Freethought & Rationalism Archive

dogsgod · 03-14-2011, 05:59 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

RG Price for reference.

I don't know what GDon's list of verses is meant to accompish. The gist of it is:

Acts 12:
1 It was about this time that King Herod arrested some who belonged to the church, intending to persecute them. 2 He had James, the brother of John, put to death with the sword. 3 When he saw that this pleased the Jews, he proceeded to seize Peter also. This happened during the Feast of Unleavened Bread. 4 After arresting him, he put him in prison, handing him over to be guarded by four squads of four soldiers each. Herod intended to bring him out for public trial after the Passover.

In verse 1, Herods arrests some Christians. In verse 2, he has James executed.

In verse 3, "when he saw that this pleased the Jews" - makes more sense if "this" refers to the arrests in verse 1, than if it refers to the execution of James. If the execution of James had pleased the Jews, the conclusion would be to also execute Peter, but Peter is only arrested.

He had James, the brother of John, put to death with the sword is the sort of marginal note that have been written on the edge of the scroll as some sort of comment or addition, and then copied into the text by a later scribe, quite innocently.

But I am not sure why this is controversial, either way, although I have not read through the RS thread. There were probably two or more men named James at the time.

R.G.Price's argument on the brother of Jesus issue is that the author of Luke-Acts never mentions a James as the brother of Jesus, and if James the leader of the Jerusalem group has actually been the literal brother of Jesus, he surely would have mentioned it.

Yes, but there is more significance to this, and exactly as you stated, removing the line makes sense or even more sense of the arrest. That is one point.

The second point arrives at verse 17 just after Peter escapes from jail. He says to tell James and the other brothers and sisters about this. Well, the reader no sooner reads that James was executed and now is left scratching his head wondering who this James is. If Acts 12:2 is an interpolation than obviously this James is still James, son of Zebedee. That would make only one James throughout Acts that has a role to play and that James is James, son of Zebedee, even if his role is reduced to the quivering mass of jelly that agrees with everything Paul says, and that makes the most sense of who this James is. Some are adamant that after James is killed the James we then read of is the brother of Jesus. R.G.Price explains that that is not the case.

Vivisector · 03-14-2011, 07:30 AM

Myself, I don't see anything in the immediate context to indicate that an interpolation is required, especially if a trial preceded James Zebedee's death by sword (which seems reasonable given the reference to Peter's trial). The James mentioned afterward could be, it seems, either the James Alphaeus of 1:13 or still another James.

I just skimmed Price's argument (thanks for the link) but did not find it altogether persuasive, primarily because Price does not seem to account for how the gospel texts evolved as reactions to early controversies. More specifically, Luke takes pains to put the best possible face on the differences between Paul on the one hand and Peter and the pillars on the other. Additionally, Luke seems to consciously omit anything that would enhance the credentials of a certain James (e.g., Matthew includes Mark 6:3, but Luke does not). In other words, my impression is that Price was arguing on the basis of how a competent and objective historian should have written and neglecting the author's very apparent agenda.

Cheers,

V.

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

03-14-2011, 07:30 AM	#12
Vivisector Regular Member Join Date: Nov 2004 Location: KY Posts: 415	Myself, I don't see anything in the immediate context to indicate that an interpolation is required, especially if a trial preceded James Zebedee's death by sword (which seems reasonable given the reference to Peter's trial). The James mentioned afterward could be, it seems, either the James Alphaeus of 1:13 or still another James. I just skimmed Price's argument (thanks for the link) but did not find it altogether persuasive, primarily because Price does not seem to account for how the gospel texts evolved as reactions to early controversies. More specifically, Luke takes pains to put the best possible face on the differences between Paul on the one hand and Peter and the pillars on the other. Additionally, Luke seems to consciously omit anything that would enhance the credentials of a certain James (e.g., Matthew includes Mark 6:3, but Luke does not). In other words, my impression is that Price was arguing on the basis of how a competent and objective historian should have written and neglecting the author's very apparent agenda. Cheers, V.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.