TedM

I may indeed be relying on the superficial similarity between Nazarene and Nazarite, but to me that is a GLARING similarity. However, contrary to what I said above (sorry) Hegessipus is NOT quoted as saying James was a Nazarite. Rather, his DESCRIPTION of James is that of a Nazarite. From http://www.ccel.org/fathers2/NPNF2-01/Npnf2-01-07.htm :

I mostly accept the testimony of the church historian Hegesippus with regard to James' role as a Nazarite for a number of reasons:

1. Despite the similarity in names, I see no good reason for such a tradition to have falsely developed with regard to the first leader of the Christian church. Surely the Christian tradition would not have made such a major mistake. It has a number of very specific details that pertain to him, as though the tradition were fairly strong.

2. It explains why James, a former disbeliever, would have quickly been assigned the role as leader of the Church (ahead of disciples Peter and John!) if he already had had a reputation for being devout.

3. It explains why James was at first a disbeliever, since Jesus didn't follow all of the Nazarite rules.

4. It explains why the book of James isn't focused on Christian doctrine about Jesus' role, but instead is concerned with teachings about conduct--as though there was a code of conduct that existed before Jesus.

6. I need to read up on it, but my understanding is that James' group fled to Pella during persecution, and that this group holds James in high esteem, and maintained very strict observance of Jewish law.


My understanding is that while Nazareth may have existed, there are some signs that Mark 1:9 is interpolated and that Jesus' real hometown was Capernaum. IF so, that would explain why strangers in Mark seem to be familiar with the term Nazarene as applied to Jesus--ie it is more likely that the phrase would be applied based on a philosophy than a hometown of Nazareth. Does it really make sense to call Jesus a Nazarene if his hometown of Nazareth was so small that few noticed it, and when they were already calling him "the Galilean"--after a well-known territory?

ted

aa5874

'And he came and dwelt in a city called Nazareth that it might be fulfilled which was spoken by the prophets, He shall be called a Nazarene'. (Matt 2:23) In any event, there is no such prophecy in the OT.

There is another discrepancy, Matthew claims Nazareth is a city not a small place.

TedM

Matthew's quote in 2:23 is quite mysterious. Why was Jesus called a Nazarene? Was it because he was from Nazareth? Was it because there was a prophecy saying "He shall be called a Nazarene"? Was it because he was associated with a group of people who were Nazarites?

Who knows, but it seems to me that the more one understands James, the first Christian leader, the more one is likely to understand who Jesus was, and the various portraits we have of him. I think Eisenman is onto something here...time to get out his book and read it some more.

ted

jjramsey

Why not? There is a tendency for further and further embellishment in the Christian church. The doctrine of the virgin birth is tacked on, and later morphs into the doctrine of perpertual virginity of Mary. There are indicators that the empty tomb account may be relatively late. The account of James' piety looks suspiciously like pious exaggeration, and there is no great reason to presume its accuracy.

Chris Weimer

Speaking of which, he has a new book coming out.

TedM

Well, you may be right. I'd have to review the sources that talk about James. Have you read Eisenman's book? I've read some, and am still digesting stuff. He sees connections that I don't, and that may extend to James as Nazarite, but I think it is safe to say that in general the early Christian record seems suspiciously quiet about him as the first bishop of the church. Act doesn't even introduce him or explain how he came to be the bishop. The gospels say nothing positive--only negative about him. Very strange since we can assume he was a HUGE figure among the earliest Christians.

ted

Julian

Amazon link for it here: The New Testament Code: Unconvering the Truth About James the Brother of Jesus and the Dead Sea Scrolls by Robert Eisenman (or via: amazon.co.uk) if anyone wants to get it. Publishing date is set for Aug. 28, 2006.

Julian

Vivisector

Greetings, Ted. You're going in a direction that I personally like. I agree that James was almost certainly a person of tremendous influence in the early "church," and it's a shame that he has been so effectively written out of Christian history. Good luck with Eisenman's book - I struggled with what I felt was a slow pace, lots of repetition, and a preoccupation with James getting his legs broken. I did enjoy some of Ehrman's thoughts (Lost Scriptures and Lost Christianities), and I hope to spend a little time on the pseudo-Clementines soon.

Like so many others around here, I'm constantly working (mentally, mostly) on HJ hypotheses, which is why I was interested in what you had to say. Here's where I am on some of it - will be happy for your comments/reaction.

1. There was a historical Jesus/John the Baptist connection. I think Jesus was influenced/inspired by JtB and may have looked at himself as a successor in some ways.
2. There was a Jesus/Nazareth connection. Perhaps he was born there, perhaps he grew up there. In any event, it seems Matthew strains to explain a Nazareth connection, and John seems aware of it having an unfavorable reputation - neither of which strikes me as likely to have mentioned if there were no geographic connection.
3. Jesus as a Nazarene (or Nazorean) doesn't square with what I know of Nazarenes and with Jesus's depiction in the Gospels. In Q (even if it's Q2), he's accused of being a glutton and drunkard, and his first miracle in John is changing water to wine. He seems to have taken a more populist approach - more a "man of the people."
4. Jesus had flesh-and-blood brothers, including James. I'm not sure it's possible (from extant texts) to say the degree to which - if at all - they were involved in Jesus's "ministry" during his lifetime.
5. James was, at the least, first among equals among Jesus's followers following the crucifixion. To me, this implies a strong relationship between Jesus's outlook and James's. It also suggests, to me, that James was involved in Jesus's "ministry" during Jesus's lifetime.
6. James et al. may have seen themselves as a (new?) sect within Judaism, but still within Judaism. I don't know what to make of James as a Nazarene, but assuming that (a) Jesus wasn't Nazarene and (b) James was acknowledged as Jesus's rightful successor, I'd probably lean against it.

Needless to say, these hypotheses will always be works in progress. I still don't have a firm grasp of the characteristics that differentiated Jesus's/James's sect from others in the early days (the coming of the Son of Man? Jesus as Christ? Missions to the Gentiles?). I'm also struggling to make sense of how they viewed Jesus's death and the significance they attached to his "resurrection," among dozens of other apparent unknowables.

Regards,

V.

Ben C Smith

I have some loose thoughts on James as a Nazarite:

1. It has already been pointed out that the gospels make Jesus out to be a drinker; the gospel of the Hebrews also implies that James drank the eucharistic wine. Jerome, On Famous Men 2:

Evangelium quoque quod appellatur secundum Hebraeos.... iuraverat enim Iacobus se non comesturum panem ab illa hora quia biberat calicem domini donec videret eum resurgentem a dormientibus.

Also the gospel which is named according to the Hebrews.... James indeed had sworn that he would not eat bread from that hour when he had drunk the chalice of the Lord until he saw him risen from among those who sleep.

Thus the century II tradition that James was a lifelong Nazarite does not appear to be universal.

2. I said lifelong Nazarite because we should remember that Samson and Samuel were exceptions. They followed the code all their lives (well, somewhat imperfectly in the case of Samson), whereas the Nazarite vow in Numbers 6 is temporary (see 6.4, 6, 8, 13). Acts 21.17-26 depicts James as enjoining something that looks like a Nazarite vow on Paul. What if James, while not a lifelong Nazarite, was wont to frequently take the temporary vow? The tradition in Hegesippus would then be an embellishment of the frequency of his vows, while the tradition in the gospel according to the Hebrews would be a recognition that he did at times drink the fruit of the vine.

3. I think Ted has put his finger on something to be explored with regard to James. This man was very important to the early church, and his importance and piety may well have predated his acceptance of Jesus as messiah. (I think Amaleq13 might have been correct on a thread a while ago about James and Hegesippus.)

Think about this. While the Christians we are most familiar with might say that the universe came into being for the sake of Jesus, the word, there were circles in which it was said that heaven and earth came into being for the sake of James the just (Thomas 13). While the Christians we are most familiar with might say that Jerusalem fell for what the Jews did to Jesus, there were circles in which it was said that Jerusalem fell for what the Jews did to James the just (Hegesippus). The death of James brought down a high priest (Josephus).

Just some food for thought.

Ben.

TedM

Hi Vivisector. Nice to hear from you. Good luck to you too with your search. It takes me a while to go through book slike Eisenman's (sharing your opinions on it too).

Not that mine has much value as others here have (easily) 10 times the knowledge that I do, but I'd be happy to nonetheless.

I think this is at the least a very reasonable possibility. GJohn's comments about Jesus' disciples also performing baptisms early on, without much indication of a theological reason by the author, along with the fact that baptism was a significant part of early Christian tradition, seem to me to provide pretty good support for your belief.


I'm a bit more skeptical about this one, though I think there was a Nazareth at some point around that time. The passage you pointed out in GJohn's tempers my skepticism some though. I do believe there was likely a Jesus/Nazarene connection--I'm just not sure whether Nazarene refers to a name given after a town or after a particular Nazarite philosophy, or perhaps even neither. Just not sure. Turton has some interesting comments about Mark's use of Nazareth in 1:9 as interpolated. The fact that he says in the other places "the Nazarene" instead of "Jesus of Nazareth" and that (to me) "the Nazarene" seems a somewhat unlikely designation based on a town of such insignificance as Nazareth would have been, as well as the apparant focus on Capernaum as the hometown, in addition to (if I recall correctly) some possible indications of a lack of knowledge by Matthew and/or Luke of the actual name make me question whether Jesus really was from there, if it even existed with that name during that time.


I agree, though I wonder if there still was a Jesus-Nazarite connection through James.


This seems a very reasonable position. The gospels present them as doubters, but still quite interested in what was going on though..


Seems reasonable. Given that both Jesus and James are presented as very interested in the scriptures and pleasing God, it would seem very reasonable to conclude that they discussed a lot of ideas with each other. The similarities between teachings in the book of James and in the synoptics seems supportive of that, to me.


Not sure what I think. My OP was primarily meant to show the possibility that a Jesus-James-Nazarite link may help explain some of the things we seen in the early record. It's just a hypothesis though. Maybe it is more accurate to drop the Nazarite link all-together and just focus on the Jesus-James link, but I still do find the Nazarene-Nazarite similarities to be tempting. I obviously need to read up more on exactly who the Nazarites were and what they taught (if known).


Have you seen Bernard Muller's site? He looks here into the Nazarenes and concludes that they didn't believe in resurrection. I don't like that conclusion at all and it seems hard to imagine it being true given Paul's deference to them, but I do respect Muller's insights and research.


Quite the curiosity. Does anyone here know if Eisenmen thinks Jesus and James were one and the same? He teases us by ending his book about James with:

Here's some more food for thought: Might it be that James CREATED Christianity as a result of a proclamation about his brother Jesus after his death, which was accepted and believed by some due to JAMES' reputation for being somewhat of a religious guru? I recall (I think??)that Eiseman points out that one of the early documents says that it was to JAMES that Jesus appeared first--not Peter. Even 1 Cor 15 mentions the appearance to James, though after Peter. For some reason the appearance to James isn't mentioned in the gospels.

ted