Amaleq13

We only know it wasn't the assemblies in Judea since Paul claims they had never seen his face there.

Assemblies of Judeans who believed in Christ.

Well, it is the related fact that they had not seen him that creates problems for any claim that he persecuted in Judea.

I don't see where you get that chronology from Paul and I don't see where there is any indication Paul's initial visit to Jerusalem was a secret.

Paul doesn't offer any specific identifications.

spin

So it doesn't help us does it? They hadn't seen him, but he had been persecuting them. It might reflect on the type of persecution, ie not physical, but, say, advocacy of religious exclusion?

It's not there. It says "assemblies of Judea [singular feminine]".

What does he say?

He met only with Cephas, and then James. That exclusiveness suggests secrecy, along with the fact that he was still unknown (at least by sight).

It seems to me that the problem does get either of us any further.


spin

jjramsey

Strange. You write earlier, "You know Origen certainly wasn't quoting from the passage that interests you so much. There is nothing in it about Josephus thinking that James's death brought about the destruction of Jerusalem." You not only acknowledge this but emphasize it, yet you don't seem to see how this would garble the signal that Origen supposedly gave.

I've noticed that when you are caught on a weak point, you use insults that try to give the impression that you have the upper hand, e.g. I'm "desperate" or "partisan," while offering no substantive point in reply.

Solitary Man

Trademark of spin, it seems.

Amaleq13

I don't need it to recognize your error in asserting that Paul claims to have persecuted folks in Judea.

Since that clearly makes no sense, it should be abandoned. The correct conclusion indicated by the text is that Paul only persecuted assemblies outside Judea.

Sure it is.

"and was unknown by face to the assemblies of Judea, that [are] in Christ,"(Gal 1:22, YLT) :huh:

That he persecuted assemblies of the "church of God" but not those in Judea.

It might suggest it to you but I see no apparent reason to think so.

spin

You are in a quandary, stuck with a text you have to change the meaning of in order to use because it doesn't say what you want. I did give a suggestion as to a solution, ie Paul was responsible for acts against the messianists that didn't require his direct presence for their harassment, such as anti-advocacy. Perhaps in organization. Whatever it was, changing the text gets you nowhere.


spin

spin

Ahh, more "handwaving". :wave:

spin

This is rather simple: with Origen having brought attention to Josephus and signaled who this James was, one scribe writes the phrase "brother of Jesus called christ" in the margin. It is then taken by a later scribe as a scribal omission and inserted in the text.

I'm still waiting for something from you that requires a new effort from me on this tangent.


spin

jjramsey

Trouble is, all Origin "signaled" is that Josephus wrote about a certain James and said certain things about him--and Origen got those "certain things" wrong. That doesn't tell the scribe where in Josephus' work this certain James is mentioned, and without the telltale phrase "brother of Jesus called christ," the passage is hardly recognizable as anything related to what Origen discussed.

spin

That doesn't change an easy connection signaled by Origen as to who this James was, mentioned by Josephus.


spin