dog-on

"Just" because? :huh:

Ben C Smith

Before I spill a lot of electrons on the wrong trail here, are you asking because (A) you did not realize that James, the leader of the Jerusalem church, was sometimes called the just, (B) you disagree that the James in Galatians 1.19 is supposed to be the same figure that many call James the just, or (C) you do not think James was just enough to be called the just? (Or some other reason?)

Ben.

dog-on

I'll take what's behind curtain (B), Monty...

Ben C Smith

Okay.

Galatians 1.19 speaks of a man named James who we learn later in Galatians is both a pillar of the Jerusalem church and influential enough to affect doctrinal decisions in Antioch. (Even if these passages are the interpolations you take them for, that is what the interpolator wrote.)

Various patristic and other sources speak of a man named James (called the just) who was the leader of the Jerusalem church and perhaps even of Jewish Christians at large.

Do you think Christians were thinking of two different men named James who were leaders of the Jerusalem church and Jewish Christians at large? If so, why?

Ben.

Clivedurdle

Should Luke and Acts be considered as one book?

dog-on

Regardless of what later Christians may have thought, there is no evidence that:

a. There was a "Jerusalem Church" in the first century AD;
b. The James the Just, refered to by Josephus, had anything to do with a "Jerusalem Church";

Isn't it just as likely that later Christians may have simply mined this name, (James the Just), out of Josephus and tied it to Paul's (supposed) reference to James, the Lord's brother?

Unless I am missing something here...

dog-on

Nah, it was a series originally subtitled "Let's B-slap the Marcionites by subjugating his apostle to the demiurge"...

Ben C Smith

You are on record on this very thread as saying that the James that Paul meant and the James that other Christians meant are not the same James. In light of the above statement, in which those other Christians are, in fact, identifying their James with the one in Paul, do you wish to modify that statement?

Ben.

dog-on

Sure, but of course that is absolutely irrelavent as to whether or not Paul's James (if we hold to the standard dating model for Galatians) and Josephus' James the Just where, in fact , the same guy...(unless of course, you accept interpolation, (or a much later date for the epistle), as a likely alternative and that the interpolator/s were the ones that espoused this particular connection, in which case, I would also agree...).

Ben C Smith

When did this become the topic? My option B, the one you chose, was:

The discussion was about whether or not later Christians (the many above) regarded their James the just as the James in Galatians 1.19; now you appear to be discussing whether the James in Josephus is the same as the James in Galatians 1.19. You have changed subjects. Which is fine, but next time please let me know. Thanks.

So... you and I now appear to agree that later Christians identified, at least so far as we can tell from their writings, their James the just figure with the James in Galatians 1.19. Is that correct?

If not, which Christians do you have in mind as denying the connection?

If so, which James do you think the Josephus reference (interpolated or not) is referring to? And I notice that you wrote:

Please cite the passage you have in mind where Josephus calls James the just so that I can tell what you have in mind... and how you are reading one of the Alexandrian fathers.

Ben.