Vivisector

It seems quite a muddle to me. But even after reviewing spin's post on the topic, it seems to me that - despite the etymological issues - the Gospels use "Nazareth" in the sense of a (perhaps backwater) town. This suggest to me that the authors, at least, thought Jesus came from there. I'm also unaware of any debate on the topic among early Christian leaders, even from Origen, who felt secure in changing JtB's baptism location from Bethany to Bethabara despite what the texts said. I think that, like it or not, the Gospel authors were stuck with a Jesus/Nazareth connection. All the same, I'm going to re-read spin on the topic.

My interpretation is that the Gospels mention them only to discredit them as true successors to Jesus.

Maybe it depends on how Paul and James would have defined resurrection. Some find evidence for Paul's belief in a bodily resurrection, but I don't read him that way, and I don't read Paul as having had an experience with a bodily resurrected Jesus. Perhaps it's true, then, that Nazarenes didn't believe in a bodily resurrection, but neither did James and Paul.

It's an interesting question, and Ben's last points in his earlier post are thought provoking. I'm more comfortable right now with James as a devout Jew - in his (and probably Jesus's) own way - than as the direct creator of a religion. Maybe James et al. did proclaim Jesus as the Messiah and/or used their experiences of the risen Jesus to strengthen their message. I don't know exactly how to interpret James as the first, or among the first, to experience the risen Jesus. The Gospels (three of them, anyway) suggest that the women were the first to experience or learn about the resurrection. I can see the Gospel authors writing James out of the scene, but why replace him with the women instead of, for example, Peter? As usual, more questions than answers.

Regards,

V.

TedM

If Jesus was historical, it seems more likely that his hometown was Nazareth than not. I just find it hard to believe that such a basic fact would have been lost. However, the some of the arguments against such a knowledge sound good to me (I too have to review).

Could be. That can still be consistent with them being very aware of his ministry.

I realize now that it appears that Paul and James could have had consistent views on the resurrection. I had read Muller incorrectly about that previously.

As usual.

ted

Solo

That is certainly interesting, Ben. Yet it appears, even on the evidence of the NT alone that there were two distinct strands among the early Jesus followers and/or worshippers. One, most likely following the HJ, whose Judaism as regards observances appears to have been of the frontier "galil hagoyim" variety (as witnessed by the Q sayings on Sabbath, by Jesus declaring all foods clean, and the criticism of John the Baptist disciples), the other a humourless sect of law-thumping ascetics (Mt 19:12). The friction of these two cultures is also captured by the incident at Antioch in Galatians. So, even though James may have been an occasional toker, it changes little on the finding that the original community was built around a leader whose values and life-style was markedly different from the man who became the high priest of its confession (Heb 3:1).

One of the most impenetrable mysteries, not of Christ, but of the learned exegesis of the texts, is in the way it shies away from the most obvious clues and the most likely scenarios.


Just taking this a little bit further: Thomas' Jesus (i.e. the spirit of same) directs those who have discovered in themselves his twin to go to Jerusalem and join up with James. It is not a reckless inference to say that whoever wrote down this revelation from Jesus was already sheltered with James, or on his way there.
Let us look at another aspect of the church. From the reports that we have on James's establishment (mainly from Hegesippus and importanly from Paul), it does not appear that he and his brother saints were much of the industrious sort, believing as they did in the imminent collapse of the world as they knew it. They relied, it appears, on the support of a larger community for sustenance. Again, observing that organizations like these take some time to consolidate, the time between Jesus' execution and the appearance of a functioning, heterogeneous apocalyptic sect, with a grievances or two against the established Temple hierarchy, seems to be just too short to be in place and flourish by the time Saul was militating against it. So what happened - was Jesus mythical ?
No, I think the parsimonious solution (boy, am I learning quick here ) would be to admit that despite the later opinion of the Christian chroniclers, James was no blood relation of Jesus, and had his own church around before Jesus preached. He would have accepted Jesus initially as a martyred prophet of the last days (as he presumably did John the Baptist), and he then became the protector of the orphaned group of Jesus disciples led by Peter. It appears that it was the mysteries around the explosive effects of "Jesus baptism" (M.Smith) that attracted the Hellenists to the church but the influx soon caused friction with James' Nazarite brothers and they were expelled spreading the word of Jesus "Spirit" into the diaspora. Peter himself was monitored for compliance by James (Gal 2:12).
The incident at Antioch affords us some very interesting insights into the hierarchy of the Jerusalem church of James. That James was the absolutely dominant figure is attested by Peter's behaviour before his deputies. He displays what in Stalin's Soviet Union was known as "the ambassador syndrome". The highest echelons of diplomats were the creme de la creme of the Soviet society, the brightest, most urbane and best educated class. Yet they lived in mortal fear of lowly diplomatic couriers as the reports of the spies could put their careers (or lives) in jeopardy. That Peter would change his behaviour in the presence of low-ranking males in the hierarchy attests to a huge "transference power" of James in the church and his ability to dominate Peter. (Paul, a saint that he was, would make Peter pay dearly for that - Gal 2:14).

Jiri