skepticdude

Three patristic sources confirm that James was legalistic.

I'd like the conservative Christians here to comment on these and explain why they believe the following quotations fail to satisfy historical criteria for reliability.

Eusebius quotes Heggesippus:

I have argued before that this quotation is evidence that James was much more than a legalist, but was actually a Jewish High Priest. We can leave that aside since I only wish Christians to explain how they get a non-legalistic James out of these quotations.

Jerome, in his "Lives of Illustrious Men", also quotes this bit from Heggesippus, but where Eusebius lacks clarity with "he alone was permitted to enter the Holy Place", Jerome specifies "he alone was permitted to enter the "Holy of Holies", leaving no wiggle room for apologists to suggest that James only entered the outer court of the Holy Place, the less sacred part of the temple not exclusive to the High Priest:

If James agreed with Paul's gospel, that Christ is the end of the law for righteousness (Romans 10:4), why did he take up the most legalistic office known to man? How could James continue sacrificing animals to atone for sin, if he agreed with Paul that Jesus' death "fulfilled" the Law and made the Mosaic system obsolete? What evidence is there that James was just kidding in his public profession? Would the Jews have let James become a high priest, if his Christian theology trivilaized the divine significance of the Temple? Not at all.

Epiphanius, another church father, is far more specific and makes it undeniable that the early Church believed James, the one who authored the epistle, the one who was first head of the church, the James who was the brother of the Lord, to have been a High Priest, no less:

Epiphanius cinches the noose around Christian Paulism by saying James was allowed to wear the plate on his head. Since he already specified James was a High Priest, this headplate can be none other than the gold headplate worn by Aaron and intended to be worn by all future High Priests:

So Heggesippus, Eusebius, Jerome and Epiphanius cannot have been blind to the obvious problems that would be created if they relayed to future generations of Paulist Christians, that an original disciple of Jesus became a High Priest after Jesus died. The fact that they call this James the "brother of the Lord" assures the satisfaction of the criteria of embarrassment. This information doesn't square up with the Pauline gospel at all (no follower of Paul's gospel would dare waste their time being a High Priest in a Temple that God has made void through the death of Jesus), yet they chose to tell us about it anyway, which means the truth of the tradition appears to be strong.

Lastly, James personally knew Jesus and was even his 'brother', whether that means cousin, close friend or otherwise. Paul's only experience with Jesus was in visions. It should be clear then that in the event of Paul's conflict with some other apostle, the one who actually lived with the real historical pre-resurrection Jesus is more likely to correctly display the gospel Jesus taught.

Of course, there are biblical evidences of James' legalism, such as his congregation remaining zealous for temple ceremonies and ordinances after they convert to Christ (Acts 21:18 ff), and Paul's specific admission that James commissioned the Judaizers (Galatians 2:12).

No conservative Christian would wish to say that these patristic quotations show James as the head of the Judaizers, and therefore the leader of those who wished to disrupt Paul's ministry....but...what exactly would the Judaizers have said, that a Christian Jewish High Priest would disagree with?

Gentiles must be circumcized and obey Moses, or they cannot be saved.

That's the Judaizer gospel for Gentiles, and I don't see how anybody who was both Christian and Jewish High Priest at the same time, would say anything different.

Again, I want the Christians here to show why these quotations from patristic sources fail historical critiera and so aren't reliable. Because if they are reliable, it would tend to show that Paul's statements about harmony with James (such as Galatians 2) were lies, in his attempt to maintain independence from him while yet acknowledging James' undeniable position of leadership.

Deus Ex

Great question! I just finished the book by Jeffery J Butz entitled:
The Brother of Jesus and the Lost Teachings of Christianity


Amazon link (or via: amazon.co.uk)


I would love to hear everyone's thoughts on this subject.

P.S. I don't know how to frdbize an Amazon link.

rhutchin

I am not sure that I understand what these guys are saying. How would the Jews (who sent Saul out to put Christians in jail and sought to eradicate any memory of Jesus) allow a man who was a devoted follower of Christ to enter the Temple and in particular, the Holy of Holies? Something is off here. I don't think these guys actually meant to say that the Jews allowed James to enter the temple in Jerusalem. Or, if James did attempt to do so, it would have certainly resulted in his immediate death at the hands of the Jews. I think there is something missing from your account.

bacht

Josephus mentions a James in the early '60s connected with the priesthood. It's possible that this James was confused/conflated with the Christian James (or maybe James the Just was fabricated out of Josephus' story).

skepticdude

Maybe because James didn't believe that Jesus' death was supposed to bring about the end of the Mosaic animal sacrifice system, as Paul did?

First, maybe what's "off" is Paul's version of the gospel.

Second, they all place James in a position that could only be held by the High Priest.

Third, I don't see how you could defend a re-interpretation of their comments.

Fourth, you don't cite any historical critiera that these patristic testimonies fail to fulfill, so you remain without any objective reason to disagree with them.

The only reason you think James's attempt to enter the Holy of Holies would immediately result in his death, is because you assume that the sort of gospel he preached was equally as unacceptable to orthodox Jews as Paul's gospel was.

You fail to address the possibility that James could have been both a Jewish High Priest and Christian at the same time, by preaching a gospel that materially different from Paul's...one that did not trivialize the continued divine significance of temple ceremonies and sacrifices.

Sure, you believe James and Paul preached the same gospel, but the evidence I cited may mean that your belief here is what's "off".

I'll throw another one at you: Do you know what John 3:16 means?

If so, how do you explain why the apostles felt the need to give Judaizers a fair hearing at the Council of Jerusalem?

Jesus made it perfectly clear from the beginning of his ministry that Gentiles may recieve salvation just as much as Jews, right? Why then are his original apostles debating that question, when Paul made it clear in Galatians that the Judaizers were confirmed heretics deserving of nothing more than scorn and cursing (Galatians 1:6-9)?

Maybe James, who headed that council in Jerusalem (Acts 15), was not entirely convinced that Paul's arguments against the Judaizers were as sound as you think they are? You come along 2000 years after Paul, James was a contemporary of Paul, who is more likely to correctly assess the soundness of Paul's arguments, you or James?

skepticdude

First, the testimony of Eusebius, Jerome, Hegesippus and Epiphanius passes the historical tests of multiple attestation and criteria of embarassment (the author is not likley to lie in a way that would help those who oppose his beliefs, therefore whatever the author admits that would help his opposers, is probably the truth). Such authentication argues against the probability that all these things sprout from an early confusion by Josephus.

Second, your argument doesn't touch the biblical data, which I believe is sufficient by itself to show that James and Paul disagreed about the nature of the gospel.

How do you explain Paul's admission that "even Barnabas" was convinced to start acting legalistically by those "men from James" (Galations 2:12-13)? Barnabas was Paul's right-hand man in the Gentile-ministry, so he'd be even more familiar with Paul's arguments against the legalists than Peter would have been!

What's wrong with concluding that those Judaizers sure must have had some powerful arguments and carried high authority, to be able to get such a close associate of Paul, namely Barnabas, to act contrary to his beliefs?

You are free to insist that Barnabas was just having a bad day and wasn't himself when the legalists came to town, but....

storytime

How can one read the OT and conclude the NT as valid argument? Even Jesus is proven a false prophet by the standard of law[word of god] in OT.

rhutchin

That would have made no difference to the Jews. James is identified as the leader of the church in Jerusalem that opposed the Jews by worshipping Christ. I see no way that the Jews would allow James to participate in any Jewish religious activities near the temple much less enter the Holy of Holies. The reference to James entering the Holy of Holies must have spiritual and not physical meaning.

As the leader of the church in Jerusalem, there is no way that James could serve as High Priest in the Jewish religion. The Jews would not have tolerated it. Consequently, any interpretation of the early documents referring to James as High and Priest or of entering the Holy of Holies simply could not have had application to the Jewish religion, the temple in Jerusalem or the Holy of Holies inside the temple.

It was worship of Christ that was unacceptable to the Jews. Whether one sees James and Paul disagreeing on the role of works, they both worshipped Christ as God and that would not have been tolerated by the Jews.

James did not preach a gospel materially different from Paul judging by what is written in the book of James. James linked works with faith and addresses issues that Paul seems to have taken for granted. Historically, the Jews would not have allowed James to serve as a high priest because he was a heretic to them.

What they preached, or appeared to preach, is inconsequential here. What is consequential is that James served Christ, would have been a heretic to the Jews, and would not have been allowed anywhere near the temple much less the Holy of Holies. The historical setting simply does not allow for the Jews to allow James to serve as high priest.

skepticdude

Excuse me, Acts NEVER shows any rift whatsoever between James and the non-Christian Jews.

That's because you hold the erroneous position that Acts showed James at variance with non-Christian Jews.

You set that forth as a desperate interpretation to avoid the ramifications of James holding a Christianity opposed to Paul's...with no argument to show that spiritual language was meant in the patristic contexts it comes from.

If you assume the only kind of Christianity he could hold, was the sort that would offend the Jews.

Ever read the Sermon on the Mount? Jesus said he came to fulfill the Law, and saying you have come to act in accord with the Mosaic Law is music to the ears of Jews.

Or maybe those documents are rare glimpses into an early Christianity that was nearly completely wiped from existence?

And the fact that James was a High Priest and Christian at the same time indicates he did not accept the kind of Christianity which says Jesus is god.

Where does the New Testament say James viewed Jesus as god?

James' meager two passing references to Jesus, the lack of salvation doctrine and the bulk being a moral treatise argue that his opening phrase "to the twelve tribes" was an address to literal Jews. That being the case, his failure to condemn them for rejecting Jesus speaks volumes about how he squares with Paul, who cursed everything that got in his way.

If you assume he held to a Christianity that they'd disagree with, yeah. But that's just begging the question, since the exact question is: Did James and Paul teach the same gospel? You cannot discard my evidence by simply assuming they taught the same gospel, that question-begging.

Then you don't know your bible well enough to be dogmatizing so early in your learning, or you'd have already known that the pillars got very near the Temple:

What counts as "historical setting" is determined by historical documents that talk about what the characters did within this setting. Your comment merely pits the NT data against the patristic data without argument.

the patristic evidence on James being a High Priest passes the critiera of historicity known as the critiera of embarrassment. Those church fathers were all Pro-Paul in their Christianity. They would only be hurting their cause to admit James, a key original apostle, was in a position that would be most opposed to Paul. Since an author is not likely to lie for the purpose of hurting his own cause, the only reason the Fathers can have relayed this info on James is because they couldn't find a way to demonstrate it's falsehood.

The Church fathers couldn't figure out how to prove this information on James to be a lie.

I think things are just a bit more complicated than your simplistic scenario, which, if true, would have surely been instantly employed by the fathers to debunk this information or else never mention it. The idea that James became a high-priest was not "obviously false" to these seasoned bible-studying Christians, and they are more than a thousand years closer to the events in question than you. You are not the one that is likely correct here, bud.

Transient

So then, maybe there was an historical guy called Yahashua or whatever.
He lived and maybe was executed, some of his followers follwed his ideas, the Nazoreans, but they were very much still Jews and worshipped at the temple.

Along comes a guy called Paul who cashes in on the gentiles.

Over the next couple of centuries in a war torn part of the world various forms of "christianity" develop including nazarenes, gnostics and Paulians.

Along comes Constantine and they fix on a "merged" single religion and attempt to include as many as possible - the rest get kicked out.

Along comes our "christianity"

.. the rest is history.
(in the past not many have been in a position, had the time or resources to stand up to the rcc etc, but now.....)