Amaleq13

I'm sure nobody here will make a big deal about that.

Logic and clarity don't appear to have been priorities for our boy Paul which is damned inconvenient in trying to understand him, IMHO.

Amaleq13

Before I tackle this title associated with James, it would seem helpful to get some sort of idea what everybody is willing to agree upon with regard to the historical Jesus. I'm going to try to get all the potential sidetracks out of the way ahead of time.

Anybody got a problem with the following, very brief outline:


1) Unsuccessful ministry by Jesus

2) Death of Jesus

3) Resurrection experiences* by followers

4) Reinterpretation/new understanding of Jesus and his ministry by followers



*I'm trying to avoid getting into a physical vs spiritual resurrection debate. It doesn't seem to matter for the James issue if we are already assuming an historical Jesus.

Vinnie

""""""1) Unsuccessful ministry by Jesus"""""""

I don't know if that is accurate. He may have been mistaken in his timetable but that does not necessarily mean unsuccessful. If Jesus thought he was appointed to inaugurate a new era in Israel's history then one might say he suceeded. Unfortunately Jews largely didn't heed his call, ergo Paul resorts to election in Romans. They are being made jealous so in the end all will be saved. Its "success depends on what you judge his intention to have been.

""""""2) Death of Jesus"""""""

Everyone who lives does in fact die. This is accepted by everyone

"""""""3) Resurrection experiences* by followers"""""""""

I am not "absolutely" certain of this but I certainly am willing to work with the idea that "Jesus' follows has some sort of rez experiences". No less an HJ scholar than E.P. Sanders deems this an historical fact. It does help explain some things.

""""""""4) Reinterpretation/new understanding of Jesus and his ministry by followers"""""""

New understandings were present early. Given some diversity in the first stratum this is by definition true. Also we might say the kingdom didn't come and beliefs naturally evolved.

I'm not sure what any of this has to do with the authenticity of the James reference in Josephus? Is that what you are getting out or am I in another ballpark all-together here?

Vinnie

Amaleq13

1) Unsuccessful ministry by Jesus


By "unsuccessful ministry", I mean that he was largely rejected by those to whom he preached. He did not attract the kind of following or attention described by the later Gospels. This seems to me to be consistent with the little Paul has to say and the portrayal given in Q. It also seems consistent with the external evidence of more familiarity with later Christians than the original founder.

2) Death of Jesus

Quote:

Everyone who lives does in fact die. This is accepted by everyone

Sorry, that should read "Sudden/unexpected" Death of Jesus. This seems consistent with Q as well as the Gospel depiction of the reaction of the Disciples. They don't seem to have been ready for it despite Jesus' frequent prophecies the Gospel authors portray him making.

4) Reinterpretation/new understanding of Jesus and his ministry by followers

Quote:

New understandings were present early. Given some diversity in the first stratum this is by definition true. Also we might say the kingdom didn't come and beliefs naturally evolved.

I was specifically thinking of their conception of Jesus as the Messiah. I'm not sure it can be argued that his followers believed he was the Messiah while he lived but, even if we assume they did, I think it is reasonable to conclude that their understanding of what that actually meant changed significantly subsequent to the resurrection experiences.

Quote:

I'm not sure what any of this has to do with the authenticity of the James reference in Josephus? Is that what you are getting out or am I in another ballpark all-together here?

Patience, Grasshopper. I'm establishing some common ground as a foundation for subsequent discussion. And, while I expect the passage in Josephus will be part of that discussion at some point, I am not arguing the authenticity of it. I am focusing on the "brother of the Lord" reference in Paul since that would appear to be the earliest.