TedM

Ok, walk me through this. IF I read you right, I think those who propose this aren't denying a Jewish Christian James at the same time as this Jewish priest (why a priest? Josephus doesn't say he was a priest though) James. This appears to propose the following:

James died in some uneventful manner, perhaps around 55-70 AD. Sometime before Hegesippus, 130-190AD, a tradition arose regarding James' death by stoning, inspired by the stoning of the other James in 62AD.

How could this tradition have come about? By the simple mistake of a name of a prominent Jewish spiritual leader? Could this within perhaps 100 years have overcome any oral tradition of how the (apparantly first) leader of the Jewish Christian movement died?

Does this have any implications for when the interpolation in Josephus took place, given quite a different and more detailed account by Hegessipus?

How do any early non-NT writings about James support or hurt this hypothesis?

Just askin..

ted

Toto

There might only be one James. After the Jewish War and the destruction of the Temple, a Jewish faction split off to become Christians (this part is all speculation.) They invented a history for themselves by reading the Hebrew Scriptures and borrowing from other historical sources. James could have been an important person, perhaps a leader in the Jewish faction some of whose members became Christians, and he was turned into Jesus' brother who was killed for his faith.

I don't think you have to speculate about oral legends of how James died. If the James mentioned in Paul's letter was not the same as Josephus' James, he died or disappeared during the Jewish War, and no tradition needs to have survived.

By the time Hegesippus writes, all he knows is that the gospels describe a brother of Jesus named James, and Josephus describes a James who was stoned by the Jews. His (or others') imagination fills in the details.

TedM

Galations seems too potentially harmful to Christianity for me to accept this idea. I think James and Paul knew each other.

He surely would know that the brother James was described as a disbeliever if he knew the gospels, and why would he not know Paul's account in Galations? And, are we to accept the idea that he completely fabricated almost all of the account? I don't think so. I think the tradition existed prior to Hegessipus' portrayal, so that gets me back to oral legends of how James died.

How connected was the early Jewish Christian community? It seems to me that Paul's relationship to them--visiting them at least 3 times though he often was 500 miles away (I think) and his home was not particularly close, is a witness to their widespread reputation. I would think that had the Jewish War not occurred a false tradition would not have arisen. With the War's occurance, is it likely that the knowledge of their original leader's death became muddled with the death of someone they probably had heard about who was a non-Christian and had died some 10 years prior? On the one hand, the name can explain the mixup, but on the other hand, if the story of this stoning was strong enough for Josephus to have mentioned him, and it was a different non-Christian James, I might think that the Christian community was well aware of the fact that this first James was NOT their leader James.

I would think that there was an account among the Jewish Christians of their leader's death. What would make this awareness change? Did the Jewish Christians after the War not talk about their original leader anymore? Did the group that followed James disappear, thus leaving it open for the Gentile Christians to start the tradition of James' death--ignoring the known account and borrowing from another one?

Again, just thinking out loud..

ted

S.C.Carlson

The gospels, however, do not describe James as a believer. In fact, Mark is fairly negative toward James.

Stephen

Toto

As I recall, part of filling in the details included James' conversion after Jesus' death by Jesus' appearance to him. But when I went back and read Hegesippus, I noticed that Hegesippus only refers to James as the Brother of the Lord, using the phrase from Paul's letters. This is ambiguous as to whether James was the biological brother or held the title of Brother of the Lord.

Bernard Muller (who supports the idea that James was a Jewish leader co-opted after his death and turned into a Christian) has this on his web site:

Comment on 2nd Apocalypse of James; full text is here. The relationship between Jesus and James in this document is not exactly clear.

DE BERGERAC

I humbly have suggested that the whole passage in Josephus could be originally his, "Christ" included, and even so, refer to Jesus, son of Damneus. I see this, in another thread:


Certainly, Jesus son of Damneus was a High Priest and qualified as a "Christ", or anointed High Priest. Of course, why should he alone be called "the anointed" when all the other were that too?

But in fact, it could be the case that the passage is untampered with, and even it does not refer to the JESUS we and the primitive Christians thought?

After all, aren't all Popes "saints" but some of them are specifically singled out as "saints"?

What do you think about this view?

TedM

According to Josephus Jesus son of Damneus was not the final high preist, so no one would accidentaly mistake one for the other. From my post last week:

ted

DE BERGERAC

Thank you very much, Ted, I see your point.

What I suggest is this:

1) From "Ecclesiastical History" (3:7) we have that many "christs" existed: all those who "were dignified with the priesthood", "in consequence of their being anointed with oil prepared for the purpose of a sacred symbol" says Eusebius.

2) However the gospel Jesus (3:11) is called christ "though he received no badges and emblems of priesthood (...) or obtained a peculiar or even any dignity among the Jews" (THAT, ONE UNDERSTANDS, WOULD HAVE BEEN THE USUAL WAY FOR ANYONE BE CALLED "A" CHRIST).

3) Some High Priests of Israel about the time we are concerned with, had a "surname":

A) Simon, son of Boethus, "CANTHERAS".
B) Joseph, son of Simon, "KABI".
C) Jesus, son of Damneus, "CHRIST".
D) Joseph (whose son, by the way...? son-in-law to Annas), CAIAPHAS -that sounds dangerously close to CEPHAS, I fear, but this is another question).

So, maybe Josephus recorded that Jesus, son of Damneus, called christ (not, I feel "the Christ") was appointed for the high priesthood, without casting on this the construction of "MESSIAHSHIP" that allegedly it entails.

THE INTEGRITY AND AUTHORSHIP OF THE PASSAGE, ACCORDING TO THIS IDEA, IS PRESERVED, YET IT IS ONLY WITH LATER "CHRISTIAN" EYES THAT WE AND FORMER CHRISTIANS SEE THE GOSPEL JESUS HERE AND NOT SIMPLY THE HIGH PRIEST SON OF DAMNEUS!!!

The fact is that, as far as I know, the Messiah expectation is not anywhere recorded in Josephus nor in Philo; and quite another thing is the prophecy that someone come from Judea would rule the world, that Josephus applied, with great profit, to Vespasian. This prophecy is not de MESSIAH expectancy and the word christ or anointed is not used for this.

DE BERGERAC

It is funny, but we have been told that Judea was teeming with claimants to the Messiah/Christ title. In fact, the rabble rousers Josephus deals with are never designated with such title nor is any proof that they did identified as "the Messiah".

Only Bar Kochba... But, of course, in 135 Christians were already active and focusing on the OT indications about a Messiah, so that his claim would be clearly derivative.

spin

Josephus used the noun xristos in two places. Can you guess where? Would you believe in the two places where Jesus -- the one we're interested in -- is mentioned.

Josephus doesn't use the noun anywhere else. In fact, when dealing with Saul who is god's anointed, found numerous times in Samuel, eg 1 Sam 26:9, yet Josephus doesn't use the term found in the LXX xristos, but uses a totally different one meaning in the context "appointed", telling Abishai in AJ 6.13.9 not to kill "god's appointed king" (Whiston uses "ordained"), in the LXX not "to raise his hand against the lord's anointed".

Josephus's avoidance of the use of the noun xristos, except in the two places that deal with the gospel Jesus, tells us strongly that Josephus did not write these examples, ie they are interpolations.

This is something I brought up a long time ago, the problem is that I can't find the article dealing with the tomb of Caiaphas, so I can't give the exact Hebrew rendering of the name, which I think was qyp), Gr. kaiafas, whereas Cephas is in Aramaic kyp), Gr. kyfas. If the Hebrew qof of Caiaphas can be a kappa, just as the Hebrew kaf, then the rest of the name should be the same. But the rendering in Greek, I guess because it was spoken, yielded Caiaphas, KaYaPa), making the yod in Caiaphas a consonant, while in Cephas a vowel. It's interesting nevertheless.


spin