Re: [GTh] GTh and Hermeneutics
- (Frank McCoy)
*Why* are they to go to James the Just after Jesus ceases his earthly
I have never heard the consideration brought forth that this could be not just James as the go to, but James at the Apostle's villiage. Pardon me if I'm stuck on this fascination of the 8 year window of opportunity that early Christians had for development here, but it seems so logical. After the meeting on the Mt. Olive(s) referred to in Acts 38-47, the Apostle's, had from the start of the Villiage to 41 CE(?) to form their first followings. Some had left the original villiage and started followings in places like Damascas.
The meeting in 41 was to decide on the Pauline rifts we have talked about. It was decided that Gentiles did not need to conform to Jewish laws.
Probability math suggests that the first thousand people recruited into the villiage system multiplied by whatever literacy rate you can come up with points to written works being produced within these groups. Gospels are the primary tool of evangelism which makes it seem likely that they started here.
Would it be out of line to claim the roots of Thomas started at the Apostle's villiage, circa 41 CE? After all James was leading the Villiage after Peter left. I am seeing it as ground zero for Christian traditions but I could be romanticizing its importance. If not this place and time seems a very likely place to claim the beginning of Gospels.
Platter Flats, OK
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]