Norman
Agreed; Josephus definitely refers to “others” or “companions”. The read I get from that is that Josephus is referring to whomever was with James at the time of his arrest, rather than a “round-up” of the inner circle. Your “all the rest” wasn’t clear to me. It seems to me that the two of us are arguing over a point we more or less agree on.
Steefen
Yes, we more agree than disagree.
Norman and Robert, how much do you know about James?
Was he closer to an Essene / John the Baptist type?
Let’s explore the possibility that there was a community to which he was connected other than the original disciples.
Robert
Steefen minimizes the role of an historical Jesus active in the 20s and 30s and, in this thread, he seems to want to limit the number of active followers of Jesus prior to the period of the Judean War.
Steefen
The sources limit the number of active followers of Jesus. Do you disagree that King Agrippa killed a disciple and Peter fled Jerusalem?
Also, please see some of Bart’s past posts where he said Jesus did not have many followers.
I disagreed with Bart. Now, using the New Testament, I am trying to gather how many of the original disciples were companions of James the Just when he was put to death.
#1: Jesus of the late 20s / early 30s existed to the extent of Paul’s knowledge of his biography from Oral Tradition from the disciples, from the Jewish Establishment, and from Romans who interacted with the supposed Jesus of the 20s/30s.
And you know that extent gets a grade of F.
Second, I think scholars have said Pontius Pilate did not act under a tradition that governed the choice between Barabbas and Jesus.
Third, the Testimonium Flavianum is insufficient for establishing the historicity of Jesus because it relies on the gospels for people to get further information about Jesus rather than there being historical accounts Josephus himself could relay.
Pontius Pilate was not called when Jesus overturned the tables. With the Woe-Saying Jesus, people brought that Jesus to Pontius Pilate to be whipped. When Jesus upset the status quo, turning over the tables, nobody called the Roman authorities. In Jesus’ trials, I do not see anyone saying Jesus should be criminally punished for that. There is no historical account from Jesus’ insurrection against Temple Establishment standard operating procedure. Jesus at 30 years of age should have known that was the way the Temple operated. If he had a problem with that, he should have added that to his long list of complaints against the scribes and Pharisees.
You, yourself, say the declaration of Son of God after the baptism–a case of historicity cannot be made there; same thing for the transfiguration. Who knows how long your list of instances like that is? He really did not do that, in real life, that did not happen either; and of course, at that point in time, impregnation did require a male human being as opposed to impregnation without one–biology had not advanced that far at that time. Furthermore, they did not know blood needs to be transfused, by blood type even, not consumed in the digestive system (this is the cup of salvation).
History and Science minimize the role of a Jesus in the late 20s and early 30s.
I only have corrected my position with the possibility there was orthodox First Born Son of God Angel mystery cult within orthodox Temple Judaism before there was a gentile First Born Son of God Angel mystery cult SO PAUL has something to persecute. For me, that is not a must. Second, those cults do not have to sync with Paul’s conversion year. They could be a decade later, say 40 – 45 C.E.
Robert
I don’t doubt that King Agrippa killed a disciple and Peter fled Jerusalem. The question is to what extent the original group of followers grew between the time of Jesus’ death and and the death of James. Paul talks several times about the collection he is taking for the poor in Jerusalem, which seems to implicate more than a handful of followers in Jerusalem, but no one really knows how large the Jerusalem community of followers was at the death of James.
Steefen, Argumentation Specialist
Reply A (for those who think Jesus existed in the late 20s / early 30s)
The biblical Jesus said the original 12 were going to sit on thrones judging the 12 tribes of Israel.
That is administrative structure to be preserved.
Further evidence of that was the drawing of lots for the replacement of Judas.
James’ companions of the Jerusalem church would have been no more than 10 with one disciple killed and Peter fleeing Jerusalem.
Reply B (for those who do not think Jesus existed in the late 20s / early 30s)
1 Corinthians 15: 5-8)
After resurrection
Jesus appeared to Cephas.
Then to the 12 (including Cephas?)
He appeared to more than 500 brothers at once.
Then he appeared to James.
Then to all the apostles (the 12 plus the 72? to distinguish it from the 12 already mentioned)
Lastly, he appeared to Paul (least of the apostles due to persecution).
= = =
The Jerusalem Church starts with incarnated archangel plus 12 disciples + 72 secondary disciples who followed the incarnated archangel before he died.
After the incarnated archangel resurrected (remember the Jeselsohn Stone/Gabriel’s revelation, where Gabriel say, after three days rise)
he appeared to 500 plus brothers, then he appeared to James, then to the 12 + 72, then to Paul.
Before death, Jesus had 84 disciples.
Brothers of the Son of Man movement were 500+ before the death of the archangel, that congregation was earned, earning the archangel people to appear to after the resurrection.
We cannot be sure of the historicity of an incarnate angel who gets himself crucified by Rome.
First, I want to say something.
You said we get Jesus crucified in heaven by listening to Richard Carrier talking/writing about the Ascension of Isaiah.
Carrier says, the earliest redaction of the Ascension of Isaiah says Jesus never makes it to earth.
He says, we have one set of Christians writing Mark, Matthew, Luke-Acts, and John but we have another set of Christians writing the Ascension of Isaiah.
We have two personal savior cults. The personal savior overcomes death and so will his followers.
I DO NOT GET THAT MESSAGE FROM THE SYNOPTIC GOSPELS. John of course has 3: 16. But, the message in Mark, Matthew, and Luke is pretty much
Prepare for the kingdom of God that for some will come in their life times: tribulation then kingdom.
(Sure, Jesus warns of the one who can throw your soul into Gehenna, but that is not the thrust of his message: his message was the Son of Man is coming after a time of tribulation. The post-tribultation Son of Man will be glorious.
This throws everything off.
Paul has an unorthodox personal savior cult with his revealed Jesus. He says, he used to persecute the orthodox personal savior cult.
The revealed personal savior was an angel who incarnated on earth, died, and resurrected, and as we follow him, we too can be resurrected.
There is the Ascension of Isaiah personal savior cult where the angel does not incarnate on Earth (no historical Jesus) but is crucified in a level of heaven.
But we have Mark, Matthew, and Luke who do not have the Pauline focus on you can overcome death like your personal savior.
= = =
Robert
Paul does not distinguish between those who believed in an historical Jesus who lived in the 20s/30s and those who only believed in an incarnated archangel who was resurrected but who had not lived on earth in the 20s/30s. Why are you making this distinction?
Steefen
That is how I read those verses.
Then he appeared to the 12. The 12 had to be those who knew the incarnate angel before he died.
Everyone did not know Jesus only after resurrection, Robert.
The 500 brothers were earned before death and resurrection.
…it still suggests a larger presence in Jerusalem…
This is why I’ve always questioned Prof Ehrman’s ’20 guys in a room’ viewpoint. We have to explain the presence of a post-First Revolt Palestinian Jewish Christian community somehow. Obviously Jesus wasn’t as popular as described in the gospels but it’s likely he left behind a significant Galilean community who didn’t make the fateful trip to Jerusalem, and there was probably an ex-pat community of Galileans already in Jerusalem from which the disciples could draw support post-Easter.
Robert said
Steefen said
That is how I read those verses.
Then he appeared to the 12. The 12 had to be those who knew the incarnate angel before he died.
Everyone did not know Jesus only after resurrection, Robert.
The 500 brothers were earned before death and resurrection.
Regardless of when these 500 supposed witnesses of the resurrected Christ became members of the group, it still suggests a larger presence in Jerusalem than merely 10 apostles who might have all been killed with James by Ananus ben Ananus. As also does the fact that Paul talks several times about the collection he is taking up for the poor in Jerusalem, which would presumably be for more than a handful of followers in Jerusalem.
We do not understand why you do not understand in the Bible Jesus had 12 disciples and other followers and after Jesus’s death, that close inner circle does not have to lose their distinction and just be thrown in with a larger following.
Stephen said
…it still suggests a larger presence in Jerusalem…This is why I’ve always questioned Prof Ehrman’s ’20 guys in a room’ viewpoint. We have to explain the presence of a post-First Revolt Palestinian Jewish Christian community somehow. Obviously Jesus wasn’t as popular as described in the gospels but it’s likely he left behind a significant Galilean community who didn’t make the fateful trip to Jerusalem, and there was probably an ex-pat community of Galileans already in Jerusalem from which the disciples could draw support post-Easter.
You are saying Jesus’ group held together from the early 30s beyond AD 70, beyond Paul being rejected with death threats, beyond the killing of James the disciple by King Agrippa, beyond Peter running away from Jerusalem to get away from being imprisoned by Agrippa, beyond James and his companions being killed by Ananus ben Ananus, beyond the Jewish Civil War, and beyond the Jewish Revolt?
Stephen
Yes, one has to believe there were followers of Jesus living near his base, around the Sea of Galilee, who did not chose to embark on the fateful trip to Jerusalem; whether these are the “500” that Paul is referring to is hard to say.
Steefen
Regarding your question about James: James is a wonderful mystery to explore. I have always seen James as someone who was trying to promote the teachings of his brother while trying to maintain the Jewish nature of the movement. I think, as the years went by, he became increasingly aware of the evolving “Christian” movement, especially among the gentiles, that was altering the very nature of his brother’s movement. He was faced with a dilemma; the growth of the church in the Hellenistic diaspora was certainly seen as a positive, but the mixed messages being promulgated would have disturbed him. Paul’s claims to contrary (Galatians) aside, I don’t think he would have been happy with Paul’s teachings, but then I am not entirely sure that James was fully aware of the extent of Paul’s teachings (it is a shame we only have Paul’s, and the author of Luke’s, opinions on that matter). As for James’ connections with other movements; the Jesus movement didn’t exist in a vacuum. Jerusalem, and Palestine in general, was a hotbed of religious and political schools of thought at that time, and a relatively small movement, as the early church was, could well have allied with certain other schools of thought, such as the Essenes (radical movements, such as the Zealots, don’t seem likely), especially given the attitude expressed, in the gospels, towards the Sadducees and Pharisees, the two largest religious groups in 1st century Palestine (indeed, once you eliminate the two latter groups, the Essenes become the most logical fit). The question that most interests me is what leanings James had prior to taking on the mantle of his brother; for all we know, he may have actually considered himself an Essene before his brother created his own movement (which shared, admittedly, some philosophy with the Essenes). The one great mystery to me is that James took control of the group in Jerusalem, yet the gospels, written after his death, make no positive identification of him (I do not hold with the tradition of identifying him as James, son of Aphaeus; James the “Less” is far more likely, but still not clear); this is very strange, considering he led the church for nearly three decades, and even more strange when you consider the somewhat disparaging way the synoptic gospels portray Jesus’ family at times (i.e. Luke 8:19-21, Matthew 12:48-50). You would expect the gospels to be more embracing of James, yet they are insistent that it was Peter/Cephas who was to be Jesus’ successor, not James. Why the re-framing of history? I’d love to here some ideas on that front.
On an unrelated topic, I would like to apologize to everyone for not always being prompt with my replies; health issues sometimes conspire to keep me away from the computer. I will reply to any and all queries; it just may take a day or two.
Someone who did not exist, did not have a brother.
Jesus, who did not exist, did not have a brother, James.
Question: Did the archangel/Son of God incarnate and have a ministry in the late 20s/early 30s?
Steefen, Argumentation Specialist
The Hebrew Bible speaks of angels appearing to human beings but not a lifetime at a time.
I am going to say no to both:
1) a unique biological individual named Jesus did not exist in the late 20s/early 30s.
2) a Jewish archangel did not incarnate and have a ministry in the late 20s/early 30s. That image of God, Logos, high priest was not crucified by order of Pontius Pilate and think God had forsaken him. (There are certain failings of humans that are not failings of archangels.)
One may think: a Jewish archangel incarnated, that solves the problem, but it does not.
Are there angels in Greco-Roman mythology? How many angels does Jupiter, Mars, or Venus have in Greco-Roman mythology?
Steefen said
Stephen said
…it still suggests a larger presence in Jerusalem…
This is why I’ve always questioned Prof Ehrman’s ’20 guys in a room’ viewpoint. We have to explain the presence of a post-First Revolt Palestinian Jewish Christian community somehow. Obviously Jesus wasn’t as popular as described in the gospels but it’s likely he left behind a significant Galilean community who didn’t make the fateful trip to Jerusalem, and there was probably an ex-pat community of Galileans already in Jerusalem from which the disciples could draw support post-Easter.
You are saying Jesus’ group held together from the early 30s beyond AD 70, beyond Paul being rejected with death threats, beyond the killing of James the disciple by King Agrippa, beyond Peter running away from Jerusalem to get away from being imprisoned by Agrippa, beyond James and his companions being killed by Ananus ben Ananus, beyond the Jewish Civil War, and beyond the Jewish Revolt?
I’m not making any specific claims but we have the story of the so-called “Flight to Pella” by the Jerusalem Church before the first revolt. Eusebius writes that the Jerusalem Church survived until the Bar Kokhba revolt. We have evidence of Jewish Christian sectarians active in the synagogues until the Fourth Century. We have hints in the East of Christian groups heavily influenced by Jewish practice. We have “heretical” groups like the Ebionites whose practices and beliefs nearly resemble what is thought to have been the earliest form of Christian practice. Direct lineage, who knows? But these folks got their beliefs and practices from somewhere. I’m simply pointing out that it’s reasonable to assume there was some kind of Galilean community left post-Easter and that the community in Jerusalem would have been as good a staging ground as any for an active Jewish ministry. The forty years between the death of the historical Jesus and the first revolt would have been plenty of time for that. (And of course let’s remember that the Christians were well known enough for Josephus to have heard of them.)
Robert
Paul’s beliefs about the pre-existence of Christ as some kind of angelic being was never intended to solve any problem of Jesus’ historical existence. That was a given by Paul.
Steefen
Paul’s position by scholars needs to be thorough.
Did this angel take human form or not, for Paul?
If yes, how can Paul share so little about his biography?
You say the majority of critical scholars say Jesus existed in the late 20s/early 30s.
Was this a unique, biological man or was this a unique, biological incarnation of Paul’s angel?
If Jesus was the incarnation of Paul’s angel, there is hardly a need for the argument that God adopted Jesus after his baptism or what have you.
If Jesus was a unique, biological man, then an adoption argument can be made. But, if a pre-existent, high priest, angel is the correct answer, there is no need for God to adopt an angel that sprang up from him.
BDEhrman
FreedomBen
evgendob
Robert
1 Guest(s)