Doctor X

It seems that Paul does not agree with the "Pillars."

Two different guys? I think I may have lost you there, but from my perspective, while one can argue that Josephus' references are "all interpolations" I have a hard time buying that Paul's is an interpolation. It seems to me too much of a "conspiracy" to imagine Paul and later the Lk-Acts author "making up" a historical James. Of course . . . maybe Galatians is not "legitimate"--Toto has a reference I have not read yet . . . or maybe someone can demostrate that "the brother of the Lord" is also an interpolation. Again, I love the certainty of all of this!

from the perspective of a historical Junior, it may be more like:

Teacher-->Divinely inspired Teacher/Prophet . . . et cetera. No one knows exactly what a historical Junior actually said or did so we are left with "reasonable speculations." What I was trying to state was that I think the charges from later writers--Mk, Lk, Mt, Jn and, perhaps Paul--that the disciples did not consider him divine--despite miracles!--indicates that not only did Junior not consider himself divine, but that his immediate followers did not either.

However, I wanted to concede that that "evidence" could be "trumped up" by the later writers to belittle the immediate followers. Why? Perhaps to explain why they are different from whatever was left of the movement(s) of the followers.

Here is a bit of a tangental example: Jn's use of J the B [John the Baptist.--Ed.]. Jn makes a concerted effort to have J the B not only subordinate himself to Junior but to admonish any follower who fails to recognize this.

Why?

Did Jn's group encounter--so late--remnants of J the B's group? Or did he respond to the charge that "Junior was just a follower of J the B?" Or was he simply trying to remove any suggestion that Junior "needed" or was dependent on Jn? His Junior is in control of everything so it may be as simple as that.

WHAT?!! IT SHOULD BE CLEAR LEST YE BE PERISHING!

Seriously, my "problem" is I cannot answer "when" all of this mythmaking/development happened. If Mk is after the Squishing of Jerusalem--which I accept--why the need to go after the disciples? Did they have remnants? Or, was Mk culminating a document for "his" movement that contained traditions of opposition to the disciples' group from before? I have no idea.

As others have noted, just the period from the possible execution of Junior to the emergence of Paul is a long time for the development of a religion. I have a hard time considering the time line for development.

--J.D.

Amaleq13

Besides Paul's apparent belief that the Law had been suplanted by the Risen Christ even for Jewish Christians, are there other specific conflicts we can identify?

Yes, James the Disciple and James the alleged brother. If the brother reference is removed from Paul, do we have any reason to assume that Mark's "special trio" (i.e. Peter, James, John) is not the same as Paul's "special trio"? I think we have to wait for Acts to be written before the two are clearly differentiated. After that, the Pillar James is identified as Jesus' brother and the Disciple James is identified as the brother of John Zebedee.

I've become more inclined to think so after becoming more convinced that the short reference in Josephus is an interpolation. We've got Hegesippus claiming a reference to James as the “Lord’s brother” but also as “the Just” in the context of a death scene that seems suspiciously close to the depiction of Stephen’s death in Acts. After describing how great a man James was and how wrong his murder was, he concludes writing “And shortly after Vespasian besieged Judaea, taking them captive.” If he didn’t consider this to be a direct, causal relationship, he makes no attempt to avoid that obvious inference.

Origen repeats this alleged reference to James in Josephus as well as the context but adds a criticism of this view because it should be the death of Jesus that gets the credit. He refers to James as “the Just” and “the brother of Jesus (called Christ)” but also refers to Paul calling James “the brother of the Lord”,

“…not so much on account of their relationship by blood, or of their being brought up together, as because of his virtue and doctrine.”

In English, the “no so much” phrase suggests that a relationship by blood is assumed but I’m not sure if that is true of the original language.

This “lost reference” has been discussed at length by Kirby, Doherty, etc. and there seem to be good reasons to assume it was an interpolation. First, the reference Hegesippus, Origen, and Eusebius apparently have in their copies of Josephus does not exist in ours. Second, the idea is inconsistent with Josephus’ apparent connection between the rebel movement, in general, and the destruction of Jerusalem. Third, while apparently acceptable to Christians as early as Hegesippus, the idea was rejected by the time of Origen. Fourth, it conflicts with the extant short reference that features no connection to the destruction of Jerusalem.

Hegesippus provides no evidence that his copy of Josephus contained the short reference extant in modern texts. He only uses “the Just” and “brother of the Lord” in reference to James. Origen doesn’t directly quote the extant passage but he does add the phrase “brother of Jesus (called Christ)” in his reference to Josephus. Eusebius quotes it in full and it matches the extant version.

The point of all of this, I think, is that an early interpolation (since removed) apparently contained a reference to James as “the Just” and as “the Lord’s brother”. The context and the phrase have been removed subsequent to Eusebius. A second reference to James as “the brother of Jesus (called Christ) is suggested by Origen and explicitly asserted by Eusebius but “the Just” and the “lost context” are nowhere to be found. That gives us:

1) Evidence of an interpolated passage in Josephus c165-175 with a reference to “James the Just” as “the Lord’s brother”.

2) Evidence of the interpolated passage c203-250 and another reference to James as “the brother of Jesus (called Christ)”.

3) Absence of the interpolated passage, apparently since Eusebius, but extant copies of a reference to James as “the brother of Jesus (called Christ)”.

To throw another monkey wrench into the picture, Photius, writing in the 9th century, seems to have a copy of Josephus that contains a reference to James "the brother of the Lord"!

It is important to note that nobody directly quotes the interpolated passage so we cannot be certain whether Hegesippus is accurately describing the text as containing “the Lord’s brother” or if he is reading Paul’s title into his recollection. Likewise, we can’t be sure if Origen is giving us the actual text or is confusing the extant short reference with the other. Regardless, this mess hardly suggests we should consider the extant passage to be authentic. When we have evidence that an early Christian copyist interpolated text into Josephus that connected James to Jesus, that can only reduce the credibility of the extant reference.

Layman mentioned several other references to this passage but didn't provide the text or context so I don't know how they fit.

I don’t think the evidence suggests James the Just is a fiction. In fact, I think the historicity of James the Just is pretty convincingly established by multiple, apparently independent sources. What the evidence does seem to suggest is a fictional creation is the idea that James the Just was Jesus’ brother.


I think this is an entirely reasonable possibility.

I think the evidence supports concluding that the original followers didn’t consider Jesus as either divine or the Messiah while he lived but can don’t we have to accept that at least some of them had resurrection experiences that convinced them otherwise?

Within the context of an historical Jesus, I think it is to explain why nobody had heard anything about Jesus being the Messiah until well after he was dead. The messianic secret, the disciples’ obtuseness, and the original ending seem to be explanations for apparently novel information.

How much had developed prior to Paul’s conversion?

Llyricist

Careful there, I don't think the Jewish messiah concept involved divinity at all. While your wording seems to connect the ideas as Christians do.
Actually, the fact that he was thought of as, or thought himself to be, the (Jewish) Messiah ("liberating king" more or less), is the most plausible reason for the Romans to have crucified him.
I'd say most of the divinity ideas came from Paul himself. As to the time between, we really don't know how much time passed between Paul's "conversion" and evangelizing, and the actual letters he wrote, much less how much time passed between any HJ crucifiction and his "conversion".

Frankly given Ameleq's convincing arguments against any blood relationship between James and Jesus, I'm more and more convinced that the Biblical James and Simon (Cephas/Peter) are one in the same with the two sons of Judas the Galilean mentioned in Josephus Antiquities 18.1. Not to mention their obvious connection to anti Roman and possibly Messianic (Jewish sense) hopes.

Amaleq13

I thought my "or" was sufficient. That said, I'm not sure we can completely dismiss the idea of a "divine" Messiah if we don't restrict that term to only mean "equivalent with God". There is evidence of Jewish belief in "God's Wisdom Incarnate" and the concept of the "Heavenly Messiah". Neither require us to assume the figures are divine in the sense of god-like but they certainly have a strong spiritual sense to them.

Given a crucifixion, that does seem like a reasonable conclusion.
The problem is that, as we've seen, there is evidence that belief in Jesus as the Messiah did not arise until after the crucifixion. Mark puts a lot of effort into explaining why there was no such belief earlier and there isn't anything necessarily messianic about the treatment of Jesus in Q. I can't remember if GTh has anything suggesting a belief in the living Jesus as the Messiah.

Paul tells us that Jesus was crucified but that those who did it did not recognize his true identity. That is kind of hard to reconcile with the Gospel stories that indicate Jesus was crucified because he was considered or claimed to be the Messiah. Those executionors knew about the messianic identity but they didn't believe it. That doesn't really seem the same as Paul's description. In his reference to the origins of the eucharist, Paul describes Jesus as being "handed over". As Doherty has explained, this has been changed into "betrayed" despite the fact that the word he used can be found in the OT describing God doing the "handing over" and clearly not "betraying". So Paul has God "handing over" Jesus and getting killed by individuals who do so without knowing he is to be resurrected as the Messiah.

We know he waited at least three years before checking in with the "pillars". What were they teaching?

Thanks for the kind consideration of my argument but I can't take all the credit. Kirby (despite my disagreement) and Doherty did the heavy lifting. I'm just rearranging the words and trying to see how/if it all fits within an assumed historical context.

So are you suggesting above that James (son of Judas) moved to Jerusalem and became known as James the Just?

Llyricist

Well, the wisdom incarnate idea was, I believe, entirely separate from the Messiah idea (prior to Paul). The other seems okay as a sort of metaphor, but not literally I would think.
Remember how far removed the Gospels are. IF there was an HJ (and that to me is still a big if), AND he led a Messianic anti-Roman movement of which the pillars were a part, then the Gospel writers would have had to come up with some device to explain the HUGE differences between that Jerusalem group and the Paulines, what better way than to portray the pillars and original followers as not really "getting it"? Remember, in the epistles and Acts, it is held that many people in Jerusalem accused Paul of lying about Jesus and what he was all about.
That's because Paul was writing pure mythology.
Which executioners? The Romans wouldn't have any reason to execute him if he wasn't really trying to usurp their power, and frankly, the only Jews that would have would have executed him would have been the High Priest and his minions, but then he would have been stoned, not crucified. And frankly, since Paul placed such a huge emphasis on the crucifiction, if there was ANY historical basis, I'd have to say Jesus was crucified, not stoned, and that being the case, the Romans did it for sedition.
Which is all Paul's invention in my view.
THAT is a good question, but it is safe to say they WEREN'T teaching that the Torah was superceded, given the nature of the conflicts as portrayed in the Epistles and Acts.
well let's just say you paraphrased it well
More likely the movement had been in Jerusalem for quite some time, and yes, they WOULD have roused the ire of the High Priest (who was put in power by the Romans btw).

Amaleq13

I get the sense that a lot of previously independent concepts were involved in the reimagining (if that is a word) of the idea of the Messiah. Clearly, the traditional view was losing favor given the apparently unending domination of the Roman Empire.

I wrote:
Given a crucifixion, that does seem like a reasonable conclusion.
The problem is that, as we've seen, there is evidence that belief in Jesus as the Messiah did not arise until after the crucifixion. Mark puts a lot of effort into explaining why there was no such belief earlier and there isn't anything necessarily messianic about the treatment of Jesus in Q. I can't remember if GTh has anything suggesting a belief in the living Jesus as the Messiah.

I, too, tend to doubt the historicity of Jesus but, in this thread, I'm trying to see if a coherent story can be derived from an assumed historical Jesus. Specifically, it seemed to me that even within an historical context, there was reason to doubt that James was actually the brother of Jesus. If he was not, then Paul's statement is either an interpolation or it was never meant literally (i.e. Doherty's "brethren of the Lord" subgroup).

How does the second part ("he led a Messianic anti-Roman movement") fit with the evidence from Q? There is none of that there. How does it fit with the efforts Mark takes to explain why nobody had claimed Jesus as the Messiah prior to his resurrection?

I think it is from an early Church Father that we are told that the "descendents" of the Jerusalem Church were the Ebionites and that they didn't accept the virgin birth, etc. That might help make sense of all this but can we trust it? I'll have to look through my stuff to find the specific reference.

I wrote:
Those executionors knew about the messianic identity but they didn't believe it.

Paul's "rulers of this age".

I think only the appearance of a potential for rebellion was necessary for the Roman hammer to drop. Those guys didn't screw around and seem to have been firm believers in the "shoot first" and "better safe than sorry" viewpoints.

It has been suggested that the crucifixion was Paul's invention but I'm not sure how credible that is.

Regarding Paul's depicting of the eucharist origin, you wrote:
I would say it was the result of Paul's prayerful consideration of Scripture and/or a direct revelation from the Risen Christ but I'm Mr. Diplomacy.

Regarding my question about what the "pillars" were teaching, you wrote:
Agreed and that seems consistent with what the Q prophets were teaching. The saying attributed to Jesus about not changing a word of the Law comes from there.

What was the nature of this movement? Are you relying exclusively on Josephus?

Doctor X

Amaleq13 et al:

I basically agree or at least "buy" your speculations as reasonable. I must admit I had not considered James the Just as not being an actual brother. If Paul is accurate in Galatians, I still argue on the side he was. Of course, if Paul did not intend to imply "blood brother" then everything else could be a "misread" of Galatians.

Again . . . why I love the certainty of all of this!

To answer you specific question of "how much development" between Junior "spending a rotten Friday afternoon" and Paul's appearance, potentially quite a lot. If you believe those who feel Paul "made it all up" or at least "started" the divinization of Junior then you have a bloody great deal--but it is easy to make such a leap in a year let alone decades.

If you believe Q enthusiasts such as Mack and Kloppenburg, it has layers that demonstrate some interesting developments in the "community." I mention that just to demonstrate that it does not take long for a religion to develop--particularly if you have no recognized authority directing the dogma--whatever James was in Galatians, I do not think Paul considers him an "authority" that he must follow!

Lyrist makes a good point that the "hapless" disciples may just be an apology for why the movement--Mk's conception of it--did not "take off." I feel the level of invective against the disciples suggests--note the certitude!--that whatever was left of the disciples or their tradition--did not seem him as divine. However, Mk's Junior's constant admonishment to keep things secret to those who do figure it out--and certainly do not advertise it--is an explanation for why Mk's conception had not spread prior to his writing . . . or at least the theology he agreed with was not that popular.

--J.D.

Good discussion.

--J.D.

Amaleq13

I agree that if we can be sure Paul wrote this and if we can be sure he meant it literally, the mythicist position is undermined, perhaps fatally. That said, I just can't see "brother of the Lord (Risen Christ)" as intended to convey a blood relationship. It just doesn't seem consistent with Paul's expressed views for him to consider the Risen Christ to be related to any human. Prior to being sacrificed, sure, but after being raised up to sit at the right hand of God? I don't buy it. The fact that it is only used once makes me even more suspicious. The fact that the same phrase, used in relation to James, was apparently part of an early interpolation in Josephus and a variation of that phrase, also in relation to James, is in a currently disputed passage only serves to increase that suspicion. Clearly, Christian interpolators were interested in establishing James as Jesus' brother and that smells like "me thinks thou doth protest too much".

We also can't ignore the fact that, according to Kirby's website (remind me to buy the CD!), the earliest reference to the Galatians passage is from Origen in the 3rd century.

[QUOTE]...whatever James was in Galatians, I do not think Paul considers him an "authority" that he must follow!/QUOTE]

I agree but, with that being the case, why would he want to describe James as the "brother of the Lord"? The question seems valid whether we assume it is intended literally or not. Why build up a guy he doesn't consider to be a legitimate authority?

What do you see as the most significant/relevant differences between Paul's theology and that of Mark?



PS Are you related to Racer X?

Doctor X

". . . doth protest too much, methinks."

I, fortunately, do not have an effeminate brother who does not know who I am . . . which means I can date Trixie. . . .

Ack! That is almost a topic in and of itself. To make a confession, I do not enjoy Paul all that much, so I am not much of an authority. Thus, off the top of my head, the most obvious difference is the lack of a resurrection in Mk--it is not part of his theology. [What about the "empty tomb?"--Ed.] With the boy-toy in it? [Yes.--Ed.] What about it? It is just an empty space which implies something . . . it is not a major point in his text. It also lacks much of a discussion of "what" happens after death--you certainly do not become "important" like the disciples want--and are rebuk'd for.

Now, if you believe "Secret" Mark was written by Mk--as one poster has opin'd with more ferocity than substance on this board--that would change things.

--J.D.

Amaleq13

I thought my wife was the only human using that term! I will assume you were not similarly influenced by the horrible comic strip "Kathy".

A resurrection is claimed and the story was written well after Paul, et. al. shared their resurrection experiences. I'm not sure I understand the motivation. Would the author avoid portraying the resurrection experiences of the disciples because it would conflict with his depiction of their ignorance? Or is he implicitly denying their claims?

What do you think this difference means?

Because it would imply a more gnostic-inclined author?