Freethought & Rationalism Archive

dogsgod · 03-27-2010, 08:34 AM

2He had James, the brother of John, put to death with the sword.

Acts 12:2 appears to be a most obvious interpolation on a few levels. One merely has to read the story of Peter's arrest and escape from prison with the one line in and with it removed. Right after Peter escapes he goes to the house of Mary and tells the people there of what just happened to him, and then he says, "Tell James and the brothers about this,". We had just read that James was killed but the story carries on as if that never happened so immediately we ask, who is this James. Luke/Acts does not name any of Jesus' siblings so the reader can't assume he's referring to a literal brother of Jesus. Here's the brief story: http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/...12&version=NIV

I have found some excellent material on this here, scroll a little more than half way down the page:http://www.rationalrevolution.net/ar...h_followup.htm

but I haven't found any other good material on this. Has anyone here looked into this?

aa5874 · 03-27-2010, 09:00 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dogsgod

2He had James, the brother of John, put to death with the sword.

Acts 12:2 appears to be a most obvious interpolation on a few levels. One merely has to read the story of Peter's arrest and escape from prison with the one line in and with it removed. Right after Peter escapes he goes to the house of Mary and tells the people there of what just happened to him, and then he says, "Tell James and the brothers about this,". We had just read that James was killed but the story carries on as if that never happened so immediately we ask, who is this James. Luke/Acts does not name any of Jesus' siblings so the reader can't assume he's referring to a literal brother of Jesus. Here's the brief story: http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/...12&version=NIV

I have found some excellent material on this here, scroll a little more than half way down the page:http://www.rationalrevolution.net/ar...h_followup.htm

but I haven't found any other good material on this. Has anyone here looked into this?

But, in the first chapter of Acts a list is given of the 11 remaining disciples or apostles and there are two characters called James.

There is James who is supposed to be the brother of John and another James the son of Alpheus.

Acts 1.12-14

Quote:

12Then returned they unto Jerusalem from the mount called Ol'ivet, which is from Jerusalem a sabbath day's journey.

13And when they were come in, they went up into an upper room, where abode both Peter, and James, and John, and Andrew, Philip, and Thomas, Bartholomew, and Matthew, James the son of Al'pheus, and Simon Zelo'tes, and Judas the brother of James.

14These all continued with one accord in prayer and supplication, with the women, and Mary the mother of Jesus, and with his brethren.

dogsgod · 03-27-2010, 09:12 AM

Yes, we are forced to make assumptions. Paul never mentioned anything about James' death. He meets him twice fourteen years apart and doesn't let on that he is meeting with a different James if this is the case.

aa5874 · 03-27-2010, 10:04 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dogsgod

Yes, we are forced to make assumptions. Paul never mentioned anything about James' death. He meets him twice fourteen years apart and doesn't let on that he is meeting with a different James if this is the case.

No. You are not forced to make any assumptions. You just have to show the contradictions and errors.

There is no benefit in making assumptions about non-historical accounts.

There is no advantage in assuming the Pauline writing is true when it has already been deduced that many persons used the name Paul to write letters.

There is virtually no external historical support for the Pauline writers and internally even his supposed close companion, the author of Acts, contradicts him as well as other apologetic sources

dogsgod · 03-27-2010, 10:50 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

Quote:

Originally Posted by dogsgod

Yes, we are forced to make assumptions. Paul never mentioned anything about James' death. He meets him twice fourteen years apart and doesn't let on that he is meeting with a different James if this is the case.

No. You are not forced to make any assumptions. You just have to show the contradictions and errors.

There is no benefit in making assumptions about non-historical accounts.

There is no advantage in assuming the Pauline writing is true when it has already been deduced that many persons used the name Paul to write letters.

There is virtually no external historical support for the Pauline writers and internally even his supposed close companion, the author of Acts, contradicts him as well as other apologetic sources

OK, we don't have to make any assumptions but the reader is none the less left scratching his head asking who the heck is this James in Acts 12:17. If Acts 12:2 was removed, not a problem. James is James and all is well.

aa5874 · 03-27-2010, 11:58 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dogsgod

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

No. You are not forced to make any assumptions. You just have to show the contradictions and errors.

There is no benefit in making assumptions about non-historical accounts.

There is no advantage in assuming the Pauline writing is true when it has already been deduced that many persons used the name Paul to write letters.

There is virtually no external historical support for the Pauline writers and internally even his supposed close companion, the author of Acts, contradicts him as well as other apologetic sources

OK, we don't have to make any assumptions but the reader is none the less left scratching his head asking who the heck is this James in Acts 12:17. If Acts 12:2 was removed, not a problem. James is James and all is well.

But, why do you want to remove Acts 12.2? Why don't you want to remove Galatians 1.19?

Now, what about the council in Jerusalem where the author in Acts 15.13 mentioned a character called James who was in the presence of Paul and Peter and appeared to be an apostle?

And what about Acts 21.18 where Paul visited a character called James and the elders?

The author of Acts has establised very early that there were two apostles called James, and if James the brother of John was killed, then this leaves only James the son of Alpheus as an elder or apostle.

Now, Acts of the Apostles, is consistent with the "Fragments of Papias", it was James the son Alpheus that was the apostle.

The "Fragments of Papias"

Quote:

(2.) Mary the wife of Cleophas or Alphæus, who was the mother of James the bishop and apostle..

You may have to remove Galatians 1.19 or assume it is in error.

Apologetic sources tend to show that it was established that the son of Alphaeus, James was an apostle and bishop in Jerusalem, not any Lord's brother.

Now, it can be easily seen that Galatians 1.19 may have been inserted when Antiquities of the Jews 20.9.1 was interpolated since the information in Galatians 1.19 corroborates AJ 20.9.1.

Papias corroborates Acts.

Galaitians 1.19 corroborates a forgery in AJ 20.9.1.

Don't scratch your head. You may have discovered a fraud.

aa5874 · 03-27-2010, 03:50 PM

Once the available evidence about the Jameses are taken into consideration then it can be easily seen that Galatians 1.19 may be a forgery.

Matthew 10.2-4

Quote:

2 Now the names of the twelve apostles are these; The first, Simon, who is called Peter, and Andrew his brother; James the son of Zebedee, and John his brother;

3 Philip, and Bartholomew; Thomas, and Matthew the publican, James the son of Alphaeus, and Lebbaeus, whose surname was Thaddaeus;

4 Simon the Canaanite, and Judas Iscariot, who also betrayed him.

Mark 3.14-17

Quote:

14 And he ordained twelve, that they should be with him, and that he might send them forth to preach,

15 And to have power to heal sicknesses, and to cast out devils: 16 And Simon he surnamed Peter;

17 And James the son of Zebedee, and John the brother of James; and he surnamed them Boanerges, which is, The sons of thunder:

18 And Andrew, and Philip, and Bartholomew, and Matthew, and Thomas, and James the son of Alphaeus, and Thaddaeus, and Simon the Canaanite,

19 And Judas Iscariot, which also betrayed him.

Luke 6.13-16

Quote:

13 And when it was day, he called unto him his disciples: and of them he chose twelve, whom also he named apostles;

14 Simon, (whom he also named Peter,) and Andrew his brother, James and John, Philip and Bartholomew,

15 Matthew and Thomas, James the son of Alphaeus, and Simon called Zelotes,

16 And Judas the brother of James, and Judas Iscariot, which also was the traitor.

Acts 1:13

Quote:

And when they were come in, they went up into an upper room, where abode both Peter, and James, and John, and Andrew, Philip, and Thomas, Bartholomew, and Matthew, James the son of Alphaeus, and Simon Zelotes, and Judas the brother of James.

The "Fragments of Papias"

Quote:

.....(2.) Mary the wife of Cleophas or Alphæus, who was the mother of James the bishop and apostle..

And now look at "Church History" under the name Eusebius, you will see how the switch, the fraud, may have taken place.

"Church History" 2.1.4

Quote:

4. But the same writer, in the seventh book of the same work, relates also the following things concerning him: “The Lord after his resurrection imparted knowledge to James the Just and to John and Peter, and they imparted it to the rest of the apostles, and the rest of the apostles to the seventy, of whom Barnabas was one.

But there were two Jameses, one called the Just, who was thrown from the pinnacle of the temple and was beaten to death with a club by a fuller, and another who was beheaded.”

Paul also makes mention of the same James the Just, where he writes, “Other of the apostles saw I none, save James the Lord's brother.”

All the authors of the Synoptics, and Acts did mention two apostles called James, one who was later beheaded, James the brother of John, and the other James the son of Alphaeus.

Now, if there were two Jameses as claimed by Eusebius, and one was beheaded then James the Just was James the son of Alphaeus, not the Lord's brother at all.

The authors of Matthew, Mark, Luke, Acts and the "Fragments of Papias" are all consistent in their story that there were two Jameses, one James the brother of John who was beheaded and James the son of Alphaeus.

It would therefore appear that it was Eusebius or the author of "Church History" who switched the names or who was responsible for the interpolation in Galatians 1.19 and AJ 20.9.1.

And now, even after Eusebius, Jerome supposedly writing at the end of the 4th century, maintained that James was not the brother of the Lord. James the Just was the son of the Lord's aunt just as Papias wrote supposedly almost 300 years earlier.

This is Jerome in "De Viris Illustribus" 2

Quote:

....James, who is called the brother of the Lord, surnamed the Just, the son of Joseph by another wife, as some think, but, as appears to me, the son of Mary sister of the mother of our Lord of whom John makes mention in his book, after our Lord's passion at once ordained by the apostles bishop of Jerusalem, wrote a single epistle...

So, the abundance of evidence points to Eusebius or the author of "Church History" as the one who most probably interpolated Galatians 1.19 and AJ 20.9.1.

Solo · 03-27-2010, 07:28 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dogsgod

OK, we don't have to make any assumptions but the reader is none the less left scratching his head asking who the heck is this James in Acts 12:17. If Acts 12:2 was removed, not a problem. James is James and all is well.

Well, even then you would have to decide if it was James the Zebedee or James the son of Alpheus (of whom nothing but his selection by Jesus is known). But I think you are on the right track. The removal of James the Zebedee (in two verses, one of which segues to Peter's arrest), just before James, the leader of the church is introduced in the narrative in the most cursory manner, is highly suspect. My theory is that the church at the time of Luke had no idea what to make of James the Just, who clearly was the undisputed leader of the church but who, by all appearances, was an outsider to the group of Jesus devotees.

Jiri

aa5874 · 03-27-2010, 10:47 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Solo

Quote:

Originally Posted by dogsgod

OK, we don't have to make any assumptions but the reader is none the less left scratching his head asking who the heck is this James in Acts 12:17. If Acts 12:2 was removed, not a problem. James is James and all is well.

Well, even then you would have to decide if it was James the Zebedee or James the son of Alpheus (of whom nothing but his selection by Jesus is known). But I think you are on the right track. The removal of James the Zebedee (in two verses, one of which segues to Peter's arrest), just before James, the leader of the church is introduced in the narrative in the most cursory manner, is highly suspect. My theory is that the church at the time of Luke had no idea what to make of James the Just, who clearly was the undisputed leader of the church but who, by all appearances, was an outsider to the group of Jesus devotees.

Jiri

But, in the Synoptics Jesus claimed he would build his Church on the Rock, Peter.

Peter was supposed to be the original and first leader of the Church in Jerusalem.

Mt 16:18 -

Quote:

And I also say to you that you are Peter, and on this rock I will build My church, and the gates of Hades shall not prevail against it.

In the Pauline writings, it was claimed that Peter was given the Gospel of the circumcision

Ga 2:7-9

Quote:

But on the contrary, when they saw that the gospel for the uncircumcised had been committed to me, as the gospel for the circumcised was to Peter

8 .(for He who worked effectively in Peter for the apostleship to the circumcised also worked effectively in me toward the Gentiles)

9. And when James, Cephas, and John, who seemed to be pillars, perceived the grace was given unto me....

If any one was the undisputed leader it was more likely Peter than any James. In Acts of the Apostles, Peter was functioning as a de facto leader of the Apostles.

There is virtually no support except perhaps from Eusebius that James a brother of the Lord was a bishop of Jerusalem.

Now who made Peter the first bishop of Rome and not the first leader of the Jerusalem Church?

The Jerusalem Church, based on the story in Acts, was FIRST empowered on the day of Pentecost.

Peter was there and was filled with the Holy Ghost.

James, the brother of John was there and was filled with the Holy Ghost.

James the son of Alphaeus was there and was filled with the Holy Ghost.

No James called the brother of the Lord was present.

Who made this unknown character, James the Lord's brother, the 1st bishop of the Church at Jerusalem instead of Peter?

Who made the switch?

It is most likely Eusebius or whoever wrote "Church History".

The supposed Peter was the undisputed leader of the Church in Acts so they made him the FIRST bishop of ROME.

Solo · 03-28-2010, 06:27 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

Quote:

Originally Posted by Solo

Well, even then you would have to decide if it was James the Zebedee or James the son of Alpheus (of whom nothing but his selection by Jesus is known). But I think you are on the right track. The removal of James the Zebedee (in two verses, one of which segues to Peter's arrest), just before James, the leader of the church is introduced in the narrative in the most cursory manner, is highly suspect. My theory is that the church at the time of Luke had no idea what to make of James the Just, who clearly was the undisputed leader of the church but who, by all appearances, was an outsider to the group of Jesus devotees.

Jiri

But, in the Synoptics Jesus claimed he would build his Church on the Rock, Peter.

Peter was supposed to be the original and first leader of the Church in Jerusalem.

Jesus was telling no lie. He promised to build a church 'upon this rock' (that was Peter). There was no implied commitment in that to build a church in which Peter was the leader.

Quote:

In the Pauline writings, it was claimed that Peter was given the Gospel of the circumcision

Ga 2:7-9

Quote:

But on the contrary, when they saw that the gospel for the uncircumcised had been committed to me, as the gospel for the circumcised was to Peter

8 .(for He who worked effectively in Peter for the apostleship to the circumcised also worked effectively in me toward the Gentiles)

9. And when James, Cephas, and John, who seemed to be pillars, perceived the grace was given unto me....

If any one was the undisputed leader it was more likely Peter than any James. In Acts of the Apostles, Peter was functioning as a de facto leader of the Apostles.

...except the church also had 'brothers of the Lord' and 'the poor saints' and they evidently outranked Peter.
I have explained that for Peter to change his behaviour at Antioch before mere emissaries of James is a very good indicator of his low ranking in the church hierarchy.

Quote:

There is virtually no support except perhaps from Eusebius that James a brother of the Lord was a bishop of Jerusalem.

....or so you believe

Quote:

Now who made Peter the first bishop of Rome and not the first leader of the Jerusalem Church?

The Jerusalem Church, based on the story in Acts, was FIRST empowered on the day of Pentecost.

Peter was there and was filled with the Holy Ghost.

James, the brother of John was there and was filled with the Holy Ghost.

James the son of Alphaeus was there and was filled with the Holy Ghost.

No James called the brother of the Lord was present.

Who made this unknown character, James the Lord's brother, the 1st bishop of the Church at Jerusalem instead of Peter?

Who made the switch?

It is most likely Eusebius or whoever wrote "Church History".

The supposed Peter was the undisputed leader of the Church in Acts so they made him the FIRST bishop of ROME.

Eusebius did not even mention the Pentecost in the HE.

I explained why I think there was no switch. James invited the "pillars" and other Jesus followers into his church which preceded Jesus' crucifixion. He allowed them to proclaim Jesus as a martyred prophet of the last days on missions to raise money for the "poor (saints)". Paul originally went to Jerusalem to see the saints and make himself declared one. But instead, when he started to expound his version of Christ he was denied access and referred to the Jesus mission in the church.

Jiri

03-27-2010, 08:34 AM	#1
dogsgod Regular Member Join Date: Mar 2010 Location: British Columbia Posts: 104	He had James, the brother of John, put to death with the sword. 2He had James, the brother of John, put to death with the sword. Acts 12:2 appears to be a most obvious interpolation on a few levels. One merely has to read the story of Peter's arrest and escape from prison with the one line in and with it removed. Right after Peter escapes he goes to the house of Mary and tells the people there of what just happened to him, and then he says, "Tell James and the brothers about this,". We had just read that James was killed but the story carries on as if that never happened so immediately we ask, who is this James. Luke/Acts does not name any of Jesus' siblings so the reader can't assume he's referring to a literal brother of Jesus. Here's the brief story: http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/...12&version=NIV I have found some excellent material on this here, scroll a little more than half way down the page:http://www.rationalrevolution.net/ar...h_followup.htm but I haven't found any other good material on this. Has anyone here looked into this?

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

03-27-2010, 09:12 AM	#3
dogsgod Regular Member Join Date: Mar 2010 Location: British Columbia Posts: 104	Yes, we are forced to make assumptions. Paul never mentioned anything about James' death. He meets him twice fourteen years apart and doesn't let on that he is meeting with a different James if this is the case.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.