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

Re: [GTh] Saying 12

Expand Messages
  • David Renfro
    How odd is it that in the Gospel of Judas Iscariot , that Judas becomes the one whom Jesus tells the secrete words ? It reminds one of place applicants name
    Message 1 of 21 , Sep 23, 2006
      How odd is it that in the "Gospel of Judas Iscariot", that Judas becomes the one whom Jesus tells the 'secrete words'? It reminds one of "place applicants name here".
      Logion 13 seems affected, 114 is out of left field. I think 12 is worthy of debate.
      Dave R.
    • David Arbuckle
      Mike, I understand that a hallmark of the Orthodox was to establish Peter as the Leader of their movement, But in the GoH there is also a similar saying,
      Message 2 of 21 , Sep 24, 2006
        Mike,

        I understand that a hallmark of the Orthodox was to
        establish Peter as the Leader of their movement, But
        in the GoH there is also a similar saying, concerning
        James. Jesus appears to James after the resurrection,
        and says, stop your fast, bring a table and bread, I
        have risen. ( something to that effect)

        I think both sayings are evidence of Jewish
        authorship, the GoH saying is establishing that James
        was important in the resurrection story, which in my
        mind was a 1st century device to establish authority.
        ( who saw him first after the resurrection, who knew
        he was the messiah first, etc.)

        I believe that the rift in the movement was early.
        Maybe even before Paul showed up. I wonder if there
        was a rift between Peter and James.

        James is a brother. In the Jewish movement that
        meant something. In the Orthodox movement as you have
        pointed out, Peter was much more important and James
        hardly even existed.

        David Arbuckle
        Sarasota, Florida
      • Michael Grondin
        ... Right. Jerome s quote. But I wouldn t call that passage a similar saying . It doesn t indicate that James was to be THE authority figure either before or
        Message 3 of 21 , Sep 24, 2006
          -- David Arbuckle wrote:
          > I understand that a hallmark of the Orthodox was to
          > establish Peter as the Leader of their movement, But
          > in the GoH there is also a similar saying, concerning
          > James. Jesus appears to James after the resurrection,
          > and says, stop your fast, bring a table and bread, I
          > have risen. ( something to that effect)

          Right. Jerome's quote. But I wouldn't call that passage
          "a similar saying". It doesn't indicate that James was to be
          THE authority figure either before or after his death. It
          does claim for him a separate personal visitation, which
          was evidently an important claim, and confirmed by Paul
          in I Cor 15 as something he had "received" and passed
          on to others. In the account Paul received, however,
          Cephas was given the place of honor by supposedly being
          the sole person to whom "Christ" first "appeared". James
          is further down in the list, but like Paul himself, he gets a
          special personal visitation. (The Magdalene and other
          women are noticeably absent from the list.)

          > I think both sayings are evidence of Jewish
          > authorship, the GoH saying is establishing that James
          > was important in the resurrection story, which in my
          > mind was a 1st century device to establish authority.
          > ( who saw him first after the resurrection, who knew
          > he was the messiah first, etc.)

          Yeah, I agree with this latter thought, but I think that the
          phrase "GoH saying" is somewhat misleading. An entire
          passage of narrative and dialogue such as Jerome quoted
          (see at end) isn't normally called 'a saying'.

          > I believe that the rift in the movement was early.
          > Maybe even before Paul showed up. I wonder if there
          > was a rift between Peter and James.

          There may have been friction, but I suspect that the
          triadic structure with James the Just at head was a
          compromise decision with which Peter agreed, and
          may even have helped engineer - if the synoptic account
          of the ambitions of the Zebedee brothers (or their
          mother) are to be believed. After the death of James
          bar Zebedee at least, Peter seems to have headed
          up the relatively active missionary wing, while John may
          have represented the relatively passive theological wing.
          (In the widely-held symbolism of the time, active=male=right,
          passive=female=left.) James was evidently bloodline,
          (religious) kingship, and ultimate decision-maker. But
          first he would listen to what he heard "in each ear" from
          his two chief advisors.

          > James is a brother. In the Jewish movement that
          > meant something. In the Orthodox movement as
          > you have pointed out, Peter was much more important
          > and James hardly even existed.

          Well, the time element is real important here. The
          destruction of Jerusalem was a watershed event in
          both Christian and Jewish thinking. Political struggles
          within the Christian movement were quite different
          after the war than before, so one has to be careful
          what period of time is being talked about. Before the
          war, it doesn't seem likely that Peter could have been
          radically disassociated from James and the rest of
          the Jerusalem hierarchy. At least, I don't see a case
          for that on the face of the textual evidence.

          Mike Grondin

          Ref: Jerome, Of illustrious men, 2 (on James the Lord's brother).
          http://earlychristianwritings.com/text/gospelhebrews-mrjames.html
          Also the Gospel according to the Hebrews, lately translated by me into Greek
          and Latin speech, which Origen often uses, tells, after the resurrection of
          the Saviour: 'Now the Lord, when he had given the linen cloth unto the
          servant of the priest, went unto James and appeared to him (for James had
          sworn that he would not eat bread from that hour wherein he had drunk the
          Lord's cup until he should see him risen again from among them that sleep)',
          and again after a little, 'Bring ye, saith the Lord, a table and bread', and
          immediately it is added, 'He took bread and blessed and brake and gave it
          unto James the Just and said unto him: My brother, eat thy bread, for the
          Son of Man is risen from among them that sleep'.
        • FMMCCOY@msn.com
          INTRODUCTION Let us look at Thomas 12: The disciples said to Jesus, We know that you will depart from us. Who is to be our leader? Jesus said to them,
          Message 4 of 21 , Jul 18, 2007
            INTRODUCTION

            Let us look at Thomas 12:
            The disciples said to Jesus, "We know that you will depart from us. Who
            is to be our leader?" Jesus said to them, "Wherever you are, you are to
            go to James the righteous, for whose sake heaven and earth came into
            being."

            This James the Just is James, the brother of Jesus.

            Why did the Thomas group accept him as being the legitimate successor to
            Jesus as the head of the movement he founded?

            In this post, it will be argued that there were two reasons:
            1. James was the actual successor to Jesus as the head of his movement
            2. Jacobian thought and Thomasine thought are close to each other in
            some important respects.

            I SOME FIRST CENTURY CE EVIDENCE ON JAMES

            A Paul--c. Mid-fifties

            The earliest information on James comes from Paul (Saul) and dates to
            the mid-fifties CE

            Three passages from Galatians are particularly important:
            1. 1:18-19, "Then, after three years, I went up to Jerusalem to get
            acquainted with Cephas, and I stayed with him fifteen days. But I did
            not see other of the Apostles except James, the brother of our Lord."
            The time of this trip to Jerusalem is uncertain, but perhaps was in the
            late 30s. Cephas is probably Simon Peter--for Cephas and Peter are,
            respectively, the Aramaic and Greek words for "Stone/Rock". Here, we
            learn James was an Apostle. Further, it appears, he had been residing
            in Jerusalem.

            2. 2:8-10, "And, realizing that grace had been given to me, James and
            Cephas and John (the ones seeming to be pillars), gave the right hand of
            fellowship to me and Barnabas--that we for the Gentiles, but they for
            the Circumcision--only the poor we should remember, which I also was
            eager this very thing to do." Here, we learn, James was the first of
            three "Pillars" of the Jesus group in Jerusalem--the other two being
            Cephas (probably Peter) and a person named John. Since Paul lists James
            first, it is reasonable to infer that James had probably been the head
            of the Jesus group in Jerusalem, with both Cephas and John being his
            subordinates.

            3. 2:11-13, "But, when Cephas came to Antioch, I stood against him to
            his face because he had been condemned. For, before certain ones came
            from James, he was eating with Gentiles. But, when they came, he was
            drawing back and separating himself, fearing the ones of the
            Circumcision. And the rest of the Jews joined in pretense with him, so
            that also Barnabas was carried away with their hypocricy." Here, Paul
            is upset because, after messengers came from James, the Jews at Antioch,
            even Cephas and Barnabas, stopped eating with Gentiles. This all but
            confirms that James had been the head of the Jesus group at
            Jerusalem--ahead of even Cephas.

            The general picture of James in Galatians, then, is that of a man who
            was residing in Jerusalem, who was an Apostle, and who was the leader of
            the Jesus group in Jerusalem--with his authority extending even to areas
            in the Diaspora like Antioch.

            Paul also mentions James in I Cor. 15:3-7, "For I handed on to you,
            among the first things, that which also I received that Christ died for
            our sins according to the scriptures and that he was buried and that he
            was raised on the third day according to the scriptures and that he was
            seen by Cephas, then by the Twelve. Afterwards, he was seen by over 500
            brethren at one time--of whom the majority remain until now, but some
            fell asleep. Afterwards, he was seen by James, then by all the
            Apostles."

            Since Simon Peter was the head of the Twelve, Paul's phraseology, "he
            was seen by Cephas, then by the Twelve", means, "he first appeared to
            Cephas, the head of the Twelve, then to all of the Twelve."

            This directly relates to Paul's use of the phraseology, "He was seen by
            James, then by all the Apostles." As a result, it appears, what Paul,
            in essence, states here is that he first appeared to James, the head of
            the Apostles, then to all of the Apostles." This meshes well with
            Galatians, where Paul implies that James had been the head "Pillar".

            B. Mark/Matthew--c. 70-90 CE

            James is also mentioned in two closely related passages:
            1. Mark 6:3a, where the people of Jesus' home town say this about him,
            "Isn't this one the carpenter, the son of Mary and brother of James and
            Joses and Judas and Simon and are not his sisters here with us?"
            2. Matthew 13:55-56a, where the people of Jesus' home town say this
            about him, "Isn't this the carpenter's son? Isn't his mother called
            Mary and his brothers James and Joseph and Simon and Judas? Are not all
            of his sisters with us?"

            In both passages, James heads the list of the four brothers of Jesus.
            So, it appears, he had been the eldest brother of Jesus.

            C. Josephus--c. 93 CE

            Flavius Josephus mentions James in the Antiquities of the Jews (Book
            XX), "Caesar sent Albinus to Judea as procurator, when he was informed
            of the death of Festus. But the younger Ananus, who as I said had
            received the high priesthood, was headstrong in character and audacious
            in the extreme. He belonged to the sect of the Sadducees, who in
            judging offenders are cruel beyond any of the Jews, as I have already
            made clear. Being a man of this kind, Ananus thought that he had a
            convenient opportunity, as Festus was dead and Albinus still on the way.
            So he assembled a council of judges and brought before it James, the
            brother of Jesus, known as the Christ, and several others, on a charge
            of breaking the law, and handed them over to be stoned."

            Here, we learn, in 62 CE, James was found guilty by the Jerusalem
            Sanheidrin of breaking the Law of Moses and was stoned to death.

            D. Summary on Some First Century CE Evidence on James

            The first century CE evidence on James we have examined indicates that
            he was eldest brother of Jesus who succeeded Jesus as the head of his
            movement--with even Simon Peter, the head of the Twelve, being his
            subordinate. He apparently resided in Jerusalem until he was executed
            in 62 CE. This evidence tells us nothing about his Christology. The
            evidence regarding his attitude towards the Law of Moses is ambiguous,
            perhaps even contradictory. He did send messengers to Antioch, ordering
            the Jewish followers of Jesus there to stop eating with Gentile
            followers of Jesus--which, in effect, was an order for the Jewish
            followers of Jesus to obey the dietary ordinances of the Law. But, Paul
            indicates that James only directed him, in his ministry work, to
            remember the poor--which implies that James gave Paul no orders to obey
            the Law of Moses and/or to preach obedience to the Law of Moses. Even
            more striking, James was found guilty by the Jerusalem Sanheidrin of
            violating the Law of Moses.

            E. Luke's Effective Removal of James from History

            In Acts, Luke's portrayal of Peter being the head of the Jesus Assembly
            in Jerusalem appears to be deliberate mis-representation. He apparently
            knew about James, but decided to remove him from the history of the
            Jesus movement. The only time I can see James referred to at all by
            Luke in Acts, and this not by name, is in Acts 1:13-14, "And when they
            entered into the upstairs, they went up where they were staying, both
            Peter and John and James and Andrew, Philip and Thomas, Bartholomew and
            Matthew, James the son of Alphaeus and Simon the Zealot and Judas the
            son of James. These all with one mind were devoting themselves to
            prayer with the women and Mary the mother of Jesus and his brothers."
            Here, he is one of the unnamed brothers of Jesus who Luke FALSELY
            portrays as being lower in status than even the women. Note that, in
            Acts 1:13-14, Luke identifies only two people named James as having
            prominence in the early Jerusalem Assembly. One is simply called James,
            but Luke elsewhere identifies him as being a son of Zebedee. The other
            is James the son of Alphaeus. Luke reports the death of James the son
            of Zebedee in Acts 12:2. He then reports about a prominent person,
            named James, three times later in Acts, i.e., in 12:17, 15:13 and 21:18.
            Since, up to this point in Acts, Luke has only identified two people
            named James as being prominent, and as one of them is now dead, this
            James can only be the other James, i.e., James the son of Alphaeus. So,
            in Acts, James, the brother of Jesus, is never mentioned by name. This
            is part of a consistent pattern, by Luke, of NEVER mentioning James, the
            brother of Jesus, by name. This is why, for example, there is no Lukan
            parallel to Mark 6:3a/Matthew 13:55-56a, even though at least one of
            these two gospels was used as a source by Luke.

            F. Other Evidence on James

            There is a ton of evidence on James in material that is either clearly
            later than the first century CE or else of unknown age. I deem this
            material too unreliable to use as source material on James.

            G. Some Light Shed on Thomas 12

            We have learned that James had been the successor to Jesus as the head
            of his movement. This, then, is probably a reason why, in Thomas 12,
            James is explicitly made the legitimate successor to Jesus as the head
            of his movement.

            II THE EPISTLE OF JAMES

            A. Written by James, the Brother of Jesus

            In the New Testament, there is the Epistle of James. There is debate
            over whether it had been written by James, the brother of Jesus.

            I think that it was written by him.

            Very important is James 1:1, "James, a slave of God and of Lord Jesus
            Christ, to the twelve tribes in the Diaspora, grace."

            It is what one might expect James, as described by Paul, to write.

            First of all, as we have seen, Paul implies that James had been the
            leader of the Jesus movement.

            Similarly, it appears that the author of this passage had been the
            leader of the Jesus movement.

            Although James (Jacob) was a common name, this James does not identify
            himself outside of being a follower of God and Jesus. This is an
            indication that he is *the* James. That is to say, this is an
            indication that he is James, the brother of Jesus--for he was the leader
            of the Jesus movement

            It can be objected that, if the author of James is James, the brother of
            Jesus, then we would expect him to call himself a brother of Jesus.

            However, the author of James apparently did not put much stock in bodily
            relationships. It is stated that the soul can be saved (1:21, 5:20),
            but it is nowhere stated that the body can be saved. It is emphasised
            that a body without the spirit is dead (2:26). God jealously yearns for
            one's spirit (4:5), but there is no yearning of God over one's body.
            With this evident down-grading of the body in relation to one's
            soul/spirit, it would appear that the author of James put more emphasis
            on soul relationships than on bodily relationships. Indeed, when
            "brothers" and "sisters" are used in this epistle, they refer to fellow
            believers, soul mates so to speak, rather than to brothers and sisters
            in a bodily sense.

            Also, one would expect a forger to explicitly make the claim to being a
            brother of Jesus. So, IMO, that the author of James does not explicitly
            make such a claim is an indication that it is genuine.

            Again, according to Paul, the three pillars (including James) agreed to
            preach to the Circumcision (i.e., Jews and, possibly, Samaritans),
            leaving the Gentiles to himself and Barnabas.

            Similarly, here, the author of James limits the intended recipients of
            his epistle to "the twelve tribes", i.e., Jews and, possibly,
            Samaritans.

            Finally, as we have seen, Paul relates how James sent a message to the
            Jewish followers of Jesus in Antioch. As a result, we know, James, the
            brother of Jesus, did sometimes send messages to Jewish followers of
            Jesus outside Palestine.

            Similarly, here, the author of James addresses "the twelve tribes *in
            the Diaspora* (i.e., outside of Palestine)".

            Very striking is the phrase, in James 3:b, "Being set on fire by
            Gehenna". "Gehenna" is a locale in the Jerusalem area also called the
            Valley of Hinnom. That this Jerusalem area locale is used as the name
            for Hell, rather than a more generic term like "Hades", is a strong
            indicator that the author of the Epistle of James resided in the
            Jerusalem area. James, as we have seen, resided in the Jerusalem area.

            Also, it appears likely that the author of James, like James the brother
            of Jesus, had been a member of the Jerusalem Assembly in its first
            years, when there was a community of goods: so that all were poor, yet
            all were guaranteed the essentials of life, such as clothing and food,
            through a daily distribution. At least, this explains why, in 2:1-17,
            he is upset and morally outraged over a later and much different
            reality--when the economic classes in society as a whole were beginning
            to be mirrored in the Jesus movement, with the rich getting special
            honors in gatherings of the Jesus group and the poor in such gatherings
            getting the shaft and with some of the poorer members of the Jesus
            movement lacking even such essentials as adequate clothing and food.

            This championing of the poor, further, is exactly what one would expect
            James, the brother of Jesus to do. After all, as we have seen, Paul
            claimed that the three pillars (led by James) had given him only one
            firm order--to remember the poor.

            Finally, we need to take note of this statement by James D. Tabor in the
            Jesus Dynasty (p. 275), "What is amazing is that the letter of James,
            short as it is, contains no fewer than *thrity* direct references,
            echoes, and allusions to the teachings of Jesus found in the Q source."

            However, there is no tangible evidence that there ever was a Q--a
            postulated common source for Matthew and Luke. More likely, I suggest,
            Matthew utilized James as a source, using passages he read in James to
            create sayings of Jesus: with Luke then using Matthew as a source. If
            so, then James is not only pre-Matthew, but was written by a brother of
            Jesus--for why else would Matthew feel free to treat sayings in it as
            reflecting the thought of Jesus himself?

            So, IMO, James, the brother of Jesus, is the author of James. Further,
            he wrote it during the second phase of the Jesus Assembly in Jerusalem,
            when it was the center of mass movement akin to the earlier one of John
            the Baptist. He is profoundly upset over what he perceives as a steep
            drop in ethical standards from the early phase--when the goal was
            creating a select community of holy ones. The date of its writing is
            somewhere between the mid forties and his death in 62 CE.

            B. Some Important Similarities Between James and Thomas.

            1. The Poor Will Enter the Kingdom

            There are a number of important similarities between James and Thomas.

            Compare, for example, Thomas 54 and James 2:5b:
            Th 54, "Jesus said, 'Blessed are the poor, for yours is the Kingdom of
            Heaven.'"
            James 2:5b, "Did not God choose the poor ones of the world to be rich in
            faith and heirs of the Kingdom?"

            2. The Absence of Any Doctine of Atonement

            Another important similarity between Thomas and James is that neither
            one expresses support for a doctrine of atonement. Apparently, then,
            neither James nor the Thomas group believed that the death of Jesus had
            any salvific import.

            3. The Absence of the Doctrine of the Bodily Resurrection of the Dead

            A third important similarity between Thomas and James is that neither
            one expresses support for the doctrine of the resurrection of the
            dead--not even as respects Jesus. Apparently, then, neither James nor
            the Thomas group believed in the bodily resurrection of dead and, so,
            did not believe that Jesus had been bodily resurrected from the dead.

            In this regard, it is noteworthy that, in I Cor. 15:7, Paul says that
            Jesus appeared to James rather than that Jesus bodily appeared to James.

            So, I suggest, what James thought he saw was not a bodily resurrected
            Jesus but, rather, a Jesus appearing in his true nature as a radiant
            divine being (compare the Markan account of the Transfiguration of
            Jesus). At least this explains why, as we shall now see, James believed
            his brother to have been the divine being called the Logos (Word).

            4. Jesus is the Logos

            a. Introduction

            A fourth important similarity between Thomas and James is that, in both,
            Jesus is the Logos.

            b. Jesus as the Logos in James

            Let us look at James 1:21, "Therefore, having put away all filthiness
            and remains of wickedness, in meekness receive the implanted Logos,
            being able to saving your souls."

            Note that, here, the Logos is characterized as "being able to saving
            (dynamenon swsai) your souls."

            Compare 4:12, "One is the Lawgiver and Judge--the one being able to save
            (dynamenos swsai) and to destroy.

            The implication: The Logos is the Judge--the one being able to save and
            to destroy.

            This is in accord with Philonic thought. So, in Exodus (Book II, 13),
            Philo states that "of necessity was the Logos appointed as judge and
            mediator."

            Again, in On Dreams I (85-86), Philo states, "It is of the divine Logos
            that it is said, 'The sun went forth upon the earth, and Lot entered
            into Zoar, and the Lord rained on Sodom and Gomorrah brimstone and fire'
            (Gen. xix. 23 f.). For the Logos of God, when it arrives at our earthly
            composition, in the case of those who are akin to Virtue and turn away
            to her, gives help and succour, thus affording them a refuge and perfect
            safety, but sends upon her adversaries irreparable ruin."

            Here, the Logos is said to be the Sun and Lord of Genesis 19:23 f.. As
            such, he acts as Judge--the one being able to save and to destroy.

            Compare James 5:7-10, "(7) Therefore, be patient, brethren, until the
            coming of the Lord. Behold! The farmer awaits the precious fruit of
            the earth, being patient for it until it receives early and later rain.
            Be patient. (8) Also, you, establish your hearts because the coming of
            the Lord has drawn near. (9) Do not murmur, brethren, against one
            another lest you be judged. Behold! The Judge before the doors has
            stood. (10) Take, brothers, as an example of suffering evil and of
            patience, the prophets who spoke in the name of the Lord."

            Here, I sugget, the subject is the Logos: the Lord who is the
            Judge--the one being able to save and destroy. As he went forth upon
            the earth long ago, going door to door while judging the inhabitants of
            Sodom and Gomaorrah, so the time has drawn near for him to return to
            judge us in a similar fashion.

            That this Lord is the Logos is further indicated by 5:10: where, it is
            said, the prophets spoke in the name of this Lord--for the Logos who
            speaks through the prophets. See Who is the Heir (259), where Philo
            states, "Now with every good man it is the holy Logos which assures him
            his gift of prophecy. For a prophet (being a spokesman) has no
            utterance of his own, but all his utterance came from elsewhere, the
            echo of another's voice."

            In 5:7-10, the Logos, as the Lord who is Judge, appears to be identified
            with Jesus. This is because the word used to describe the coming of
            this Lord who is Judge is parousia--a word associated with Jesus, but
            neither with God nor with the Logos. For example, Richard Bauckham
            ("James and Jesus", The Brother of Jesus, Edited by Bruce Chilton and
            Jacob Neusner, p. 134) states, "Outside of 1:1 and 2:1, Jame's
            references to Jesus call him just 'the Lord' (kyrios), a term which he
            also uses for God. But there is no doubt that some of these references
            are to Jesus, since the phrase 'the coming (parousia) of the Lord.'
            which James has twice (5:7, 8), was in standard early Christian usage as
            a reference to the future coming of Jesus (cf. 1 Thess 3.13, 4.15, 5.23,
            2 Thess 2:1), whereas the word *parousia* is never used of God in early
            Christian usage."

            If, as appears to be the case, James believed his brother to be the
            Logos, this impacts on several other passages in James.

            One is James 1:17-18, (17) "Every good endowment and perfect gift is
            from above, coming down from the Father of lights with whom there is no
            variation or shadow due to change. (18) Of his own will he brought us
            forth by the Logos of Truth that we should be a kind of first fruits of
            his creatures."

            Here, we appear to have the idea that God created the Cosmos, including
            the lights (i.e., stars) and human beings, through the Logos. Compare
            the Sacrifices of Cain and Abel (8), where Philo speaks about "that same
            Logos by which He made the universe".

            As a result, since James apparently believed that Jesus is the Logos, it
            appears that, James believed, Jesus had played a role in the creation
            of the Cosmos.

            Another relevent passage is James 1:21, "Therefore, having put away all
            filthiness and remains of wickedness, in meekness receive the implanted
            Logos, being able to saving your souls."

            So, if, as appears, James believed Jesus to be the Logos, then he
            believed that Jesus indwells in a just/righteous person.

            This even mpacts on how to interpret the title of Christ given to Jesus
            in James 1:1. In this case, in James, Jesus is probably not to be
            understood to be the Christ in the sense of being the Davidic Messiah.
            Rather, he is probably to be understood to be the Christ in sense of
            being the Logos.

            In this regard, it is noteworthy that, in Flight and Finding (108-14),
            Philo identifies the Logos as being the high priestly Christ of Lev
            21:10. As such, the Logos is a Cosmokrator, ruling over the Cosmos as
            God's Viceroy and holding it together. So, Philo (111) states, "Moses
            also says that 'he shall never remove the mitre' from his head; he shall
            not, that is to say, lay aside the dingly diadem, the symbol not of
            absolute soveregnty, but of an admirable viceroyalty; 'nor', again,
            'shall he rend his clothes' (Lev. xxi. 10); for the Logos of Him that IS
            is, as has been stated, the bond of all existence, and holds and knits
            together all the parts, preventing them from being dissolved and
            separated."

            This perhaps helps us to understand James 2:1, "My brothers, do not
            with partiality have the faith of our Lord, Jesus Christ--of glory.
            Perhaps, in particular, we are to see the "of glory" as reflecting a
            very high Christology of Jesus as the Logos and who, as such, is a Lord
            who is Judge and a Christ who is the ruler of the Cosmos and who played
            a role in the creation of the Cosmos and indwells in a just/righteous
            person..

            c. Jesus as the Logos in Thomas

            There are several places in Thomas where Jesus is identified as being
            the Logos.

            One is 77, "Jesus said, 'It is I who am the light which is above them
            all. I is I who am the all. From me did the all come forth, and unto
            me did the all extend. Split a piece of wood and I am there. Lift up
            the stone, and you will find me there.'"

            The Logos is the true Light--see John 1:9. The Logos is the incorporeal
            all from which the corporeal all came forth--see On the Creation (36),
            where Philo states, "The incorporeal world, then, was now finished and
            firmly settled in the Divine Logos, and the world patent to sense was
            ripe for birth after the pattern of the incorporeal". Also see John
            1:3a, "All things through him (i.e., the Logos) came to be." The Logos
            permeates the corporeal all--see On Flight and Finding (112), where
            Philo states, "For the Logos of Him that IS is, as has been stated, the
            bond of all existence, and holds and knits together all the parts,
            preventing them from being dissolved and separated."

            Another is 24:1-3, "(1) *His disciples said, 'Teach us about the place
            where you are, because we must seek it.'* (2) He said to them, 'Whoever
            has ears should listen! There is light within a person of light. And
            it lights up the whole world. If it does not shine, it is dark.'"

            Here, Jesus is the Logos, the true Light. As in James 1:21, he indwells
            in a just/righteous soul. So, here, the basic idea is that Jesus, the
            Logos who is the light of the world, is found within a just/righteous
            soul, making that person (as (s)he has this light of life) a person of
            light.

            Yet a third is 10. "Jesus said, 'I have come to cast fire upon the
            world, and see, I am guarding it until it blazes.'"

            As in James 5:7-9, Jesus is the Logos who, as Lord, is the Judge who
            will soon be coming to judge the wicked with the fire he had earlier
            rained down on the wicked of Sodom and Gomorrah.

            5. The Rich Die in the Pursuit of Yet More Riches

            A fifth important similarity between Thomas and James is that, in both,
            the rich are depicted as dying the pursuit of yet more riches.

            Examples:
            James 1:11-12, "For the sun rose with the burning heat dried the grass
            and its flower fell and the beauty of its appearance perished. Thus
            also the rich man will fade away in his goings."
            Thomas 63, "Jesus said, 'There was a rich man who had much money. He
            said, I shall put my money to use so that I may sow, reap, plant, and
            fill my storehouse with produce, with the result that I shall lack
            nothing. Such were his intentions, but that same night he died. Let
            him who has ears hear.'"

            6. A Negative Appraisal of Merchants and Traders

            A sixth important similarity between Thomas and James is that, in both,
            there is a negative appraisal of merchants and traders;

            Examples:
            James 4:13-16, "Come now, the ones saying, 'Today or tomorrow we will go
            into this or that city and we will do (business) there for a year and
            will merchandize and will make a profit.' You do not know what tomorrow
            or your life (will be). For you are a mist, for a little while
            appearing, then, indeed, disappearing....But now you boast in your
            pretensions. All such boasting is evil. Therefore, to the one knowing
            to do good, but not doing it, to him it is sin."
            Th 64:12, "Buyers and merchants [will] not enter the places of my
            Father."

            7. The Tongue Can be Deadly, the Law of Moses is Not Salvific, But
            Loving Others is Salvific

            a. Introduction

            A seventh important similarity between Thomas and James is that, in
            both, the deadly nature of the tongue is stressed and the Law of Moses
            is not salvific. Further, what one needs to do can be summed up in a
            simple rule to love other people as you do yourself.

            b. James

            James 3:3-13 is one of the longest sections of James and it is a
            discourse on the necessity of controlling the tongue for one to be
            saved--withthe tongue called "a world of unrighteousness" in 3:6 and "an
            uncontrollable evil, full of death-dealing poison" in 3:8.

            In addition, it appears, James had been profoundly influenced by Philo's
            concept of the Logos as expressed in On Dreams II (223-224). This led
            him to believe that the Logos is, besides being personified in Jesus, a
            Law. As a result, in the Epistle of James, the Law that James speaks
            about is not the Law of Moses but, rather, the Logos as a Law--although
            he does think that there is some over-lap between the two laws. It is
            the Logos as the Law, rather than the Law of Moses, that is salvific.
            Further, the Logos, as the Law, can be summed up in the simple rule to
            love your neighbor as yourself.

            In Som ii (223-224), Philo states, "For instance, He says of the
            Covenant filled with his graces (charitwn), the highest Law and Logos
            that is, which rules existent things, that this God-like image shall be
            firmly planted with the just/righteous (dikaiou) soul as its pedestal.
            For so He declares when he says to Noah, 'I will establish My covenant
            on thee' (Gen. ix. 11). And these words have two further meanings.
            First that dikaion (justice/righteousness) and God's covenant are
            identical; secondly that while the gifts bestowed by others are not the
            same as the recipients', God gives not only the gifts, but in them gives
            the recipients to themselves."

            Here, we have:
            God's covenant filled with His graces = the highest Law = the Logos =
            that which rules existent things = this God-like image = that which is
            firmly planted in a just/righteous soul = justice/righteousness = the
            themselves given to its recipients

            This means that the Logos is:
            1. God's covenant filled with His graces
            2. the highest Law
            3. that which rules existent things
            4. this God-like image
            5. that which is firmly planted in a just/righteous soul
            6. justice/righteousness
            7. the themselves given to its recipients

            Now, in order to facilitate this to what we find in the Epistle of
            James, these four modifications to this list need to be made:
            Modification #1 As this God-like image, the Logos is, more precisely,
            the Image of God, of which one's soul is a copy. See Plant (19-20),
            where Philo states, "Accordingly we also read that man has been made
            after the Image of God (Gen. i 27), not however after the image of
            anything created. It follows then, as a natural consequence of man's
            soul having been made after the Image of the Archetype, the Logos of the
            First Cause,...". So, as one's mind or soul is made after the Logos,
            and as the Logos is the Law, it is the case that each person's mind or
            soul has engraved on it a copy of the Law.
            Modification #2 Since it is in respect to the soul that a human being is
            a copy of the Logos, it is the case that the Logos, as the themselves
            given to its recipients, is, more fully, the themselves given to the
            human souls that are its recipients.
            Modification #3 As the highest Law, the Logos is, more precisely, the
            infallible Law bringing freedom (eleutherias). See Prob (46-47), where
            Philo states, "And the right Logos is an infallible Law engraved not by
            this mortal or that and, therefore, soulless as they, but by immortal
            nature on the immortal mind, never to perish. So, one may well wonder
            at the short-sightedness of those who....deny that the right Logos,
            which is the fountainhead of all other law, can impart freedom
            (eleutherias) to the wise, who obey all the it prescribes or forbids."
            Modiification #4 Justice/righteousness is, more fully,
            justice/righteousness to men and, as such, it is a love of men in which
            one acts impartially, supplying good things in equal measure to others.
            See On Abraham (208), where Philo states, "For the nature which is pious
            is also kindly, and the same person will exhibit both qualities,
            holiness to God and dikaiosyne (justice/righteousness) to men." Also
            see the Decalogue (109-110), where Philo states, "Others conceiving the
            idea that there is no good outside of doing justice to men have no heart
            for anything but companionship with men. In their desire for fellowship
            they supply the good things of life in equal measure to all for their
            use, and deem it their duty to alleviate by anything in their power the
            dreaded hardships. These may justly be called lovers of men,...".

            With these modifications, this means that, in Philonic thought, the
            Logos is:
            1. God's covenant filled with His graces
            2. the infallible Law that brings freedom (eleutherias)
            3. that which rules existent things
            4. the Image of God, of which a human soul is a copy
            5. that which is firmly planted in a just/righteous soul
            6. impartial love of men
            7. the themselves given to the human souls that are its recipients

            This Philonic list regarding the Logos underlies what is stated by James
            in 1:21-25 and 2:8-13.

            Let us begin with James 1:21, "Therefore, having put away all filthiness
            and remains of wickedness, in meekness receive the implanted Logos,
            being able to saving your souls." Here, the Logos is, as in item 5 in
            the Philonic list, that which is firmly planted in a just/righteous
            soul.

            Next, let us turn to James 1:22, "(22) But be doers of the Logos and not
            only hearers, deceiving yourselves. (23) Because if anyone is a hearer
            of the Logos and not a doer, this one is like a man observing his face
            of genesis (proswpon tes genesews) in a mirror. (24) He observed himself
            and has gone away and immediately forgot what he was like. (25) But the
            one, having looked into the perfect Law, the one of freedom
            (eleutherias), and having remained, not a forgetful hearer having
            become, but a doer of the work, this one will be blessed in his doing."

            Here, the Logos is, as in item 2 in the Philonic list, the infallible
            Law that brings freedom (eleutherias).

            The phrase "face of genesis (proswpon tes genesews)" alludes to Genesis
            2:7, where God breathes into the face (proswpon) of Adam and he became a
            living soul (psychen zwsan). So, this face is not to be understood to
            be one's physical face but, rather, the "face" of one's soul.

            As a result, in 1:22-25, it is said, to hear the Logos as the perfect
            Law, but not to do it, is like looking at the "face" of one's soul in a
            hand-held mirror and then turning away, forgetting what one has seen.
            However, to hear the Logos as the perfect Law and to do it is like
            continously gazing at the "face" of one's soul in a hand-held mirror, so
            one does not forget what one has seen.

            This mirror analogy is based on the idea that to look at one's soul is,
            in effect, to look at the Logos. That is to say, in 1:22-25, the Logos
            also is, as in item 4 in the Philonic list, the Image of God, of which a
            human soul is a copy--meaning that to look at one's soul, is, in effect,
            to look at the Logos.

            Next, let us turn to James 2:8-9, "(8) If, indeed, the Royal/Kingly
            (basilikon) Law you perform according to the scripture, 'You shall love
            your neighbor as yourself', you do well. (9) But, if you show
            partiality, you commit sin, being exposed by the Law as transgressors.

            Here, James speaks of "the Royal/Kingly Law".

            This phraseology is based on the Logos being, as in items 2 and 3 in the
            Philonic list, both a Law and that which rules the Cosmos--which means
            that this Logos, as a Law is a Royal/Kingly
            Law.

            This Royal/Kingly Law, then, is none other than the Logos as the perfect
            Law that gives us freedom.

            This Law, James states, can be summarized in Lev. 19:18, where one is
            told to love one's neighbor as oneself. Further, he stresses, one must
            not act partially in doing it.

            Here, the Logos is, as in iterm 6 in the Philonic list, impartial love
            of men. So, as a Law, the Logos is an imparital love of men--meaning
            that Lev. 19:18 is one way of expressing this Law.

            This tells us that there an over-lap between the Logos as the perfect
            Law and the Law of Moses.

            But, how great is the overlap?

            A clue comes in the immediately following 2:10-11, "(10) For whoever all
            the Law keeps, but stumbles in one, he has become guilty of all. (11)
            For the One having said, 'Do not commit adultery', also said, 'Do not
            murder'. Now if you do not commit adultery, but you murder, you have
            become a transgressor of the Law.

            Here, we learn, the Logos as the perfect Law that gives one freedom
            includes two ordinances of the Law of Moses regarding our dealings with
            other people. So, the Logos as the perfect Law is apparently
            understood, by James, to include the ordinances of the Law of Moses
            regarding our dealings with other people.

            What, though, about the ordinances of the Law of Moses regarding
            something other than our dealings with other people--such as the
            commandments regarding circumcision, regarding the Sabbath and regarding
            food and drink?

            While an argument from silence, by its nature, tends to be rather weak,
            I think it significant that James is silent on this subject. To me, it
            is a clear indication that he did not deem these ordinances to be a part
            of the Logos as a Law.

            Next, let us turn to James 2:12-13, "(12) So speak and so do as by the
            Law of Freedom being about to be judged. (13) For the judgment will be
            merciless to the one not having shown mercy. Mercy triumphs over
            judgment."

            Here, we learn, we are to be judged by how we speak and act by the Logos
            as the perfect Law that gives us freedom rather than by the Law of
            Moses. So, one's eternal life depends upon one's obedience to the Logos
            as a Law rather than to one's obedience to the Law of Moses.

            Finally, let us turn to James 2:21-24, "(21) Was not Abraham, our
            father, justified from works, having offered up his son, Isaac, upon the
            altar? (22) You see that faith was working with his works and from the
            works the faith was made complete. (23) And the scripture was fulfilled
            saying, 'Abraham believed God, and it was accounted to him for
            righteousness.", and he was called a friend of God. (24)You see that a
            man is justified from works and not from faith alone."

            Abraham lived before the giving of the Law of Moses. So, in 2:21-24,
            the works he performs to complete his faith are not works in accord with
            the Law of Moses but, rather, works in accord with the Logos as the
            perfect Law.

            Compare the Migration of Abraham (130), where Philo states, "So, in
            another place He says, 'Abraham did all My law' (Gen. xxvi. 5): 'Law'
            being evidently nothing else that the Divine Logos enjoining what we
            ought to do and forbidding what we should not do." So, according to
            Philo, the Law observed by Abraham was the Logos as the perfect Law.

            Also see Abraham (275), where Philo states, "But to add to these praises
            of the Sage (i.e., Abraham), so many and so great, Moses adds this
            crowning saying 'that this man did the divine law and the divine
            commands.' He did them, not taught with written words, but unwritten
            nature gave him the zeal to follow where wholesome and untainted impulse
            led him." Here, the Law which Abraham observes is not the written Law
            of Moses but the unwritten perfect Law--whose ordinances, since they
            were an integral part of his soul, were the wholesome and untainted
            impulses that led him.

            To summarize, in James 3:3-13, there is a stress on the need to control
            an evil tongue in order for one to be saved. In addition, in James
            1:21-25, 2:8-13, and 2:21-24, we have a Philonic concept of the Logos,
            with an emphasis on this Logos as a Law--the perfect Law that gives one
            freedom. It is this Law, rather than the Law of Moses, that is
            salvific. As this Law, the Logos is justice/righteousness to men, which
            means that it is an impartial love of men and, as such, can be summed up
            in the simple rule to love your neighbor as yourself.

            c Thomas

            In Thomas, similarly, there is a stress on the need to control the
            tongue in order for one to be saved, the Law of Moses is not salvific,
            but what is salvific is loving others as you love yourself.

            Particularly important is Thomas 6, "His disciples questioned him, and
            said to him, 'Do you want us to fast? How should we pray? Shall we
            give alms? What diet shall we observe?' Jesus said, 'Do not tell lies,
            and do not do what you hate, for all things are plain in the sight of
            heaven. For nothing hidden will not become manifest, and nothing
            covered will remain without being uncovered."

            The ordinances of the Law of Moses regarding fasting, prayer and alms
            are not salvific. Rather, what one needs to do in order to be saved is
            to control the tongue by not telling lies and to not do what one
            hates--which is a negative way of saying that one ought to act with the
            same love to others that you have for youself. A positive form of this
            rule is found in 25, "Love your (sg) brother like your soul, guard him
            like the pupil of your eye."

            Also important is 14:5, "For what goes into your mouth will not defile
            you, but that which issues from your mouth--it is that which will defile
            you." One need not be concerned about the ordinances of the Law of
            Moses regarding food and drink--for the Law of Moses is not salvific.
            Rather, what one needs to be concerned about, because your salvation is
            at stake, is the need for you to control your evil tongue.

            8. Summary

            As we have seen, there are these seven important similarities between
            the Epistle of James and Thomas:
            1. The poor will enter the Kingdom
            2. The absence of any doctine of atonement
            3. The absence of the doctrine of the bodily resurrection of the dead
            4. Jesus is the Logos
            5. The rich die in the pursuit of yet more riches
            6. A negative appraisal of merchants and traders
            7. The tongue can be deadly, the Law of Moses is not salvific, but
            loving others is salvific.

            This gives us another reason as to why the Thomas group took James to
            have been the legitimate successor to Jesus as the head of his movement.
            That is, on a number of important doctrinal issues, there were broad
            areas of agreement between James and the Thomas group.

            Frank McCoy
            2036 E. Magnolia Ave.
            St. Paul, MN 55119


            [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
          • jmgcormier
            ... Frank: ... a lot of good excavation work in your note, but I am left wondering somewhat if we don t yet have a few basic Sitz im Lieben issues to resolve
            Message 5 of 21 , Jul 19, 2007
              --- In gthomas@yahoogroups.com, FMMCCOY@... wrote:
              >
              > INTRODUCTION
              >
              > Let us look at Thomas 12: etc, etc ....



              Frank:

              ... a lot of good excavation work in your note, but I am left
              wondering somewhat if we don't yet have a few basic Sitz im Lieben
              issues to resolve before we can even try to legitimize Logion 12 as
              Thomasene /Jacobian.

              For example, while the James "the righteous" (or James the Just)
              referred to in this logion is widely believed to have been James the
              brother of Jesus (Matt: 13:55) and the one who eventually became
              head of the Church in Jerusalem, its main difficulty is that Jesus'
              brother "James" only came to be head of the Jerusalem Church (and
              eventually referred to as "the just" or "the righteous" by anyone
              including Jesus himself as per Acts 1:14) long after His (Jesus')
              death. We know from the wording of "the disciples'" question in the
              logion, however, that the time frame in which the question is being
              asked and answered is necessarily one when Jesus is still alive (or
              at least prior to His resurrection / ascension) because in the
              logion, Jesus has not yet "departed" according to the words which
              the disciples use ... (We know that you WILL - future - DEPART from
              us.) How could Jesus, then, be possibly referring to his brother
              James as "the Just" or as "the righteous" while He (Jesus) is alive
              under such circumstances and under such New Testament references?

              To add emphasis, if we are to believe John 7:5 and Mark 3:21, during
              Jesus' ministry, "His brothers (including James no doubt) did not
              even believe in Him (Jesus) or in His (Jesus') ministry" while He
              (Jesus)was alive ! It sounds to me, then that the title James "the
              Just" or "the Righteous" would be (time-wise, at least) logically
              nonsensical as a title bestowed upon "brother James" by Jesus during
              His lifetime as he seems to be doing in logion 12.

              My own bias, based on this evidence, is that we can only conclude
              that logion 12 has to be some sort of fantasy, fabrication or
              possible add-on (by a poorly informed or late blooming "wanna-be"
              interpretor / author ... at least to the extent that Jesus would
              have actually uttered it). Remember that with much less of an
              argument at hand, some have argued that logion 114 is a
              similar "later add-on" to Thomas by someone wanting to also skew its
              meaning in a given (biased?) direction ... "noblesse oblige" ...

              I am not sure if my point throws a wrench in your Thomasene /
              Jacobian theory (which is not my intention), but I would submit that
              there may be a lot more to Thomas than meets the proverbial eye if
              we dont stand back periodically and look at it from a non
              traditional perspective.

              - Maurice
            • Jordan Stratford
              ... Maurice - I m a little gobsmacked at this. I can t imagine any credible scholar suggesting that Thomas is or was ever intended to be a literal accounting
              Message 6 of 21 , Jul 19, 2007
                >
                > My own bias, based on this evidence, is that we can only conclude
                > that logion 12 has to be some sort of fantasy, fabrication or
                > possible add-on (by a poorly informed or late blooming "wanna-be"
                > interpretor / author ... at least to the extent that Jesus would
                > have actually uttered it).

                Maurice -

                I'm a little gobsmacked at this. I can't imagine any credible
                scholar suggesting that Thomas is or was ever intended to be a
                literal accounting of the sayings of Jesus. Of COURSE it's not going
                to make literal sense... any more than Acts could be taken as
                reliable history.

                Perhaps "fantasy, fabrication" can be attributed to any parable or
                teaching, but it's apparent that there's a huge paradigmatic gap
                between a model wherein communities of late first / early second
                century Christians were speaking figuratively to convey wisdom
                teachings, and some kind of bronze age CNN reporting. It's like
                arguing about the colour of the fox's fur in Aesop.

                Thrown for a loop,

                Jordan
              • jmgcormier
                ... going ... or ... Hello Jordan, and thank you for your thoughts ... The idea I am trying to capsulize about logion 12 is that like logion 114, it appears
                Message 7 of 21 , Jul 19, 2007
                  --- In gthomas@yahoogroups.com, Jordan Stratford <jordan@...> wrote:



                  > Maurice -
                  >
                  > I'm a little gobsmacked at this. I can't imagine any credible
                  > scholar suggesting that Thomas is or was ever intended to be a
                  > literal accounting of the sayings of Jesus. Of COURSE it's not
                  going
                  > to make literal sense... any more than Acts could be taken as
                  > reliable history.
                  >
                  > Perhaps "fantasy, fabrication" can be attributed to any parable
                  or
                  > teaching, but it's apparent that there's a huge paradigmatic gap
                  > between a model wherein communities of late first / early second
                  > century Christians were speaking figuratively to convey wisdom
                  > teachings, and some kind of bronze age CNN reporting. It's like
                  > arguing about the colour of the fox's fur in Aesop.
                  >
                  > Thrown for a loop,
                  >
                  > Jordan
                  >



                  Hello Jordan, and thank you for your thoughts ...


                  The idea I am trying to capsulize about logion 12 is that like
                  logion 114, it appears disappointingly foreign to the apparent
                  thrust of the Thomasene message and genre given the "literary situ"
                  in which it exists ... in fact this is a pet subject of mine within
                  the context of Thomas, and I was somewhat disappointed that no
                  members of the list were forthcoming to my enquiry of July 2nd in
                  search of examples or research done on what you might call "literal
                  accounting" in Thomas when I was trolling for "verbatim logia"
                  existent in it which may have close or exact commonality with New
                  Testament sources. (this has nothing to do with the truth value of
                  logia and sayings per se) No one responded, of course, which may
                  prove your point ... but then, can one only be a "scholar" if one
                  has norms within which he or she limits or embraces his or her
                  beliefs or within which one therein finds motivation for his or her
                  actions?

                  Behold the thoughts of both a great scholar and a great believer on
                  the subject ... enjoy!

                  "Do not believe in anything simply because you have heard it. Do not
                  believe in anything simply because it is spoken and rumored by many.
                  Do not believe in anything simply because it is found written in
                  your religious books. Do not believe in anything merely on the
                  authority of your teachers and elders. Do not believe in traditions
                  because they have been handed down for many generations. But after
                  observation and analysis, when you find that anything agrees with
                  reason and is conducive to the good and benefit of one and all, then
                  accept it and live up to it." - The Buddha
                • Frank McCoy
                  Maurice: Regarding Thomas 12, you state: For example, while the James the righteous (or James the Just) referred to in this logion is widely believed to have
                  Message 8 of 21 , Jul 20, 2007
                    Maurice:

                    Regarding Thomas 12, you state:
                    For example, while the James "the righteous" (or James the Just)
                    referred to in this logion is widely believed to have been James the
                    brother of Jesus (Matt: 13:55) and the one who eventually became
                    head of the Church in Jerusalem, its main difficulty is that Jesus'
                    brother "James" only came to be head of the Jerusalem Church (and
                    eventually referred to as "the just" or "the righteous" by anyone
                    including Jesus himself as per Acts 1:14) long after His (Jesus')
                    death.

                    What evidence do you have that James didn't became the leader of Jesus
                    Assembly in Jerusalem until long after the death of Jesus?

                    You continue:
                    We know from the wording of "the disciples'" question in the
                    logion, however, that the time frame in which the question is being
                    asked and answered is necessarily one when Jesus is still alive (or
                    at least prior to His resurrection / ascension) because in the
                    logion, Jesus has not yet "departed" according to the words which
                    the disciples use ... (We know that you WILL - future - DEPART from
                    us.) How could Jesus, then, be possibly referring to his brother
                    James as "the Just" or as "the righteous" while He (Jesus) is alive
                    under such circumstances and under such New Testament references?

                    I agree with you that, in Thomas 12, the extravagant phraseology Jesus
                    uses regarding James is almost certainly fictional. Still, there might
                    be a kernel of historical reality to Thomas 12, so I wouldn't dismiss it
                    out of hand on this basis.

                    You continue:
                    To add emphasis, if we are to believe John 7:5 and Mark 3:21, during
                    Jesus' ministry, "His brothers (including James no doubt) did not
                    even believe in Him (Jesus) or in His (Jesus') ministry" while He
                    (Jesus)was alive !

                    Maurice, your concerns here are addressed by James D. Tabor in the Jesus
                    Dynasty (p 165), "It seems that the one thing people think they know
                    about the brothers of Jesus is that they did not believe in him. This
                    spurious opinion is based on a *single* phrase in John 7:5 that many
                    scholars consider to be a late interpolation. Modern translations even
                    put it in parentheses. Once we realize that the brothers are a part of
                    the Twelve, and that James is the 'beloved disciple,' then many things
                    begin to make new sense. There are two passages in Mark that some have
                    taken as downplaying the importance of Jesus' family, but they have been
                    misread based on the false assumption that the brothers did not believe
                    in Jesus. It is amazing what firm opinions have been built upon such
                    shaky foundations."

                    I would make these qualifications to what he states:
                    1. I think that he presents inadequate evidence to validate his
                    hypothesis that the brothers are a part of the Twelve. Above all, he
                    fails to adequately explain why Luke differentiates the Twelve (or, to
                    be more proper, the remaining Eleven after the defection of Judas) from
                    the brothers of Jesus in Acts 1:13-14
                    2. I think that John 6:1-7:14 and John 21 are late inserts into an
                    original version of John, so I do not deem John 7:5 to be an
                    interpolation. Rather, I deem it to be a part of a massive late
                    addition to John consisting of 6:1-7:14 and Chapter 21.
                    3. I only partially agree with Tabor regarding his hypothesis that James
                    is the Beloved Disciple of John. I do think that James is the Beloved
                    Disciple in the original John. However, in the above late inserts, the
                    Beloved Disciple is the pillar named John.

                    These qualifications do not mar the basic thrust of his argument--which
                    is that John 7:5 is unlikely to be correct because it is a late addition
                    to the original John and, once this is realized, then Mark 3:21 can be
                    viewed in new light.

                    Maurice, if (as both he and I think) James is the Beloved Disciple of
                    John 13:23, then James was not only present at the Last Supper, but had
                    the place of honor next to Jesus. This is a clear indication that Jesus
                    intended James, rather than Peter, to be his successor as the head of
                    his movement. In this case, then, there almost certainly is a hard core
                    of historical reality to Thomas 12, even though the extravagant wording
                    in it almost certainly is fictional.

                    What follows is a presentation of the hypothesis that James was the
                    original Beloved Disciple.

                    JAMES--THE ORIGINAL BELOVED DISCIPLE

                    A Introduction

                    In the Gospel of John, there is a mysterious figure cryptically referred
                    to as the disciple whom Jesus loved. In scholarly literature, this
                    person is called the Beloved Disciple.

                    Traditionally, the Beloved Disciple has been taken to be John the son of
                    Zebedee--one of the Twelve.

                    However, as we shall see, it appears that the original Beloved Disciple
                    was James, the brother of Jesus. Then, a later editor did a switcheroo
                    to falsely make it appear that the Beloved Disciple had been named John.
                    This switcheroo has been so successful that the strong Christian
                    tradition of the Beloved Disciple having been John the son of Zebedee is
                    still very popular--even in scholarly circles.

                    B. The Five Passages

                    Here are the five passages in which the Beloved Disciple is mentioned:
                    1. 13:23-26a--in Jerusalem during the Last Supper, "One of his
                    disciples, whom Jesus loved, was reclining on the bosom of Jesus.
                    Therefore, Simon Peter nods to this one to ask who it may be about whom
                    he (i.e., Jesus) speaks. Having leaned back, then, this one on the
                    bosom of Jesus says to him, 'Lord, who is it?' Answers Jesus, 'It is
                    the one to whom I will dip the morsel and give to him.'"
                    2. 19:25-27--in Jerusalem, during the crucifixion of Jesus, "But there
                    had stood before the cross of Jesus his mother and the sister of his
                    mother, Mary of Clopos and Mary the Magdalene. Therefore, Jesus, having
                    seen the mother and the disciple whom he was loving having stood by,
                    says to the mother, 'Woman, behold your son.' Then he says to the
                    disciple, 'Behold, your mother.' And from that hour, the disciple took
                    her into his own."
                    3. 20:1-10--In Jerusalem, during the next Sunday, "Now, on the first day
                    of the week, Mary the Magdalene comes to the tomb early, it still being
                    dark, and sees the stone having been taken from the tomb. Therefore,
                    she runs and comes to Simon Peter and the other disciple, whom Jesus was
                    loving, and says to them, 'They have taken the Lord from the tomb, and
                    we do not know where they have placed him.' Therefore, Peter and the
                    other disciple went forth and they were coming to the tomb. The two
                    were running together and the other disciple ran ahead, faster than
                    Peter, and came first to the tomb. And, having stooped down, he sees
                    the linen cloth lying. However, he did not enter. Simon Peter (was)
                    following him and he entered the tomb and he sees the linen cloths lying
                    and the face cloth, which was upon his head, was not lying with the
                    linen cloths, but apart. Then, therefore, entered the other disciple,
                    the one having come first to the tomb, and he saw and believed. For
                    they knew not yet the scripture that it was necessary for him to rise up
                    from the dead. Then the disciples went away again to their own."
                    4. 21:7--at the Sea of Tiberius, an unknown amount of time later,
                    "Therefore, says the disciple whom Jesus was loving to Peter, 'It is the
                    Lord.'"
                    5. 21:20-24--at the Sea of Tiberius, later that day, "Having turned,
                    Peter sees following the disciple whom Jesus was loving--who also
                    reclined during the supper upon his breast and said, 'Lord, who is the
                    one betraying you?' Having seen this one, Peter says to Jesus, 'Lord,
                    what about this man?' Jesus says to him, 'If I want him to remain unitl
                    I come, what to you? You, follow me.' Therefore, went out this one
                    saying to the brethren that the disciple would not die. But Jesus did
                    not tell him that he would not die but if I want him to remain unitl I
                    come, what to you? This is the disciple, the one testifying about thse
                    things and the one having written these things, and we know his
                    testimony is true."

                    C. Contrasts Between the Beloved Disciple and Peter in Passages 1-3 vs.
                    4-5

                    When comparing passages 1-3 (i.e., 13:23-26a, 19:25-27 and 20:1-10) vs.
                    passages 4-5 (i.e., 21:7 and 21:20-24, we find three major contrasts
                    between the Beloved Disciple and Peter:
                    1. The Beloved Disciple is physically closer to Jesus than Peter in
                    passage 1, but Peter is physically closer to Jesus than the Beloved
                    Disciple in passage 5
                    2. Peter speaks to the Beloved Disciple in passage 1, but the Beloved
                    Disciple speaks to Peter in passage 4
                    3. Jesus speaks to the Beloved Disciple in passages 1 and 2, but Jesus
                    speaks to Peter in passage 5.

                    These contrasts, I suggest, serve the purpose of establishing who is the
                    boss and who is the subordinate, with:
                    1. The one who is physically closest to Jesus being the boss of the
                    other one
                    2. The one to whom both Jesus and the other one speak being an
                    intermediary between Jesus and the other one and, thus, the boss of the
                    other one.

                    So, in passages 1-3, the Beloved Disciple is Peter's boss. However, in
                    passages 4-5, Peter is the Beloved Disciple's boss.

                    D. A Hypothesis

                    How can it be that the Beloved Disciple is Peter's superior in passages
                    1-3 (i.e., 13:23-26a, 19:25-27 and 20:1-10), but his subordinate in
                    passages 4-5 (i.e., 21:7 and 21:20-24?

                    A clue comes from Galatians 2:8-9, where Paul states, "And, realizing
                    the grace that had been given to me, James and Cephas and John (the ones
                    seeming to be pillars), gave the right hand of fellowship to me and
                    Barnabas--that we for the Gentiles, but they for the Circumcision."

                    The order, here, is hierarchical, so that James (who is the brother of
                    Jesus) is the superior of Cephas (i.e., Peter), while Peter, in turn, is
                    the superior of John.

                    In light of this, I propose the hypothesis:
                    In John, the Beloved Disciple is always one of the three pillars.
                    However: (1) in passages 1-3, he is the pillar named James, i.e., James
                    the brother of Jesus, and (2) in passages 4-5, he is the pillar named
                    John.

                    This explains why the Beloved Disciple is the superior of Peter in
                    passages 1-3. This is because James, the brother of Jesus, as the chief
                    pillar, had been Peter's superior.

                    This also explains why the Beloved Disciple is the subordinate of Peter
                    in passages 4-5. This is because John, as the least of the pillars, had
                    been Peter's subordinate.

                    In addition, this explains why, in passage 2 (i.e., 19:25-27), Jesus
                    tells his mother that the Beloved Disciple is her son and tells the
                    Beloved Disciple that his own mother is also his mother. This entails
                    that the Beloved Disciple is a brother of Jesus. Indeed, according to
                    this hypothesis, in passage 2, the Beloved Disciple is the brother of
                    Jesus named James.

                    Finally, this explains why, in passage 5 (i.e., 21:20-24), it is
                    declared that the Beloved Disciple has written these things. Since what
                    has been written is the Gospel of John, this presumably means that the
                    Beloved Disciple had been named John. Indeed, according to this
                    hypothesis, in passage 5, the Beloved Disciple is named John.

                    E. Rewriting History

                    The way that Chapter 21 was written effectively masks the situation of
                    passages 1-3 (i.e., 13:23-26a, 19:25-27 and 20:1-10) referring to a
                    Beloved Disciple who is James the brther of Jesus and makes it appear
                    that they, like passages 4-5 (the two passages within Chapter 21), refer
                    to a Beloved Disciple who is named John.

                    This chapter thusly begins in 21:1-3a, "After these things, Jesus
                    manifested himself again to the disciples at the Sea of Tiberias. Now,
                    he was manifested thus. There were together Simon Peter and Thomas, the
                    one being called Didymus, and Nathanael, the one from Cana of Galilee,
                    and the sons of Zebedee and two others of his disciples. Simon Peter
                    says to them, 'I am going to fish.' They say to him, 'We are coming
                    with you.'"

                    Here, there are two indicators that Peter is the chief disciple: (1) he
                    is the first disciple to be named and (2) the other disciples follow him
                    when he decides to go fishing.

                    There is a strong entsion between these two indications that Peter is
                    the chief disciple and passages 1-3--where there are several indications
                    that Peter is subordinate to the Beloved Disciple. Evan in passage 3
                    (20:1-10) there is an indication that Peter is subordinate to the
                    Beloved Disciple, i.e., it is *twice* explicitly stated that the Beloved
                    Disciple beat Peter to the tomb.

                    This tension becomes unbearable in 21:7 (i.e., passage 4): where, we
                    learn, one of the other disciples in 21:1-3a is the Beloved Disciple.

                    So, now the reader of John faces a dilemma. After having read passages
                    1-3, where the indications are that Peter had been subordinate to the
                    Beloved Disciple, (s)he now finds some indications that the Beloved
                    Disciple had been a subordinate of Peter.

                    Thus, the reader now faces the question: Which indicators are correct,
                    and which are incorrect red herrings?

                    What appears to be the answer is found in 21:15-17--where the risen
                    Jesus tells Peter in three different ways to feed his sheep.

                    This can only mean that Peter had been chosen by Jesus himself to be his
                    earthly successor as the shepherd of the holy flock and that, therefore,
                    the Beloved Disciple had been his subordinate.

                    So, the reader is led to conclude, the indications, in passages 1-3, of
                    Peter being a subordinate of the Beloved Disciple must be incorrect red
                    herrings.

                    Then, to nail things down, it is explicitly declared in passage 5 (i.e.,
                    21:20-24) that the Beloved Disciple of this passage is also the Beloved
                    Disciple of passage 1 (i.e., 13:23-26a). As a result, the reader is
                    forestalled from divining the true situation--which is that the Beloved
                    Disciple of passages 1-3 is not the Beloved Disciple of passages 4-5.

                    Thus, Chapter 21 is a rewriting of history. It falsely portrays Peter
                    as having succeeded Jesus as the head of his movement, when the reality
                    is that James succeeded Jesus as the head of his movement. Further, it
                    transforms the Beloved Disciple from being James to being the pillar
                    named John.

                    In effect, Chapter 21 is so written that James is effectively erased
                    from history, thereby making Peter, rather than (as was actually the
                    case) James, the first shepherd of the holy flock of Jesus and making
                    John the Beloved Disciple rather than (as was actually the case) James.
                    As a result, Chapter 21 was an important step in the formulation of the
                    orthodox position that Peter had been the successor of Jesus as the head
                    of his movement and the crucial step in the development of the very
                    strong Christian tradition that the Beloved Disciple had been John the
                    son of Zebedee.

                    Adding insult to injury, it appears that the person who wrote Chapter 21
                    also wrote John 6:1-7:14--where (in 7:3-10) the brothers of Jesus are
                    pictured as being unbelievers.

                    6:1-7:14 is an intrusion that interrupts the narrative flow. So, in
                    John (p.10), Rudolph Butmann states, "For example Jn. 6.1 reports a
                    journey of Jesus to the other bank of Lake Gennesaret, although chapter
                    5 is set in Jerualem. 7:15-24 harks back directly to the Sabbath
                    healing that lies far off in chapter 5."

                    Bultmann suggests that the intrusive nature of 6:1-7:14 is due to a
                    change in the original order of the text, perhaps caused by an
                    interchanging of leaves.

                    However, there is no readily apparent place elsewhere in John to place
                    it.

                    So, it appears more likely that, like Chapter 21, it is an addition to
                    John by a later editor.

                    By thusly portraying the brothers of Jesus as not believing in Jesus
                    before the first mention of the Beloved Disciple, this later editor gave
                    the biggest red herring of all, misleading the reader into thinking
                    that, whoever the Beloved Disciple might be, he surely cannot be one of
                    the brothers of Jesus.

                    That both Luke and a later editor of John effectively erased James from
                    the history of the Jesus movement and portray Peter as having been the
                    legitimate successor to Jesus as the head of his movement has led almost
                    all Christians to believe that Peter had been the legitimate successor
                    to Jesus as the head of his movement. This is understandable,
                    especially considering that, in the New Testament, John immediately
                    precedes Acts. As a result, Chapter 21 of John (where Jesus appoints
                    Peter to be shepherd of the flock) immediately precedes Chapter 1 of
                    Acts, where Luke portrays Peter as leading the followers of Jesus right
                    after the death of Jesus.

                    Frank McCoy
                    2036 E. Magnolia Ave.
                    St. Paul, MN 55119







                    [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                  • jmgcormier
                    ... etc, etc, etc ... Hello Frank ... Thank you for your follow-up on logion 12. Your material is always deep rooted and challenging. Regarding your James the
                    Message 9 of 21 , Jul 20, 2007
                      --- In gthomas@yahoogroups.com, "Frank McCoy" <FMMCCOY@...> wrote:

                      etc, etc, etc ...



                      Hello Frank ...

                      Thank you for your follow-up on logion 12. Your material is always
                      deep rooted and challenging.

                      Regarding your James "the Just" question, you will have to give me a
                      bit of time to tidy up my notes on this subject as I cannot find it
                      just now and I am but slowly recovering from recent surgery.

                      As I recall, however, notwithstanding the date part, the argument
                      had been made based on the writings of Esubius who had produced
                      reference notes from James of Hegesippus who was arguing that James
                      was not only called "the Just" because of his handling of Church
                      issues, but because he was of clean living character since
                      birth .... but then, let me try to find the actual reference for you
                      if I can ... note that Acts 1, 14 nonetheless gives us a post Jesus
                      death timeframe which we cannot ignore.

                      On your "kernel of historical reality" point about Thomas 12 ...
                      indeed, one has to keep an open mind. In fact, over time, I have
                      often argued myself that because James the Just is rumored to have
                      died "shortly after the death of Festus" (around 62 C.E.) by
                      Josephus/Hegesippus, then unless Jesus (in logion 12) was suggesting
                      to his disciples that they seek the guidance of a "late" James the
                      Just ... logion 12 would have had to be written and recorded before
                      that date .... (so much for the late daters of Thomas perhaps).

                      On your "shaky foundations" point, yup ! ... agreed ... indeed, you
                      may wish to re-read my Buddha reference to Jordan dated yesterday.
                      It is one of my favorites on this sort of "just hold your nose and
                      swallow" sort of thing ...

                      Finally, on the issue of the Beloved Disciple, let me raise an
                      interesting point or two with you "off-line" when I find a moment as
                      it is a bit off-topic to the current discussion ....

                      Cheers, Maurice
                    • FMMCCOY@msn.com
                      Regarding Saying 12 on James, Ron McCann writes, Frank, I was using the logion to show, or at least argue, that the Thomasines were aware and knew or knew
                      Message 10 of 21 , Aug 13, 2007
                        Regarding Saying 12 on James, Ron McCann writes, "Frank, I was using the
                        logion to show, or at least argue, that the Thomasines were aware and
                        knew or knew that James had the reputation of being a strict
                        Torah-Observing Jew. It was known even to them. This, in the context of
                        the argument as to the EARLIEST authorities we have being of one mind on
                        that.
                        The PURPOSE of the Thomasines for either penning or including this
                        logion in their Gospel is a different issue. That addresses the question
                        of what they were using this logion FOR. The question might be better
                        framed as "Why on earth would they frame and/or include a logion
                        apparently tying, linking or submitting themselves to a strict
                        Torah-Observant figure, if they themselves were not only not
                        Torah-Observant but evidence scorn and derision, if not contempt for
                        those things that the Torah-Observant- the Jews, and (arguably) James,
                        held most dear, central to their faith, important and precious?" Well,
                        clearly, they cannot be using this logion as holding up James as an
                        Stirling exemplar to be followed and emulated in his strict Torah
                        Observance by all Thomasines. So what are they using it FOR?"

                        Ron, you are assuming that, in Saying 12, Jame's title of "the
                        Righteous/Just" means that he was Torah observant.

                        But is this assumption correct? I suggest that it is not correct.

                        In his work, James the Brother of Jesus, Robert Eisenman has several
                        discussions on this title.

                        He thinks that this title goes back to a Hebrew original, stating
                        (pp.14-15), "The mention of Zadok and Yehozedek is important, because
                        the root onwhich this noun cluster is based, the three Hebrew letters
                        Z-D-K, bears the meaning of 'Righteousness'. This is not only the basis
                        for James' cognomen, 'the Righteous' or 'Just One', according to all
                        early Church sources, but it is connected to the name of one of the
                        sects in Jesus' time, which transliterates into Greek, Sadducee or
                        Zadduki/Zaddoki."

                        The Greek word for "righteous/just" is dikaios. I don't know Coptic,
                        but, eyeballing the underlying Coptic word in Saying 12, it appears to
                        be related to this Greek word. Perhaps it is a loan word from the
                        Greek?

                        As for Saying 12, Eisenman relates it to a passage from the Zohar,
                        stating (p. 136), "In this passage from the Zohar, the pre-existence or
                        supernatural nature of 'the Zaddik' is stressed, an idea encountered as
                        well in the Prologue of the Gospel of John in terms of 'Logos' and
                        'Light' imagery, in the description there of Jesus' enterance into the
                        world. But there is another allusion in the recently rediscovered Nag
                        Hammadi Gospel of Thomas--'the Twin' or 'Judas Thomas'--the putative
                        third brother of Jesus after James and Simon. This bears on the ideal
                        of this pre-existent Righteous One of Heavenly Zaddik--in more mundane
                        terms, James in his role as Perfect Righteous One. In turn this also
                        bears on the appointment of James as Leader of the Jerusalem Church and
                        therefore of all Christianity everywhere as successor to Jesus."

                        He also states (Ibid.), "Aside from being a tradition incorporating the
                        long-lost direct appointment of James by Jesus as Leader of the early
                        Church, it (i.e., Thomas 12) also bears on the idea of 'the Zaddik'.
                        Yet it is a thousand years earlier than the above description in the
                        Zohar, which was purportedly written in Spain in the 1200s-1300s."

                        Because of the lateness of the Zohar, I am extremely skeptical that it
                        can shed any light on Saying 12 and on James' title of "the
                        Righteous/Just".

                        In any event, later in James the Brother of Jesus (pp. 236-238),
                        Eisenman takes another approach to James' title of "the
                        Righteeous/Just".

                        He begins by stating, "In his famous description of essens in the War,
                        as well as that of John the Baptist in the Antiquities, Josephus makes
                        it very clear what was implied by this dichotomy (of piety and
                        righteousness). Righteousness is 'Righteousness towards men', that is,
                        the sum total of one's social obligations in this world towards one's
                        fellow man. This is very often summed up in a single commandment, known
                        from the Ten Commandments and often presented as the essence of Jesus'
                        teaching in Scripture, 'love your neighbor as yourself'. This,
                        therefore can be termed the Righteousness Commandment."

                        Then, he begins to associate this concept of righteousness with James,
                        thusly continuing, "As will also become clear form its use at Qumran and
                        in the New Testament, this included an economic dimension as well. One
                        could not love one's neighbor as oneself if one made economic
                        distinctions between oneself and one's neighbor or, to put it simply, if
                        one were Richer than one's neighbor--therefore not only the extreme
                        antagonism towards 'the Rich', but the pivotal emphasis on 'the Poor' in
                        all traditions associated with James--not to mention Jesus--as well as
                        those associated with the Righteous Teacher in all the texts at Qumran.
                        This, of course, moves into 'the Poor' or 'Ebionite' terminology and its
                        variations."

                        Finally, shortly thereafter, he explicitly associates this concept of
                        righteousness with James' title, stating, "This 'Righteousness', and the
                        ideology associated with it, is not only the basis of the cognomen to
                        this effect always attached to his name, it would appear to be a basic
                        element of all traditions associated with James, even more than for his
                        reputed brother Jesus....This 'Righteousness' ideology is also the basic
                        one where 'the Teacher of Righteousness'--the central character in the
                        Qumran documents--is concerned. If James is not identical with him,
                        then he is certainly a parallel character or one of a long series of
                        individuals bearing this title, because James certainly taught a
                        doctrine of Righteousness. This doctrine epitomized--as both the Letter
                        attached to James' name and parallel portions of the Damascus Document
                        attest--by the Commandment to 'love your neighbour as yourself'. It is
                        epitomized, too, in the notion of 'the Poor', one of the principal forms
                        of self-designation at Qumran, and the name either of James' group per
                        se in Jerusalem or the groups in early Church accounts after this, which
                        took him as its progenitor."

                        Ron, I think that Eisenman hits the nail on the head here. James had
                        the title of "the Righteous/Just" not because of any alleged obedience
                        to the Law of Moses but, rather, out of his zeal for being righteous to
                        men, preaching and doing the love of others.

                        There are two reasons why, I think, this is not widely accepted.

                        First, Paul's concept that one is justified and made righteous by faith
                        rather than by works of the Law of Moses fosters the misconception that,
                        for all Jews at the time, righteousness meant obedience to the Law of
                        Moses.

                        Second, many are unaware of just how wide-spread in first century CE
                        Jewish circles was the notion that there were the two cardinal virues of
                        piety to God and righteousness to men--and with righteousness to men
                        taken to mean love of other men.

                        As Eisenman points out above, this notion appears in Josephus and in the
                        DSS. Further, in one of the two times this notion appears in Josephus,
                        he claims that John the Baptist preached obedience to both of these two
                        cardinal virtues.

                        It even appears in Philonic thought. Thus, in On Abraham (208), Philo
                        states, "For the nature which is pious is also kindly, and the same
                        person will exhibit both qualities, holiness to God and justice to men."
                        Again, in the Decalogue, 108-110), he writes, "Now we have known some
                        who associate themselves with one of the two sides (of piety to God and
                        justice to men) and are seen to neglect the other. They have drunk the
                        unmixed wine of pious aspirations and turning their backs upon all other
                        concerns devoted their person life wholly to the service of God. Others
                        conceiving the idea that there is no good ouside doing justice to men
                        have no heart for anything but companionship with men. In their desire
                        for fellowship they supply the good things of life in equal measure to
                        all for their use, and deem it their duty to alleviate by any means in
                        their power the dreaded hardships. These may justly be called lovers of
                        men, the former sort lovers of God."

                        On the Philonic notion that those who love other men "deem it their duty
                        to alleviate by any means in their power the dreaded hardships", compare
                        the Damascus Document (VII), "They shall love each man his brother as
                        himself; they shall succour the poor, the needy, and the stranger."

                        Ron, now comes the key point: Not only is it the case that James
                        appears to have gotten his title of "the Righteous/Just" because of his
                        righteousness to men, loving them and doing what he could to alleviate
                        the hardships of the poor, but the Thomas group tried to be righteous in
                        just the same way. So, there is a negative version of the Golden rule
                        in Th 6. Again, it is stated in Th 25, "Love your brother like your
                        soul, guard him like the pupil of your eye." Too, see Th 95, where you
                        are told to lend money "from whom you will not get it back."

                        As a result, Ron, I do not think that the Thomas group ever renounced
                        being righteous in the same sense that James was known to be righteous,
                        i.e., in the sense of loving other human beings and providing whatever
                        assistance that is needed by those who have fallen on hard times. So, I
                        think, they had a legitimate claim to being faithful to him as "the
                        Righteous/Just", even though they renounced many Jewish practices
                        associated with the Law of Moses.

                        Frank McCoy
                        2036 E. Magnolia Ave.
                        St. Paul, MN USA 55119



                        [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                      • Ron McCann
                        Hello Frank. Thanks for your message of August 13th. You wrote:- Ron, you are assuming that, in saying 12, James s title of the Righteous/Just means that he
                        Message 11 of 21 , Aug 14, 2007
                          Hello Frank. Thanks for your message of August 13th.

                          You wrote:- "Ron, you are assuming that, in saying 12, James's title of "the Righteous/Just means that he was Torah observant. But if this assumption correct? I suggest it is not correct."
                          You then supply 4 separate quotations/arguments from Robert Eisenman against my view that for "Righteous" in 12 we should be reading it as "Torah-Observant, or "strict Torah- Observant, or perhaps even" FULLY Torah-observant", and for an alternate view that the word "Righteous" in James's name does NOT refer to his (arguable) strict Torah observance, rather it refers exclusively to his pursuit and practice of the cardinal virtue of love for one's fellow man, as exemplified in his "works" to alleviate human suffering in pursuit of the virtue that Eisenman defines as "righteousness to men".
                          You then go into two reasons what Eisenman's view here, is not widely accepted.
                          Then you invoke some material from Philo which appears to support Eisenman's view, and also invoke part of the Damascus document in support.
                          Finally you get to your key point:-
                          "Not only is it the case that James appears to have gotten his title of "The Righteous/Just" because of this RIGHTEOUSNESS TO MEN (caps, mine) (That is- NOT by strict Torah-Observance.) loving them and doing what he could to allegiate the hardships of the poor, but the Thomas group tried TO BE RIGHTEOUS IN THE SAME WAY. (caps mine).

                          You conclude "" ... I do not think that the Thomas group ever renounced being righteous IN THE SAME SENSE that James was known to be "righteous"..{That is_ in pursuing the cardinal virtue of Righteousness towards Men"] ... they had a legitinate claim to being faithful to him [in pursuing the virtue of "Righteousness towards Men"] as the 'Righteous/Just", even though they renounced many practices associated with the Law of Moses."

                          Well, Frank, Eisenman's take on this is one of the worst cases of "hair-splitting" I have ever encountered, and with all due respect to him as a scholar, I think he is just plain wrong here, and completley missed the boat.

                          In the interests of brevity, I do not propose to address his or the other arguments point by point in refutation. Rather I'm just going to cut right through them directly to the heart of this matter. I do appreciate all the careful reasoning and the citations of (arguably) competent authorities on these matters, but I think I can dispose of most, if not all of their argument in another, more economical, way.

                          Frank, "Righteousness Towards Men" is not just some laudible cardinal virtue (How very Greek phisolophyish!) that the Jews, at their option, pursued. Iit is mandated in the TORAH. It is a commandment. It is PART of the Torah itself. It cannot be severed from it. It is every bit as much a part of it as the commandments, statutes, ordinances and regulations of Mosaic Law as "Thous shalt not kill." is.. At least 3/4's of the Ten Commandments address it and are concerned with it. Any Jew who is truly Torah Observant MUST obey it, therefore, and engage in those "humanitarian" and"relief" activities ('works").
                          This is the entire cut and thrust of Chapter 2 of the Letter of James, which you deem authentic. He speficially cites "You shall love your neigbor as yourself." as part of the "Royal Law" (his words). He is pointing out that in disobeying it they are BREACHING THE TORAH, even if, in every other respect, they are obeying it. Full righetousness before God and Man require BOTH.
                          Either Hillel or Gamiel (I forget which) made the same point when, in response to a fellow who demanded he explain the whole of the Torah while he himself stood on one foot, condensed the whole Torah down to two precepts. "Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all the soul , and with all thy heart, and with all thy mind, and your neighbor as yourself." They are both inseparable parts of the Torah. Two legs attached to one body.
                          The same point, that is- that that loving and caring for your fellow man is MANDATED by the Torah, as something you MUST do in addition to loving God (Believing in him, having him as your one and only god, and obeying his commandments, ordinances, and regulations as set down by Moses)- is found underscored in Jesus' teachings in Matthew 22, v 34-40, and Luke 10 v 27- an ancient and hoary Q saying, and I'll quote Matthew's version:-
                          "When the Pharisees heard that he had silenced the Sadduces, they gathered together and one of them, a lawyer, asked him a question to test him. "Teacher, which commandmnet IN THE LAW is the greatest?" . He said to him, "You shall love the Lord your God, with all your heart, with all your soul, and with all your mind. This is the greatest and first commandment. And a second (commandment) is like it: "You shall love your neigbor as yourself. In these two COMMANDMENTS hang all the Law and the Prophets (The Torah)." True Torah observance required you to do both.

                          So why, on earth, would you seek to limit the aquisition of Righteousness in the eyes of God, and men, to the obedience to just the second of those two commandments?
                          Do we have to get into the story, where a rich man, who pleases Jesus because he has kept all the commandments since his youth, and asks what else he must do to be "saved" (ie: be fully righteous and worthy of salvation in God's eyes) is told that he has missed one, and is directed to go out, sell his possessions and give to the poor?
                          Mandatory conduct
                          In fact, Frank, the Letter of James stands as yet another First Century source (making 5 of them now)) that tells us James himself was strictly Torah-Observant. In Chapter 2, he is telling his fellow Jews in the Diaspora that they are not being FULLY Torah-Observant, and in fact are breaching the law in ignoning them commandment to "Love thy Neigbor",.and he is urging them to FULL observance of the Torah- BOTH legs.. And if he is urging that, of them, then what does that tell us about what he himsefl was practicing? Answer:- Full, strict Torah Observance. He was NOT forgetting that "second" commandment.
                          And I suggest to you that Paul, whom you mention on the point, was correct and that is that the First Century Jews believed that OBEDIENCE TO THE TORAH (What he seemed to call the Mosaic Law- but as we have seen, also included that "second" commandment) conferred righteousness in the eyes of God and men to one who practiced it.
                          I'd like to see you find a Rabbi, even to-day, who would tell you that Obedience to the Torah did NOT confer righteousness is the eyes of God and man.

                          So I say, that James acquired his nick-name, or his honorific, "James the Righteous" by, over the course of his life-time, building up a reputation for strict Torah Obedience. There is simply no warrant to limit his acquisition of the title and reputation for being "righteous" to his performance of only one leg of the Torah- the "second" commandment.

                          I would liked to have addressed some other points you raised, but this is already too long.

                          Ron McCann
                          Saskatoon, Canada


                          [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                        • FMMCCOY@msn.com
                          Ron McCann writes, Frank, Righteousness Towards Men is not just some laudible cardinal virtue (How very Greek phisolophyish!) that the Jews, at their
                          Message 12 of 21 , Aug 16, 2007
                            Ron McCann writes, "Frank, 'Righteousness Towards Men' is not just some
                            laudible cardinal virtue (How very Greek phisolophyish!) that the Jews,
                            at their option, pursued. Iit is mandated in the TORAH. It is a
                            commandment. It is PART of the Torah itself. It cannot be severed from
                            it. It is every bit as much a part of it as the commandments, statutes,
                            ordinances and regulations of Mosaic Law as 'Thous shalt not kill.' is..
                            At least 3/4's of the Ten Commandments address it and are concerned with
                            it. Any Jew who is truly Torah Observant MUST obey it, therefore, and
                            engage in those 'humanitarian' and 'relief' activities ('works').
                            This is the entire cut and thrust of Chapter 2 of the Letter of James,
                            which you deem authentic. He speficially cites 'You shall love your
                            neigbor as yourself. as part of the 'Royal Law' (his words). He is
                            pointing out that in disobeying it they are BREACHING THE TORAH, even
                            if, in every other respect, they are obeying it. Full righetousness
                            before God and Man require BOTH.
                            Either Hillel or Gamiel (I forget which) made the same point when, in
                            response to a fellow who demanded he explain the whole of the Torah
                            while he himself stood on one foot, condensed the whole Torah down to
                            two precepts. 'Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all the soul , and
                            with all thy heart, and with all thy mind, and your neighbor as
                            yourself.' They are both inseparable parts of the Torah. Two legs
                            attached to one body."

                            Ron, James 2:8 reads, "If indeed you perform the Royal Law according to
                            scripture, 'You shall love your neighbor as yourself', you do well."

                            According to the way you interpret this passage, the Royal Law is the
                            Law of Moses.

                            However, this is not the only possible way to interpret the Royal Law.

                            For example, according to Luke Timothy Johnson, in "Brother of Jesus,
                            Friend of God (p 134), it is the Law of Love. So, he states, "The law
                            of love from Lev. 19:18b is characterized by basilikos not only because
                            of its 'excellence,' but because it is the 'law of the kingdom' (the use
                            of basileia in 2:5 is decisive for this)...".

                            It appears that our discussions now ends. There are scholars who
                            support your interpretation of the Royal Law as being the Law of Moses,
                            and there are those who do not. I happen to agree with those who think
                            it is a law in its own right. In particular, my opinion is that, in
                            Jacobian thought, the Royal Law, also called the Law of Freedom, is not
                            the Law of Moses but, rather, the Logos as a Law. So, it appears, we'll
                            just have to agree to disagree, since even the scholars can't come to an
                            agreement here. I've enjoyed the discussion, though, and I hope that you
                            have as well.

                            Frank McCoy
                            2036 E. Magnolia Ave.
                            St. Paul, MN USA 55119





                            [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                          • Ron McCann
                            Thank you Frank, And yes, indeed I have enjoyed the fencing . We can agree to disagree as you say. Actually, in this exercise I was just keen on seeing what
                            Message 13 of 21 , Aug 16, 2007
                              Thank you Frank,

                              And yes, indeed I have enjoyed the "fencing".
                              We can agree to disagree as you say.
                              Actually, in this exercise I was just keen on seeing what sort or evidence and argument your could muster, amass and align that could potentially "take down" those First Century authorities that SEEM to support the premise that James was a Torah-Observant Jew.
                              I had not actually intended to cross swords with you on the issue itself, but found myself compelled to respond to what I perceived to be some obvious holes in your argument, which, in turn, you've given good answer to, in terms of reply/rebuttal. Every time I was about to shout "Touché", you parried the thrust quite effectively.

                              All in all, a very creditable effort - if I can say that without sounding patronizing. Some, surely, will find your arguments compelling. I still have my doubts.

                              I too am feeling somewhat weary, and think that we have pretty much exhausted the matter.

                              In closing, let me just say that if I looked up across the aisle in a courtroom, and saw you appearing as opposing counsel for the other side, I'd certainly know, given your skill at argument, I had no cake-walk ahead of me.
                              As the French say:- "Formidable!".

                              My Thanks,

                              Ron McCann
                              Saskatoon, Canada



                              [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                            Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.