Ben C Smith

By culture I did not mean they had to come from the same family or such. Both wrote in Greek, both obviously hail from the pro-gentile, law-as-a-relic side of Christianity, and both show more affinity with the west (the northern Mediterranean) than with the far east or south (eastern Syria, Mesopotamia, Egypt).

Are you saying that Paul spoke of James as one of the brothers of the Lord and Mark had a brother of Jesus named James independently?

Correct. I have not read the entire thread.

This statement combined with the statement about brothers of the Lord in Mark leads me to conclude that I have no idea where you think Mark got the idea to give Jesus brothers and name one of them James. I apologize if you have already detailed that process, but please at least give me the post number, or briefly describe it.

Sure, but Cephas is the pony to bet on in that race. Not James.

I am not aware of trying to kid anybody, nor of using the words that you put in quotation marks, and again I apologize, but I do not follow how your statement and rhetorical question was answering mine.

Well, of course that was my first thought, but since the first two men I named were Mark and Josephus I could not piece together what you were trying to say when you stated that the references of the first two (Mark and Josephus) do not appear to actually be present in Josephus. Please clarify.

Not if he or she went straight to Galatians 1.19, no. But if he or she had read a few pages of the rest of Paul, in which Jesus as Lord pops up incessantly, then yes, I think the literal interpretation would be quite obvious.

Your actual position, I take it, on the brothers of the Lord is that they were Jewish Christians who observed the law. Is that correct? If so, do you think that term encompassed all Jewish Christians who observed the law or do you think that it encompassed only a certain group among them? Also, do you think Paul coined the term or someone before him?

One last inquiry. What do you do with Hegesippus?

Ben.

Amaleq13

That seems awfully general to allow you to reach such a specific conclusion of agreement on the meaning of a phrase.

I'm saying it looks to me like Paul's James appears in Mark's story as the literal brother of John while another James is depicted in a marginal role of literal brother to Jesus and as considering him crazy. Why that might be depends on whether we consider Mark to be recording history or creating a story to express his faith. If the latter, it might an intentional "inside joke" at James' expense or it might be an independent reference that had meaning to Mark and his audience (ie those four names, as a group, were known to them and subject to ridicule). If the former, it could be an accident of history given the common nature of the names and the reason why subsequent Christians became confused or (consistent with a literal interpretation of the phrase) it could be that Paul simply failed to mention that another guy by that same name was really important in the early movement.

That's why I initially described James as "a" leader. If he is James the Just and if his reputation was already established among his fellow Jews, I would think that his conversion to belief in the risen Christ would have had a significant positive impact on the survival of the movement.

We are talking about whether James really was the brother of Jesus and "really was" is another way of describing "history". You claimed that you are not reading the later evidence "for an independent knowledge of history" yet you are obtaining from that evidence a conclusion about history, aren't you?

I was referring to the first two men in the sentence I quoted (ie Hegesippus and Origen). Their references to Josephus with regard to James aren't actually present in the text as they describe.

Not just "observed" but did so in a manner that set them apart as especially pious.

I think they, or at least James, were called this prior to accepting "Paul's" beliefs.

I frequently spell his name incorrectly.

What do you mean? He is one of my sources for the conclusion that James' reputation was established prior to his conversion.

GakuseiDon

In this case, Paul doesn't give historical markers about Jesus, himself or anything else because this was a literary convention of the time. I'm not saying it solves everything about Paul, just the "timeless" part.

Just to be clear: IMO this is a separate question to the one on the "timeless" quality of Paul's letters.

I think that Paul ignores Jesus of Nazareth because Paul felt his primary mission was to the Gentiles, and the Jesus of Nazareth was all but silent on that topic. Paul argued against the necessity of Gentiles to follow circumcision and food laws -- he couldn't use quotes from Jesus of Nazareth on that topic, because Jesus of Nazareth probably didn't talk about them. Still, this appears to be similar to what appears in the later Gospels:

Romans 14:14 I know and am convinced by (in) the Lord Jesus that there is nothing unclean of itself; but to him who considers anything to be unclean, to him it is unclean.

Which early apologists in the first few centuries quoted Jesus of Nazareth to combat Judaizers on food laws, circumcision, etc? Can you supply a list, please? I'd be interested to see one.

On the end of the world: was this topic in any doubt by Paul's audience? Can you tell me where Paul should have quoted Jesus of Nazareth on this topic?

Ben C Smith

Yet again I am lost as to how this helps your cause. Unless Mark knows about James independently of Paul, there seems to me to be no reason for him to ascribe a brother named James to Jesus unless that is how he was reading Galatians 1.19.

It is correct that I am not reading Origen for independent historical knowledge of James. It is also correct that I am using Origen (among others) to (indirectly) draw conclusions about history (via Paul). I was unaware that any of this was in dispute.

I know exactly where to find Origen referring to Josephus, but I have no idea where Hegesippus refers to Josephus. Or are you referring to pseudo-Hegesippus, de excidio Jerusalem? If so, I was referring to the Hegesippus who wrote in the middle of century II about Vespasian taking Jerusalem shortly after the death of James but did not (AFAWCT) attribute this line to Josephus.

So do I. I usually (I think) catch myself before submitting the form. I like to add an extra g or an extra s, sometimes both.

I find where you made the following statement in post 76 of this thread:

So, if I accept your interpretation of Hegesippus as indicating that James enjoyed a special status even before his conversion, I note that Hegesippus makes the following two claims about James that would predate his conversion:

1. He was known as especially devout.
2. He was born the literal brother of Jesus (in fact Hegesippus goes on at length about those related by blood to Jesus).

About the first claim you have written:

About the second claim I have asked:

(Besides misspell his name.... )

Ben.

Amaleq13

The notion that Jesus' family thought he was crazy appears to be independent of Paul as does the notion that a different man by the same name completed the Big Three.

In my view, Mark's Disciple James and Paul's James are the same guy while Mark's Brother James is a marginal character of no real importance to the story of Jesus. As history, it is a coincidence and likely the reason for subsequent Christian confusion. As fiction, we really don't have enough information to do more than speculate. Price, for example, suggests the "brothers of the Lord" were missionaries and Mark is criticizing them.

He doesn't. I confused the fact that he essentially repeats the same notion with the fact that Eusebius apparently refers to the same passage.

I consider the first (along with Origen) to be evidence, independent of both Paul and the Gospels, of a pre-conversion reputation. I tend to assume there is exaggeration but not total fabrication.

I consider the second as apparently the result of reading Paul by way of the Gospel story and, therefore, of no independent value for history.

Doug Shaver

That is your judgment. Mine differs.

I have seen precious little of the primary evidence, but Richard Carrier seems to have some familiarity with it, and he thinks Doherty is on to something.

How close a match to we need before we're justified in thinking that Paul could have been influenced by the older myths? Shall we say that West Side Story could not have been inspired by Romeo and Juliet because Maria, unlike Juliet, is still alive when it's over, or because Tony is murdered instead of committing suicide like Romeo did?

From what I gather from folks who actually know classical Greek (do you?), there is nothing idiosyncratic about it.

jjramsey

The parallels should be such that it is clear that it isn't a result of playing games with ambiguity and the law of large numbers.

Like you, I also "gather from folks who actually know classical Greek," though I can make use of a lexicon and decipher a word or two. I make no claims as to a great knowledge of Greek. I can judge Doherty's use of Barrett because both are writing in a language that I do understand , and it's pretty clear that Doherty is misreading Barrett's use of the word "sphere." That's right; I'm saying Doherty isn't even reading Barrett's English right. This doesn't inspire my confidence. Speaking of those who do know Classical Greek, here's something Ben C. Smith noted:

Ben C Smith

Agreed. So too the notion that Jesus had sisters, and that his mother was named Mary, and that Jesus was a carpenter.

The coincidence in name between James of Zebedee and James the brother of the Lord, both members of an inner threesome whose other two members are apparently the same between both groups, has given me pause before, and I am willing to entertain any reasonable hypothesis of name confusion. However, I do not see how that name confusion helps your case at all so long as you think Mark got James the brother of Jesus from the Pauline James the brother of the Lord (and if he did not get it from Paul then we are dealing with a different kind of argument altogether).

Where does Origen support the special devotion of pre-conversion James? Or were you throwing him in there just as support for his reputation for devotion in general (which, BTW, is not in dispute)?

So you think Hegesippus had (very old) reliable historical information about pre-conversion James.

So you think that his (very old) reliable historical information about pre-conversion James did not extend to his family relations (and his family relations would be true of course both before and after his conversion), even though he brings them up numerous times in contexts clearly independent of Paul and the gospels.

Furthermore, you apparently think that, when Hegesippus stands all alone in his affirmation that James was known for piety before his conversion, he is to be trusted. But, when he stands amongst a choir of voices both before and after him in affirming (repeatedly) that Jesus had brothers, he is mistaken.

And what, if I may ask, leads you to the conclusion that Hegesippus knew our canonical gospels? According to Eusebius he knew the gospel according to the Hebrews, a Syriac gospel, and unwritten Jewish tradition.

Incidentally, on a slightly different topic, I tend to think that when Origen claims that Josephus blamed the fall of Jerusalem on the execution of James he might have had Hegesippus in mind, not Josephus. Or, perhaps even better, he was reading Josephus through the lens of Hegesippus (kind of like when you accuse me of reading Paul through the lens of the gospels, if you need a modern analogy ).

Ben.

GakuseiDon

I don't think you can conclude that Paul knows this "from scriptures". 1 Clement uses long passages from the Hebrew Scriptures when making the same point:

For Christ is of those who are humble-minded, and not of those who exalt themselves over His flock. Our Lord Jesus Christ, the Sceptre of the majesty of God, did not come in the pomp of pride or arrogance, although He might have done so, but in a lowly condition, as the Holy Spirit had declared regarding Him. For He says, "Lord, who has believed our report, and to whom is the arm of the Lord revealed? We have declared [our message] in His presence...

... And again He says, "I am a worm, and no man; a reproach of men, and despised of the people. All who see Me have derided Me; they have spoken with their lips; they have wagged their head, [saying] He hoped in God, let Him deliver Him, let Him save Him, since He delights in Him."

All taken from Scriptures. 1 Clement does quote Jesus a couple of times (though like Paul we don't know whether it is Jesus of Nazareth or the Risen Christ), but the vast majority of quotes are from the Hebrew Scriptures.

We need to keep in mind the context of the times. From Acts 17:11:

"But the people of Beroea were more fair minded than those in Thessalonica, and gladly listened to the message. They searched the Scriptures day by day to check up on Paul and Silas' statements, to see if they were really so. 12 Therefore many of them believed..."

Note that "they searched the Scriptures day by day"... and they were the fair minded ones! Paul goes to great lengths to show how Jesus conformed to the Scriptures. Do you really expect him to mount an argument that implies, "Well, in this case, Jesus doesn't quite conform to the Scriptures, but... "

Have you seen modern day websites that claim Jesus couldn't have been the Messiah because he did "x" or didn't do "y", based on passages out of the Hebrew Scriptures? I suggest we need to take this into consideration when looking at how Paul tried to justify Jesus as the Messiah to the Gentiles, a concept which appears almost non-existent in the Gospels.

I believe a good parallel is to regard the Scriptures at that time as having the same authority in the public's eyes as modern science has today. An argument at odds with science tends to lose credibility. Paul HAD to find Jesus in the Scriptures. I think this would apply regardless of whether Paul believed in an MJ or a HJ.

Amaleq13

Do you consider those details analogous to the notion that his family thought he was nuts?

If you are refering to my reference to confusion, it is essentially what I am suggesting you are doing (ie reading Paul's phrase with Mark's brother in mind).

I don't know and that's why I have offered both scenarios. I'm not sure why you think the former fails to work in my view. The subsequent confusion would be due to a failure to understand Mark's joke at James' expense.

I don't think either explicitly indicates James' reputation preceded his conversion (though Hegesippus claims "since the days of the Lord") but, given that it was a reputation established among his fellow Jews, that seems the most reasonable conclusion. I have a hard time imagining his fellow Jews overlooking his devotion to a crucified/resurrection Messiah.

I don't know how old it is nor the reliability but he seems to be explaining nicknames that are already known. I don't necessarily consider him reliable for details since there is an obvious possibility (likelihood) of exaggeration but the general notion of James' reputation seems to me to be genuine.

I have no reason to think that his knowledge of James' relationship to Jesus comes from anywhere but knowledge of the Gospel story. As far as his information about the alleged grandsons of Jesus' other brothers or other descendants, I assume he obtained that from the individuals, themselves, or from those who heard it from them. I see no reason to assume that information should be trusted.

Doubting him on this only makes sense if we accept your suggestion that Origen and, presumably, Eusebius are interpreting Josephus through Hegesippus.

What leads you to assume that the gospel according to the Hebrews did not name one of Jesus' brothers "James"?