had to offer. The majority of scholars agree with your view that GJohn did not use an eyewitness account. Such an appeal to authority, including without citation or quotation is extremely weak argumentation, and would hardly seem to matter to your argument as to Philostratus’ use of an eye witness report. Besides, as you well know, scholarly opinion is a fickle thing. If the majority view were to change tomorrow, would that be sufficient to change your mind? I would hope that it would not, and that you would, instead, examine the arguments that led to such a shift in views. As I have said many times before on many issues, I am not really interested in listening to polls on scholarly opinions. I would like to examine the arguments and evidence itself, and see how strong it is to support an opinion. You have been consistent in your refusal to do this on the issue of the Gospel of John, but do not pretend that you have demonstrated the strength of your position, when clearly, you have not.

Now, I am not demanding ironclad evidence for every little thing you believe James. But on the question of connecting Christians and the Essenes (as well as the use of an eyewitness in John), I am interested in seeing anything you might have to offer that addresses the key arguments. Snipping them in order to avoid those arguments does not bode well, nor does ignoring them all together.

Nomad

Nomad

Since Earl’s post opens with, and largely depends on his special reading of, Galatians 2, I think it is important to look at the text in context before we begin.
Galatians 1:17-24 Then after three years, I went up to Jerusalem to get acquainted with Peter and stayed with him fifteen days. I saw none of the other apostles--only James, the Lord's brother. I assure you before God that what I am writing you is no lie. Later I went to Syria and Cilicia. I was personally unknown to the churches of Judea that are in Christ. They only heard the report: "The man who formerly persecuted us is now preaching the faith he once tried to destroy." And they praised God because of me.

Now that we have some context, let’s move to Galatians 2:

Galatians 2:1-4 Fourteen years later I went up again to Jerusalem, this time with Barnabas. I took Titus along also. I went in response to a revelation and set before them the gospel that I preach among the Gentiles. But I did this privately to those who seemed to be leaders, for fear that I was running or had run my race in vain. Yet not even Titus, who was with me, was compelled to be circumcised, even though he was a Greek. [This matter arose] because some false brothers had infiltrated our ranks to spy on the freedom we have in Christ Jesus and to make us slaves.

Notice that no where does Paul link these “false brothers” to James or Peter. In fact, Paul continues, showing that he and they are in agreement against these false brothers:

Galatians 2:5-7 We did not give in to them for a moment, so that the truth of the gospel might remain with you. As for those who seemed to be important--whatever they were makes no difference to me; God does not judge by external appearance--those men added nothing to my message. On the contrary, they saw that I had been entrusted with the task of preaching the gospel to the Gentiles, just as Peter had been to the Jews.

So Peter and Paul are preaching the same Gospel, but to different audiences. And does James support Paul in this?

Galatians 2:8-10 For God, who was at work in the ministry of Peter as an apostle to the Jews, was also at work in my ministry as an apostle to the Gentiles. James, Peter and John, those reputed to be pillars, gave me and Barnabas the right hand of fellowship when they recognized the grace given to me. They agreed that we should go to the Gentiles, and they to the Jews. All they asked was that we should continue to remember the poor, the very thing I was eager to do.

Obviously Paul feels that he has James’ blessing.

Now, did a conflict arise after this? Yes. Peter backed down, and we have no indication from any source that James or Peter opposed Paul on this issue at any point after this confrontation.

Galatians 2:11-13 When Peter came to Antioch, I opposed him to his face, because he was clearly in the wrong. Before certain men came from James, he used to eat with the Gentiles. But when they arrived, he began to draw back and separate himself from the Gentiles because he was afraid of those who belonged to the circumcision group. The other Jews joined him in his hypocrisy, so that by their hypocrisy even Barnabas was led astray.

Now, I have asked for any passages that can be clearly linked to James that shows that the resolution of this dispute, as given in Acts 15 was not the end of the dispute. Thus far I have not seen anything being offered. Instead, all that can be said is that the focus of the Book of James is different from that of Paul, stressing how to live a good and Godly life. Yet is such an incidental book focusing on this issue in actual conflict with Paul’s theology? Of course not. Paul himself spends much time and ink talking about exactly the same thing in many of his own letters.

What we have here is a huge argument from silence. The critics and sceptics would like to make a mountain out of this mole hill, largely because most of the letters we have from the 1st Century come from Paul and his disciples, and very little comes from James and his followers. Yet, we do have letters from James, from Jude and two identified with Peter, and in none of them do we find a single criticism of Paul and his teachings. In fact, we have the highest praise offered to Paul:

2 Peter 3:15-16 Bear in mind that our Lord's patience means salvation, just as our dear brother Paul also wrote you with the wisdom that God gave him. He writes the same way in all his letters, speaking in them of these matters. His letters contain some things that are hard to understand, which ignorant and unstable people distort, as they do the other Scriptures, to their own destruction.

Already Paul’s letters have taken on the status of Scripture, and even the most liberal of scholars admits that 2 Peter could not have been authored much later than the first quarter of the 2nd Century. Needless to say, the closer it gets to the 1st Century, the harder it becomes to show any kind of break between Paul and the other apostles. Further, as Jude (attributed to the brother of James) is so closely followed by 2 Peter, we can see the unity of teachings that Robin Lane Fox refers to in his book, “Pagans and Christians”.

Now a question for Earl based on his post:

The Canonicity of the Book of James was set at the Councils of the 4th Century, long after the Jewish Christians had lost their power in the Church. So what are you talking about here?

Yet none of them were declared Canonical were they? As a follow up, since many Gnostics were claiming to have the authority of James behind them, why do you not argue that James was a Gnostic? Or are you?

As an aside, the Gnosticism of Thomas is not even close to widely accepted any longer. Not a huge issue, but if you are looking for Gnostic documents, GThomas should not be on the list, at least not automatically as it once was.

Interestingly, Eisenmann makes no mention of the fact that the early Fathers almost universally held that James was the actual author of this book, and as such, his authority DID make it Canonical. James was one of the greatest of the apostles, and the brother of the Lord. Such a position could not be easily dismissed. Other works that were attributed to James, however, were rejected, and rejected because it was known that James did not write them, nor did he inspire the ideas of those that did try to steal his name and authority. See how much clearer this all becomes when we actually listen to what the early Fathers actually say, rather than try to determine motives based on rampant speculation eons after the fact?

Bottom line, I am still curious to see exactly where the Book of James contradicts Paul’s teachings, especially on issues of morality (since as Earl has admitted, it contains no statements on Christology or the meaning of the cross or the Resurrection, and therefore can hardly serve as a source of criticism on those questions). Quite simply, James is just not that controversial to Christians, so I see no reason to treat it as problematic to our theology.

Alright, time to look at some additional fanciful readings of Paul (reading between the lines, as Ish likes to call it):

At least Earl admits that this is merely his own speculation. After all, if Paul was condemning people that he thought were connected to James, he would have said so outright. Paul was not one to beat around the bush. If he saw wrong, then he attacked it head on. After all, in his view, even a false gospel from an angel would be damnable. Certainly one from a mere man (like James) would not intimidate him. Earl is guilty of trying to read too much into the text, so that rather than just reading what it says, he must insert some presumed and “implied” connection to James when none exists.

An easier and more likely explanation here is simply that the men from Jerusalem overstepped their authority, and made claims (possibly trying to invoke James’ authority as support), but when it came to an actual face to face meeting between Paul, Peter and James, they reached agreement, and the extremism of the Judaizers was rejected. Again, the simpler explanation is more plausible, and more easily explained from all of the evidence available to us (remember that we have no direct condemnation of the Gospel preached by any of the apostles). As Paul tells us, the difference is simply that he takes this Gospel to the Gentiles, and Peter takes the same Gospel to the Jews, and James in charge in Jerusalem.

As for the remainder of Eisenmann’s speculations, that is exactly what they are. Refer to the number of times Earl must admit that James “may” have meant this, or “might” have been thinking of this, but the connections remain so tenuous as to be almost embarrassing. For example, does Paul praise the use of the tongue? Let’s see what Earl says on Eisenmann’s behalf:

One hardly knows where to begin. First off, I thought we were talking about Pauline thought, yet here Eisenmann wants to use Acts as an indication of Paul’s theology? Paul is not even in the scene in Acts 1 during Pentecost. He is not even a Christian until Acts 9! If anything, Eisenmann should be taking issue with Lukan theology here, as the connection to what Paul thought about the value of the gift of tongues is quite in line with what James has to say:

1 Corinthians 13:1 If I speak in the tongues of men and of angels, but have not love, I am only a resounding gong or a clanging cymbal.

Notice in the following passages how Paul tells us that it is love that insures that we do not boast, or become envious, or to succumb to other evils.

The real irony here is that Eisenmann sees fit to use Acts to show a conflict between Paul and James (although here he is using an example in which neither man is present at all!), yet rejects as apologetic fiction the resolution of all conflicts between an actually present James and an actually present Paul in Acts 15. I am surprised that anyone falls for this double standard.

Here Earl is just pitching me softballs. James warns against boasting. What of Paul?

Romans 3:27 Where, then, is boasting? It is excluded. On what principle? On that of observing the law? No, but on that of faith.

2 Corinthians 10:15-17 Neither do we go beyond our limits by boasting of work done by others. Our hope is that, as your faith continues to grow, our area of activity among you will greatly expand, so that we can preach the gospel in the regions beyond you. For we do not want to boast about work already done in another man's territory. But, "Let him who boasts boast in the Lord."

Can anyone honestly see James having a problem with what Paul is saying here?

I will say it again. I am not interested in speculations, especially those based on the flimsiest connections imaginable. Did Paul think that James was preaching a false gospel or not? And if he was, where does Paul tell us that he is worthy of condemnation?

Moving right along...

Actually, he may very well have been thinking about Paul telling us:

Romans 12:2 Do not conform any longer to the pattern of this world, but be transformed by the renewing of your mind. Then you will be able to test and approve what God's will is--his good, pleasing and perfect will.

1 Corinthians 3:3 You are still worldly. For since there is jealousy and quarreling among you, are you not worldly? Are you not acting like mere men?

Colossians 2:20 Since you died with Christ to the basic principles of this world, why, as though you still belonged to it, do you submit to its rules:

And so forth. This is by no means an exhaustive list, (a good area to explore here is Paul’s teachings on the sinfulness of the flesh and human nature), but demonstrates quite clearly that Paul is not a friend of this world, nor does he think that it is anything but the enemy of God. Once again it looks like Lane Fox got it right, and Eisenmann is simply over reaching in a desperate effort to prove a theory. Of course, I suppose I could get into how this theology lines up nicely with the letters from John as well, but that would be beyond the scope of this thread.

So, after all of this, have we seen James or Paul call the other an “enemy”? No. And the fact is, there is no evidence that either man ever saw the other in such a light. That has been my point all along, and it remains proven, as I have shown above.

Peace,

Nomad

[ July 26, 2001: Message edited by: Nomad ]

Ron Garrett

Interesting thread guys. Always seemed to me that Eisenmann and other Essenophiles come to a lot of ad hoc and arbitrary conclusions from so little evidence that these guys even existed. It all seems a search for novelty to me.

Anyway, isn't the essential difference between Paul and Jesus Kingdom Theology? Do a quick search and you find Jesus' prime topic is the Kingdom of God, not Jesus the man-GOd, ressurection or any of those things Paul is so concerned about. Jesus certainly didn't believe in sola gratia. For example:

Paul's Position:

While some dispute Ephesians as genuinely Pauline, it completely mirrors his themes in Romans which no one seriously disputes:

Ephesians 2: 8 For it is by grace you have been saved, through faith--and this not from yourselves, it is the gift of God--9 not by works, so that no one can boast.

Galatians 2:21 I do not set aside the grace of God, for if righteousness could be gained through the law, Christ died for nothing!"

Jesus' Position :

Matthew 19:16 Now a man came up to Jesus and asked, "Teacher, what good thing must I do to get eternal life?" 17 "Why do you ask me about what is good?"
Jesus replied. "There is only One who is good. If you want to enter life, obey the commandments." 18 "Which ones?" the man inquired. Jesus replied,
"`Do not murder, do not commit adultery, do not steal, do not give false testimony,

[If you ask Paul how can I have eternal life he would say believe on the Lord Jesus Christ and you will be saved by grace through faith, not by works of the law.

Someone did ask Jesus and he said, "Obey the commandments."]

The gospel lines having Jesus say things about himself that theologically didn't develop about him until the second century are clearly redactions and make
no sense in a Jewish context, whereas the Matthew 19 exchange clearly does.

Paul says Jesus was the end of the law:

Romans 10:4 Christ is the end of the law so that there may be righteousness for everyone who believes.

Jesus said:

Matthew 5:17 Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil. 18 For verily I say unto you,
Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled. 19 Whosoever therefore shall break one
of these least commandments, and shall teach men so, he shall be called the least in the kingdom of heaven:
but whosoever shall do and teach them, the same shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven.

Paul said the law was passed and grace was the new reality. Jesus said the law would not pass till heaven and earth pass,
which they still have not.

Still I think the main illustration that the theologies don't match is in Kingdom Theology. Jesus repeatedly describes how things are done in heaven as an encouragement for that what is done
on earth should parallel Heaven's way of doing things.

Matthew 4:17 From that time on Jesus began to preach, "Repent, for the kingdom of heaven is near."

Matthew 4:23 Jesus went throughout Galilee, teaching in their synagogues, preaching the good news of the kingdom, and healing every disease and sickness among the people.

Matthew 5:3 "Blessed are the poor in spirit, for theirs is the kingdom of heaven.

Matthew 5:10 Blessed are those who are persecuted because of righteousness, for theirs is the kingdom of heaven.

Matthew 5:19 Anyone who breaks one of the least of these commandments and teaches others to do the same will be called least in the kingdom of heaven, but whoever practices and teaches these commands will be called great in the kingdom of heaven.

Matthew 5:20 For I tell you that unless your righteousness surpasses that of the Pharisees and the teachers of the law, you will certainly not enter the kingdom of heaven.

Matthew 6:10 your kingdom come, your will be done on earth as it is in heaven.

Matthew 6:33 But seek first his kingdom and his righteousness, and all these things will be given to you as well.

Matthew 7:21 "Not everyone who says to me, `Lord, Lord,' will enter the kingdom of heaven, but only he who does the will of my Father who is in heaven.

Matthew 8:11 I say to you that many will come from the east and the west, and will take their places at the feast with Abraham, Isaac and Jacob in the kingdom of heaven.

Matthew 8:12 But the subjects of the kingdom will be thrown outside, into the darkness, where there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth."

Matthew 9:35 Jesus went through all the towns and villages, teaching in their synagogues, preaching the good news of the kingdom and healing every disease and sickness.

Matthew 10:7 As you go, preach this message: `The kingdom of heaven is near.'

Matthew 11:11 I tell you the truth: Among those born of women there has not risen anyone greater than John the Baptist; yet he who is least in the kingdom of heaven is greater than he.

Matthew 11:12 From the days of John the Baptist until now, the kingdom of heaven has been forcefully advancing, and forceful men lay hold of it.

Matthew 12:25 Jesus knew their thoughts and said to them, "Every kingdom divided against itself will be ruined, and every city or household divided against itself will not stand.

Matthew 12:26 If Satan drives out Satan, he is divided against himself. How then can his kingdom stand?

Matthew 12:28 But if I drive out demons by the Spirit of God, then the kingdom of God has come upon you.

Matthew 13:11 He replied, "The knowledge of the secrets of the kingdom of heaven has been given to you, but not to them.

Matthew 13:19 When anyone hears the message about the kingdom and does not understand it, the evil one comes and snatches away what was sown in his heart. This is the seed sown along the path.

Matthew 13:24 Jesus told them another parable: "The kingdom of heaven is like a man who sowed good seed in his field.

Matthew 13:31 He told them another parable: "The kingdom of heaven is like a mustard seed, which a man took and planted in his field.

Matthew 13:33 He told them still another parable: "The kingdom of heaven is like yeast that a woman took and mixed into a large amount of flour until it worked all through the dough."

Matthew 13:38 The field is the world, and the good seed stands for the sons of the kingdom. The weeds are the sons of the evil one,

Matthew 13:41 The Son of Man will send out his angels, and they will weed out of his kingdom everything that causes sin and all who do evil.

Matthew 13:43 Then the righteous will shine like the sun in the kingdom of their Father. He who has ears, let him hear.

Matthew 13:44 "The kingdom of heaven is like treasure hidden in a field. When a man found it, he hid it again, and then in his joy went and sold all he had and bought that field.

Matthew 13:45 "Again, the kingdom of heaven is like a merchant looking for fine pearls.

Matthew 13:47 "Once again, the kingdom of heaven is like a net that was let down into the lake and caught all kinds of fish.

Matthew 13:52 He said to them, "Therefore every teacher of the law who has been instructed about the kingdom of heaven is like the owner of a house who brings out of his storeroom new treasures as well as old."

Matthew 16:19 I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven; whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven."

Matthew 16:28 I tell you the truth, some who are standing here will not taste death before they see the Son of Man coming in his kingdom."

Matthew 18:1 At that time the disciples came to Jesus and asked, "Who is the greatest in the kingdom of heaven?"

Matthew 18:3 And he said: "I tell you the truth, unless you change and become like little children, you will never enter the kingdom of heaven.

Matthew 18:4 Therefore, whoever humbles himself like this child is the greatest in the kingdom of heaven.

Matthew 18:23 "Therefore, the kingdom of heaven is like a king who wanted to settle accounts with his servants.

Matthew 19:12 For some are eunuchs because they were born that way; others were made that way by men; and others have renounced marriage because of the kingdom of heaven. The one who can accept this should accept it."

Matthew 19:14 Jesus said, "Let the little children come to me, and do not hinder them, for the kingdom of heaven belongs to such as these."

Matthew 19:23 Then Jesus said to his disciples, "I tell you the truth, it is hard for a rich man to enter the kingdom of heaven.

Matthew 19:24 Again I tell you, it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of God."

Matthew 20:1 "For the kingdom of heaven is like a landowner who went out early in the morning to hire men to work in his vineyard.

Matthew 20:21 "What is it you want?" he asked. She said, "Grant that one of these two sons of mine may sit at your right and the other at your left in your kingdom."

Matthew 21:31 "Which of the two did what his father wanted?" "The first," they answered. Jesus said to them, "I tell you the truth, the tax collectors and the prostitutes are entering the kingdom of God ahead of you.

Matthew 21:43 "Therefore I tell you that the kingdom of God will be taken away from you and given to a people who will produce its fruit.

Matthew 22:2 "The kingdom of heaven is like a king who prepared a wedding banquet for his son.

Matthew 23:13 "Woe to you, teachers of the law and Pharisees, you hypocrites! You shut the kingdom of heaven in men's faces. You yourselves do not enter, nor will you let those enter who are trying to.

Matthew 24:7 Nation will rise against nation, and kingdom against kingdom. There will be famines and earthquakes in various places.

Matthew 24:14 And this gospel of the kingdom will be preached in the whole world as a testimony to all nations, and then the end will come.

Matthew 25:1 "At that time the kingdom of heaven will be like ten virgins who took their lamps and went out to meet the bridegroom.

Matthew 25:34 "Then the King will say to those on his right, `Come, you who are blessed by my Father; take your inheritance, the kingdom prepared for you since the creation of the world.

Matthew 26:29 I tell you, I will not drink of this fruit of the vine from now on until that day when I drink it anew with you in my Father's kingdom."

Mark 1:15 "The time has come," he said. "The kingdom of God is near. Repent and believe the good news!"

Mark 3:24 If a kingdom is divided against itself, that kingdom cannot stand.

Mark 4:11 He told them, "The secret of the kingdom of God has been given to you. But to those on the outside everything is said in

Mark 4:26 He also said, "This is what the kingdom of God is like. A man scatters seed on the ground.

Mark 4:30 Again he said, "What shall we say the kingdom of God is like, or what parable shall we use to describe it?

Mark 6:23 And he promised her with an oath, "Whatever you ask I will give you, up to half my kingdom."

Mark 9:1 And he said to them, "I tell you the truth, some who are standing here will not taste death before they see the kingdom of God come with power."

Mark 9:47 And if your eye causes you to sin, pluck it out. It is better for you to enter the kingdom of God with one eye than to have two eyes and be thrown into hell,

Mark 10:14 When Jesus saw this, he was indignant. He said to them, "Let the little children come to me, and do not hinder them, for the kingdom of God belongs to such as these.

Mark 10:15 I tell you the truth, anyone who will not receive the kingdom of God like a little child will never enter it."

Mark 10:23 Jesus looked around and said to his disciples, "How hard it is for the rich to enter the kingdom of God!"

Mark 10:24 The disciples were amazed at his words. But Jesus said again, "Children, how hard it is to enter the kingdom of God!

Mark 10:25 It is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of God."

Mark 11:10 "Blessed is the coming kingdom of our father David!" "Hosanna in the highest!"

Mark 12:34 When Jesus saw that he had answered wisely, he said to him, "You are not far from the kingdom of God." And from then on no one dared ask him any more questions.

Mark 13:8 Nation will rise against nation, and kingdom against kingdom. There will be earthquakes in various places, and famines. These are the beginning of birth pains.

Mark 14:25 "I tell you the truth, I will not drink again of the fruit of the vine until that day when I drink it anew in the kingdom of God."

Mark 15:43 Joseph of Arimathea, a prominent member of the Council, who was himself waiting for the kingdom of God, went boldly to Pilate and asked for Jesus' body.

Luke 1:33 and he will reign over the house of Jacob forever; his kingdom will never end."

Luke 4:5 The devil led him up to a high place and showed him in an instant all the kingdoms of the world.

Luke 4:43 But he said, "I must preach the good news of the kingdom of God to the other towns also, because that is why I was sent."

Luke 6:20 Looking at his disciples, he said: "Blessed are you who are poor, for yours is the kingdom of God.

Luke 7:28 I tell you, among those born of women there is no one greater than John; yet the one who is least in the kingdom of God is greater than he."

Luke 8:1 After this, Jesus traveled about from one town and village to another, proclaiming the good news of the kingdom of God. The Twelve were with him,

Luke 8:10 He said, "The knowledge of the secrets of the kingdom of God has been given to you, but to others I speak in parables, so that, "`though seeing, they may not see; though hearing, they may not understand.'

Luke 9:2 and he sent them out to preach the kingdom of God and to heal the sick.

Luke 9:11 but the crowds learned about it and followed him. He welcomed them and spoke to them about the kingdom of God, and healed those who needed healing.

Luke 9:27 I tell you the truth, some who are standing here will not taste death before they see the kingdom of God."

Luke 9:60 Jesus said to him, "Let the dead bury their own dead, but you go and proclaim the kingdom of God."

Luke 9:62 Jesus replied, "No one who puts his hand to the plow and looks back is fit for service in the kingdom of God."

Luke 10:9 Heal the sick who are there and tell them, `The kingdom of God is near you.'

Luke 10:11 `Even the dust of your town that sticks to our feet we wipe off against you. Yet be sure of this: The kingdom of God is near.'

Luke 11:2 He said to them, "When you pray, say: "`Father, hallowed be your name, your kingdom come.

Luke 11:17 Jesus knew their thoughts and said to them: "Any kingdom divided against itself will be ruined, and a house divided against itself will fall.

Luke 11:18 If Satan is divided against himself, how can his kingdom stand? I say this because you claim that I drive out demons by Beelzebub.

Luke 11:20 But if I drive out demons by the finger of God, then the kingdom of God has come to you.

Luke 12:31 But seek his kingdom, and these things will be given to you as well.

Luke 12:32 "Do not be afraid, little flock, for your Father has been pleased to give you the kingdom.

Luke 13:18 Then Jesus asked, "What is the kingdom of God like? What shall I compare it to?

Luke 13:20 Again he asked, "What shall I compare the kingdom of God to?

Luke 13:28 "There will be weeping there, and gnashing of teeth, when you see Abraham, Isaac and Jacob and all the prophets in the kingdom of God, but you yourselves thrown out.

Luke 13:29 People will come from east and west and north and south, and will take their places at the feast in the kingdom of God.

Luke 14:15 When one of those at the table with him heard this, he said to Jesus, "Blessed is the man who will eat at the feast in the kingdom of God."

Luke 16:16 "The Law and the Prophets were proclaimed until John. Since that time, the good news of the kingdom of God is being preached, and everyone is forcing his way into it.

Luke 17:20 Once, having been asked by the Pharisees when the kingdom of God would come, Jesus replied, "The kingdom of God does not come with your careful observation,

Luke 17:21 nor will people say, `Here it is,' or `There it is,' because the kingdom of God is within you."

Luke 18:16 But Jesus called the children to him and said, "Let the little children come to me, and do not hinder them, for the kingdom of God belongs to such as these.

Luke 18:17 I tell you the truth, anyone who will not receive the kingdom of God like a little child will never enter it."

Luke 18:24 Jesus looked at him and said, "How hard it is for the rich to enter the kingdom of God!

Luke 18:25 Indeed, it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of God."

Luke 18:29 "I tell you the truth," Jesus said to them, "no one who has left home or wife or brothers or parents or children for the sake of the kingdom of

Luke 19:11 While they were listening to this, he went on to tell them a parable, because he was near Jerusalem and the people thought that the kingdom of God was going to appear at once.

Luke 21:10 Then he said to them: "Nation will rise against nation, and kingdom against kingdom.

Luke 21:31 Even so, when you see these things happening, you know that the kingdom of God is near.

Luke 22:16 For I tell you, I will not eat it again until it finds fulfillment in the kingdom of God."

Luke 22:18 For I tell you I will not drink again of the fruit of the vine until the kingdom of God comes."

Luke 22:29 And I confer on you a kingdom, just as my Father conferred one on me,

Interestingly, Paul never once mentions the Kingdom of God in any letter as though he'd never actually had contact with any of these sayings. The only saying he attributes to Jesus is "It is more blessed to give than to receive" which is not a gospel quote and seems more like a fund-raising ploy.

Jesus was about the coming Kingdom of God on Earth that was supposed to come before the generation he spoke to had passed away. Very eschatological like all the apochryphal teachings of his day.

Paul was about a mystical atonement process whereby we are resurrected to immortality that comes more out of his Phariseeism and Mithraism than out of anything Jesus said..

Pauls' theology has clearly won out. He is the father of modern Christianity. Jesus is just the figurehead. Or so it seems to me.

James Still

I had written that the Essenes "endured a three year initiation after which time they were baptized." Nomad writes:

You are parsing my words and losing the forest for the trees. For clarity's sake, let me explain. The Qumran sect engaged in frequent baptisms to cleanse themselves of ritual impurities (the "waters of purification" to which Josephus refers). The cleansing following the three year initiation is only one of many such baptisms. Nowhere did I say that it was the only one; that is an assumption on your part. My point was to show that baptism was important both to the Essenes and to the Jesus movement.

I remain agnostic about the matter. While I am impressed by Eisenmann's work I do not consider his conclusions to be irrefutable. He might be correct but he might also be wrong. Having said that I have held the view for a long time that there is a theological gap between the historical Jesus and the Christ preached by Paul. One would be hard-pressed I think to deny this gap.

I did not say that the Eucharist was a third- or fourth-generation invention. Because I do not presume to know exactly when it was introduced, I said only that it was a post-Easter invention. As to where Paul and these gentile converts in Corinth could have acquired their paganistic interpretation of the Jewish communal meal I would say that they needed only to look around. The pagan world had been practicing such rituals for centuries.

You have asked me to reply to your argument against the theory that there exists parallels between the Essenes and the Jesus movement. First, from their writings it seems that the Qumran community abandoned the Temple because they objected to the way it was run. It was too "worldly" and money had corrupted it. Interestingly, this was Jesus' argument as well. Second, while the Qumran community were probably Essenes, not all Essenes were at Qumran. Josephus describes a much richer portrait of them than your stereotype. Some of them married. Others went from city to city looking for young recruits to bring into the movement. If James, Peter, and Jesus were Essenes (and it can't be proven of course) it is very possible that their apocalyptic outlook was such that they stayed near the Temple in order to witness the transformation in person. Jesus didn't just throw over the moneychangers' tables for fun. He fully expected that God's Imperial Rule -- which was about to utterly transform the world -- would replace the corrupt priesthood with men of righteousness. Your mistake, I think, is assuming that because the Qumran community withdrew from the world everyone who was an Essene must likewise have withdrawn. That's not necessarily so.

Just because you don't like my answers this does not mean that I did not present or defend them adequately. I merely refuse to play the game where you get to toss out extraordinary claims left and right but I must defend every little assertion. I'll say it again for the fifth or sixth time: unless and until you have the common courtesy to read the very book under discussion (Philostratus' "Life of Apollonius of Tyana") I will not revisit that conversation.

As for knowingly attributing to you a position which you did not hold, namely that you believed that John of Zebedee was the author of the Gospel of John, I refer to your own statement: "Now, do I believe that John, son of Zebedee wrote this Gospel? Yes I do." Now you want to say that John did not write it but it was "based on an eyewitness account." Is this just a nuanced way of saying that John had an interpreter? If so, why not just say it? If not, then do tell us what you mean? But don't blame me if your views are couched in mystery and no one understands you. This is an imperfect medium and we all must go out of our way to explain ourselves.

Last I wish only to say that, as any objective reader will agree by reading this thread, I have provided evidence for the view that there are parallels between the Essenes and the Jesus movement. If you wish to take one or more of those arguments and refute it then I heartily support your efforts. I do not wish to hold false views and I am not perfect. Any responsible challenge to something I've said is most welcomed.

Earl

Regarding Gal.2:1-4, Nomad says that nowhere does Paul link the "false brothers" to James. No, Paul does not identify them, but these "false brothers" were in Jerusalem, the home turf of James, and Paul says in 2:12 that "certain men from James" came and did to Peter exactly the sort of thing the "false brothers" did to Titus: they Judaized the area. Nomad says that the "we" in 2:5, "We did not give in to them [the false brothers] for a moment, so that the truth of the gospel might remain with you," refers both to Paul's company and James, whereas this is nowhere stated. This is an example of reading into the text what isn't there. How do we know the "we" doesn't refer only to Paul and Barnabas as set against the false brothers and the leaders, such as James? The fact that Paul calls the false teachers "brothers" means that he was speaking of Christians rather than just pious Jews, yet which Christians were hanging around Jerusalem who were not followers of "those who seemed to be leaders"? Nomad of course takes Paul's word at face value regarding the sameness of Paul's "gospel" and James's. After all, does Paul not say "they saw that I had been entrusted with the task of preaching the gospel to the Gentiles, just as Peter had been to the Jews"? Paul says it, so it must be true. But how many historians take the words from someone's personal letters at face value or as neutral truth? How are we justified in concluding that their "gospel" was identical just because Paul speaks of "the gospel" that he was sent to preach? How do we know Paul wasn't covering over differences for the Galatians because of the respect James had at the time as one of the "leaders"?

After all, as I said, James' letter shows no focus at all on Jesus, the cross, grace, resurrection, or any other core element of Paul's gospel. Nomad thinks that just means James shifted his focus onto other matters in this particular "incidental" letter. That's nonsense, since no matter what Paul happened to be talking about he always found some way to bring matters back to a discussion of the gospel itself, the most important thing to Christians, from Paul's view at least: the way in which everyone could be gracefully saved just by believing in Jesus that he died to save everyone from sin. A writer's beliefs can sometimes be determined just as much by what he doesn't say as by what he does. This is formally an argument from silence, but in this case it's a strong one. As Mack points out, James isn't just silent on Jesus; rather, James praises the old God of Israel and the royal law to the exclusion of Jesus. He praises Abraham not Jesus, whereas Paul used Abraham only as an explanation of how to respond to Jesus. Paul emphasized the sufficiency of faith and ultimately disparaged the law, whereas James emphasized the sufficiency of lawful deeds, that is, Judaism without any mention of Paul's "gospel." Many scholars see that as the basis of deep fragmentation, regardless of how much Paul in his letters or centrist Christianity as found, for example, in Acts tried to cover up the divide.

I'll note again Paul's suspicious way of referring to James as the "reputed" pillar, someone who "seems" to be important and a leader. Paul explains this hesitance thus: "whatever they were makes no difference to me; God does not judge by external appearance" (Gal.2:6). But this doesn't sound like a straightforward explanation. Was James' authority based only on "external appearance"? That sounds slightly bitter and resentful, which again fits with Paul's lurking suspicion that James was tampering with his Church.

Nomad says "At least Earl admits that this is merely his own speculation." And then Nomad offers his own speculation regarding the consistency of Paul's character: "After all, if Paul was condemning people that he thought were connected to James, he would have said so outright. Paul was not one to beat around the bush. If he saw wrong, then he attacked it head on." How does Nomad know when Paul would have backed down or taken a less direct approach? Is this to be ruled out a priori because of Nomad's personal familiarity with Paul through Paul's letters? Paul says that even a false gospel from an angel was eternally damned, but that appears to be a venting of anger. Instead of venting at James Paul chooses a safe target such as a nonexistent angel. And as I said, Paul may only have suspected that James was behind the Judaization effort, and therefore had no call to throw a temper tantrum at James. The fact that Paul launches right away into his background with James shows that he was at least thinking of James and the Jerusalem establishment in the context of the Judaization infiltration. Moreover he gives two clues as to former Judaizing efforts, one of which explicitly says that men were sent by James and had a Judaizing effect. The inference that Paul suspected that James was somewhere behind the bewitchers of the Galatian Church is reasonable. Is it self-evident? Enough to shatter a Christian's faith? Hardly, which isn't remotely the point for historians.

Regarding Eisenmann's argument on the tongue references, I first have to note that I probably oversimplified these Eisenmann arguments, which are complicated and often tied up with numerous other references such as to the Dead Sea Scrolls. The tongue allusions would be to the Gnostic appeal to the holy spirit by way of establishing a teacher's authority. This sort of appeal was graphically made in Acts' Pentecost scene, which, as Eisenmann says, "confirms the descent of the Holy Spirit on the whole Community and, in the process, the new mission to all the Nations" (205). Jewish Christians would have had a problem with the dilution of Judaism by spiritualist notions for securing Gentile converts. To establish his authority as an apostle Paul appeals to the "Spirit" again and again. Indeed, Paul stresses that his gospel came from a private revelation from Jesus' spirit rather than from historical traditions (Gal.1:1). James' odd "fiery tongue" imagery can be seen as a critical allusion to teachers who claim their authority comes from some spirit. After all, James prefaces his illustrations with a warning to would-be teachers: "Not many of you should presume to be teachers, my brothers, because you will know that we who teach will be judged more strictly" (3:1). This attack on "the tongue" not only would have fallen on Paul but is consonant with the Petrine attack in the Pseudo-Clementines that I quoted earlier regarding Paul's lack of sufficient qualifications as an apostle.

Regarding boasting and being a "friend of the world," Nomad has to distinguish between preaching and doing. Pious Jews weren't interested in criticizing someone's speeches so much as his deeds. What Paul preached regarding boasting and the evil of the world is irrelevant to what James would have frowned upon from a Jewish perspective: Paul's behaviour itself. The issue is not whether Paul preached that boasting and being a friend of the world was bad. Paul did preach these things. The issue, rather, is whether Paul showed hypocrisy in these areas, hypocrisy which James might have attacked, and there is evidence from the quotations I offered that James did indeed attack Paul and that Paul defended himself from the attacks.

Regarding 1 and 2 Peter and Jude, the "Catholic epistles," Nomad says that none of these letters speak a word against Paul, so that means the Church was unified. But of course these three letters are late pseudonymous works written for the centrist Christian position, using Peter as a puppet to manufacture the apostolic tradition. The author of Jude says he's the brother of James. Which James is it? If it's James the brother of Jesus, that would make Jude the brother of Jesus, so why wouldn't the author simply call himself the brother of Jesus? Or was James more authoritative than Jesus? The author blows his cover, though, by speaking about himself as a contemporary of his readers looking back to the time of the apostles (see Jude 3, 17-18). With the appellations "holy nation" and "household of God" 1 Peter marries eschatology with long-term social obligation, demonstrating a mature, universal Christian mindset. (See Mack, Who Wrote the NT? 208-9.) 2 Peter, a rewrite of Jude, props Peter up further by making him a witness to both the transfiguration and the resurrection, and accommodates Paulinism and Jewish Christianity by having Peter explicitly agree with Paul (3:15-16). These forged epistles were written with centrism, universality, and accommodation in view, so no wonder they blur the differences between the early Jesus movements.

Regarding the canonization of James, Nomad says "Eisenmann [actually my quotation was from Mack not Eisenmann] makes no mention of the fact that the early Fathers almost universally held that James was the actual author of this book, and as such, his authority DID make it Canonical." The Catholic Encyclopedia notes that "In the first centuries of the Church the authenticity of the Epistle was doubted by some, and amongst others by Theodore of Mopsuestia; it is therefore deuterocanonical. It is wanting in the Muratorian Canon, and because of the silence of several of the Western Churches regarding it, Eusebius classes it amongst the Antilegomena or contested writings (Hist. eccl., III, xxv; II, xxiii); St. Jerome gives the like information (De vir. ill., ii), but adds that with time its authenticity became universally admitted. In the sixteenth century its inspired nature was contested by Erasmus and Cajetan; Luther strongly repudiated the Epistle as "a letter of straw", and "unworthy of the apostolic Spirit", and this solely for dogmatic reasons, and owing to his preconceived notions, for the epistle refutes his heretical doctrine that Faith alone is necessary for salvation." In any case, Mack's point is not about the disagreement over whether the letter was authentic, but rather the un-Pauline content of the letter itself and how the letter would regardless have found approval by the centrists.

Regarding the Pseudo-Clementines, Nomad says to James Still, "I am curious to see if you attach the same level of credibility to the Ebionite writings offered by Earl as he does." But just what does Nomad think Ludemann or Eisenmann (or I) believe about these later documents? That they contain the writings of James passed down intact? Hardly. In my first post in this thread, as in my earlier debate with Nomad, I quoted Ludemann who in turn quotes Shoeps as saying only that "we might be justified in assuming that in the Pseudo-Clementines the 'old arguments of the Jewish Christians of Jerusalem against Paul…have been utilized and preserved' [Shoeps, "Paul" n.133, 82]." Assuming there was a larger divide between Paul and James than was allowed for in the orthodox apostolic tradition, we might be able to get a glimpse at some of the nuanced objections to Paul from the Jewish Christian perspective. One such objection was to the authenticity of Paul's religious experience; the Ebionites claimed that only direct fellowship with the historical Jesus sufficed for legitimate apostolic authority. This, of course, was the same argument used against the Gnostics by centrists.

Nomad asks the good question: "since many Gnostics were claiming to have the authority of James behind them, why do you not argue that James was a Gnostic?" I haven't looked into why the Gnostics traced their intellectual roots to James, but if a connection can be demonstrated between Gnostic doctrine and James, as can be done between the James epistle and later Ebionite writings, I would have no trouble concluding that James' doctrines are repeated by both later groups. The problem is that to my knowledge there is no mysticism, private revelation appeals, and so forth in the James epistle whereas Jewish Christianity is certainly present in that epistle.

Nomad

There is too much to go through in this post, and it is late, and I am tired from my trip. So I am going to confine myself to your closing statments.

I see that you are not improving here, and continue to misrepresent my views in order to fight a straw man rather than addressing my actual arguments. More on this below.

There are no mysteries James, at least not in this thread, provided you actually read my posts, and then address them accordingly.

I also want to point out that it is inherently dishonest to quote an individual, and not at least offer the link so that the curious may read the context of a statement. This is not the first time you have done this, but at least so far as your discussions with me are concerned, I hope that it is your last. I will do what you should have done in the first place.

From John not author of fourth gospel

Originally posted by Nomad June 22, 2001 10:02 AM:

Now, do I believe that John, son of Zebedee wrote this Gospel? Yes I do. (Note: this is where James cut off my quote) Did I argue that in the thread however? No. I argued ONLY that the Gospel was written by an eyewitness, and thus my questions focus exclusively on why James rejects this idea. I find the reasons to believe that this individual was John to be quite good, but am perfectly willing to accept that the person who wrote the Gospel of John was another, but still an eyewitness to many of the events he describes. It is from this point of view that I will address the remainder of James’ post.

Notice, yet again that you clipped the most important parts of my post (and again, I put them in bold so that you can more easily read them) to make it look like I was arguing for something, when clearly I was not, and I even TOLD you that I was not arguing for John as the eyewitness behind the Gospel of John. There is no mystery James. But I do expect you to read what I write.

Now, I asked you to address my actual arguments, and not strawmen versions of those arguments. Once again you have failed to do this. If you have no interest in doing so, then just admit it, and we both can move on. But do not do this again please.

I'll get to this more when I am less tired, and can type up my quotes from Geza Vermes. I also need to read Earl's post (something I have not had time to do as of yet), and perhaps even more importanly, I need to answer Bill's questions on this thread.

What I will say at this point is that I consider the question of Jesus and His followers connection to the Essenes to be a side issue on this thread, but it is one that needs to be addressed, so I will do so.

For now, however, it is late. Good night.

Nomad

James Still

The reason I did not include the paragraph as a whole was because it was tertiary and added nothing of value nor did it clarify or put anything into context. If you feel that I took your comments out of context then I apologize. The sequence of events was (1) I stated that the gospel was not written by an eyewitness; (2) you objected; (3) I replied and said that John of Zebedee was not the author and that if you were suggesting that he was I disagreed; (4) then we arrive at the cryptic paragraph above, which shifts the burden of proof to me, where you said that while you did believe that John of Zebedee was the author you were more interested in knowing why I rejected his authorship; (5) Rather than objecting that you shifted the burden of proof, I went ahead and started a new thread in which I provided to you my reasons for rejecting John's authorship.

Now here we are squabbling over this well-known sequence of events rather than discussing the merits of whether or not John was written by an eyewitness author. You now ask me to address your actual arguments. Well I already did. I started a new thread a few weeks ago stating the case for why John was not written by the son of Zebedee or any other eyewitness author. If you have an argument which I have not addressed then by all means let me know so that I may fulfill an obligation that I had made.

Right now I'd say that the ball is in your court to provide us with good reasons to consider your claim that John's gospel was written by an eyewitness. I feel no obligation to counter an argument that you have yet to make. Give us your reasons for holding that John was written by an eyewitness so that we might either be pursuaded by your argument or say why we are not. There's no hurry, take your time. Don't sacrifice your sleep over this dispute.

[corrected two grammar mistakes]

[ July 28, 2001: Message edited by: James Still ]

Le pede

Any discussion about Paul and the Jerusalem church must be understood in this context:

Paul is specifically and purposefully saying that his gospel did not come from what he ws taught from those who knew Jesus. He is saying that his gospel is independent of that information.

In chapter 2, Paul talks about his journey to Jerusalem.

So we can see here that James, Cephas and John are among those men of "reputation" that added nothing to Paul. Evidence of some conflict.

Then Paul says:

Who knows if Peter, John or James really saw all the things in Paul that he says they saw (that he'd been entrusted with a gospel to the Gentiles, etc.). He does not quote them at all.

It was probably a compromise reached by the council because of ferocious debate (Gal. 2:5) and Paul interpreted it as them seeing the "grace that had been bestowed upon him," etc.

The only thing the Jersualem faction ended up doing was asking Paul to remember the poor. Now if I was in the Jersualem faction, and I knew that Jesus' message was for the Jews regardless of what revelation Paul claims to have received from heaven, and your council has been thrown in an uproar because this man Paul got a revelation and he is clearly a smart man who can articulate the meaning of this revelation, I'd say, okay you go to the Gentiles. It is no skin off of the Jerusalem faction's nose if Paul preaches to the Gentiles. In fact, it's a benefit--he's out of your hair! They understood Jesus' gospel as a gospel for Jews, so what is it to them if Paul preached his gospel to the Gentiles. (Some may demand evidence here, but Jesus' caricature clearly showed this bent in the gospel of Matthew, and I'm not going to rehash the verses at this time.)

Then Paul goes into the Antioch incident. He says he opposed Peter to his face and then:

Paul clearly says that the men who came to Antioch were from James. Paul does not use nebulous phrases to describe where these men are from, nor does he use a location like "Jerusalem church." He says they were from James.

So as we can see, yes there were conflicts between the Jersualem Church and Paul's Gentile church (by the way, Paul preached only to Gentiles, in case there was some confusion). The Jerusalem church may have had an indifferent, or contradictory attitude towards Gentiles. Opinion was divided in the Jewish community on how to deal with Gentiles. Some Jews thought that Gentiles only had to follow certain guidelines of the Torah, and that would be acceptable. Others felt as though Gentiles needed circumcision--as perhaps the "party of circumcision did." Others didn't give a rat's petut about the Gentiles since they were all dirty, impure, uncircumcized heathens anyway.