What was the fatal error of James the Just?

Discussion about the New Testament, apocrypha, gnostics, church fathers, Christian origins, historical Jesus or otherwise, etc.
Steven Donnelly
Posts: 5
Joined: Sat May 10, 2014 8:23 pm

Re: What was the fatal error of James the Just?

Post by Steven Donnelly »

Two cents (for the Salvation Army)...

Although I haven't looked closely at Eusebius' text, though I wonder whether the phrase "door of salvation" may qualify as a possible reading?

Conceivably, during the process of the story's transmission the Aramaic phrase was misconstrued as a reference to the proper noun (the name 'Jesus') instead of the common noun for 'salvation'.

From merely a cursory glance at the English translation as recorded in the original post, the obvious problem with this suggestion is what to do with the final two words (i.e. "the crucified") which follow the phrase in question.

Steven D.
User avatar
DCHindley
Posts: 3412
Joined: Mon Oct 07, 2013 9:53 am
Location: Ohio, USA

Re: What was the fatal error of James the Just?

Post by DCHindley »

There is a modern day analog in the 1860 split of the Reorganized Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints (RLDS, now known as the Community of Christ since 2001), led by Joseph Smith Jr, from its parent, The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (the LDS Church or, informally, the Mormon Church) established in 1830 by its founding prophet Joseph Smith. Like Sunni Islam, the religious authorities ignored the wishes of its founder and elected one of their own as the next leader. The former heirs apparent took off and started their own movements. The stronger organization (Sunni and the "Peter" fraction) marginalized the other faction by impugning some sort of dynastic motive.

I'm not so sure I can give the story lines of the stronger factions the benefit of the doubt, though. In the case of Jesus' family, Eusebius, Church History Bk 1 ch 7, sections 13ff, quotes Julius Africanus to say that the relatives of Jesus were called "desposyni" ("little despots," which is a somewhat stronger word than kurios, "master"). Today we use the word "despot" with a negative context, pertaining to rulers like Saddam Hussein, although it really did not have this connotation in the first century or two CE. A despot was the "sole ruler," essentially equivalent to "king." His family members, I would think, would not assume such a designation unless they had long maintained a claim to having a royal ancestry, in fact, they saw themselves as legitimate heirs.

That it was Davidic ancestry is clear from later traditions that members of Jesus' family were hunted down along with others who claimed Davidic descent:
(Eusebius, Church History, Book 3.19:1 - 20:6) 19:1 But when this same Domitian [81 - 96 CE] had commanded that the descendants of David should be slain, an ancient tradition says that some of the heretics brought accusation against the descendants of Jude (said to have been a brother of the Saviour according to the flesh), on the ground that they were of the lineage of David and were related to Christ himself. Hegesippus relates these facts in the following words.
20:1 Of the family of the Lord there were still living the grandchildren of Jude, who is said to have been the Lord's brother according to the flesh. Information was given that they belonged to the family of David, and they were brought to the Emperor Domitian by the Evocatus. For Domitian feared the coming of Christ as Herod also had feared it. 2a And he asked them if they were descendants of David, and they confessed that they were.

2b Then he asked them how much property they had, or how much money they owned. And both of them answered that they had only nine thousand denarii, half of which belonged to each of them. And this property did not consist of silver, but of a piece of land which contained only thirty-nine acres [γῆς πλέθρων λθ μόνων, actually the unit of area is given as "plethron," which, if Eusebius meant the original Greek measure, equals 13.3 acres, or 5.4 hectares, but if he is using the Greek word for the Roman iugerum, it equates to 26.6 acres, or = 10.7 hectares*], and from which they raised their taxes and supported themselves by their own labor. 3 Then they showed their hands, exhibiting the hardness of their bodies and the callousness produced upon their hands by continuous toil as evidence of their own labor.

4 And when they were asked concerning Christ and his kingdom [περὶ τοῦ Χριστοῦ καὶ τῆς βασιλείας αὐτου], of what sort it was and where and when it was to appear, they answered that it was not a temporal nor an earthly kingdom, but a heavenly and angelic one [οὐ κοσμικὴ μὲν οὐδ᾽ ἐπίγειος, ἐπουράνιος δὲ καὶ ἀγγελικὴ τυγχάνοι], which would appear at the end of the world, when he should come in glory to judge the quick and the dead, and to give unto every one according to his works.

5 Upon hearing this, Domitian did not pass judgment against them, but, despising them as of no account, he let them go, and by a decree put a stop to the persecution of the Church.

6 But when they were released they ruled the churches because they were witnesses and were also relatives of the Lord. And peace being established, they lived until the time of Trajan [98-117 CE].


These things are related by Hegesippus.
DCH

*According to David H Fiensy, The Social History of Palestine in the Herodian Period (1991, pp 92-95), the acreage needed to feed a family of six is estimated to be:
1. Ben David
16.8 acres
2. Oakman 16.5 acres
3. Hopkins 8 acres
4. Dar 6 acres
5. Brunt 10.9
6. White (more than 8 acres)
7. Applebaum (more than 6 acres)

Peter Kirby wrote:Robert Price compares the role of James, as the successor to Jesus, to Ali ibn Abi Talib, the cousin and son-in-law of Muhammad ... notably in the tradition that there are rival claims to authority (Paul vs James, Abu Bakr vs Ali ibn Abi Talib) at the start of both Christianity and Islam. Even more notably, in that it is possible that James, the relative, did not rise to prominence until others (Peter or perhaps even Paul) had first done so.
TedM
Posts: 855
Joined: Sun Oct 13, 2013 11:25 am

Re: What was the fatal error of James the Just?

Post by TedM »

I agree with Bernard here (I usually do), but found it interesting that you found this quote in James 5. I believe James, or much of it, really was written by THE James who was the leader of the first 'Christians' in Jerusalem. I believe much of the teachings by James probably were the same teachings of Jesus. One can certainly find other very similar teachings between James and Matthew (the most Jewish gospel, some say). Others disagree about the authorship of James, of course.
John2 wrote:Hello John T (and Peter and everyone else, since this is my first post).

I'm not sure what exactly the Door of Jesus is, but I suppose it could have something to do with these verses:

"The Lord's coming is near. Don't grumble against one another, brothers and sisters, or you will be judged. The Judge is standing at the door" (James 5:8-9).

"Here I am! I stand at the door and knock. If anyone hears my voice and opens the door, I will come ..." (Rev. 3:20).

"Even so, when you see these things happening, you know that it [the coming of the Son of Man on the clouds of heaven] is near, right at the door" (Mk. 13:29/Mt. 24:33).

"Very truly I tell you, I am the door for the sheep" (John 10:7, directed at the Pharisees).
John2
Posts: 4309
Joined: Fri May 16, 2014 4:42 pm

Re: What was the fatal error of James the Just?

Post by John2 »

I've been mulling over the NT verses I cited earlier (and Hegesippus' remark) that associate Jesus with a "door," and I noticed that, with one exception, they all present the door as something that Jesus will come through:

Hegesippus: "He Himself sitteth in heaven, at the right hand of the Great Power, and shall come on the clouds of heaven."

James 5:8-9: "The Lord's coming is near ... The Judge is standing at the door."

Rev. 3:20: "I stand at the door ... If anyone hears my voice and opens the door, I will come in and eat with that person, and they with me."

Mk. 13:29/Mt. 24:33: "[The Son of Man coming on the clouds of heaven] is near, right at the door."

Only John 10:9 presents the door as something that the believer enters to attain salvation: "I am the gate; whoever enters through me will be saved."

And this idea is in line with what toejam wrote: "Going through the door is a metaphor for accepting the Christian dogma, becoming 'saved.'"

Yet the reference in Hegesippus is more in line with the other (and arguably earlier) NT verses that present the door as something that Jesus will come through.

Posts: 2
Joined: Fri May 16, 2014 4:42 pm
Private messageTop
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: What was the fatal error of James the Just?

Post by John2 »

Steven D wrote:

"I wonder whether the phrase "door of salvation" may qualify as a possible reading?"

The Damascus Document refers to the expectation of seeing God's salvation:

"God will forgive them and they shall see His salvation because they took refuge in His holy Name."

The "salvation" in the Hebrew here is "yeshua," so if "His salvation" (yeshuato) could be translated as "His Jesus," maybe the "Door of Jesus" could also mean the "door of salvation."
You know in spite of all you gained, you still have to stand out in the pouring rain.
Bernard Muller
Posts: 3964
Joined: Tue Oct 15, 2013 6:02 pm
Contact:

Re: What was the fatal error of James the Just?

Post by Bernard Muller »

Yet the reference in Hegesippus is more in line with the other (and arguably earlier) NT verses that present the door as something that Jesus will come through.
I do not agree with that. And the usages of the word "door" in other Christian writings are not necessarily clues on how to interpret "the door of Jesus" in Hegesippus' writings. I do not see any connection.
More so when there is enough evidence to justify Peter & James were not Christians and did not believe Jesus resurrected.
All explanations here:
http://historical-jesus.sosblogs.com/Hi ... stians.htm

Cordially, Bernard
I believe freedom of expression should not be curtailed
John2
Posts: 4309
Joined: Fri May 16, 2014 4:42 pm

Re: What was the fatal error of James the Just?

Post by John2 »

John 10 is actually a lot more complicated than I thought. 10:2 says that "the one who enters by the gate is the shepherd of the sheep," so Jesus comes through the "door" in John and leads believers back through it. But Jesus also *is* the door, because he says, "I am the gate" (10:7, 10:9). So the concept of the "door" seems more developed in John than in arguably earlier writings.
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: What was the fatal error of James the Just?

Post by John2 »

Bernard wrote:

"And the usages of the word "door" in other Christian writings are not necessarily clues on how to interpret "the door of Jesus" in Hegesippus' writings. I do not see any connection."

In the sources I cited (James 5:8-9, Mark 13:29/Matthew 24:33, Revelation 3:20 and John 10) and Hegesippus, it seems like the "door" is consistently presented as something that Jesus stands at and/or comes through.

As far as I can tell, only John 10 mentions believers going through it and Jesus actually being the door.

I took a (very quick) look at your link, but for the sake of time could you just tell me how exactly the concept of the "door" is different in Hegesippus than the sources I cited?
You know in spite of all you gained, you still have to stand out in the pouring rain.
User avatar
John T
Posts: 1567
Joined: Thu May 15, 2014 8:57 am

Re: What was the fatal error of James the Just?

Post by John T »

Still quoting from Hegesippus via Eusebius: "Now some persons belonging to the seven sects existing among the people, which have been before described by me in the Notes, asked him: "What is the door of Jesus? " And he replied that He was the Saviour. In Consequence of this answer, some believed that Jesus is the Christ. But the sects before mentioned did not believe, either in a resurrection or in the coming of One to requite every man according to his works; but those who did believe, believed because of James."

********************

Could it be: That the Pharisees needed to provide proof via scripture that Jesus could not be the expected Messiah? If so, what scripture could they cite?

According to Ezekiel 43: 1-9, the LORD will enter the gate that faces east, i.e. the Golden Gate and take his place in the inner court and reside with the people of Israel forever. Once inside, the east gate a.k.a. the Gate of Mercy, will be closed and remain shut and no one shall enter through the east gate. Ezekiel 44:1-3.

Yet, the gospel of John proclaims Jesus to be an open door to salvation. “I am the door. If anyone enters by me, he will be saved and will go in and out and find pasture. “John 10:9-10.

Could it be the ruling of the Pharisees was that since the door of Jesus is open, he can't be the Christ because according to the prophet Ezekiel the east gate shall remain shut?

What I sense is that the Pharisees could not convict James the Just of backsliding from the law so they had him convicted as a false prophet/blasphemer.
"It is useless to attempt to reason a man out of a thing he was never reasoned into."...Jonathan Swift
Bernard Muller
Posts: 3964
Joined: Tue Oct 15, 2013 6:02 pm
Contact:

Re: What was the fatal error of James the Just?

Post by Bernard Muller »

In the sources I cited (James 5:8-9, Mark 13:29/Matthew 24:33, Revelation 3:20 and John 10) and Hegesippus, it seems like the "door" is consistently presented as something that Jesus stands at and/or comes through.
Nowhere else the expression "door of Jesus" is expressed in the verses you indicated. Just "door" or "doors". You cannot compare apples with oranges.
In James 5:4, God is the Lord of hosts ('Sabaoth'), as he is in Ro 9:29. The next mention of "Lord" (in 5:8) "the coming of the Lord" (being near) has to refer to God, the Lord of hosts. The next mention of "Lord" is in 5:10 & 5:11 and "Lord" stands for God:
RSV: As an example of suffering and patience, brethren, take the prophets who spoke in the name of the Lord.
Behold, we call those happy who were steadfast. You have heard of the steadfastness of Job, and you have seen the purpose of the Lord, how the Lord is compassionate and merciful.

Explanation of the quote: "James" asked his audience to follow the example for patience (despite suffering) from Job and expect, as Job got, compassion and mercy from God.
So it looks "Lord" means always "God" in 5:4-11. And the Judge standing at the doors (plural) is also God, as in the Hebrew scriptures. And in 4:12, the lawgiver (able to save or destroy --implied after judgment--) is God. There is no indication he is Jesus. Actually, Jesus is not mentioned after 2:1.

Mk 13:29 "So ye in like manner, when ye shall see these things come to pass, know that it is nigh, even at the doors."
What is at the doors (plural) is the advent of the Kingdom with many signs, which includes more than the coming of the Son of man.

Rev 3:20 might work for you. John 10 is rather confusing: 10:9 has Jesus as a door protecting the believers who are free to go both ways (out when it is safe).

Note: God is the Judge in the earliest Christian writings:
Heb 10:30-31, 12:23 "God, the judge of all men"
Ro 2:3,
Ro 2:5-6 "But in accordance with your hardness and your impenitent heart you are treasuring up for yourself wrath in the day of wrath and revelation of the righteous judgment of God, who "will render to each one according to his deeds""
Ro 5:16,
Ro 14:10b,12 "For we will all stand before God's judgment seat ... So then, each of us will give an account of himself to God."

Cordially, Bernard
Last edited by Bernard Muller on Sat May 17, 2014 6:50 pm, edited 1 time in total.
I believe freedom of expression should not be curtailed
Post Reply