TedM

Despite the fact that the epistle of James says very little about Jesus, it has many teachings (and even a verbatum one) that are very similar to those of Jesus in the gospels.

What does this imply about the gospel accounts of Jesus' teachings?:


http://www.biblicalstudies.com/bstud...tudy/james.htm(editied by me)


http://www.reformation21.org/article...e-of-james.php


If the epistle of James was an early Jewish document, later turned into a Christian document, why would the document not be more Christian in nature--alluding to Jesus' resurrection and attributing the teachings to Jesus?

If the epistle of James was an early Christian Jewish document, why should we not believe it was written by the first known leader of the Christian Jews, James himself, since it was addressed to Jews by someone instructing them in a very authoritative manner, and identifies himself in the first verse as James?

If James himself wrote the document, why would gospels that claim James thought Jesus was out of his mind include the same teachings that James taught, especially if James never (even later) believed Jesus had been resurrected?

Since James, the first known leader of the Christian church, was described as a pro-law (emphasis on works) and later as a devout law-abiding Nazarite, is it simply a coincidence that Jesus was called a Nazarene and Acts refers to the initial sect as Nazarenes? If not, what are the implications with regard to Jesus and James' theology and/or relationship?

Lastly, how does mythicism address the apparently strong Jesus-James connection?

Ted

Toto

Easy.

From Earl Doherty

The alleged connection is that these teachings existed either in the Jewish or Hellenistic traditions, were included in various letters, and were later attributed to a historicized Jesus in the gospels.

TedM

That addresses the strong Jesus sayings/James epistle sayings question but doesn't address the strong-Jesus/James connection taking the various issues I raised into account (Nazorite, first church leader, Epistle author, rejection of James by church).

Toto

I don't see the strong connections here. The possible Nazorite-Nazarene connection has been noted frequently, but what does it mean?

Otherwise you have a mass of contradictions. Was James the early leader of the church or Jesus' brother who thought he was crazy? Probably the gospel writer wanted to disparage the James faction of the church. Later Christians harmonized this by claiming that James was an early skeptic who was converted by a post-resurrection experience. But was this James the disciple James or a real brother James? Was James a Christian or a Jewish leader? Would we recognize his faction as Christian at all?

Robert Eisenman wrote a very large book on James called "James the Brother of Jesus" (or via: amazon.co.uk). Critics panned it, and I don't think Eisenman still holds to some of the positions he took in that book.

TedM

I have that book but only read the first 100 pages or so..

I don't think the Nazirite-Nazareth-Nazarene connection is a coincidence. One possibility is that the gospel writers, in their attempt to distance themselves from pro-law Nazirite James, explained the name Nazarene, given to the followers of Jesus, by making up a Nazareth birthplace for Jesus.

I am curious, are the two references in GMark to Nazareth claimed to be interpolations? Do those same people claim the same for the 4 references to Jesus the Nazarene in GMark?

aa5874

What a total contradiction.

The epistle of James say very little about Jesus so James has a STRONG connection with Jesus!!!

Sometimes, I really wonder.

TedM you MUST have made a mistake.

You mean WEAK connection? RIGHT!!!!

Doug Shaver

Mythicism is not a unified movement, so mythicism per se has nothing to say about any Jesus-James connection.

This particular mythicist sees no strong connection and therefore sees nothing that needs to be addressed.

GakuseiDon

Doherty, means "if the Gospels are accurate about what Jesus spoke".

Doherty means, "if the Gospels are accurate..."

Doherty means, "if the Gospels are accurate..."

Doherty means, "if the Gospels are accurate..."

Doherty means, "if the Gospels are accurate..."

Doherty writes in "Jesus: Neither God Nor Man":

Throughout this book, in the course of examining the silence in the epistles on the life and teachings of Jesus, we will look at all of the Gospel elements, without discrimination. This will include those which critical scholarship has cast doubt on, or even totally rejected...(Page 28)

What if the apologists are wrong? What if the Gospels aren't accurate?

GakuseiDon

According to my own pet theory, James' brand of Christianity were adoptionists, i.e. that Jesus was just a man but through obedience, was adopted as Son of God. This was the same beliefs as Paul and aMark. But this Jesus came out of a community that already had a background of established sayings. So Jesus said them, but the authority came from the community rather than an individual.

Interestingly, James 5 refers to the death of "the just", as does Acts:

James 5:6 You have condemned, you have murdered the just; he does not resist you.
James 5:7 Therefore be patient, brethren, until the coming of the Lord.

Act 3:13 "The God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, the God of our fathers, glorified His Servant Jesus, whom you delivered up and denied in the presence of Pilate, when he was determined to let [Him] go.
Act 3:14 "But you denied the Holy One and the Just, and asked for a murderer to be granted to you...

Act 7:52 "Which of the prophets did your fathers not persecute? And they killed those who foretold the coming of the Just One, of whom you now have become the betrayers and murderers,
Act 7:53 "who have received the law by the direction of angels and have not kept [it]."

Maybe James was referring to Christ or perhaps a community of people known as "the Just", but it is an interesting match.

Personally, I don't see any implications for mythicism. James could have been part of the same community as aMark, and so the sayings were common to both. From a historicist side, the sayings of the group were attributed to the man Jesus. From the mythicist side, the sayings of the group were attributed to a character called Jesus.

Toto

I don't see how Doherty can be assuming that the gospels are accurate, when he thinks that the words attributed to Jesus in the gospels were cribbed from somewhere else.