Amaleq13

Don't forget to add: "while allowing his closest followers to go free".

But the evidence from Paul doesn't suggest James carried on any "tradition" from a living, preaching Jesus. He seems to have been a leader of a new belief in a Resurrected Messiah held by an obscure Jewish sect. Given that the Romans seemed to have considered this belief little more than a "pernicious superstition", it is less mysterious that he was not considered an enemy of the Empire.

If we again consider Paul, they really only needed to believe he had been crucified. The only reference to Pilate in his letters is, IMO, probably an interoplation. If they simply assumed that this crucifixion took place shortly before the Risen Christ began to be preached, Pilate would have been an obvious choice.

Vivisector

I considered it, but decided not to on the remote chance of a kernel of truth in the two thieves story, and the possibility that these might have been (later disowned by the Gospel authors) followers. No matter which way you cut it, though, there were evidently plenty that remained free. :huh:

See, I don't read Paul this way at all (or at least don't remember reading him this way). With one exception - Gal 2:2 - I could see the James group as totally Jewish. Gal. 2:2 doesn't help me much with figuring out what James believed about Jesus; for one reason, we only have Paul's version of the conversation. For another, Paul has been awfully tough for me to figure out. Meaning, what exactly was Paul's "gospel?" Is his (and/or the James group's) Christology adoptionist? How did Paul connect Jesus to "Christ?" It's been a while since I read Fredriksen, and she had the best answers I'd seen, but I've loaned her books out. The point of all that is, I don't know exactly what Paul meant by "gospel," and I think Paul's Christology could have been significantly higher than the James group's. The James group could have been saying to Paul, "Hey, whatever, just send money."

True and interesting. I can't really tell that Paul considered the reasons for Jesus's crucifixion important at all, and I'm not sure that he considered Jesus's resurrection as more significant than a vindication of his message (whatever that was), evidence for the idea of a general resurrection, and the beginning of the end of all things.

I'd agree that we have no evidence Paul ever referred to Pilate, and that the author of 1 Timothy *could* have been dependent on the canonical gospels. Regarding the remainder, I'd just have to wonder, why not Gratus or Marcellus instead of Pilate?

g-21-lto

Officially the Sanhedrin charged Jesus with blasphemy; i'd say that translates to "convicted felon" or even "traitor" status today. Not sure what take the Roman officials had on it. The Gospel accounts make it sound largely like the Romans executed Jesus to appease the anger of the Jewish leadership, but I've heard it said that the Gospels were heavily slanted in order to put blame on the Jews. Would the Romans have viewed Jesus as a possible insurgency threat? He was, after all, gathering an "army" of followers full of religious zeal, and there was a Messianic tradition in Palestine which could easily be perceived as a call to arms against the Romans under the Messiah's leadership. That would be treason as well.

Edit: I think i got in a little late, and a little out of my depth.

Amaleq13

I agree and that's why I described him as a leader of a Jewish sect. The only way to read Paul otherwise is to read information into his letters. Taking him only for what he actually says, James was an early claimant to the experience of having the Risen Christ appear to him. There is no indication that James is also continuing the efforts of a living, preaching Jesus.

Christ crucified and raised. Faith in this provides salvation and the appearances of the Risen Christ justify that faith.

IIRC, Paul describes Christ as a pre-existent, heavenly figure.

If anything is adopted, it would be appear to have been the name "Jesus" bestowed after the resurrection (Phil 2:8-10).

Sure, because they were a Jewish group interested in Jewish salvation but willing to accept Gentile cash.

[QUOTE]I can't really tell that Paul considered the reasons for Jesus's crucifixion important at all...[/QUOTE

The only thing that seems to have been important was that Christ was crucified without his true nature known.

Whose message? Paul's message was the resurrection. Paul doesn't depict Jesus as having a message so much as a mission to be executed and resurrected.

That seems to have been something he believed at least at the beginning but I'm not sure he doesn't reveal a change of heart toward the end given the continued failure of The End to occur.

Does Joesphus spend as much time condemning them as he does Pilate?

Mr. Aardvark

Is this a possibility considered in the scholarship--that the "thieves" on the cross were actually followers that were nabbed, tried, convicted and crucified w/ Christ? That's a fascinating idea. If so, why would they be cast as thieves and not some other variety of criminal?

Also, I've always wondered about that accoint of Peter cutting off the ear of a soldier. What was that about? It's hard to think he would be hanging out in the city afterwards to utter his denials of knowing Christ. Does that make the entire account fantastic or does it also serve a kind of apologetic effect, something like "You may have heard accounts about the Jesus movement being persecuted along w/ Jesus, but they weren't a bunch of insurrectionists as you might have heard. Yes, there was this bit of violence, but it was OK because Jesus fixed it. No, the crucifixion wasn't about an insurrectionist movement that got squelched. Rather Jesus alone was the target and unfairly so."

I don't know. I'm just guessing here.

Vivisector

I don't have a solid recollection of it at the moment, but I'm not so arrogant as to think *I* would come up with anything at all original in this field! But even if it's been covered before, I don't think much is made of it. "Thieves" is probably not the best translation of the Greek word; in Mark, for example, the word used to describe them is LHSTAS, deriving from LESTES, better translated as "robber" or (e.g., Crossan) "bandit." IIRC, the term would apply to those who basically mugged travellers, thus representing a threat to order and security, and was evidently punishable by crucifixion. Why robbers and not something else? I don't know; maybe so as to be a crucifiable offense, but yet not to shift the spotlight away from Jesus by exceeding him in their criminality. I have to say, though, this is not a scenario I'd wager on very much at all - it has some explanatory power, but it has its problems.

A somewhat related topic - Luke 23:32 currently reads, "And they led away two others, criminals, with him ..." Some variants, however, read, "And they led away two other criminals with him." Since I don't have my GNT, I can't say anything about the supporting manuscripts right now. But it's a interesting variant.

That's another aspect of the entire story that's interesting. All four gospels report the story, with only John reporting that it was Simon Peter who de-eared the individual and Luke reporting the healing. All that aside, I wonder if the Jesus movement perhaps didn't have a great aversion to violence. Aside from this incident, you have strange verses such as Mt 10:34, Lk 22:36 and 22:38. *If* the movement as associated with at least some violence, that would explain a few things.

Vivisector

The reason you and I probably differ on this is, as I recall, our different interpretations of Gal 1:19.

I think I had in mind something like Rom 1:4 when I said that; I've always thought it an interesting choice of words for him. But the Christ Hymn is really a fascinating piece of work, especially if it is a hymn, predating Paul's letter to the point that he accepts it and quotes it.

I was referring to Jesus's. And I agree with you on Paul's depiction of Jesus with regard to message. However, what would have drawn Paul to Jesus, if not something that he (Jesus) advocated? How could he have persecuted the "Church of God" without knowing something about their beliefs and, by reflection, their founder's message?

He's a frustratingly difficult fellow to pin down.

If I understand the gist of your comment correctly, then I have no problem withdrawing an association between Pilate and Jesus's crucifixion. With regard to "pinning the prefect," it seems the author of 1 Tim could have gotten his information from a variety of sources, since the association with Pilate was in wide circulation by that time. Maybe the timeframe should be pushed back, and the real question should be, "How did the Gospel authors (especially Mark) come to associate the crucifixion with Pilate?" I consider the association historical; in short, it seems to me to be the simplest explanation of the facts.

Cheers,

V.

Amaleq13

Even if I assume this indicates a literal sibling relationship, I see no reason to assume James was continuing any ministry conducted by the living Jesus. It seems to me that all the evidence suggests James came late to the party (ie post resurrection).

Taken in the context of what Paul says elsewhere, this should probably be understood to refer to a return of power as well as a new aspect added to it subsequent to the resurrection.

I see no reason to assume either he or they would need anything beyond Christ Crucified and Resurrected. It would appear that any message of Jesus' ministry has been drastically overshadowed, if not replaced, by the new message of the Risen Christ. This would certainly help explain why the depiction of his ministry in the Gospel stories contains so little that hadn't already been taught by others except the material relating to the coming resurrection. It is "almost" as though Paul's gospel has been retrojected back into the mouth of a living, preaching Jesus with some popular Cynic-wisdom thrown in for historical flavor.

When I see no specific identification (time, place or person) offered by Paul and a Gospel depiction of Pilate that is contrary to extrabiblical history, I see no reason to assume this "fact" to be historical.

Vivisector

Would you conclude this based solely on the letters of Paul, given his assumed kinship to Jesus and his obvious place of prominence among the "pillars?" If the options are (a) a totally new movement divorced from anything Jesus ever advocated or (b) a continuation of Jesus's ministry, albeit perhaps enhanced, then it seems (b) follows more easily.

You could be right, but I'm not inferring that from the way the text reads in isolation from anything else Paul wrote. Additionally, as you indicated earlier, Paul's attitudes on certain issues might have evolved/changed over the years, which would add risk to interpreting Rom in the context of his other writings.

I'll quickly admit to the difficulty of reconstructing any original message from the Gospels, but I struggle greatly with the idea that a movement would attach itself to a person with no claim to significance other than his resurrection (although that would certainly be quite an accomplishment). What would Jesus's resurrection signify, other than a vindication of something he stood for?

I don't find Paul's failure to mention Pilate to be a great difficulty. However, I'm not sure I understand what you're suggesting with regard to the Gospels. In an earlier post, I thought you were suggesting that the Gospel authors could have picked Pilate on account of his documented harsh disposition. But above, you correctly note that authors did not convey this documented disposition. So why would they pick a mean guy, but portray him as a nice guy?

Cheers,

V.

jbernier

The issue in John does not seem to be that Jesus uttered the Divine Name but rather that he equates himself with God. This seems to be the basis for the charges of blasphemy in John (and, to a certain extent, for the charges of sedition as well).