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

Who Was Judas Thomas?

Expand Messages
  • Michael Grondin
    ... At the outset, it should be pointed out that canonical Jude doesn t use the name Thomas , nor hint that the supposed (but not actual) author Jude was
    Message 1 of 22 , Dec 2, 2010
    • 0 Attachment
      This note is in response to Bill Arnal's statement of 11/18:
       
      > ... all this talk about "Judas the twin" suggests a family
      relationship to me,
      > and there does seem to be church tradition to this effect
      (canonical Jude;
      > non-canonical Acts of Thomas).
       
      At the outset, it should be pointed out that canonical Jude doesn't use the
      name 'Thomas', nor hint that the supposed (but not actual) author "Jude"
      was the natural twin brother of Jesus. We do get that connection in both
      the Acts of Thomas and the Book of Thomas the Contender, though neither
      of these constitute "church tradition". In what I have to say here, I'll be
      concentrating on Thom.Cont. and the Gospel of Mark, both of which, I
      think, leave it very unclear who "Judas Thomas" may have been, if anyone.
       
      First, with respect to Thom.Cont., John Turner's intro in NHL makes it
      sound as if there's no question at all:
       
      > It [Thom.Cont.] is a revelation dialogue between the resurrected
      Jesus
      > and his twin brother Judas Thomas ... It is a literary expression
      of
      > traditions native to Syrian Edessa about the apostle Jude,
      surnamed
      > Thomas, the missionary to India. (NHL, p.199)
       
      But is the text really so clear as Turner suggests about the relationship
      between Jesus and "Judas Thomas"? True, it has Jesus (AKA "the savior")
      refer to Thomas as "brother Thomas" and "my brother Thomas" in the
      second and third paragraphs. But it also says "since it has been said that
      you are my twin and true companion" and "since you will be called my
      brother", both of which suggest that the relationship between the two men 
      was a spiritual/metaphorical one rather than a biological one. And this from
      a text which has little interest in historical reality. I think it can be fairly well
      maintained, then, that even this non-canonical source doesn't support a
      biological connection.
       
      Turning to canonical sources, that Jesus had a brother with the common name
      'Judas' is attested in Mark 6:3 and (but not independently) Matt 13:55. But neither
      Mark nor Matt nor any other NT writer associated that brother with the member of
      the twelve named 'Thomas'. Is it because they were unaware of a connection, wished
      to hide it, or didn't think there was one? Take your pick, but bear in mind the scene
      wherein J's biological brothers are outside a house where J and his disciples
      (including the twelve, one supposes) are gathered, and wherein J differentiates
      between his spiritual "family" and his biological family. (There is also no support
      for the identification of blood-brother Judas with 'Thomas' of the twelve in
      such a source as Harper's Bible Dictionary.)
       
      As opposed to this, one may wonder whose twin "Thomas" of the twelve was,
      if not Jesus'. Whatever else, I think we may rule out that he was the identical
      twin of anyone, for if parents have identical twins, it would be nonsensical to
      name one of them 'twin'. There still remains the possibility of Thomas being
      a fraternal twin of someone who was born first, but there's also the possibility
      that 'Thomas' was simply a nickname (like 'Peter') taken on by someone who
      wanted to emulate and pay homage to his spiritual master. Changing names
      (as from 'Saul' to 'Paul') wasn't unheard-of among early Christians.
       
      Mike Grondin 
    • Jack Kilmon
      I think it is apparent that the 1st century Jesus Company was a family enterprise. Jemes successor Shymeon Bar Halfy was Jesus (hence also James ) cousin.
      Message 2 of 22 , Dec 2, 2010
      • 0 Attachment
        I think it is apparent that the 1st century "Jesus Company" was a family enterprise.
         
        Jemes'successor Shymeon Bar Halfy was Jesus' (hence also James') cousin.  He was the son of Joseph's brother Clopas/Alphaeus.  Clopas is the Greek rendering while Alphaeus is the transliteration of "Halfy."  Alphaeus was Jesus' uncle married to the "other Mary."  His other sons were Matthew (yes, the tax collector) and James the "lesser" (called such because he was younger than his other cousins James the Righteous and James the "greater.").  Add the Zebedee boys and Thaddeus and these Talmidda were not strangers but were long term friends and relatives. Simeon would have to have been an infant when Jesus was crucified since he died around 107.  This would suggest that Jesus' aunt, "the other Mary" was a second wife to Alphaeus and the stepmother of Jesus' cousins Matthew and James.  Simeon became head of the "Nazarenes/Ebionites" on the death of James the Righteous in 62 and led the group to Pella during the Roman War. He was nasy (there was no such thing as "bishops") for 45 years and must have been around 70-75 when he died.  We really know little about him and the group appointed 13 successive cousins of Jesus over the next 38 years before drifting off in the mists of history around 135 CE, an average of about 3
        years of leadership for each...obviously a dangerous occupation.  The last leader was named Jude/Yehudah and was the great-grandson of Jesus' brother Jude (perhaps Thomas).  This Jude's father, therefore, would have been one of the grandsons of Jude called before Domitian (around 90 CE) as related by Hegesippus according to HE III, 19-20.
         
        It would not be unusual for a brother who closely resembled Jesus to be called "Toma" which also means "double." (There is also an apocryphal note somewhere that cousin Yaqub Ber Halfy,  "James, the lesser" also resembled Jesus suggesting a strong family resemblance among the descendents of Yaqub (Jesus' grandfather) after whom, following Jewish naming practice, James/Yaqub the Just and James/Yaqub the Lesser were named.
         
        Jesus' mother and at least two aunts (the "other Mary" and Salome) accompany the group and support them.  We are not sure of the relationship of Joanna and Susannah but I would bet the pomegranate farm they were also related.

        We are left to wonder...if we are a bit curious...why none of Jesus' other three brothers, after James, appear....unless, of course, disciple Yehuda Toma (Thomas) was Jesus' brother "Jude."  What happened to Yosef (s ), born next after James, and Shymeon? One group of Jesus' family members appear to have gone to Egypt and were known as the Disposyni eventually disappearing from the record in the 5th century.
         
        To be called the TOMA "double of" or "twin of" as an identifier suggested a famous person that was your brother or whom you resembled
         
        Jack Kilmon



        Sent: Thursday, December 02, 2010 1:53 PM
        Subject: [GTh] Who Was Judas Thomas?

        This note is in response to Bill Arnal's statement of 11/18:
         
        > ... all this talk about "Judas the twin" suggests a family
        relationship to me,
        > and there does seem to be church tradition to this effect
        (canonical Jude;
        > non-canonical Acts of Thomas).
         
        At the outset, it should be pointed out that canonical Jude doesn't use the
        name 'Thomas', nor hint that the supposed (but not actual) author "Jude"
        was the natural twin brother of Jesus. We do get that connection in both
        the Acts of Thomas and the Book of Thomas the Contender, though neither
        of these constitute "church tradition". In what I have to say here, I'll be
        concentrating on Thom.Cont. and the Gospel of Mark, both of which, I
        think, leave it very unclear who "Judas Thomas" may have been, if anyone.
         
        First, with respect to Thom.Cont., John Turner's intro in NHL makes it
        sound as if there's no question at all:
         
        > It [Thom.Cont.] is a revelation dialogue between the resurrected
        Jesus
        > and his twin brother Judas Thomas ... It is a literary expression
        of
        > traditions native to Syrian Edessa about the apostle Jude,
        surnamed
        > Thomas, the missionary to India. (NHL, p.199)
         
        But is the text really so clear as Turner suggests about the relationship
        between Jesus and "Judas Thomas"? True, it has Jesus (AKA "the savior")
        refer to Thomas as "brother Thomas" and "my brother Thomas" in the
        second and third paragraphs. But it also says "since it has been said that
        you are my twin and true companion" and "since you will be called my
        brother", both of which suggest that the relationship between the two men 
        was a spiritual/metaphorical one rather than a biological one. And this from
        a text which has little interest in historical reality. I think it can be fairly well
        maintained, then, that even this non-canonical source doesn't support a
        biological connection.
         
        Turning to canonical sources, that Jesus had a brother with the common name
        'Judas' is attested in Mark 6:3 and (but not independently) Matt 13:55. But neither
        Mark nor Matt nor any other NT writer associated that brother with the member of
        the twelve named 'Thomas'. Is it because they were unaware of a connection, wished
        to hide it, or didn't think there was one? Take your pick, but bear in mind the scene
        wherein J's biological brothers are outside a house where J and his disciples
        (including the twelve, one supposes) are gathered, and wherein J differentiates
        between his spiritual "family" and his biological family. (There is also no support
        for the identification of blood-brother Judas with 'Thomas' of the twelve in
        such a source as Harper's Bible Dictionary.)
         
        As opposed to this, one may wonder whose twin "Thomas" of the twelve was,
        if not Jesus'. Whatever else, I think we may rule out that he was the identical
        twin of anyone, for if parents have identical twins, it would be nonsensical to
        name one of them 'twin'. There still remains the possibility of Thomas being
        a fraternal twin of someone who was born first, but there's also the possibility
        that 'Thomas' was simply a nickname (like 'Peter') taken on by someone who
        wanted to emulate and pay homage to his spiritual master. Changing names
        (as from 'Saul' to 'Paul') wasn't unheard-of among early Christians.
         
        Mike Grondin 
      • Bob Schacht
        ... It may be anachronistic to refer to the Desposyni, but the reference to them by Sextus Julius Africanus (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Desposyni) indicates
        Message 3 of 22 , Dec 2, 2010
        • 0 Attachment
          At 02:34 PM 12/2/2010, Jack Kilmon wrote:
           

          I think it is apparent that the 1st century "Jesus Company" was a family enterprise....
          It may be anachronistic to refer to the

          Desposyni, but the reference to them by

          Sextus Julius Africanus
          ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Desposyni)
          indicates a new label for an old situation with a long tradition. The "Jesus company" may or may not have been a family enterprise, but it at least appears that there were some who were trying to make it a family enterprise.

          Bob Schacht
          Northern Arizona University
        • Michael Grondin
          ... Not apparent to many, Jack, as I m sure you know. Is there anywhere on your website that you cite the evidence for the more questionable claims? ... Who
          Message 4 of 22 , Dec 2, 2010
          • 0 Attachment
            [Jack Kilmon]:
            > I think it is apparent
            that the 1st century "Jesus Company" was a family
            >
            enterprise.

            Not apparent to many, Jack, as I'm sure you know. Is there anywhere on
            your website that you cite the evidence for the more questionable claims?

            > We are left to wonder...if we are a
            bit curious...why none of Jesus'
            > other three brothers, after James,
            appear....unless, of course, disciple
            > Yehuda Toma (Thomas) was Jesus' brother "Jude."

            Who might also have been called 'Yehuda Toma', as I believe you wrote.
            But at least it's left open whether the two were one and the same. With all
            those intertwining family relationships, I was afraid you'd just declare
            them so. ((:-))

            > Jesus' mother and at least
            two aunts (the "other Mary" and Salome)
            > accompany the group and support
            them.

            OK, here's a case in point about providing supporting evidence. Where
            are you getting it that Salome was his aunt? (As you know, she's only
            mentioned in Mark 15:40 and 16:1, and not identified there. In Thomas,
            she's presented as not even knowing Jesus.)

            Mike G.
          • Jack Kilmon
            From: Michael Grondin Sent: Thursday, December 02, 2010 7:19 PM To: gthomas@yahoogroups.com Subject: Re: [GTh] Who Was Judas Thomas? ... Not apparent to many,
            Message 5 of 22 , Dec 2, 2010
            • 0 Attachment
               

              Sent: Thursday, December 02, 2010 7:19 PM
              Subject: Re: [GTh] Who Was Judas Thomas?

              [Jack Kilmon]:
              > I think it is apparent
              that the 1st century "Jesus Company" was a family
              >
              enterprise.

              Not apparent to many, Jack, as I'm sure you know. Is there anywhere on
              your website that you cite the evidence for the more questionable claims?
               
              Not at present. I am in the process of completely revamping that site.  I am figuring out how to use Dreamweaver in the process.  If you would like to specify any "questionable claims" I will be glad to clarify.


              > We are left to wonder...if we are a bit curious...why none of
              Jesus'
              > other three brothers, after James, appear....unless, of course,
              disciple
              > Yehuda Toma (Thomas) was Jesus' brother "Jude."

              Who might also have been called 'Yehuda Toma', as I believe you wrote.
              But at least it's left open whether the two were one and the same. With all
              those intertwining family relationships, I was afraid you'd just declare
              them so. ((:-))
               
              Yehudah "Toma" is the only "Thomas" I am aware of in the texts. canonical or non-canonical.


              > Jesus' mother and at least two aunts (the "other Mary" and
              Salome)
              > accompany the group and support them.

              OK, here's a case in point about providing supporting evidence. Where
              are you getting it that Salome was his aunt? (As you know, she's only
              mentioned in Mark 15:40 and 16:1, and not identified there. In Thomas,
              she's presented as not even knowing Jesus.)

              Mike G.
            • Jack Kilmon
              From: Michael Grondin Sent: Thursday, December 02, 2010 7:19 PM To: gthomas@yahoogroups.com Subject: Re: [GTh] Who Was Judas Thomas? JK ... MG OK, here s a
              Message 6 of 22 , Dec 3, 2010
              • 0 Attachment
                 

                Sent: Thursday, December 02, 2010 7:19 PM
                Subject: Re: [GTh] Who Was Judas Thomas?

                JK
                > Jesus'
                mother and at least two aunts (the "other Mary" and Salome)
                > accompany
                the group and support them.

                MG
                OK, here's a case in point about providing supporting evidence. Where
                are you getting it that Salome was his aunt? (As you know, she's only
                mentioned in Mark 15:40 and 16:1, and not identified there. In Thomas,
                she's presented as not even knowing Jesus.)
                 
                JK
                Yes, Mark names her as at the crucifixion with his mother and his aunt Mary and again going to the tomb to prepare the body, a task only family members would do.  Matthew redacts Mark on this by calling her the mother of the sons of Zebedee.  We now know that Salome (Shalomzion/Shalomet) and the mother of James (the Greater) and John were the same. John 19:25 calls this Salome (Mark) and Mother of the sons of Zebedee (Matthew) at the crucifixion, "...and his mother's sister."  We can only go by what the texts tell us and weigh authenticity by the cultural anthropology of the time.
                 
                The Thomas editor of the Q saying at Matthew 24:40-41/Luke 17:34-35 added the Salome dialogue at Thomas 61:2 to give context.  Salome (Greek)=Shalomzion=Shalomit was a very common name in the 1st century because Salome Alexandra was a national heroine.
                 
                Jack Kilmon


                Mike G.
              • Paul Lanier
                Another possbility is that Judas Iscariot is Mark s reframing of Judas Thomas. Support for this comes from both Paul and Gospel of Thomas, who, if Thomas
                Message 7 of 22 , Dec 3, 2010
                • 0 Attachment
                  Another possbility is that Judas Iscariot is Mark's reframing of Judas Thomas. Support for this comes from both Paul and Gospel of Thomas, who, if Thomas precedes Mark, are earlier, less elaborated traditions. Neither appear familiar with the tradition recorded (or invented) by Mark, that Judas Iscariot betrayed Jesus.
                  Regards, Paul

                • E Bruce Brooks
                  To: GThos Cc: GPG In Response To: Paul Lanier On: Judas Thomas From: Bruce PAUL: Another possbility is that Judas Iscariot is Mark s reframing of Judas Thomas.
                  Message 8 of 22 , Dec 3, 2010
                  • 0 Attachment
                    To: GThos
                    Cc: GPG
                    In Response To: Paul Lanier
                    On: Judas Thomas
                    From: Bruce
                     
                    PAUL: Another possbility is that Judas Iscariot is Mark's reframing of Judas Thomas. Support for this comes from both Paul and Gospel of Thomas, who, if Thomas precedes Mark, are earlier, less elaborated traditions. Neither appear familiar with the tradition recorded (or invented) by Mark, that Judas Iscariot betrayed Jesus.
                     
                    BRUCE: Curiously enough, I made a somewhat comparable suggestion in my paper on The Twelve at the recent SBL meeting. For the handout of that talk, see the end of the Alpha Christianity page:
                     
                     
                    That scenario does not posit a real Judas Thomas; I would tend to suspect that he is a conflation product, one of several efforts to squeeze the historical Twelve into eleven, so as to make room for the betrayer Judas Iscariot (perhaps not solely a Markan idea). In my reconstruction, the apostle Thomas and the apostle Judas of James are distinct figures.
                     
                    That the Thomas of the Gospel of Thomas might have gained by being thought the twin (or Doppelgänger) or Jesus is obvious, but at what point in its history was the Gospel first associated with Thomas? Seemingly only in its framing sections, whereas a connection with Jacob of Jerusalem is made within the text (at Thos 12).
                     
                    Bruce
                     
                    E Bruce Brooks
                    Warring States Project
                    University of Massachusetts at Amherst
                     
                  • Michael Grondin
                    ... Unfortunately, this argument is suspect because the group also includes the Magdalene, who apparently wasn t a family member. However, your other argument
                    Message 9 of 22 , Dec 3, 2010
                    • 0 Attachment
                      JK:
                      > ... Mark names [Salome] as at the crucifixion with [Jesus'] mother and his
                      > aunt Mary and again going to the tomb to prepare the body, a task only
                      > family members would do.
                       
                      Unfortunately, this argument is suspect because the group also includes
                      the Magdalene, who apparently wasn't a family member. However, your
                      other argument - from harmonization of parallel gospel passages - seems to
                      have been fairly well accepted. Though none of the Thomas commentaries
                      I've read identifies Salome, Michael Coogan's piece on 'Salome' in the
                      Oxford Companion to the Bible (1993) says flat out that "She is identified
                      by Matthew (27:56) as the mother of James and John and would therefore
                      have been the wife of Zebedee as well as Jesus' aunt ..." So I'm fairly well
                      satisfied about who Salome was, and as a result, am looking more favorably 
                      on Bill Arnal's original suggestion that occasioned this thread - namely that
                      the three characters treated kindly in GThom outside of L114 (viz., Jacob,
                      Salome, and Thomas) were family members, so the "Mary/Mariam" in L114
                      may have been as well. As I recall, Bill thinks that this means that the "Mary"
                      in L114 must be J's mother, but actually his argument works as well - and
                      yours above would work also - if MM were J's [de facto?] wife. Leaving
                      that tantalizing tidbit aside for another thread, however, it only remains here
                      to determine (as far as we can) whether "Judas Thomas" in the Thomistic
                      texts was supposed to be brother Judas or not, so I'll turn to that now.
                       
                      The question I had posed (and suggested a negative answer for) was whether
                      blood-brother Judas (who is never referred to in the canon as "Thomas") and
                      Thomas-of-the-twelve (who is never referred to in the canon as "Judas") were
                      one and the same. Unfortunately, I'm rather confused by what you wrote in
                      different notes. In the latest, you wrote this:
                       
                      > Yehudah "Toma" is the only "Thomas" I am aware of in the texts. canonical
                      > or non-canonical.
                       
                      I'm at a loss as to how to understand this statement in light of what you had
                      previously written - which concentrated largely on history, not texts. You had
                      earlier suggested that blood-brother Judas/Yehuda may have been nicknamed
                      "Toma", as follows:
                       
                      > It would not be unusual for a brother who closely resembled Jesus to be called "Toma" ...
                       
                      So then (I ask rhetorically) would that make brother Judas one and the same
                      as Thom-of-the-twelve? Your answer, as follows, I took to be "not necessarily":
                       
                      > We are left to wonder ... why none of Jesus' other three brothers, after James,
                      > appear....unless, of course, disciple Yehuda Toma (Thomas) was Jesus' brother "Jude." 
                       
                      So ... you left open the question whether brother Judas/Yehuda was one and the
                      same with Thomas-of-the-twelve, although you opine that, regardless of what's in
                      the texts, both of them might have been called "Judas Thomas" (Yehuda Toma).
                      Have I got that right, or is there some subtlety I'm missing?
                       
                      Regards,
                      Mike G.
                    • Jack Kilmon
                      From: Michael Grondin Sent: Friday, December 03, 2010 3:07 PM To: gthomas@yahoogroups.com Subject: Re: [GTh] Who Was Judas Thomas? ... Mike: Unfortunately,
                      Message 10 of 22 , Dec 3, 2010
                      • 0 Attachment
                         

                        Sent: Friday, December 03, 2010 3:07 PM
                        Subject: Re: [GTh] Who Was Judas Thomas?

                        JK:
                        > ... Mark names [Salome] as at the crucifixion with [Jesus'] mother and his
                        > aunt Mary and again going to the tomb to prepare the body, a task only
                        > family members would do.
                         
                        Mike: 
                        Unfortunately, this argument is suspect because the group also includes
                        the Magdalene, who apparently wasn't a family member.
                         
                        Jack:
                        Are we sure of that, Mike?  The gospels report behaviors between Jesus and Mary M. that would only be acceptable in that culture if they were married.
                         
                         
                        Mike:
                         However, your
                        other argument - from harmonization of parallel gospel passages - seems to
                        have been fairly well accepted. Though none of the Thomas commentaries
                        I've read identifies Salome, Michael Coogan's piece on 'Salome' in the
                        Oxford Companion to the Bible (1993) says flat out that "She is identified
                        by Matthew (27:56) as the mother of James and John and would therefore
                        have been the wife of Zebedee as well as Jesus' aunt ..." So I'm fairly well
                        satisfied about who Salome was, and as a result, am looking more favorably 
                        on Bill Arnal's original suggestion that occasioned this thread - namely that
                        the three characters treated kindly in GThom outside of L114 (viz., Jacob,
                        Salome, and Thomas) were family members, so the "Mary/Mariam" in L114
                        may have been as well. As I recall, Bill thinks that this means that the "Mary"
                        in L114 must be J's mother, but actually his argument works as well - and
                        yours above would work also - if MM were J's [de facto?] wife. Leaving
                        that tantalizing tidbit aside for another thread, however, it only remains here
                        to determine (as far as we can) whether "Judas Thomas" in the Thomistic
                        texts was supposed to be brother Judas or not, so I'll turn to that now.
                         
                        The question I had posed (and suggested a negative answer for) was whether
                        blood-brother Judas (who is never referred to in the canon as "Thomas") and
                        Thomas-of-the-twelve (who is never referred to in the canon as "Judas") were
                        one and the same. Unfortunately, I'm rather confused by what you wrote in
                        different notes. In the latest, you wrote this:
                         
                        > Yehudah "Toma" is the only "Thomas" I am aware of in the texts. canonical
                        > or non-canonical.
                         
                        I'm at a loss as to how to understand this statement in light of what you had
                        previously written - which concentrated largely on history, not texts. You had
                        earlier suggested that blood-brother Judas/Yehuda may have been nicknamed
                        "Toma", as follows:
                         
                        > It would not be unusual for a brother who closely resembled Jesus to be called "Toma" ...
                         
                        So then (I ask rhetorically) would that make brother Judas one and the same
                        as Thom-of-the-twelve? Your answer, as follows, I took to be "not necessarily":
                         
                        > We are left to wonder ... why none of Jesus' other three brothers, after James,
                        > appear....unless, of course, disciple Yehuda Toma (Thomas) was Jesus' brother "Jude." 
                         
                        So ... you left open the question whether brother Judas/Yehuda was one and the
                        same with Thomas-of-the-twelve, although you opine that, regardless of what's in
                        the texts, both of them might have been called "Judas Thomas" (Yehuda Toma).
                        Have I got that right, or is there some subtlety I'm missing?
                         
                         
                        I use caution because only in the Gospel of Thomas is Thomas' surname, Judas (Yehudah) given whereas in Luke and Acts Thomas is mentioned separately from one Judas (carefully noted not to be Iscariot) who is designated as Ἰούδαν Ἰακώβου or "Judas of James" (genitive case) which can be idiomatically interpreted as either "son of..." or "brother of..." James/Yaqub. This Judas would have been Judas Thaddeus mentioned in Mark and in Matthew, who mistakenly gives his name as Lebbaeus which is the Aramaic form of the Hebrew Thaddaeus (in Greek transliteration) and is either the brother of James, the Lesser (and Matthew) and also a cousin of Jesus or the son of James, the greater, and still a cousin of Jesus.
                         
                        We have FIVE cousins that we know of among the Talmidda of Jesus, James, the greater (Yaqub Bar Zabeday); John (Yohanan Bar Zabeday); James, the Lesser (Yaqub Bar Halfy); Matthew (Mattaya Bar Halfy); and Judas Thaddaeus.
                         
                        Jack Kilmon
                         
                         
                         
                         
                         
                        Regards,
                        Mike G.
                      • E Bruce Brooks
                        To: GThomas Cc: GPG In Response To: Jack Kilmon On: Jesus and Mary M From: Bruce JACK: Are we sure of that, Mike? The gospels report behaviors between Jesus
                        Message 11 of 22 , Dec 3, 2010
                        • 0 Attachment
                          
                          To: GThomas
                          Cc: GPG
                          In Response To: Jack Kilmon
                          On: Jesus and Mary M
                          From: Bruce
                           
                          JACK: Are we sure of that, Mike?  The gospels report behaviors between Jesus and Mary M. that would only be acceptable in that culture if they were married.
                           
                          BRUCE: Gospels, schmospels; there is only one of them with a remote chance of containing useful information; the rest are intentional rewrites and reconceptions. The less you read in them, the better off you are.
                           
                          The other factor that may be relevant: I get the impression, even from the earliest texts we have, that there was an unusual degree of gender equality within the Jesus group, both during his life (NB Mk 3:35, "my brother, and my sister") and afterward (the symmetrical divorce rules, which also occur in the later Gospels). There  seems also to have been an unusual degree of in-group solidarity and intimacy (the many adjurations to mutual love), as perhaps befits a community organized from the beginning somewhat against the world around it, whether Jewish or Gentile. Only after the destruction of the Temple, and the realization that the expected Last Days (however exactly they were visualized) were not going to happen soon, did the famous Haustafeln start to appear in the deuteroPauline literature (Colossians, Ephesians, 1 Peter), where the Jesus communities, by then in their second or even third generation, were advised to assimilate their manners more to the world outside, including such details as the greater subordination of women (which so ticked off Winsome Munro).
                           
                          For such reasons, I don't think it is valid to extrapolate Jesus from the Greco-Roman generality. Chances are that we are still talking about Jesus because he and his first followers somewhat stood out from Jewish society, never mind Greco-Roman society. As I read the earliest evidence, this was probably one of the ways.
                           
                          Bruce
                           
                          E Bruce Brooks
                          Warring States Project
                          University of Massachusetts at Amherst
                           
                        • Jack Kilmon
                          Bruce, I agree somewhat with SOME of the things you say except the disrespect for the texts which, like it or not, are all we have. It is up to us using
                          Message 12 of 22 , Dec 3, 2010
                          • 0 Attachment
                            Bruce, I agree somewhat with SOME of the things you say except the disrespect for the texts which, like it or not, are all we have.  It is up to us using critical analytical techniques to decide what is important to our understanding of the early community.  The question here is just how far outside of the Judaic box the Yeshuine community wandered under the instructions of Jesus.  My conclusion is that the community was not outside of ONE of the "Judaic boxes," only not the box we are led to believe is Mosaic Judaism.  Although that community was eventually supplanted by "the world outside" it is still visible in the understructure of the "Gospels schmospels" and in some of the other layered texts such as Thomas and the multi-layered text of 4G.  Isn't about the same with the  Shi Jing? This is where linguistics is a valuable tool and so if I also disagree with some of what you say, it does not mean I just fell off the turnip truck.
                             
                            Jack
                             
                            Jack Kilmon
                            San Antonio, TX

                            Sent: Friday, December 03, 2010 7:49 PM
                            Cc: GPG
                            Subject: Re: [GTh] Who Was Judas Thomas?

                            
                            To: GThomas
                            Cc: GPG
                            In Response To: Jack Kilmon
                            On: Jesus and Mary M
                            From: Bruce
                             
                            JACK: Are we sure of that, Mike?  The gospels report behaviors between Jesus and Mary M. that would only be acceptable in that culture if they were married.
                             
                            BRUCE: Gospels, schmospels; there is only one of them with a remote chance of containing useful information; the rest are intentional rewrites and reconceptions. The less you read in them, the better off you are.
                             
                            The other factor that may be relevant: I get the impression, even from the earliest texts we have, that there was an unusual degree of gender equality within the Jesus group, both during his life (NB Mk 3:35, "my brother, and my sister") and afterward (the symmetrical divorce rules, which also occur in the later Gospels). There  seems also to have been an unusual degree of in-group solidarity and intimacy (the many adjurations to mutual love), as perhaps befits a community organized from the beginning somewhat against the world around it, whether Jewish or Gentile. Only after the destruction of the Temple, and the realization that the expected Last Days (however exactly they were visualized) were not going to happen soon, did the famous Haustafeln start to appear in the deuteroPauline literature (Colossians, Ephesians, 1 Peter), where the Jesus communities, by then in their second or even third generation, were advised to assimilate their manners more to the world outside, including such details as the greater subordination of women (which so ticked off Winsome Munro).
                             
                            For such reasons, I don't think it is valid to extrapolate Jesus from the Greco-Roman generality. Chances are that we are still talking about Jesus because he and his first followers somewhat stood out from Jewish society, never mind Greco-Roman society. As I read the earliest evidence, this was probably one of the ways.
                             
                            Bruce
                             
                            E Bruce Brooks
                            Warring States Project
                            University of Massachusetts at Amherst
                             
                          • E Bruce Brooks
                            To: GThomas Cc: GPG In Response To: Jack Kilmon On: Relatives of Jesus From: Bruce JACK: I agree somewhat with SOME of the things you say except the disrespect
                            Message 13 of 22 , Dec 4, 2010
                            • 0 Attachment
                              
                              To: GThomas
                              Cc: GPG
                              In Response To: Jack Kilmon
                              On: Relatives of Jesus
                              From: Bruce
                               
                              JACK: I agree somewhat with SOME of the things you say except the disrespect for the texts which, like it or not, are all we have.
                               
                              BRUCE: That they are all we have doesn't require us to treat them as though they gave us more than they do. We have to assess their value, recognize their deficiencies, map their tendencies, discern their agendas, follow their literary moves, and then see what use we can properly make of them. Are they evidence for the earliest stage, or for a later stage, or a little bit of both? There is no problem making use of them devotionally; the problem arises with the question: What is the value of this thing as evidence for the original Jesus situation, or for any well-defined subsequent historical situation? If we should find that the late texts are useless or actively misleading for the early situation, then the right response is to decide that we cannot recover the early situation - and bend ourselves instead to working out the later situation with diligence. To doing, in a word, what the texts, such as they may be, will reputably let us do.
                               
                              JACK: It is up to us using critical analytical techniques to decide what is important to our understanding of the early community. 
                               
                              BRUCE: Good; we are still on the same truck.
                               
                              JACK: The question here is just how far outside of the Judaic box the Yeshuine community wandered under the instructions of Jesus.  My conclusion is that the community was not outside of ONE of the "Judaic boxes," only not the box we are led to believe is Mosaic Judaism.  Although that community was eventually supplanted by "the world outside" it is still visible in the understructure of the "Gospels schmospels" and in some of the other layered texts such as Thomas and the multi-layered text of 4G.
                               
                              BRUCE: I can't do too much with these general statements, but in lieu of a direct response, let me say that if we are curious about the early situation, then I think we need to go first to the places in the existing evidence where the early situation is most visible. The initial mixing of earlier and later sources is a crime against historical methodology. And as far as my limited acquaintance goes, it is common crime in the NT field. How many books can one find, on The Parables of Jesus, which talk chiefly about the parables of Matthew or Luke? Lots. How many focus, either initially or exclusively, on the parables of Jesus in Mark? None that I know of (references to the contrary however are very welcome). This situation betrays a truly pitiable lack of understanding of how one does history - assuming that doing history is the idea. As I do.
                               
                              How do we, at the outset, rate the four Gospels as sources for the early situation? I would say: By noticing the developmental trajectories which connect them, despite their divergences and distinctive agendas at many points. In the sequence Mk > Mt > Lk > Jn, we see inter alia (1) a progressive divinization of Jesus, (2) a progressive diminution of the importance of Jesus's baptism by John, (3) a progressive reduction in the role of John, (4) an increasing focus on Jerusalem at the expense of Galilee, and relevant to the present matter, (5) an increasing acceptance of Jesus's family, starting from the rejection of family by Jesus in Mark, and ending with the very affecting (but nevertheless historically dubious) scene between the dying Jesus and his mother in gJohn.
                               
                              It is the last of these trends that make me wonder about the traditions that Jesus and his followers were all more or less related. These traditions certainly exist, but how sound are they? Where do they first crop up? Are they likelier to be remembered truth, or historical invention as part of a later trend of thinking? I think the presumptions are in favor of the latter. What, for instance, is anyone going to make of Luke's claim that Jesus and John the B were related? What I make of it is a manifestation (and a somewhat eccentric manifestation) of a general tendency to familize Jesus and the Jesus movement. Are there reasons, cogent for the mind of the later Jesus followers, why this tendency might have arisen, are there issues which that development would have addressed? I can think of some, and invite a look at that question in general.
                               
                              JACK:  Isn't about the same with the  Shi Jing? This is where linguistics is a valuable tool and so if I also disagree with some of what you say, it does not mean I just fell off the turnip truck.
                               
                              BRUCE: Those wishing to climb on one truck or another, and interested in the parallels that any second philologically understood situation can sometimes provide, are welcome to scope out my book currently in press (but out in time for Groundhog Day giving; check Amazon), The Emergence of China, where not only are readers given a tiny bit of elementary instruction in how to use philology on a text (eg, what is an interpolation - you would be amazed to know how few seventh graders have that concept), but shown how that tool can clarify what is happening in the Chinese classic of Poetry, otherwise Shr Jing (this name is spelled also in other ways, apparently for the purpose of mystifying the public; sorry, not my fault). The conventional view is that the contents of the Shr date from high antiquity, say 1000 BC give or take a couple centuries, and that the latest parts are from around 0600. Instead, the oldest parts are from the 05c, and the culturally and politically revisionist parts (as it turns out, a significant proportion of the collection) are from the late 05c and the early and middle 04c. The agreed poetic heritage of the past, the collective cultural memory as expressed in these constantly performed texts, is here being actively reconfigured, not just by revisionist interpretation (for which there is also sufficient evidence), but by new composition, for use in the political present.
                               
                              Another Chinese parallel may be worth considering, not that specific things repeat themselves, but that certain situations are in the nature of things liable to recur. Consider the Jesus Divinization Trajectory; few movements of any kind fail to exhibit something like that tendency. Another, not so common but known in more than one instance, is the transition of a movement to family control. The leadership of the Confucius movement, after 80 years, passed from disciples to kinsmen of Confucius (the Kung family). This is intelligible as a type event and not a unique event: the kind of thing that is there to happen in any teaching system being handed down over generations: who (it might be asked) is better qualified to hand on the tradition (people are liable to think) than the kinsmen of the founder? Do they not provide an unbroken line back to the founder? And especially if there have arisen differences among disciples, are not the family best situated to adjudicate them? Thus it was that in about the year 0400, give or take a lustrum, the alleged grandson of Confucius (this a pious fraud; he was at least two generations later than Confucius, and probably not in the line of direct descent) took over the School of Confucius, viciously badmouthed the disciples who had led the school previously, and shifted the focus of the teaching from one core value to another, the new one being ritual propriety. Does not the Jesus movement also get itself heavily into ritual, sacraments, fixed bodies of belief, as it goes along?
                               
                              I ask you.
                               
                              Bruce
                               
                              E Bruce Brooks
                              Warring States Project
                              University of Massachusetts at Amherst
                               
                            • Rick Hubbard
                              My apologies for selecting just this snippet out of Bruce’s entire note to the list, but it seems to me worth calling everyone’s attention to what he says,
                              Message 14 of 22 , Dec 4, 2010
                              • 0 Attachment

                                My apologies for selecting just this snippet out of Bruce’s entire note to the list, but it seems to me worth calling everyone’s attention to what he says, particularly item 5.

                                 

                                BRUCE:

                                How do we, at the outset, rate the four Gospels as sources for the early situation? I would say: By noticing the developmental trajectories which connect them, despite their divergences and distinctive agendas at many points. In the sequence Mk > Mt > Lk > Jn, we see inter alia (1) a progressive divinization of Jesus, (2) a progressive diminution of the importance of Jesus's baptism by John, (3) a progressive reduction in the role of John, (4) an increasing focus on Jerusalem at the expense of Galilee, and relevant to the present matter, (5) an   increasing acceptance of Jesus's family, starting from the rejection of family by Jesus in Mark, and ending with the very affecting (but nevertheless historically dubious) scene between the dying Jesus and his mother in gJohn.

                                 

                                RICK

                                Item 5 speaks directly, it seems to me, to the question at hand: “Who was Judas Thomas?” First of all, it seems to me that the question itself deserves to be re-phrased: “Who did the (imputed) author of Thomas want him to be?” (his actual identity doesn’t matter).

                                The answer to that question, I suggest, is that Judas Thomas was to be understood as a legitimate successor (by virtue of blood kinship) to the Jesus Enterprise. Cloaked in this mantle, the hidden words Judas Thomas is purported to have written down carried the weight of authenticity, if not authority. In other words, this character was not in the lineage of merely the apostles (as were the ascribed authors of the canonical gospels), but he was in the lineage of “the man” himself. It was pure “marketing” (see Funk’s _Honest to Jesus_ chapter about “Marketing the Messiah” (page 241 ff).

                                 

                                Rick Hubbard

                                Howland, ME

                                USA

                                 

                              • E Bruce Brooks
                                To: GTHomas In Response To: Rick Hubbard On: Judas Thomas From: Bruce Rick picked out item #5 from my recent note, namely BRUCE (before, on Gospel
                                Message 15 of 22 , Dec 4, 2010
                                • 0 Attachment
                                  
                                  To: GTHomas
                                  In Response To: Rick Hubbard
                                  On: Judas Thomas
                                  From: Bruce
                                   
                                  Rick picked out item #5 from my recent note, namely
                                   
                                  BRUCE (before, on Gospel Trajectories): . . .which connect [the Gospels], despite their divergences and distinctive agendas at many points. In the sequence Mk > Mt > Lk > Jn, we see inter alia . . . and relevant to the present matter, (5) an   increasing acceptance of Jesus's family, starting from the rejection of family by Jesus in Mark, and ending with the very affecting (but nevertheless historically dubious) scene between the dying Jesus and his mother in gJohn.
                                   
                                  RICK: First of all, it seems to me that the question itself deserves to be re-phrased: “Who did the (imputed) author of Thomas want him to be?” (his actual identity doesn’t matter).
                                   
                                  The answer to that question, I suggest, is that Judas Thomas was to be understood as a legitimate successor (by virtue of blood kinship) to the Jesus Enterprise. Cloaked in this mantle, the hidden words Judas Thomas is purported to have written down carried the weight of authenticity, if not authority. In other words, this character was not in the lineage of merely the apostles (as were the ascribed authors of the canonical gospels), but he was in the lineage of “the man” himself. It was pure “marketing” (see Funk’s _Honest to Jesus_ chapter about “Marketing the Messiah” (page 241 ff).
                                   
                                  BRUCE: I can make another suggestion. I think it is given (however strange it may appear to myself and perhaps others) that the present Gospel of Thomas was at one point focused on the Jacob/James who was unambiguously the Lord's Brother.
                                   
                                  There was also a Judas who was the Lord's brother, and who, according to Jerusalem tradition, succeeded Brother Jacob as chief person at Jerusalem (with one intervening name). That is, there was a family succession at Jerusalem, and at one stage of its existence, the Gospel of Thomas was focused on the first member of that succession. Why not later shift to the third member, he being currently the one in charge at Jerusalem or its continuation elsewhere?
                                   
                                  Not much is subsequently told of James of Jerusalem save late legends of his death. But Judas pf Jerusalem after him might be a possibility. Some think that he is the author of the Epistle of Jude (so called), and whether or not that is true, it shows that the name continued to be cogent for at least some purposes into the late 1st century.
                                   
                                  There are two James/Judas pairs, the brothers of Jesus, and the two Apostles, James of Alphaeus and Judas of James. It is the latter, who comes last on the lists where he occurs (Acts/Luke), and who might have had his identity somewhat mutated over time. No one who has checked out the dozen or so variant lists of the Twelve will want to rule out the possibility that Judas the Apostle might by some one have been merged with Thomas the Apostle, whence Judas Thomas.
                                   
                                  I can't give a scenario for this, but it seems to me worth considering. It could have taken place by the year 80, which is also the implied date (ballpark date) for the existence of the Gospel material on which the Gospel of Thomas seems to draw (that is, Mark, Matthew, and Luke, but not John). It is also the ballpark date for the early deuteroPaulines (eg, Colossians), where the heavenly powers first turn up in mainstream theology. Whoever wrote the Epistle of Judas did so about that time, and that person considered the nominal "Judas" to be the brother of James, and hence as the brother of the Lord. Authentic channels.
                                   
                                  There are other considerations, including the gender equity question, which seem also favorable to something like this possibility, but probably others on this list are better prepared to explore them than I am.
                                   
                                  Bruce
                                   
                                  E Bruce Brooks
                                  Warring States Project
                                  University of Massachusetts at Amherst
                                   
                                • Jack Kilmon
                                  From: E Bruce Brooks Sent: Saturday, December 04, 2010 4:19 AM To: gthomas@yahoogroups.com Cc: GPG Subject: Re: [GTh] Who Was Judas Thomas?  To: GThomas Cc:
                                  Message 16 of 22 , Dec 4, 2010
                                  • 0 Attachment
                                     

                                    Sent: Saturday, December 04, 2010 4:19 AM
                                    Cc: GPG
                                    Subject: Re: [GTh] Who Was Judas Thomas?

                                    
                                    To: GThomas
                                    Cc: GPG
                                    In Response To: Jack Kilmon
                                    On: Relatives of Jesus
                                    From: Bruce
                                     
                                    JACK: I agree somewhat with SOME of the things you say except the disrespect for the texts which, like it or not, are all we have.
                                     
                                    BRUCE: That they are all we have doesn't require us to treat them as though they gave us more than they do. We have to assess their value, recognize their deficiencies, map their tendencies, discern their agendas, follow their literary moves, and then see what use we can properly make of them. Are they evidence for the earliest stage, or for a later stage, or a little bit of both? There is no problem making use of them devotionally; the problem arises with the question: What is the value of this thing as evidence for the original Jesus situation, or for any well-defined subsequent historical situation? If we should find that the late texts are useless or actively misleading for the early situation, then the right response is to decide that we cannot recover the early situation - and bend ourselves instead to working out the later situation with diligence. To doing, in a word, what the texts, such as they may be, will reputably let us do.
                                     
                                    JACK: It is up to us using critical analytical techniques to decide what is important to our understanding of the early community. 
                                     
                                    BRUCE: Good; we are still on the same truck.
                                     
                                    JACK: The question here is just how far outside of the Judaic box the Yeshuine community wandered under the instructions of Jesus.  My conclusion is that the community was not outside of ONE of the "Judaic boxes," only not the box we are led to believe is Mosaic Judaism.  Although that community was eventually supplanted by "the world outside" it is still visible in the understructure of the "Gospels schmospels" and in some of the other layered texts such as Thomas and the multi-layered text of 4G.
                                     
                                    BRUCE: I can't do too much with these general statements, but in lieu of a direct response, let me say that if we are curious about the early situation, then I think we need to go first to the places in the existing evidence where the early situation is most visible. The initial mixing of earlier and later sources is a crime against historical methodology. And as far as my limited acquaintance goes, it is common crime in the NT field. How many books can one find, on The Parables of Jesus, which talk chiefly about the parables of Matthew or Luke? Lots. How many focus, either initially or exclusively, on the parables of Jesus in Mark? None that I know of (references to the contrary however are very welcome). This situation betrays a truly pitiable lack of understanding of how one does history - assuming that doing history is the idea. As I do.
                                     
                                    How do we, at the outset, rate the four Gospels as sources for the early situation? I would say: By noticing the developmental trajectories which connect them, despite their divergences and distinctive agendas at many points. In the sequence Mk > Mt > Lk > Jn, we see inter alia (1) a progressive divinization of Jesus, (2) a progressive diminution of the importance of Jesus's baptism by John, (3) a progressive reduction in the role of John, (4) an increasing focus on Jerusalem at the expense of Galilee, and relevant to the present matter, (5) an increasing acceptance of Jesus's family, starting from the rejection of family by Jesus in Mark, and ending with the very affecting (but nevertheless historically dubious) scene between the dying Jesus and his mother in gJohn.
                                     
                                    It is the last of these trends that make me wonder about the traditions that Jesus and his followers were all more or less related. These traditions certainly exist, but how sound are they? Where do they first crop up? Are they likelier to be remembered truth, or historical invention as part of a later trend of thinking? I think the presumptions are in favor of the latter. What, for instance, is anyone going to make of Luke's claim that Jesus and John the B were related? What I make of it is a manifestation (and a somewhat eccentric manifestation) of a general tendency to familize Jesus and the Jesus movement. Are there reasons, cogent for the mind of the later Jesus followers, why this tendency might have arisen, are there issues which that development would have addressed? I can think of some, and invite a look at that question in general.
                                     
                                    JACK: These are the questions we all ask while doing an archaeological "dig" in the texts.  The earlier layer is recognizable and distinct from the later layers and the layer I mine is confined to the Vox Iesu.  This can be found in the Aramaic reconstructions. What I find in my forensic "follow the Aramaic" dig are four early sources.
                                     
                                    Mark's "Yeshua amar" notebook;
                                    Mark's "Yeshua obed" notebook (both of these used for the composition of Mark's gospel but somehow later used independently);
                                    Matthew's "Logia" (sayings) recognizable as a common source for Matthew's (not the same Matthew) and Luke's gospels and designated "Q;"
                                    Aramaic "proto-John" (The earliest narrative, pre-dating Mark, and used as a template, in Greek translation, by John of Ephesus, around which to flesh his larger Greek gospel);
                                     
                                    There are two unique parables out of eight in Mark's "Yeshua amar" source; the Growing Seed (4:26-29) and the Watchful Doorkeeper (13:32-37) and Mark's parable of the Sower (4:1-9)was the source for Matthew and Luke.  When back translated to Aramaic, alliteration, assonance and paronomasia pop out, the waw consecutive at 4:9 and 4:26-29 the paronomasia is clearly Aramaic (with some help by Matthew Black and Maurice Casey):
                                     
                                    4:26  So is the Kingdom of God (malkutha d'alaha) as if a man should cast seed ZAR'A into the ground `AR'A
                                    4:27  and should sleep and rise 'ITT'AR night and day and the seed ZA'RA should spring and grow up 'RIKH, he knows not how.
                                    4:28  For the earth  'AR'A brings forth fruit PAR'A of herself first the blade then the ear, after that the full corn in the ear
                                    4:29  But when its crop is ready kadh YeHIBBAH 'IBBAH, he puts in the sickle for the harvest is ripe SHALLAH MAGLA DAKHaSHADHA 'ABBIBH
                                    4:30 And he said, Whereunto shall we liken the kingdom of God? or with what comparison shall we compare it?
                                    4:31 [It is] like a grain of mustard seed, which, when it is sown in the earth, is less than all the seeds that be in the earth:
                                             di kadh ZeRI b''A'RA Ze'ER hu min kulhon ZAR'IN dibe 'AR'A
                                    4:32 But when it is sown  ZERA , it grow  up RaBHI  (Key sounds layrygal and sonant resh form the paronomasia.  No paronomasia is more certain in the gospels and it is recoverable only from Mark.)
                                     and becometh greater RABBA  than all herbs, ZeRO'IN** and shooteth out great branches 'ANPIN RABHReBHIN; so that the fowls OPHIN of the air may lodge under the shadow of it.
                                    ** w'hadh ZAR'A m'RABBA heWA RABReBHA min kulhon ZeRO'IN

                                    This is pure first century Aramaic first language Jesus stuff and anyone  who can read Markan Greek and also knows Judean Aramaic can see it clearly.  This is what I mean by digging in the first layer. The Aramaisms are even carried over in the translational Coptic of Thomas.
                                     
                                     
                                     
                                    JACK:  Isn't about the same with the  Shi Jing? This is where linguistics is a valuable tool and so if I also disagree with some of what you say, it does not mean I just fell off the turnip truck.
                                     
                                    BRUCE: Those wishing to climb on one truck or another, and interested in the parallels that any second philologically understood situation can sometimes provide, are welcome to scope out my book currently in press (but out in time for Groundhog Day giving; check Amazon), The Emergence of China, where not only are readers given a tiny bit of elementary instruction in how to use philology on a text (eg, what is an interpolation - you would be amazed to know how few seventh graders have that concept), but shown how that tool can clarify what is happening in the Chinese classic of Poetry, otherwise Shr Jing (this name is spelled also in other ways, apparently for the purpose of mystifying the public; sorry, not my fault). The conventional view is that the contents of the Shr date from high antiquity, say 1000 BC give or take a couple centuries, and that the latest parts are from around 0600. Instead, the oldest parts are from the 05c, and the culturally and politically revisionist parts (as it turns out, a significant proportion of the collection) are from the late 05c and the early and middle 04c. The agreed poetic heritage of the past, the collective cultural memory as expressed in these constantly performed texts, is here being actively reconfigured, not just by revisionist interpretation (for which there is also sufficient evidence), but by new composition, for use in the political present.
                                     
                                    Another Chinese parallel may be worth considering, not that specific things repeat themselves, but that certain situations are in the nature of things liable to recur. Consider the Jesus Divinization Trajectory; few movements of any kind fail to exhibit something like that tendency. Another, not so common but known in more than one instance, is the transition of a movement to family control. The leadership of the Confucius movement, after 80 years, passed from disciples to kinsmen of Confucius (the Kung family). This is intelligible as a type event and not a unique event: the kind of thing that is there to happen in any teaching system being handed down over generations: who (it might be asked) is better qualified to hand on the tradition (people are liable to think) than the kinsmen of the founder? Do they not provide an unbroken line back to the founder? And especially if there have arisen differences among disciples, are not the family best situated to adjudicate them? Thus it was that in about the year 0400, give or take a lustrum, the alleged grandson of Confucius (this a pious fraud; he was at least two generations later than Confucius, and probably not in the line of direct descent) took over the School of Confucius, viciously badmouthed the disciples who had led the school previously, and shifted the focus of the teaching from one core value to another, the new one being ritual propriety. Does not the Jesus movement also get itself heavily into ritual, sacraments, fixed bodies of belief, as it goes along?
                                     
                                    I ask you.
                                     
                                    Absolutely. So much so that these things that Jesus SAID in that first layer material are ignored by the "Church" in favor of debates over the NATURE of Jesus.  To your comments about the family, I think that Jesus was an Enochian Jew while brother Jimmy was a Mosaic Jew who, after the crucifixion,
                                     
                                    Jesus/Yeshua was indeed, IMO, an apocalyptic herald of the imminent malkutha d'alaha (Kingdom of God) in the Enochian tradition and, as such, outside of "normative" Mosaic Judaism.  I think there are other indicators that this "Son of Man" from the ancient of days could be "Lord of the Sabbath" as well as the Mosaic laws (seen in the formula "It is written" or "You have heard"...ABC "but *I* tell you"...XYZ).

                                    So yes, he was apocalyptic but, in his mind, just not a "sage" but THE bar nasha that was expected by Yohanan/John (Matthew 11:3), the apocalyptic redeemer of Daniel 7:13-14.

                                    Some scholars believe that Jesus himself uniquely conflated the image of the Bar Nasha with that of the Messiah but I do not think so.  The concept of his being the Messiah was, IMO, layered on top of his image/reputation by some of his own followers, perhaps spearheaded by his brother Yaqub/James Tsaddika/the Rightous, who came from the Pharisaic influenced am ha-aretz and that reputation as an anointed "king" may have contributed to his execution by the Romans.

                                    The next step was his image as the bar d'alaha," the "Son of God."  This was not an unusual title for a righteous person and the earliest followers claimed Yeshua became a Son of God on the occasion of his mikveh/baptism by Yohanan ha-Matbil.  Over the century following his death Paul claimed he became THE Son of God on the occasion of his death, Paul's XRISTON ESTAURWMENON,  "Christ Crucified."  In the last two decades of the first century, it was the author of Matthew, followed by Luke, who moved the sonship to his birth and necessitated the virginal birth and trinitarian formulae, perhaps misinterpreted from Yeshua's own "born again" formula for entrance to the malkutha d'alaha.
                                     
                                    Jack
                                     
                                    Jack Kilmon
                                    San Antonio, TX

                                     
                                    Bruce
                                     
                                    E Bruce Brooks
                                    Warring States Project
                                    University of Massachusetts at Amherst
                                     
                                  • Paul Lanier
                                    BRUCE: At what point in its history was the Gospel first associated with Thomas? Seemingly only in its framing sections, whereas a connection with Jacob of
                                    Message 17 of 22 , Dec 6, 2010
                                    • 0 Attachment
                                      BRUCE: At what point in its history was the Gospel first associated with Thomas? Seemingly only in its framing sections, whereas a connection with Jacob of Jerusalem is made within the text (at Thos 12).

                                      PAUL: Agreed. As the synoptics look to Peter, and as Gosp.John looks to John, Gosp.Thomas looks to James the Just, although in L.13 Thomas is superior to Simon Peter and Matthew.
                                      Along the lines of Alpha/Beta Christianity (a very helpful concept to me), Gosp.Thom. mentions disciples (LL.5,12,13, etc.) but never apostles. Perhaps the group Simon Peter, Matthew, Thomas in L.13 is an Alpha precursor of Paul's Beta apostles (distinct from "the twelve" in 1 Cor 15:5,7). and Mark's conflation, the twelve apostles, (Mk 6:7-13, 30).
                                      Regards, Paul
                                    • E Bruce Brooks
                                      To: GThos Cc: GPG In Response To: Paul Lanier On: Thomas in GThos From: Bruce PAUL: PAUL: Agreed. As the synoptics look to Peter, and as Gosp.John looks to
                                      Message 18 of 22 , Dec 7, 2010
                                      • 0 Attachment
                                        To: GThos
                                        Cc: GPG
                                        In Response To: Paul Lanier
                                        On: Thomas in GThos
                                        From: Bruce

                                        PAUL: PAUL: Agreed. As the synoptics look to Peter, and as Gosp.John looks
                                        to John, Gosp.Thomas looks to James the Just, although in L.13 Thomas is
                                        superior to Simon Peter and Matthew.

                                        BRUCE: Granted. In Thos 13, Thomas is already the bearer of special, and
                                        indeed incommunicable, insights. They are insights about the nature of
                                        Jesus, which bespeaks a time when that question was up for theological
                                        discussion. Of course that's not in itself very distinctive, but at least it
                                        isolates a thematic concern. It also, as it seems to me, conflicts with Thos
                                        12, though the commentators are ready to bridge that gap.

                                        PAUL: Along the lines of Alpha/Beta Christianity (a very helpful concept to
                                        me),

                                        BRUCE: Thank you. I find that it helps to understand some otherwise
                                        impenetrable arguments within early Christianity.

                                        PAUL: . . .Gosp.Thom. mentions disciples (LL.5,12,13, etc.) but never
                                        apostles.

                                        BRUCE: I get the feeling that gThos is not interested in mass propagation,
                                        but precisely in personal insight, of a very elite and indeed esoteric kind.
                                        Thos 13 abovementioned certainly takes that line. It continues to perplex me
                                        that Thos 12 doesn't seem to do so, or at least not in the same way. But
                                        perhaps that can be solved.

                                        PAUL: Perhaps the group Simon Peter, Matthew, Thomas in L.13 is an Alpha
                                        precursor of Paul's Beta apostles (distinct from "the twelve" in 1 Cor
                                        15:5,7). and Mark's conflation, the twelve apostles, (Mk 6:7-13, 30).

                                        BRUCE: My sense of the Twelve is that they are a cumulative list of the
                                        various members of the Five (the ones appointed individually by Jesus during
                                        his lifetime: Peter and Andrew, the two Zebedees, and Levi), rather than a
                                        conflation made by Mark himself. This was the burden of my Twelve paper at
                                        the recent SBL. The question is how you get from the Five to the Twelve. I
                                        think some of my suggestions along those lines will hold (for instance, it
                                        seems that the Rabbinical Five noted by Klausner and others were the last
                                        roster of the Five, circa 45, following the move to Jerusalem and the
                                        persecutions undergone there). Other suggestions would probably benefit from
                                        further acquaintance with that largely unread body of material, the
                                        Apostolic literature. But we can see.

                                        One of the ongoing questions is, Given that the original Five were at first
                                        Alpha (being witnesses and propagators of Jesus's teachings in his lifetime,
                                        how Alpha did the Twelve remain, and for how long? The shift from Galilee to
                                        Jerusalem as the organizational center of Christianity (which I put in the
                                        first year of Herod Agrippa I, or the year 41) may have accompanied a shift
                                        from Alpha to Beta in belief terms, since Beta, the theology of Jesus's
                                        death, as both Matthew and Luke let us know, was (and very naturally too)
                                        highly associated with Jerusalem, the *site* of Jesus's death.

                                        All this is work very much in progress, and I don't care to be precise about
                                        it; my SBL paper and its associated fine-grained chronology (available in
                                        the online handout, but already subject to revision) were basically a record
                                        of a stage in that process. Putting one's thoughts on paper is one way to
                                        find out how inadequate they are, and thus to inspire further reflection. I
                                        find conferences useful in that sense.

                                        Never mind all the Twelve: Was Peter Alpha? And if so, for how long? My
                                        working guess would be, Yes he was, and all the way. But a lot has to happen
                                        before I will feel like painting that on the wall of my house, or anything.
                                        And even if it does stand, that conclusion doesn't mean that other Apostles
                                        came to take the Beta line.

                                        Were the post-Twelve Apostles mentioned by Paul, including of course
                                        himself, and the only other named one, Jacob the Lord's Brother, Beta rather
                                        than Alpha, as Paul suggests? That too looks like a good guess, and it
                                        agrees with my sense of a possible Beta shift at the time of the Jerusalem
                                        relocation, which is also the point at which Brother Jacob begins to appear
                                        on the scene.

                                        Beta is basically a conservative Jewish rationalization of Jesus's death.
                                        Would Jacob have been a conservative Jew in this sense? We know so little
                                        about Jacob, most of it late legend, that it is hard to frame a decent
                                        answer to the question. But to me, it is as least open that he may have
                                        been, and it looks at least as easy to explain the difficult data on the
                                        assumption that he was, than that he was not.

                                        Hopefully all this will be solved by next Tuesday, but meanwhile, that's how
                                        it looks from here. Thanks for the helpful suggestion.

                                        Bruce

                                        E Bruce Brooks
                                        Warring States Project
                                        University of Massachusetts at Amherst
                                      • Paul Lanier
                                        Robert Eisenman argues Judas Thomas is identical to Judas brother of Jesus and James, Jude, Thaddaeus, Lebbaeus, Theudas, Judas the Zealot, and Judas Iscariot.
                                        Message 19 of 22 , Dec 7, 2010
                                        • 0 Attachment
                                          Robert Eisenman argues Judas Thomas is identical to Judas brother of Jesus and James, Jude, Thaddaeus, Lebbaeus, Theudas, Judas the Zealot, and Judas Iscariot. Here I piece together the strands of his argument from James the Brother of Jesus (1997: Viking Penguin).

                                          Judas Thomas is named "Twin" and is therefore Jesus' blood brother Judas (pp.117-8). According to Jerome, Jude is James' brother (p.481). Thus Judas Thomas is also known as Judas [brother] of James*, who in Luke's list of The Twelve (Lk 6:13-16) replaces Mark's and Matthew's Thaddaeus (Mk. 3:16-19; Mt 10:2-4) (pp.191-92).

                                          Judas [brother] of James is the same as Judas brother of Jesus, as James son of Zebedee is an overwrite of James brother of Jesus (p.xviii). This is demonstrated by a comparison of the "Central Three" in Paul and Mark: James brother of the Lord, one of the Pillars (Gal 1:18-19; 2:9) is replaced by James brother of John in the raising of a child and the Transfiguration (Mk 5:35-43; 9:2-13) (p.141).

                                          In a variant manuscript of Apostolic Constitutions (Syriac, 2nd or 3rd century), the preacher to Edessa, Judas [brother] of James, is equated with Lebbaeus and Judas the Zealot (p.860). In addition, Hippolytus, in ANCL Appendix to Hippolytus, equates Judas and Lebbaeus (p.864).

                                          Eisenman proposes the name Theudas, which has no known meaning, as a combination of the names Thomas and Judas (pp.117-8).

                                          Finally, Judas the Zealot is identified with Judas Iscariot (p.812), since Luke's Simon the Zealot (Lk 6:15), presumably related to Judas the Zealot, is renamed Simon Iscariot, related to Judas Iscariot, in John (Jn 6:71).

                                          As these characters are never presented as identical Judas Thomas, Eisenman's argument is founded on his general view that the brothers of Jesus were later denigrated and finally written out of the gospels, becoming Apostles (pp.770-816). So Eisenman also considers James Zebedee and Simon Peter to be overwrites of Jesus' brothers James and Simon (Mk 6:3).

                                          *Literally "Judas of James," this name is rendered "Judas son of James" in RSV and NRSV (Lk 6:16). Eisenman prefers an alternate rendering, "Judas brother of James."

                                          Regards, Paul

                                          Paul Lanier
                                          Albuquerque NM
                                        • E Bruce Brooks
                                          To: GThomas In Response To: Paul Lanier On: Judas Thomas From: Bruce PAUL: Robert Eisenman argues Judas Thomas is identical to Judas brother of Jesus and
                                          Message 20 of 22 , Dec 7, 2010
                                          • 0 Attachment
                                            To: GThomas
                                            In Response To: Paul Lanier
                                            On: Judas Thomas
                                            From: Bruce

                                            PAUL: Robert Eisenman argues Judas Thomas is identical to Judas brother of
                                            Jesus and James, Jude, Thaddaeus, Lebbaeus, Theudas, Judas the Zealot, and
                                            Judas Iscariot.

                                            BRUCE: Indeed he does. He puts all the pieces together. I have my doubts
                                            that they fit, and in any case, it seems there may be other possibilities.
                                            Lebbaeus looks to some of us like a helpful copyist's attempt to squeeze
                                            Levi back onto the list, which I think is misguided; doing so simply doubles
                                            Matthew (who it is possible to think was Levi's historical replacement in
                                            the original Group of Five). Thaddaeus, as I understand it, is the person
                                            earliest credited with evangelizing Edessa; why is not Theudas plausible as
                                            a garbled form of that name? And so on.

                                            That later scribes and authors struggled with the Markan list of the Twelve
                                            is manifest. Not all their improvements need be historically accurate (I
                                            love the one which includes all the Four Evangelists, and not content with
                                            that, adds Paul). I think you might have found my Twelve paper at SBL
                                            interesting, if only as focusing this conversation on some precisely defined
                                            alternatives, but I guess that weekend is now behind us.

                                            Bruce

                                            E Bruce Brooks
                                            Warring States Project
                                            University of Massachusetts at Amherst
                                          • Jack Kilmon
                                            ... From: Paul Lanier Sent: Tuesday, December 07, 2010 7:25 PM To: Subject: [GTh] Re: Who Was Judas Thomas?
                                            Message 21 of 22 , Dec 8, 2010
                                            • 0 Attachment
                                              --------------------------------------------------
                                              From: "Paul Lanier" <jpaullanier@...>
                                              Sent: Tuesday, December 07, 2010 7:25 PM
                                              To: <gthomas@yahoogroups.com>
                                              Subject: [GTh] Re: Who Was Judas Thomas?

                                              > Robert Eisenman argues Judas Thomas is identical to Judas brother of Jesus
                                              > and James, Jude, Thaddaeus, Lebbaeus, Theudas, Judas the Zealot, and Judas
                                              > Iscariot. Here I piece together the strands of his argument from James the
                                              > Brother of Jesus (1997: Viking Penguin).

                                              Eisenman appears to function in two areas. One is as a "popular" writer
                                              where enveloped are really pushed to the point of being almost
                                              "Thiering-like." In Luke 6:13-16 Judas (Thaddeus), brother or son of James
                                              (the Greater or Elder) is mentioned separately from Thomas and Lebbaeus is
                                              also Thaddeus, one being Hebrew, the other Aramaic for "heart."



                                              >
                                              > Judas Thomas is named "Twin" and is therefore Jesus' blood brother Judas
                                              > (pp.117-8). According to Jerome, Jude is James' brother (p.481).

                                              Yes, but James/Yaqub Bar Zebeday, not James/Yaqub the Righteous, brother of
                                              Jesus.


                                              > Thus Judas Thomas is also known as Judas [brother] of James*, who in
                                              > Luke's list of The Twelve (Lk 6:13-16) replaces Mark's and Matthew's
                                              > Thaddaeus (Mk. 3:16-19; Mt 10:2-4) (pp.191-92).

                                              There was a tendency to give nicknames because some names were very common.
                                              Judas/Yehudah was like the 2nd most used name at that time. Thaddeus was
                                              also a nickname for a Yehudah and he was also a Zebedee. So you have Yehudah
                                              the "Toma" and Yehudah the "Heart" (Thad/Leb) and they were not the same
                                              person.

                                              >
                                              > Judas [brother] of James is the same as Judas brother of Jesus, as James
                                              > son of Zebedee is an overwrite of James brother of Jesus (p.xviii). This
                                              > is demonstrated by a comparison of the "Central Three" in Paul and Mark:
                                              > James brother of the Lord, one of the Pillars (Gal 1:18-19; 2:9) is
                                              > replaced by James brother of John in the raising of a child and the
                                              > Transfiguration (Mk 5:35-43; 9:2-13) (p.141).
                                              >

                                              Mark 6:3 Is not this the carpenter, the son of Mary, the brother of James,
                                              and Joses, and of Juda, and Simon? and are not his sisters here with us? And
                                              they were offended at him.

                                              Matthew 10:3 Philip, and Bartholomew; Thomas, and Matthew the publican;
                                              James [the son] of Alphaeus, and Lebbaeus, whose surname was Thaddaeus
                                              (Matthew had a tendency to screw up Aramaic and Thaddeus was Aramaic for
                                              Lebbaeus and the surname was really Judas (Yehudah).

                                              James, son of Zebedee is not an "overwrite" of James, brother of Jesus. The
                                              first was killed by Agrippa in 42-44 CE and the second, as mentioned by
                                              Josephus, was killed in 62 CE. The "Pillars" in Galatians, written around
                                              48-49 CE (AFTER James Bar Zebedee was killed) is Kefa/Peter, James the
                                              Righteous (brother of Jesus) and John Yohanan who I believe on the evidence
                                              of Josephus:

                                              "so he assembled the sanhedrin of judges, and brought before them the
                                              brother of Jesus, who was called Christ, whose name was James, and SOME
                                              OTHERS [or, some of his companions]; and when he had formed an accusation
                                              against THEM as breakers of the law, he delivered THEM to be stoned: "

                                              We do not know for certain who the other members of the Jerusalem assembly
                                              of Jesus followers were but in the Pauline letters he referred to "John"
                                              (Yohanan) as one of the "pillars": along with James so this is probably when
                                              the disciple John was killed as one of the OTHERS that were stoned

                                              ...and the evidence of Papias, quoted by Eusebius..


                                              > In a variant manuscript of Apostolic Constitutions (Syriac, 2nd or 3rd
                                              > century), the preacher to Edessa, Judas [brother] of James, is equated
                                              > with Lebbaeus and Judas the Zealot (p.860). In addition, Hippolytus, in
                                              > ANCL Appendix to Hippolytus, equates Judas and Lebbaeus (p.864).

                                              This "Judas" is Judas Thaddeus/Lebbaeus, technically Yehudah Bar Yaqub (If
                                              James, the Greater/Elder's son) or Yehudah Bar Zebeday (If James' brother)
                                              who was called Thadday/Leby ("my heart")


                                              >
                                              > Eisenman proposes the name Theudas, which has no known meaning, as a
                                              > combination of the names Thomas and Judas (pp.117-8).


                                              Another of those Eisenmanian envelopes but this "Theudas" was decapitated in
                                              46 CE and his head displayed in Jerusalem. There was also a Theudas who was
                                              a follower of Paul years after the rebel Theudas was executed. This
                                              Theudas, according to Clement of Alexandria, was a teacher of Valentinus
                                              (Stromateis vii.xvii). Given that is two Theudas's and Luke's may be a
                                              third. the name may be a contraction of Theodore, a Hellenistic Diaspora
                                              rendering of Nathaniel. One thing it is not is a conflation of Thomas and
                                              Judas (which only works in English translation).


                                              >
                                              > Finally, Judas the Zealot is identified with Judas Iscariot (p.812), since
                                              > Luke's Simon the Zealot (Lk 6:15), presumably related to Judas the Zealot,
                                              > is renamed Simon Iscariot, related to Judas Iscariot, in John (Jn 6:71).

                                              There is no such person as "Judas the Zealot" in the New Testament. The
                                              disciple Simon the Zealot Ζηλωτής is also called Simon the Canaanite
                                              Καναναῖος due to a misreading of the Aramaic qanan which means "Zealot"
                                              But no Judas the Zealot...anywhere. There is no "renaming" Simon the Zealot
                                              as Judas Iscariot (Yehudah Ish-Kerioth) "Judas from Kerioth." This is more
                                              envelope pushing.



                                              >
                                              > As these characters are never presented as identical Judas Thomas,
                                              > Eisenman's argument is founded on his general view that the brothers of
                                              > Jesus were later denigrated and finally written out of the gospels,
                                              > becoming Apostles (pp.770-816). So Eisenman also considers James Zebedee
                                              > and Simon Peter to be overwrites of Jesus' brothers James and Simon (Mk
                                              > 6:3).

                                              "James Zebedee" (Yaqub Bar Zebedey or "Jacob son of Zebediah") was "James
                                              the Greater/Elder" who was beheaded by Agrippa in 42-44 CE and Yaqub Bar
                                              Yahosef (James, the Righteous) was Jesus' brother, killed in 62 CE and
                                              definitley not the same people or "rewrites." Shymeon was the most common
                                              name in 2nd Temple Judea and Shymeon Bar Yahosef is mentioned by Mark and
                                              repeated by Matthew only once. Shymeon Bar Yona, Σίμων Βαρ Ἰωνᾶ or שׁמעון
                                              ברה־דיונא דבסרא renamed "Kefa" (Rock) by Jesus (σὺ εἶ Πέτρος or דאנת הו
                                              כאפא) and Σίμων ὁ λεγόμενος Πέτρος or שׁמעון דמתקרא כאפא are absolutely
                                              separate people and separate traditions. This envelope is not only pushed
                                              by Eisenman, it is sailed to outer space.

                                              Eisenman is a good scholar to whom we owe a great deal for his participation
                                              in the liberation of the Dead Sea Scrolls so what is happening jhere? If I
                                              were to guess, It would be Eisenman the academic and Eisenman the writer.

                                              >
                                              > *Literally "Judas of James," this name is rendered "Judas son of James" in
                                              > RSV and NRSV (Lk 6:16). Eisenman prefers an alternate rendering, "Judas
                                              > brother of James."

                                              This Judas/Yehudah nicknamed Thaddeus (Aramaic) or Lebbaeus (Hebrew) could
                                              have been either the son or brother of James, son of Zebedee Ἰάκωβον τὸν
                                              τοῦ Ζεβεδαίου or יעקוב בר זבדי who was called the Greater/Elder Ἰάκωβος ὁ
                                              πρεσβύτερος or יעקוב קשׁישׁא

                                              Because 1st century Jewish naming praxis used about 10 names most
                                              frequently, Shymeon/Simon being first, Yehudah/Judas second, Yaqub/Jacob
                                              third, Yohanan/John fourth, Yahosef/Joseph fifth and Yeshua/Jesus sixth, it
                                              was common practice to use a nickname or some identifier as to WHICH
                                              Yehudah/Judas by a father first or a brother is the brother was well known
                                              or a place of origin. A Judas with a nickname might be Yehudah TOMA (the
                                              double or twin) or Yehudah Ish-Keriothh (Judas from Kerioth) or Yehudah
                                              THadday (Judas the Heart...perhaps of his mother or father). The James's
                                              are the most often confused.

                                              I'll chat about James since he was important to the Thomasine Community.
                                              "James" seems to be a strange rendering for the Hebrew יעקב Ya'qub.
                                              Ya'qub came to Greek transliteration IAKOB (with the masculin -OS ending),
                                              hence Ἰάκωβος IAKOBOS. The Hebrew/Aramaic YOD is represented in Greek by
                                              IOTA and the "J" sound for YOD came to Middle English from French where the
                                              phoneme exampled in "Jacques" was represented in English by the "DJ" sound.
                                              YAqub was therefore represented in English as Jacob (DJAYcub) but the
                                              trajectory of the Greek IAKOBOS passed through Old, Middle and Late Latin
                                              into European Celtic and wound up transliterating M for the B from Saxon
                                              use. So IACOBO, IAKOMO, IAGO and IAMES became JAMNES in French ("leg"
                                              referring to Esau's heel) and Middle English and into the KJV as JAMES.
                                              How's that for a trip. The problem is that there are a number of "Jameses
                                              in the NT,

                                              There is Jesus' brother "James" the Just (Yaqub Bar Yahosef), Jesus cousin
                                              "James" the younger (Yaqub Bar Halfy); Jesus' other cousin "James" the Elder
                                              (because he was the oldest James Yaqub Bar Zebedy).

                                              Regards,

                                              Jack

                                              Jack Kilmon


                                              >
                                              > Regards, Paul
                                              >
                                              > Paul Lanier
                                              > Albuquerque NM
                                              >
                                              >
                                              >
                                              >
                                              >
                                              > ------------------------------------
                                              >
                                              > Gospel of Thomas Homepage: http://home.epix.net/~miser17/Thomas.html
                                              > Coptic-English translation: http://www.gospel-thomas.net/x_transl.htm
                                              > Related Biblioblogs:
                                              > PEJE IESOUS (Chris Skinner) http://pejeiesous.com
                                              > Judy's Research Blog (Judy Redman) http://judyredman.wordpress.com
                                              > The Forbidden Gospels (April DeConick)
                                              > http://forbiddengospels.blogspot.com
                                              > ------------------------------------
                                              > Yahoo! Groups Links
                                              >
                                              >
                                              >
                                              >
                                            • Paul Lanier
                                              JACK: Eisenman appears to function in two areas. One is as a popular writer where envelopes are really pushed to the point of being almost Thiering-like.
                                              Message 22 of 22 , Dec 8, 2010
                                              • 0 Attachment
                                                JACK: Eisenman appears to function in two areas. One is as a "popular" writer where envelopes are really pushed to the point of being almost "Thiering-like."

                                                PAUL: Agreed. I wanted to piece together Eisenman's argument because he does not state it explicitly.

                                                JACK: There is no such person as "Judas the Zealot" in the New Testament.

                                                PAUL: The weakest part of Eisenman's argument is his identifying one "Judas the Zealot," known only from two variant manuscripts of the Syriac Apostolic Constitutions, as the brother of Simon the Zealot.

                                                JACK: "James Zebedee" (Yaqub Bar Zebedey or "Jacob son of Zebediah") was "James the Greater/Elder" who was beheaded by Agrippa in 42-44 CE and Yaqub Bar Yahosef (James, the Righteous) was Jesus' brother, killed in 62 CE and definitely not the same people or "rewrites."

                                                PAUL: Eisenman discounts many extant accounts in order to pursue his idea that three of Jesus' brothers were "written out" of the gospels, becoming instead Apostles with the same names. I don't see how something like that can really be proved. Eisenman believes he explains various narrative overlaps and parallels among the multiple Jameses, Simonses, and Judases of the New Testament.

                                                JACK: 1st century Jewish naming praxis used about 10 names most frequently, Shymeon/Simon being first, Yehudah/Judas second, Yaqub/Jacob third, Yohanan/John fourth, Yahosef/Joseph fifth and Yeshua/Jesus sixth, it was common practice to use a nickname or some identifier as to WHICH Yehudah/Judas by a father first or a brother is the brother was well known or a place of origin.

                                                PAUL: Granted. Eisenman does not speak to the probability that two small first century Jewish groups (brothers and Apostles) would have three names in common.
                                              Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.