GakuseiDon

I'm not too sure that the mainstream reaction to Xtianity was rejection from the beginning. Paul continually calls TJG (as well as himself) "Jews". They seemed to have lived in Jerusalem up until 70 CE quite happily, as observant Jews (which Paul criticises them for in Gal).

Perhaps the group that Paul was originally persecuting were Hellenized Jews whose emphasise was already on the Risen Jesus, while the Ebionite stream weren't persecuted.

GakuseiDon

Not so odd if Paul distinguished between Jesus and the Risen Christ. Paul says himself in 1 Cor 2:2-5 that he was "determined to know nothing but Christ crucified", and that his readers' faith "should not be in the wisdom of men, but the power of God". In that case, emphasising Jesus's humanity is what he would want to avoid.

If Paul was a neo-Platonist, then he would believe that what happened on Earth was a poor reflection of actual events occuring in the Heavenly realm. As such, it isn't unreasonable that when he talked about Christ, he would only be talking about the Heavenly one.

This is the "embarrassment" scenario which we actually see in the late 2nd C CE, where Christians writing apologetics to the Roman emperors deliberately do not refer to Jesus's humanity.

Well, why doesn't he??? After all, there was a Jerusalem group that he himself visited to check his gospel against. Even if he believed in an MJ, why not refer back to Jerusalem?

I disagree, of course. But I think that the evidence for a HJ is so weak that the possibility of a MJ must be seriously considered. Still, so much of Doherty's case is speculation and conjecture - it feels like you can't go more than a sentence or two on his website before hitting a "maybe" or "perhaps"! - that I feel the MJ case is far from being established, much less proven. But I don't blame Doherty for that. He does a credible job with the data that we have, it's just that there isn't enough data to establish a firm case one way or the other (IMO at least).

Amaleq13

Shouldn't the above reasoning suggest to you that the unique incidence of "the brother of the Lord" is, therefore, likely an interpolation?

I think understanding Paul as a "neo-Platonist" might cause a problem for Doherty given that the Heavenly Sacrifice would be expected to have an earthly "reflection". Would the numerous anonymous crucifixions of the previous two centuries be sufficient to qualify? Could Paul have assumed that one of the countless numbers of executed Jews was the unknown "reflection" of the sacrificed Heavenly Christ?

That would be contrary to Paul desire to portray himself as having the same authority. I think this would be true whether there was an HJ or not. However, an HJ could be confirmed indirectly since there would be publicly observed aspects of his career. Paul isn't likely to have suggested anyone consult with TJC but, assuming an HJ, he certainly could have suggested they visit any of the towns in which he performed miracles.

I think there are actually examples of early Church Fathers suggesting others visit specific churches to read their copies of the letters Paul had written to them. I don't recall any specifics.

I think that is a fair and honest consideration of the evidence.

No more so than every attempt to describe the "historical Jesus" I've ever read. If they don't contain the same qualifiers, they are full of crap.

capnkirk

I am presuming you mean TJC? (vs. TJG).

If TJC were followers of a human Jewish messiah, with no claim to divinity, then they most certainly would have been able to wait "passively" (i.e. keep a low profile concerning furthering Jesus' [political] overthrow of Roman rule) for "his" return. Acts (accurately or not) does not hide that they continued acting like observant Jews. Gamaliel, at Peter's trial before the Sanhedrin (the trial being held because the High Priests were not satisfied that they were keeping a low enough profile) compares this group to the followers of other (recognized) historical messiah candidates, and successfully argues a "wait-and-see attitude. The contra-grain nature of that passage tends to point to an earlier layer of exegesis; a misfit line that didn't get edited out. It is contragrain both for it's positive portrayal of Pharisees, and for its direct analogy of Jesus with other Jewish messiahs.

The surviving fragments about the Ebionites reflect exactly what one would expect of a group that was waiting for a non-divine messiah to return, and thus would make them philosophically compatible with the above description of TJC. Maccoby (an HJer) uses all these arguments to support his claim of a non-divine HJ (failed) messiah, and to explain their quarrel with Paul. IOW, they were left alone pricisely because they were NOT preaching a neo-Platonic, transcendent Xtianity, but because they weren't Xtians at all in any currently recognizable definition of the term.

Also, there is NOTHING to support MJer speculation that they WERE Xtians. IMHO, the interpolation in Acts only succeeds in minimizing their quarrel with Paul over their diametrically opposite understandings of HJ's mission and to obscure to nature of that quarrel.

Amaleq13

We have Paul's claim that they approved his gospel for the Gentiles and the claim that they were all teaching the same gospel.

GakuseiDon

Yes, I think you have a point there - unless it was somehow a known title for James, but in that case that weakens the argument for him being an actual brother in the first place.

I don't think would be a problem, if there already existed a Jesus who had been considered a Messiah who had been crucified. Paul's vision would have provided the link.

Yes, fair point.

capnkirk

This is another one of those evidences that reads one way if you presuppose an HJ, and another if you presuppose a MJ. In almost every case where there are dual accounts of direct contact between Paul and the leadership of TJC, Paul's own account shows himself in a better light than the account in Acts. Since no one is claiming that Acts was written by interests hostile to Paul, why would you expect Paul's accounts to be consistently self-exonerating? IMHO, this reflects Paul's ability to spin unflattering or embarrassing events in his favor (or as I have alluded on another thread) with a skill best described as Clintonesque. I see Paul's claim that they were all teaching the same gospel to be a case-in-point. If there were an "resurrected" HJ whose followers founded TJC, then he would certainly have cause to minimize his quarrel to his own followers.

This is not a new tactic for Paul. Consider 1 Cor 9:19-23 in the New Testament, in which Paul brags that he has made himself all things to all people in order to get followers. To Jews, he seemed like a Jew. To those under the Law, he seemed like he also was under the Law. To those without the Law, he seemed like he also was without the Law.

GakuseiDon

Hi capnkirk. Just so I'm not confusing myself (if not others!): TJC = The Jerusalem Church? TJG = The Jerusalem Group? If so, what is the difference?

capnkirk

Absolutely right, they ARE the same group. TJG is the more accurate by my reckoning, but is less recognizable by most people, while TJC is less accurate (insofar as the moniker "church" isn't very accurate to describe a place where observant Jews worshipped), but is more recognizable. I personally hadn't encountered that acronym before, so I took it as a typo...sorry.

GakuseiDon

Thanks for the info, cap!

That's something I never thought of, but you know, that makes a lot of sense... following that logic, to those who were pagans, he would then try to appear as pagan as possible. This would be his motivation to stress the "divine" aspects of Christ when writing to churches outside Judea. Very interesting!