Peter Kirby

Although this book was written in 1918, it has aged gracefully. Jackson's slim volume is full of carefully argued opinions that are relevant to our own studies today.

The book in full is available here:

<a href="http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/jackson/" target="_blank">http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/jackson/</a>

Any comments on this book are welcome.

best,
Peter Kirby

Early Christian Writings - 30 to 200
<a href="http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/" target="_blank">http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/</a>

Geoff Hudson

Peter,

Thankyou for this reference book on-line. I have printed out Excursis 1 - The Death of John the Son of Zebedee to read and mark. I find it interesting that some thought that this John could have been executed by Jews at about the same time as James the other son. It would be even more interesting if the James was also the leader of the Jerusalem assmbly.

I have a theory that that the leader James was not stoned by Ananus, but was executed in Rome by Nero, possibly put to the sword.

The phrases in Antiquities 20.9.1 that run:'and brought before them the brother of Jesus who was called Christ, whose name was James' could run: 'and brought before them the brother of James who was called Just, whose name was John.'

We know James was called Just, because the NT tells us, and Eisenman tells us so a thousand times.

Geoff

Peter Kirby

Based primarily on the verse in Mark, the view that James and John were executed around the same time has had some scholarly support for some time.

For my reference, where in the NT is James called "Just"?

best,
Peter Kirby

Layman

I'll take a look when I get the time. Some scholars have suggested that the authorship of this gospel is properly attributed to a disciple of Jesus who resided in Jerusalem. Ben Witherington makes the strongest case along these lines that I have seen. It has the advantage of explaining the comparative focus on Judea and Jerusalem over Galilee.

<a href="http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/066425621X/qid=1034112936/sr=1-3/ref=sr_1_3/104-2686802-0787118?v=glance" target="_blank">http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/066425621X/qid=1034112936/sr=1-3/ref=sr_1_3/104-2686802-0787118?v=glance</a>

aikido7

Peter,

Thanks for pointing out the book. I have long been familiar with some of the difficulties associated with the Fourth Gospel and it was interesting to read an early survey of some of its many problems (The turn-of-the-century linguistics were an added bonus!).

John's gospel is an important wedge we have in cracking open the nut of evangelical illiteracy in biblical matters. The American version of Christianity has cloaked itself in both John's Gospel and Paul's letters and has ignored the other competing voices of the Bible. This keeps their dogma neat and tidy as long as they stay in a solitary room of their Father's mansion.

John's Jesus avoids the ambiguity of parable, so there is really nothing to challenge the fundamentalist mindset.

I would hope that the real differences between John and the synoptics will get an increasingly public airing. It galls me to no end to see Falwell and his ilk talk on and on about biblical faith matters from the theological slant of John.

As a friend of mine once remarked that anyone can get up in the pulpit or on television and say something like "Ephesians 7:11 tells us to 'cut people up into little pieces and eat them like cheeseburgers'" and the reaction is usually something like "Well, er--okay."

Again, it is an important link and was an interesting read! Thank you!

Peter Kirby

aikido7,

I am glad that you liked reading the book. I was the one who transcribed it for the web.

Making people aware that there are competing voices in the NT is a good thing--even better would be to point out the extra-biblical voices. And better still would be to increase awareness of the non-Christian views on things. But people seem to be happy with just John--or, for that matter, with just verse 3:16.

best,
Peter Kirby

aikido7

As Jesus Seminar scholar Marcus Borg once pointed out, a sign proclaiming "John 3:16" happens to be the one we always see in the end zones of NFL games(usually held by some guy in a rainbow Afro wig!).

Geoff Hudson

Peter,

These are my references:

My version: So they proposed James called the Just.

Typically, the editor of Acts was garbling using pseudonyms freely – in this case to eliminate the role of James. He used the pseudonym ‘Joseph’ called Barsabbas (Barnabas), instead of ‘Just’. James was appointed leader of the Jerusalem assembly to replace John the Prophet who had just been executed by stoning. The real ‘Joseph’ (Josephus) was the son of Matthias. Matthias was included in the election by the editor to create the illusion of his appointment to the ‘eleven’ in the position vacated by the fictional Judas, the betrayer of the equally fictional Jesus. In reality, the assembly simply elected a leader James by a majority vote. Another pseudonym for James is Peter (in many instances). And another is Banus (of which Barnabas is an echo) in Life 1.

My version: News of this reached the ears of the church at Jerusalem, and they sent James to Rome. When he arrived and saw the evidence of the Spirit of God, he was glad and encouraged them all to remain true to the Spirit with all their hearts. He was called Just, full of the Spirit, and a great number of people were brought to the Spirit.

A man who DOES good is a just or righteous man. If you wanted to expand your organisation into the rest of the world, who else would you send but your chief executive (in this case James), and where else would you send him but the most important city, Rome (not Antioch). In Rome, James gained his citizenship probably because he was considered an important leader of Jews, and because he was Just.

My version: Some time later I said to James, "Let us go back and visit the brothers in all the towns where we preached the Spirit of the Lord and see how they are doing." James wanted to take John, also called Just, with us, but I did not think it wise to take him, because he had been ill in Pamphylia and had not been able to continue with us in the work.

Here the word ‘called’ associated with James the Just is now joined with ‘also’ in connection with John. These were the brothers Just, the sons of Zebedee. Again the editor was up to his chicanery and changed ‘Just’ to the pseudonym ‘Mark’. I can only think that Acts was written by Paul (the young Josephus) who was present in all its events. May be Acts was meant to be in Life which omits six critical years of Josephus’s activities.


My version: You have condemned the righteous man; and he does not resist you.

I believe James wrote the epistle in his name while he was held a prisoner in Caesarea for two years awaiting the decisions of governors, after being accused by Ananus the High Priest. His reference to the ‘righteous or just man’ may have been phrased in such a way that it could have referred to others, but his readers would have had no doubt that James was referring to himself. The phrase ‘he does not resist you’ written in the present tense, was true to his character, and illustrates that James advocated passive resistance against his persecutors. But his epistle is scathing in its criticism of the wealthy High Priests. In v.7, James urges the brothers to exercise patience – something he was forced to do in prison.

The words ‘and killed’ were probably added by an editor so that the just man alludes to Jesus. One could say that other righteous people had been killed during persecutions carried out by the High Priests, but anyone who was killed could hardly resist, could they.

The Reference Ant. 20.9.1

When you think about all that must have been said and written about James being the Brother of the Lord, it would be ironic if the reference in Antiquities originally was and brought before them the brother of James who was called Just, whose name was John, and some others. The editor’s late simple changes of Jesus for James, Christ for Just, and James for John created the source text that everyone else used to prove that Jesus was a historical character. Was it James who was called Just, or was it John? I believe James had been executed previously in Rome where he had been staying for two years.

Geoff

Peter Kirby

Hello,

It seems that you cannot wrangle a reference out of the New Testament to James as "Just" without resorting to amendation that lacks manuscript attestation. But then you can make the NT refer to anything.

Of course, you will find references to the sobriquet of "Just" in the Coptic Gospel of Thomas and the quote of Hegesippus in Eusebius.

As to Ant. 20.9.1, do you have any quotes to show that this passage was used as a proof of the historical Jesus by anyone in the ninth century or earlier?

best,
Peter Kirby

Vorkosigan

aikido7,

I am glad that you liked reading the book. I was the one who transcribed it for the web.

I am reading it in bits and snatches. Thanks, Peter.