Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Review of Painter

Expand Messages
  • Mark Goodacre
    There was some discussion a little while ago about Painter s _Just James_. I have just finished writing a review of this and thought some on the list might
    Message 1 of 5 , May 5, 1999
    • 0 Attachment
      There was some discussion a little while ago about Painter's _Just James_. I
      have just finished writing a review of this and thought some on the list might
      like to read this draft.

      Mark

      --------------------

      Just James: The Brother of Jesus in History and Tradition (Studies on
      Personalities of the New Testament). By John Painter. Pp. xiv, 326, Columbia
      SC, University of South Carolina Press, 1998, £27.95.

      Among recent attempts to rehabilitate James the brother of Jesus, John
      Painter's deserves special honour. In a careful, thorough study, Painter
      patiently reviews all of the available evidence and concludes that we
      underestimate the historical importance of "James the Just" at our peril. He
      was "the first bishop of the Jerusalem church" and "the leading authority in
      Christian Judaism" (p. 274). Yet subsequently, in spite of leaving his mark
      on the New Testament, Josephus, the Fathers, the Nag Hammadi texts and the
      Christian apocrypha, "the weight of history crushed him" -- "in the end all we
      have is just James" (p. 276).

      Painter's monograph is part of a new series on "Personalities of the New
      Testament". It studies the evidence in three carefully delimited sections.
      The first, dealing with the New Testament evidence, begins with the Gospels
      (Chapter 1) and proceeds with Acts (Chapter 2), Paul's letters (Chapter 3) and
      a consideration of the roles played by Peter, James and Paul in early
      Christian missions (Chapter 4). The second deals with "images of James in the
      early Church" and discusses the traditions in Eusebius (Chapter 5), the Nag
      Hammadi Library (Chapter 6) and other Christian apocrypha and later evidence
      (Chapter 7). Finally, Part Three concludes by looking at the figure of James
      within Jewish Christianity, focusing specially on the Epistle of James
      (Chapter 8). Painter adds an eleven page excursus on Robert Eisenman's
      mammoth, sensational book on James (pp. 277-88), the ultimate antidote, one
      hopes, to his excesses.

      Painter does not attempt to write a critical life of James and his approach
      contrasts markedly -- and so in some ways complements -- Pierre
      Antoine-Bernheim's recent James, Brother of Jesus (ET, London: SCM, 1997).
      The advantages of not taking the biographical route are clear: Painter is
      able to give due weight to the "tradition" that is mentioned in his title,
      discussing all kinds of interesting material that would not have found its way
      into a more restricted "historical" approach. Further, each source is able to
      speak for itself within its own context -- the reader can assess each one as
      s/he works methodically through the book.

      The meticulous sorting of traditions into particular categories does, however,
      cause a few problems. There is no separate consideration of what is arguably
      the most important source of all, Josephus' Antiquities, dealt with by Painter
      in the context of the broader discussion of Eusebius (pp. 132-41). Similarly,
      the Gospel of Thomas, Logion 12, in which Jesus names James as leader, surely
      has a far stronger claim to reflecting early, first century tradition than do
      the other traditions with which it appears in "The Nag Hammadi Library"
      chapter (pp. 160-3).

      Overall, Painter is careful to temper boldness with sobriety. He is bold, on
      one hand (and probably right), to be wary of the evangelists' tendency to play
      down the importance of James during the ministry of Jesus. He is sober, on
      the other hand, both in his treatment of Jerome's theory that Jesus and James
      were merely cousins and in his discussion of the "Epiphanian" view that James
      was Joseph's son by another marriage. But sometimes Painter is too sober:
      one would have liked to have seen the careful arguments of Richard Bauckham in
      favour of the Epiphanian view taken seriously. Painter's tendency to lump it
      together with Jerome's view as something solely apologetically motivated does
      not pay adequate attention to (a) the much greater antiquity of the Epiphanian
      view; (b) the fact that there is no sign of Joseph in the gospels when Jesus
      is an adult; (c) the fact that Mary is clearly still alive in Jesus' ministry
      in spite of (d) having at least seven adult children alive in a time when
      mortality in childbirth was high.

      Perhaps the most questionable part of the book, though, is the somewhat
      inflated role played by "M" (Matthew's special material) as witnessing to a
      Jamesian form of Christianity. "M may well emanate from James," Painter says,
      "while it is likely that Q is a Petrine tradition" (p. 263), yet Peter is
      absent from Q, markedly present in M (in which he becomes a leader, 17.24-27;
      cf. 14.28-32 and 16.17-19) and James is present in neither. To assign such
      material to figures in the early church, material that is only
      source-critically extrapolated from Matthew on the basis of whether or not it
      has parallels in Luke, is quite problematic.

      The book is well produced but some major errors have slipped through the
      proof-readers' nets. Michael Goulder does not argue that "Luke and John are
      Pauline Gospels, while Mark and Matthew form bridges to the Jerusalem mission"
      (p. 85) but that Mark and John are Pauline and that Luke and Matthew form
      bridges. Painter refers to "Clopas's martyrdom" when he means Simeon's (p.
      149). Crossan does not name the Gospel of Peter as "one of his early Gospel
      sources" (p. 201) but Peter's hypothetical source, the Cross Gospel. And
      Painter's chart of parallels between the Epistle of James and the Synoptics
      (pp. 261-2) has enough errors to make it partly incomprehensible: under number
      2, "1:45:48 M" should read "1.45 5.48 M"; under number 9, the source
      for Matthew 19:23-24 should read Mark 10.23-25 // Luke 18.24-25 and not
      "Q(Luke 19:24)", the latter perhaps an error for a separate entry on Q (Luke
      6:24); and under number 10 the source should be Mark 12:31 and not "Mark
      12.38-44".

      In spite of the qualms, there is no doubt that Painter's book is an excellent
      study of one of the most fascinating figures in Christian history and
      tradition. Its scope and erudition ensure that there will be something here
      to educate everyone.

      Mark Goodacre
      University of Birmingham





      --------------------------------------
      Dr Mark Goodacre mailto:M.S.Goodacre@...
      Dept of Theology tel: +44 121 414 7512
      University of Birmingham fax: +44 121 414 6866
      Birmingham B15 2TT United Kingdom

      http://www.bham.ac.uk/theology/goodacre
      Aseneth Home Page
      Recommended New Testament Web Resources
      Mark Without Q
    • rene joseph salm
      ... Thank you, Mark, for this review. [SNIP] ... It seems to me that Jerome s view here mirrors a traditional Middle-Eastern (Semitic) way of thinking, whereby
      Message 2 of 5 , May 5, 1999
      • 0 Attachment
        On Wed, 5 May 1999, Mark Goodacre wrote:

        > There was some discussion a little while ago about Painter's _Just James_. I
        > have just finished writing a review of this and thought some on the list might
        > like to read this draft.

        Thank you, Mark, for this review.

        [SNIP]

        > Overall, Painter is careful to temper boldness with sobriety. He is bold, on
        > one hand (and probably right), to be wary of the evangelists' tendency to play
        > down the importance of James during the ministry of Jesus. He is sober, on
        > the other hand, both in his treatment of Jerome's theory that Jesus and James
        > were merely cousins and in his discussion of the "Epiphanian" view that James
        > was Joseph's son by another marriage. But sometimes Painter is too sober:
        > one would have liked to have seen the careful arguments of Richard Bauckham in
        > favour of the Epiphanian view taken seriously. Painter's tendency to lump it
        > together with Jerome's view as something solely apologetically motivated does
        > not pay adequate attention to (a) the much greater antiquity of the Epiphanian
        > view; (b) the fact that there is no sign of Joseph in the gospels when Jesus
        > is an adult; (c) the fact that Mary is clearly still alive in Jesus' ministry
        > in spite of (d) having at least seven adult children alive in a time when
        > mortality in childbirth was high.

        It seems to me that Jerome's view here mirrors a traditional
        Middle-Eastern (Semitic) way of thinking, whereby the extended family
        includes cousins as "brothers" and "sisters"... I haven't gone through the
        Gospels to seek out the evidence of "seven adult children" of Mary. Do you
        know of a study of this? Seems to me likely that many of these "children"
        were more likely cousins to one another than what you and I would today
        call "brothers/sisters."

        Rene
      • Mark Goodacre
        ... As I understand it, the difficulty with the Jerome view is that it only arises later on where it is explicitly connected with the apologetic desire to
        Message 3 of 5 , May 6, 1999
        • 0 Attachment
          On 5 May 99 at 9:30, rene joseph salm wrote:

          > It seems to me that Jerome's view here mirrors a traditional
          > Middle-Eastern (Semitic) way of thinking, whereby the extended family
          > includes cousins as "brothers" and "sisters"... I haven't gone through the
          > Gospels to seek out the evidence of "seven adult children" of Mary. Do you
          > know of a study of this? Seems to me likely that many of these "children" were
          > more likely cousins to one another than what you and I would today call
          > "brothers/sisters."

          As I understand it, the difficulty with the Jerome view is that it only arises
          later on where it is explicitly connected with the apologetic desire to
          maintain the perpetual virginity of Mary. Of course the fact that something is
          motivated by an apologetic desire does not thereby invalidate it, but it does
          put a major question mark against it when there is so little early, independent
          evidence for it.

          I do know, though, what you mean about the use of the term "brother" -- I have
          a Pakistani friend who refers to selected male relatives as "brother" even
          where they are his uncle, cousin, second cousin etc. In looking again at the
          story in Mark 6.1-6 I noticed that James and co. are called ADELFOI and ADELFAI
          (brothers / sisters) in v.3 and then we have in v.4 "A prophet is not worthy
          except in his own country and among his relatives (SUGGENEUSIN) and in his
          house." I wonder if any of the fathers used the term there as evidence that
          Jesus' ADELFOI = Jesus' SUGGENEIS? I suspect that what is going on here,
          however, is that Jesus is describing his brethren as merely SUGGENEIS and not
          ADELFOI in the light of Mark 3.31-35, "Who is my mother? Who are my brothers?"
          etc.

          The at least seven children are inferred from Mark 6.3: James, Joses, Judas,
          Sinon + plural sisters + Jesus = at least seven.

          Mark
          --------------------------------------
          Dr Mark Goodacre mailto:M.S.Goodacre@...
          Dept of Theology tel: +44 121 414 7512
          University of Birmingham fax: +44 121 414 6866
          Birmingham B15 2TT United Kingdom

          http://www.bham.ac.uk/theology/goodacre
          Aseneth Home Page
          Recommended New Testament Web Resources
          Mark Without Q
        • joseph baxter
          Thanks, Mark, for your thoughtful review. For my money, James 3: 3-12 is one of the great teachings of Christianity, right up there with the greatest
          Message 4 of 5 , May 6, 1999
          • 0 Attachment
            Thanks, Mark, for your thoughtful review. For my money, James 3: 3-12 is
            one of the great teachings of Christianity, right up there with the
            greatest teachings of his brother.

            One suspects at least some connection between the Gospel of Hebrews and the
            Gospel of Thomas. Both have a connection to James. Both share the saying
            about marvel. And there is that marvelous passage in the Gospel of Thomas
            12 which credits James for being the one who whom heaven and earth came
            into being. Both Gospels suffered the same fate.

            Thanks again,

            Joe



            At 03:00 PM 5/5/99 +0000, you wrote:
            >There was some discussion a little while ago about Painter's _Just James_. I
            >have just finished writing a review of this and thought some on the list
            might
            >like to read this draft.
            >
            >Mark
            >
            >--------------------
            >
            >Just James: The Brother of Jesus in History and Tradition (Studies on
            >Personalities of the New Testament). By John Painter. Pp. xiv, 326, Columbia
            >SC, University of South Carolina Press, 1998, £27.95.
            >
            >Among recent attempts to rehabilitate James the brother of Jesus, John
            >Painter's deserves special honour. In a careful, thorough study, Painter
            >patiently reviews all of the available evidence and concludes that we
            >underestimate the historical importance of "James the Just" at our peril. He
            >was "the first bishop of the Jerusalem church" and "the leading authority in
            >Christian Judaism" (p. 274). Yet subsequently, in spite of leaving his mark
            >on the New Testament, Josephus, the Fathers, the Nag Hammadi texts and the
            >Christian apocrypha, "the weight of history crushed him" -- "in the end all we
            >have is just James" (p. 276).
            >
            >Painter's monograph is part of a new series on "Personalities of the New
            >Testament". It studies the evidence in three carefully delimited sections.
            >The first, dealing with the New Testament evidence, begins with the Gospels
            >(Chapter 1) and proceeds with Acts (Chapter 2), Paul's letters (Chapter 3) and
            >a consideration of the roles played by Peter, James and Paul in early
            >Christian missions (Chapter 4). The second deals with "images of James in the
            >early Church" and discusses the traditions in Eusebius (Chapter 5), the Nag
            >Hammadi Library (Chapter 6) and other Christian apocrypha and later evidence
            >(Chapter 7). Finally, Part Three concludes by looking at the figure of James
            >within Jewish Christianity, focusing specially on the Epistle of James
            >(Chapter 8). Painter adds an eleven page excursus on Robert Eisenman's
            >mammoth, sensational book on James (pp. 277-88), the ultimate antidote, one
            >hopes, to his excesses.
            >
            >Painter does not attempt to write a critical life of James and his approach
            >contrasts markedly -- and so in some ways complements -- Pierre
            >Antoine-Bernheim's recent James, Brother of Jesus (ET, London: SCM, 1997).
            >The advantages of not taking the biographical route are clear: Painter is
            >able to give due weight to the "tradition" that is mentioned in his title,
            >discussing all kinds of interesting material that would not have found its way
            >into a more restricted "historical" approach. Further, each source is able to
            >speak for itself within its own context -- the reader can assess each one as
            >s/he works methodically through the book.
            >
            >The meticulous sorting of traditions into particular categories does, however,
            >cause a few problems. There is no separate consideration of what is arguably
            >the most important source of all, Josephus' Antiquities, dealt with by Painter
            >in the context of the broader discussion of Eusebius (pp. 132-41). Similarly,
            >the Gospel of Thomas, Logion 12, in which Jesus names James as leader, surely
            >has a far stronger claim to reflecting early, first century tradition than do
            >the other traditions with which it appears in "The Nag Hammadi Library"
            >chapter (pp. 160-3).
            >
            >Overall, Painter is careful to temper boldness with sobriety. He is bold, on
            >one hand (and probably right), to be wary of the evangelists' tendency to play
            >down the importance of James during the ministry of Jesus. He is sober, on
            >the other hand, both in his treatment of Jerome's theory that Jesus and James
            >were merely cousins and in his discussion of the "Epiphanian" view that James
            >was Joseph's son by another marriage. But sometimes Painter is too sober:
            >one would have liked to have seen the careful arguments of Richard Bauckham in
            >favour of the Epiphanian view taken seriously. Painter's tendency to lump it
            >together with Jerome's view as something solely apologetically motivated does
            >not pay adequate attention to (a) the much greater antiquity of the Epiphanian
            >view; (b) the fact that there is no sign of Joseph in the gospels when Jesus
            >is an adult; (c) the fact that Mary is clearly still alive in Jesus' ministry
            >in spite of (d) having at least seven adult children alive in a time when
            >mortality in childbirth was high.
            >
            >Perhaps the most questionable part of the book, though, is the somewhat
            >inflated role played by "M" (Matthew's special material) as witnessing to a
            >Jamesian form of Christianity. "M may well emanate from James," Painter says,
            >"while it is likely that Q is a Petrine tradition" (p. 263), yet Peter is
            >absent from Q, markedly present in M (in which he becomes a leader, 17.24-27;
            >cf. 14.28-32 and 16.17-19) and James is present in neither. To assign such
            >material to figures in the early church, material that is only
            >source-critically extrapolated from Matthew on the basis of whether or not it
            >has parallels in Luke, is quite problematic.
            >
            >The book is well produced but some major errors have slipped through the
            >proof-readers' nets. Michael Goulder does not argue that "Luke and John are
            >Pauline Gospels, while Mark and Matthew form bridges to the Jerusalem mission"
            >(p. 85) but that Mark and John are Pauline and that Luke and Matthew form
            >bridges. Painter refers to "Clopas's martyrdom" when he means Simeon's (p.
            >149). Crossan does not name the Gospel of Peter as "one of his early Gospel
            >sources" (p. 201) but Peter's hypothetical source, the Cross Gospel. And
            >Painter's chart of parallels between the Epistle of James and the Synoptics
            >(pp. 261-2) has enough errors to make it partly incomprehensible: under number
            >2, "1:45:48 M" should read "1.45 5.48 M"; under number 9, the source
            >for Matthew 19:23-24 should read Mark 10.23-25 // Luke 18.24-25 and not
            >"Q(Luke 19:24)", the latter perhaps an error for a separate entry on Q (Luke
            >6:24); and under number 10 the source should be Mark 12:31 and not "Mark
            >12.38-44".
            >
            >In spite of the qualms, there is no doubt that Painter's book is an excellent
            >study of one of the most fascinating figures in Christian history and
            >tradition. Its scope and erudition ensure that there will be something here
            >to educate everyone.
            >
            >Mark Goodacre
            >University of Birmingham
            >
            >
            >
            >
            >
            >--------------------------------------
            >Dr Mark Goodacre mailto:M.S.Goodacre@...
            > Dept of Theology tel: +44 121 414 7512
            > University of Birmingham fax: +44 121 414 6866
            > Birmingham B15 2TT United Kingdom
            >
            >http://www.bham.ac.uk/theology/goodacre
            > Aseneth Home Page
            > Recommended New Testament Web Resources
            > Mark Without Q

            joe
          • BobSchacht@aol.com
            In a message dated 5/5/99 7:02:41 AM US Mountain Standard Time, ... HREF= mailto:M.S.Goodacre@bham.ac.uk M.S.Goodacre@bham.ac.uk ... ... Thanks, Mark! It
            Message 5 of 5 , May 7, 1999
            • 0 Attachment
              In a message dated 5/5/99 7:02:41 AM US Mountain Standard Time,
              M.S.GOODACRE@... writes:

              > Subj: Review of Painter
              > Date: 5/5/99 7:02:41 AM US Mountain Standard Time
              > From: M.S.GOODACRE@... (Mark Goodacre)
              > Sender: owner-crosstalk@...
              > Reply-to: <A
              HREF="mailto:M.S.Goodacre@...">M.S.Goodacre@...
              </A>
              > To: crosstalk@...
              >
              > There was some discussion a little while ago about Painter's _Just James_.
              > I
              > have just finished writing a review of this and thought some on the list
              > might
              > like to read this draft.
              >
              > Mark
              >
              > --------------------
              >
              > Just James: The Brother of Jesus in History and Tradition (Studies on
              > Personalities of the New Testament). By John Painter. Pp. xiv, 326,
              > Columbia
              > SC, University of South Carolina Press, 1998, £27.95.
              >
              > Among recent attempts to rehabilitate James the brother of Jesus, John
              > Painter's deserves special honour. In a careful, thorough study, Painter
              > patiently reviews all of the available evidence and concludes that we
              > underestimate the historical importance of "James the Just" at our peril.
              ...

              Thanks, Mark!
              It is good to see your informative posts here again!
              I appreciate this review.

              Bob
            Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.