tubalkain

I am very much inclined towards the position of Doherty and others of a mythical Jesus. It makes sense of so many things : from the lack of contemporary witnesses to Paul's "mythical" view of Jesus, from the parallel to the dying-and-rising gods to the lack of reference to an earthly Jesus in Christian authors of the first centuries and to the many inconsistencies/contradictions in the Gospels.

There is however a major problem in my view and I would like to ask you about your opinion on this. The problem I see is that the controversy between Paul and the Jerusalem church in Acts and in Paul's letters is well explained by the typical conflict between the inner circle of the family and the outer circle of followers and "newcomers" of prophets (and of political/religious leaders in general), like you find in Islam between shi'ites and sunnites. This has been well discussed in Maccoby's book "Paul and the invention of christianity (or via: amazon.co.uk)".

Paul the newcomer is the self-appointed charismatic follower; James and the Apostles are the original family (in an enlarged sense) and claim the ultimate authority over the post-crucifixion christianity, perhaps because they see it as a claim to royalty over a messianic Israel. If this is the fundamental reason of the Paul-James controversy, then Jesus must have been a real person, with a real family and some chosen companions. Otherwise, how to explain the sudden and undisputed primacy of James-the-brother over the Jerusalem "church" ? on what basis did everybody (except Paul that is) accepted the leadership of the obscure James, hardly mentioned at all in the Gospels, were it not for the fact that he was the real brother of the Lord ? This explains also the insistence of Paul on his personal revelation that bypassed all apostolic intermediation.

Of course the Paul-James controversy could be explained merely by conflict over points of doctrine and interpretation or on how best to expand christianity into Gentile nations, but the whole story smells of the typical struggle for power and control over the community. The power of Paul is his personal revelation; the power of James is his closeness to a real Jesus.

So although the mythical Jesus theory is compelling (for me) from an historical point of view, the sociology of the early christianity is better explained by a real Jesus.

bacht

Hi tubalkain. I'm new here, and no scholar, just another infidel

There was a recent thread about James ("the James gang"), and others earlier.

I agree with Doherty's mythicist arguments, and his skepticism about the Gospels and Acts as reliable records. I wouldn't put much faith in the information in Acts re James and the earliest apostles. You seem to put a lot of weight on the "brother of the Lord" title, which I think is a misinterpretation.

Paul himself may have been a product of the Syrian church, such as it was in the early 1st C. I don't know if there is any reason to assume that the Judeans were the first to follow the Christ teachings (assuming a mythic Christ). Who knows, maybe there was a "logos" group in Alexandria?

As far as controversy, Paul seems to have harbored resentment towards Cephas rather than James, but the point is the same either way: the acceptance of Gentiles into the group, and how to apply the Mosaic law to them.

Without the Gospels there isn't much material with which to reconstruct pre-Revolt sociology.

aa5874

I think your problem is that you probably have not researched the so-called Pauline Epistles, Acts of the Apostles and Church History by Eusebius.

Once you have done that it should become obvious that the history of the Church, including Peter, Paul and James are most likely to be fiction, or did not exist at the time implied.

To use one single questionable source, where different authors are using the same name, with chronological discrepancies, or uncorroborated events, and then accept or believe that there was some Paul-James controversy is not very prudent at all.

It would appear that the author called Paul was alive long after Eusebius claimed he was DEAD, around 66 CE. The author called Paul was aware of Acts of the Apostles and Acts of the Apostles was deduced to have been written well after the days of Nero.

Even Justin Martyr did not mention Paul or his Epistles, or Acts of the Apostles up to or around 80 years after Nero.

Toto

Surely not every controversy is the result of this sort of split?

You seem to be accepting the gospels as historical, and trying to reconcile them. You are just proving once again how hard it is to make sense of the gospel story.

Suppose James was not obscure in his own day and circle. He was a leader in a Messianic Jewish sect, and was known as the "Brother of the Lord" meaning the Brother of God.

Then a later group of Christians, mostly followers of Paul, around the early second century decide to create a history for themselves, and write stories about Jesus. They add James in as a minor character, maybe a biological brother of Jesus, maybe a disciple. James' followers are losers in the political struggle, and do not leave their version of history, in which James was an upright, law abiding pillar of the church, while Paul was an upstart, sleazy lying weasel who had to turn to gentiles to build his power base. <just speculation.>

I agree with this, but

This does not follow. The power of James was his strict adherence to Jewish law. The power of Paul was his reworking the gospel remove that adherence to the law.

What can we know about early Christianity?

spamandham

I don't see this as a problem at all really. Within the "genuine" epistles, there are clearly recognizable layers resulting from different authors editing the texts over probably at least 100 years - if not longer. Within those epistles, the controversy you speak of shows up only in Galatians. Was it originally there? Who knows.

In regard to Acts, there are several other noncanonical 'Acts' style texts that show up in the late 2nd century. I see no valid reason for dating the canonical Acts earlier than that (which means Luke would then also be a late 2nd century work).

The fact of a few tidbits here and there suggesting a historical Jesus, does not discount in my mind the mountains of evidence suggesting mythology. I don't dogmatically subscribe to mythicism, but I think it's the simplest explanation for all the evidence.

neilgodfrey

Could not the Jerusalem church have originally been led by a clique known as the "brothers of the Lord" (James being the leading/elder one) without any literal family associations? The Transfiguration scene and other passages in both orthodox and nonorthodox early literature point to James experiencing visions of the divine/Jesus. Such visions may conceivably have been the extent of their "contact" with Jesus. The later orthodox gospel narrative, led by Mark, attempts to downplay the significance of these visions by relegating them to pre-resurrection scenes that were more befuddling than enlightening. (Weedon has proposed that this was also the reason for Mark saying that they were not to speak about the vision till after the resurrection -- the visions were originally thought to have been post-resurrection experiences, but they were not so at all according to Pauline Christianity, but were confused as such because of the timing of their announcement.)

Paul claimed equality on the basis that "he also" had seen the Lord -- implying the same type of vision as experienced by James and co.

The rift between the two does not require the gospel narrative myth to explain it. The term "brother/s of the Lord" does not have to be read literally to make sense of such a rift. Simply different positions, titles, and Paul comes along as a latecomer claiming equality at the very least, and with a different idea of what Christianity should mean.


Neil

spamandham

This seems reasonable to me. I don't understand the emphasis on the word 'brother' in regard to James, when we read the epistles and Paul is calling everyone and his brother...well, uh,... 'brother'. It seems clear the word had a context in which it in no way implied blood kinship.

Overemphasizing 'brother' in relation to James and 'christ', 'jesus', or 'the lord' seems a bit like grasping at straws. James is depicted as the head of the Jerusalem church. I would think such a lofty position would have been worthy of a lofty title.

neilgodfrey

You could be right. But when Paul singles out James as a "brother of the Lord" then it does seem to be in a sense that distinguishes him from others in some way. Paul speaks of "brethren in Christ" -- who knows? Is this an attempt to democratize the title?? To cut James and the Jerusalem crew down a peg?

??
Neil

dog-on

"Paul" was working for the competition.

His acts were "reconciled", after the aquisition.

ynquirer

James the brother of the Lord, as meaning the brother of God, a strict adherent to Jewish Law? Either adherence was not that strict, or the law was not Jewish, or he would not have been called ‘the brother of the Lord’.

Paul in Gal 2:6 suggests that Peter and James added nothing to his message. If not because of physical proximity to the source of the faith in the past, why didn’t Paul simply reject them undisputedly to lead his own church? Why paying ‘the pillars’ the least allegiance, why coming to terms with them?

I split for tubalkain. Good point.