mens_sana

I don't think it is obvious at all. What I do think is obvious is that layers of mythical elements have been accreted to the Historical Jesus by his followers and by those involved in the institutionalization of the church.

mens_sana

[1] It seems to me that Freke & Gandy are interested in promulgating a gnostic religion, rather than Christian reform. I think of Bishop Spong as a Christian reformer. [2] I don't think "may" has anything to do with it. :grin: [3] Ya got me!

Zeichman

In addition to Llyricist's point, it also fails to consider that one might be of the Christian faith because of what they percieve to be evidence in favor of an HJ. OR that they may drop the faith because of evidence for the opposite.

Not to mention Freke and Gandy consider themselves Christian.

mens_sana

The religious traditions have been around for close to 3000 years and have engaged most of the deep thinkers and artists who walked the earth during those millennia of human history. Therefore, they're bound to be chock-full of "good stuff" even if lots of it is based on a superceded world.
– Ursula Goodenough

mens_sana

Why wouldn't sufficient evidence lead a disinterested atheist-historian to belief in a historical Jesus? The Historical Jesus need not be identified with the Christ of Faith/Myth. The latter is built upon the former, but the latter is a "living myth", independent of the former, for most investigators. The two figures are tied inextricably only by Christian trinitarians.

mens_sana

For your file:

Bodily resurrection has nothing to do with a resuscitated body coming out of its tomb. And neither is bodily resurrection just another term for Christian faith itself. Bodily resurrection means the embodied life and death of the historical Jesus continues to be experienced, by believers, as powerfully efficacious and salvifically present in this world. That life continued, as it always had, to form communities of like lives. John Dominic Crossan, The Birth of Christianity, HarperSanFrancisco, 1998, p.xxxi.

mens_sana

James did have far higher authority than Paul. James was head of the Jerusalem Church, while Paul was missionary to the Gentiles. If the Judaizers were agents of James, they certainly made life rough for Paul. However, when it came down to it, Paul had more followers since the Jerusalem Church effectively ended in 70 CE. And at least some people considered Paul's letters to be "scripture" by 120-150 CE (2 Peter 3.15b-16/Crossan's dating of 2 Peter).

Amaleq13

James son Zebedee is not just "mentioned" in the Gospels, he is clearly described as being part of an inner circle of disciples that included Peter and John while the only Brother James described in those stories apparently joined the rest of the family in considering Jesus crazy.

We go from Peter, James, and John as important disciples with Brother James rejecting Jesus to Peter, James, and John as important apostles but now it is the Brother James who completes the trio of importance and the other one doesn't even get a mention?

Is it just a coincidence that the same three names appear in Paul as "pillars"? Smells fishy to me and the unique and clearly problematic nature of a literal sibling reference does not improve the odor one bit.

If we consider the phrase to be a title, perhaps he is mentioned and we no longer have any appearance of an identity switch and the same three inner disciples become "pillars" of the post-resurrection movement.

It doesn't get more simple than that.

Unless that James is the one mentioned in the formula, I don't see how you can say that. He clearly was not considered as important a witness because he didn't warrant the specific identification.

Not really. Even if "pillar" wasn't an actual title, the three men are being identified as important but Paul feels no need to specify which James is being discussed. If James Zebedee was also a prominent apostle and also a pillar, that is even more reason to add a specific identifier. Again, whose side are you arguing?

That seems a bit circular to me. You assume it was important to Paul when doing so serves your purpose and assume it was not when it doesn't. Is there any reason besides your conclusion to think this is true?

I guess I should have been more specific than "reason" because this is nothing but unsubstantiated speculation and still falls short of justifying his use of such an inherently problematic literal reference. It simply is not credible to suggest there was no other possible way for Paul to identify the man. How about "James son of Joseph"? Hegesippus tells us he was known as "the Just" or "Oblias". Those are excellent alternatives which easily identify the man and avoid the problems.

It is absurd to suggest that a reference containing a title associated with the victory of the risen Christ could be considered simply a "reference to an accident of James' birth". You might look to the "misleading" log in your own eye before mentioning the mote in mine.

Not if that reputation for piety preceded his "conversion" to the new movement and was based on his devotion to Judaism and "Lord" is a reference to "God". All of which is completely in accord with what we are told by Hegesippus and others. James had an established reputation among his fellow Jews before joining the new movement.

Amaleq13

Andrew,

That is a very interesting timeline you've created though I probably belong in the group you mentioned.

However, I have a few questions.

How is that reconciled with the former's specific inclusion as a witness of the risen Christ in the Corinthians "formula"?

How is that reconciled with the testimony of Hegesippus that James was prominent in Jersualem even before he joined the movement?

If James son of Joseph was not yet prominent, why would Paul bother mentioning that he met him?

What are you thoughts on why Paul would choose to identify James in this clearly problematic way (in terms of authority if not theology though I'm still not convinced the latter is not just as problematic) rather than "son of Joseph" or "the Just" or "Oblias"?

jjramsey

Except you still have a "title" that has a striking resemblance to the explicit indications of blood relationship in both the Gospels and Josephus, which makes matters less simple.

My point was that both Jameses were important, so either one was a suitable witness for the formula.

Because he already identified this James earlier in the letter.

Yes. The focus of the formula in 1 Corinthians is Jesus' resurrection, and that it was attested by important people in the Church. Both Jameses are of comparable status, so ambiguity about which James is being mentioned doesn't matter too much.

In Galatians, James the brother of the Lord and his policies are very much a part of the picture. It's not just his status that matters, but the doctrines that he himself is promoting. Here, he is not easily interchangeable with the other James.

Different letters, different contexts, different matters at stake.

Neither "the Just" nor "son of Joseph" help if the Galatians aren't familiar with those descriptors. "son of Joseph" is particularly problematic if much of the material now found in the Gospels isn't yet common currency. Paul may not like the idea of referring to James as Jesus' brother, but if that's how the Galatians know him, then if Paul is going to communicate with the Galatians, that's how he's going to need to refer to him in order for them to know who he's talking about.

Read what I actually wrote: "If 'brother of the Lord' is a reference to a blood relationship with Jesus, then it is a reference to an accident of James' birth." In such a case, "brother of the Lord" isn't even a title, nor a reference to a "victory of the risen Christ."

Your conclusion doesn't follow. If "brother of the Lord" is a title indicating piety, then the natural reaction by those respecting the title would be awe or respect, not an analysis of the timing and object of piety.