James 1.1 and 2.1.

Discussion about the New Testament, apocrypha, gnostics, church fathers, Christian origins, historical Jesus or otherwise, etc.
John2
Posts: 4309
Joined: Fri May 16, 2014 4:42 pm

Re: James 1.1 and 2.1.

Post by John2 »

Ben wrote:
The mainstream solution to these problems, if such they are, is harmonistic: for example, James was not a believer during Jesus' ministry, but then he became one shortly thereafter ...
That's how I see it. The same thing happened to Paul (though after Jesus' death), so why not to James? Did any of the disciples "get" Jesus in his lifetime? I would think my brother was crazy too if he talked like Jesus did. But if I was a believer in the OT and "saw the light" (i.e., saw the OT in a new light, i.e., one that persuaded me that it prophesized about my brother), then I can imagine I would change my mind about it.

And I see the Damascus Document as at least offering a potential parallel (if it doesn't actually refer to James and Jesus). First it tells us that God "visited" the sect, then the sect were like blind men for twenty years until the rise of the Teacher of Righteousness.
... He visited them, and He caused a root of planting to spring from Israel and Aaron to inherit His Land and to prosper on the good things of His earth. And they perceived their iniquity and recognized that they were guilty men, yet for twenty years they were like blind men groping for the way. And God observed their deeds, that they sought Him with a whole heart, and He raised for them a Teacher of Righteousness to guide them in the way of His heart.
Last edited by John2 on Wed Mar 21, 2018 6:45 pm, edited 1 time in total.
You know in spite of all you gained, you still have to stand out in the pouring rain.
User avatar
Ben C. Smith
Posts: 8994
Joined: Wed Apr 08, 2015 2:18 pm
Location: USA
Contact:

Re: James 1.1 and 2.1.

Post by Ben C. Smith »

In your opinion, do Matthew, Mark, and John not care that they leave us with the impression that Jesus' brothers are all unbelievers? Or do they expect the reader to know who Jesus' brothers are and connect the dots ("ah, they converted")?

Also, why do you think Acts never lets us know that James the leader of the church is a brother of Jesus?

(These are sincere questions, not leading ones.)
ΤΙ ΕΣΤΙΝ ΑΛΗΘΕΙΑ
John2
Posts: 4309
Joined: Fri May 16, 2014 4:42 pm

Re: James 1.1 and 2.1.

Post by John2 »

Ben wrote:
In your opinion, do Matthew, Mark, and John not care that they leave us with the impression that Jesus' brothers are all unbelievers? Or do they expect the reader to know who Jesus' brothers are and connect the dots ("ah, they converted")?
Of course. How else would people have come to know about Jesus? Only by revelations?
Also, why do you think Acts never lets us know that James the leader of the church is a brother of Jesus?
Because it is pro-Pauline. Paul is the big hero in Acts. Paul is the apostle that Acts is the most interested in and it ends with Paul preaching in Rome. I used to not like Acts much because of this bias, but now I see that once you get past it that it seems quite knowledgeable about Christian origins (just like it claims to be), and while it seems to have a certain degree of respect for Jewish Christianity, I think it doesn't highlight certain aspects of it (such as their leader being James' brother or the significance of James' death) so as not to outshine Paul. Peter kind of gets the same treatment. What becomes of him in Acts? It doesn't tell us. Why not? Again, I think it's to not outshine Paul. I think Acts does a good job harmonizing the two camps in early Christianity (Pauline and Jewish Christian), but it ultimately prefers Paul. That's fine. So they liked Paul. And whoever wrote the Grundschrift of the Clementine writings liked Jewish Christians (and doesn't mention Paul by name) and their writings reflect that. That's what people tend to do.
Last edited by John2 on Wed Mar 21, 2018 6:46 pm, edited 1 time in total.
You know in spite of all you gained, you still have to stand out in the pouring rain.
User avatar
Ben C. Smith
Posts: 8994
Joined: Wed Apr 08, 2015 2:18 pm
Location: USA
Contact:

Re: James 1.1 and 2.1.

Post by Ben C. Smith »

John2 wrote: Wed Mar 21, 2018 6:15 pm Ben wrote:
In your opinion, do Matthew, Mark, and John not care that they leave us with the impression that Jesus' brothers are all unbelievers? Or do they expect the reader to know who Jesus' brothers are and connect the dots ("ah, they converted")?
Of course. How else would people have come to know about Jesus? Only by revelations?
It is not clear to me which of my two questions you are saying "of course" to.
Because it is pro-Pauline. Paul is the big hero in Acts. Paul is the apostle that Acts is the most interested in and it ends with Paul preaching in Rome. I used to not like Acts much because of this bias, but now I see that once you get past it that it seems quite knowledgeable about Christian origins (just like it claims to be), and while it seems to have a certain degree of respect for Jewish Christianity, I think it doesn't highlight certain aspects of it (such as their leader being James' brother or the significance of James' death) so as not to outshine Paul. Peter kind of gets the same treatment. What becomes of him in Acts? It doesn't tell us. Why not? Again, I think it's to not outshine Paul. I think Acts does a good job harmonizing the two camps in early Christianity (Pauline and Jewish Christian), but it ultimately prefers Paul. That's fine. So they liked Paul. And whoever wrote the Grundschrift of the Clementine writings liked Jewish Christians (and don't mention Paul by name) and their writings reflect that. That's what people tend to do.
So, in your judgment, Luke (in Acts) does know that James is the brother of Jesus, but skips over that point, correct?
ΤΙ ΕΣΤΙΝ ΑΛΗΘΕΙΑ
John2
Posts: 4309
Joined: Fri May 16, 2014 4:42 pm

Re: James 1.1 and 2.1.

Post by John2 »

In your opinion, do Matthew, Mark, and John not care that they leave us with the impression that Jesus' brothers are all unbelievers? Or do they expect the reader to know who Jesus' brothers are and connect the dots ("ah, they converted")?
I think I missed your nuance here. But this goes back to what I'm saying, that none of the disciples (whether they were related to Jesus or not) seemed to "get" Jesus in the NT. But it stand to reason that they must have converted at some point, and Jesus tells them to go out and preach in the NT (which I assume they did), e.g., Mt. 10:5-16:
These twelve Jesus sent out with the following instructions: “Do not go among the Gentiles or enter any town of the Samaritans. Go rather to the lost sheep of Israel. As you go, proclaim this message: ‘The kingdom of heaven has come near.’ 8Heal the sick, raise the dead, cleanse those who have leprosy, drive out demons. Freely you have received; freely give.

“Do not get any gold or silver or copper to take with you in your belts— no bag for the journey or extra shirt or sandals or a staff, for the worker is worth his keep. Whatever town or village you enter, search there for some worthy person and stay at their house until you leave. As you enter the home, give it your greeting. If the home is deserving, let your peace rest on it; if it is not, let your peace return to you. If anyone will not welcome you or listen to your words, leave that home or town and shake the dust off your feet. Truly I tell you, it will be more bearable for Sodom and Gomorrah on the day of judgment than for that town. I am sending you out like sheep among wolves."
And Mt. 28:16-20 (regardless of whether or not it is an interpolation):
Then the eleven disciples went to Galilee, to the mountain where Jesus had told them to go. When they saw him, they worshiped him; but some doubted. Then Jesus came to them and said, “All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me. Therefore go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, and teaching them to obey everything I have commanded you."
Last edited by John2 on Wed Mar 21, 2018 6:28 pm, edited 2 times in total.
You know in spite of all you gained, you still have to stand out in the pouring rain.
John2
Posts: 4309
Joined: Fri May 16, 2014 4:42 pm

Re: James 1.1 and 2.1.

Post by John2 »

So, in your judgment, Luke (in Acts) does know that James is the brother of Jesus, but skips over that point, correct?
Yes.
You know in spite of all you gained, you still have to stand out in the pouring rain.
User avatar
Ben C. Smith
Posts: 8994
Joined: Wed Apr 08, 2015 2:18 pm
Location: USA
Contact:

Re: James 1.1 and 2.1.

Post by Ben C. Smith »

John2 wrote: Wed Mar 21, 2018 6:26 pm
In your opinion, do Matthew, Mark, and John not care that they leave us with the impression that Jesus' brothers are all unbelievers? Or do they expect the reader to know who Jesus' brothers are and connect the dots ("ah, they converted")?
I think I missed your nuance here. But this goes back to what I'm saying, that none of the disciples (whether they were related to Jesus or not) seemed to "get" Jesus in the NT. But it stand to reason that they must have converted at some point, and Jesus tells them to go out and preach in the NT (which I assume they did), e.g., Mt. 10:5-16....
Sure, but those are the disciples. I am asking about the brothers. Or are you saying that Jesus' brothers were among the disciples? I am still not sure how you are answering my question.

Matthew, Mark, and John all mention that Jesus had brothers. But they also all state or imply that those brothers did not believe. None of them states or implies that they eventually converted. These are simply the data so far. So what I am wondering is how you interpret these data. Did Matthew, Mark, and John know that they did convert, and that conversion went unmentioned simply because it lay outside their purpose? Or were they ignorant of that conversion themselves? Or did they know about it and also expect their readers to know about it and to connect the dots?
ΤΙ ΕΣΤΙΝ ΑΛΗΘΕΙΑ
John2
Posts: 4309
Joined: Fri May 16, 2014 4:42 pm

Re: James 1.1 and 2.1.

Post by John2 »

Let's put the shoe on the other foot. Why doesn't the Letter of James mention Paul by name? Why doesn't the Recognitions of Clement mention Paul? Because they are biased against him.

James 2:20:
You foolish person, do you want evidence that faith without deeds is useless?
Clem. Rec. 1.70 (which some see as referring to Paul and which I gather says Saul in a margin note):
And when matters were at that point that they should come and be baptized, some one of our enemies, entering the temple with a few men, began to cry out, and to say, 'What mean ye, O men of Israel? Why are you so easily hurried on? Why are ye led headlong by most miserable men, who are deceived by Simon, a magician?'

"While he was thus speaking, and adding more to the same effect, and while James the bishop was refuting him, he began to excite the people and to raise a tumult, so that the people might not be able to hear what was said.

"Therefore he began to drive all into confusion with shouting, and to undo what had been arranged with much labour, and at the same time to reproach the priests, and to enrage them with revilings and abuse, and, like a madman, to excite every one to murder, saying, 'What do ye? Why do ye hesitate? Oh sluggish and inert, why do we not lay hands upon them, and pull all these fellows to pieces?'

When he had said this, he first, seizing a strong brand from the altar, set the example of smiting. Then others also, seeing him, were carried away with like readiness. Then ensued a tumult on either side, of the beating and the beaten. Much blood is shed; there is a confused flight, in the midst of which that enemy attacked James, and threw him headlong from the top of the steps; and supposing him to be dead, he cared not to inflict further violence upon him.
Gal. 1:13:
For you have heard of my previous way of life in Judaism, how intensely I persecuted the church of God and tried to destroy it.
Last edited by John2 on Wed Mar 21, 2018 6:43 pm, edited 3 times in total.
You know in spite of all you gained, you still have to stand out in the pouring rain.
John2
Posts: 4309
Joined: Fri May 16, 2014 4:42 pm

Re: James 1.1 and 2.1.

Post by John2 »

Sure, but those are the disciples. I am asking about the brothers. Or are you saying that Jesus' brothers were among the disciples? I am still not sure how you are answering my question.

Matthew, Mark, and John all mention that Jesus had brothers. But they also all state or imply that those brothers did not believe. None of them states or implies that they eventually converted. These are simply the data so far. So what I am wondering is how you interpret these data. Did Matthew, Mark, and John know that they did convert ...
But the same thing (in my view) applies to the disciples. I assume that the disciples converted, given the spread of Christianity. And I assume that Jesus' brothers did too because of James' position in the church in Galatians (and I see "brother of the Lord" as not being an interpolation and that Lord refers to Jesus) and the letters of James (which I see as being fully Jewish Christian) and Jude, which say how great Jesus is.
You know in spite of all you gained, you still have to stand out in the pouring rain.
User avatar
Ben C. Smith
Posts: 8994
Joined: Wed Apr 08, 2015 2:18 pm
Location: USA
Contact:

Re: James 1.1 and 2.1.

Post by Ben C. Smith »

John2 wrote: Wed Mar 21, 2018 6:38 pm
Sure, but those are the disciples. I am asking about the brothers. Or are you saying that Jesus' brothers were among the disciples? I am still not sure how you are answering my question.

Matthew, Mark, and John all mention that Jesus had brothers. But they also all state or imply that those brothers did not believe. None of them states or implies that they eventually converted. These are simply the data so far. So what I am wondering is how you interpret these data. Did Matthew, Mark, and John know that they did convert ...
But the same thing (in my view) applies to the disciples. I assume that the disciples converted, given the spread of Christianity.
The gospels give reasons for supposing this, or at least reasons to suspect that the authors knew they were active in the churches. Not so for the brothers, however, so far as I can tell. No hints at all.

In other words, if you ask me how I know that Matthew or Mark or John knew that at least some of the disciples would go on to be church leaders, I can produce verses. If the same can be said about the brothers, what are those verses? I do not think they exist. And, if they do not exist, how do we know that the authors knew?
And I assume that Jesus' brothers did too because of James' position in the church in Galatians (and I see "brother of the Lord" as not being an interpolation and that Lord refers to Jesus) and the letters of James (which I see as being fully Jewish Christian) and Jude, which say how great Jesus is.
Okay, I know that you assume this (and more: you also argue it), but did the evangelists? If so, what is the evidence?

I myself would not base anything on the epistle of James being authentically Jacobian. I am not sure about the epistle of Jude.
ΤΙ ΕΣΤΙΝ ΑΛΗΘΕΙΑ
Post Reply