ADDENDUM: James Who?

Подписаться 13 тыс.

Просмотров 3,3 тыс.

50% 1

We attempt to address the very confusing identity of James. There are many different theories on which character the James of Jerusalem is. I make many references to this throughout Session 4 of the BEMA Podcast, so we intend to link this video to the key episodes (like 140, 145, and 167).
Feel free to ask clarifying questions in the comments. Each explanation leaves some details unaddressed, so it’s always messy. You don’t have to like my explanation of conviction here - many don’t! But I wanted to explain what I believe since I routinely get the same email from many listeners.

Опубликовано:

21 окт 2024

Ссылка:

Скачать:

Готовим ссылку...

Добавить в:

Мой плейлист

Посмотреть позже

Комментарии : 14

@jilltinlin2287 3 месяца назад

Thank you for this addendum. It was helpful. I had several of the questions that you answered.

@anthonyosorio1719 3 месяца назад

I love it, this challenge to scriptual inerrancy makes me think through my relationship with the bible

@jimhanson2054 2 года назад

Marty, thanks for this very new (to me) thought on who "James" is in the book of Acts. I appreciate the relatively minor nature of the discussion in the grand scheme of things. I also appreciate having my previously unexamined belief challenged. I would simply offer to the comments a few observations from my perspective. First, James son of Zebedee would appear to be the older brother due to the 17 out of 18 references where his name is listed first (e.g. "James and John" rather than "John and James"). This would run contrary to your thoughts on John being a first-born. Second, Jude opens his letter identifying himself as the "brother of James." I am not aware of any evidence that would question the identify of Jude as a younger bother of Jesus which would make that "James" also a brother of Jesus. The fact that Jude would use "James" in his greeting would indicate that James was someone of notable standing. I also acknowledge your thoughts on the loose use of the word "brother" though they have the ring of a rationalization to me if I'm being honest. Third, Paul indicates in Galatians 1:18-19 that he met with Peter and "James the Lord's brother" when he was in Jerusalem. This would seem to be an instance of Paul appealing to the fact that he has intimate interaction with two of the Big Three. Again, I'm struggling a bit with the overly convenient explanation that "brother" means "cousin" in this context. Fourth, I haven't listened to the Galatians episodes yet, but I'm pretty sure Paul spent about 15 years (maybe more) grappling with his new theological paradigm before he engaged in Antioch and before the first missionary journey. That would give James about two decades to rise to prominence in the Jerusalem church prior to the Jerusalem Council. I appreciate your concern about an "outsider" taking the lead in the Jerusalem church, but this is one of the few times where I sense that your enthusiasm and devotion to rabbinic tradition has provided more support for your position than the actual text. As for me (for whatever it's worth), I continue to believe that Herod had James son of Zebedee martyred specifically BECAUSE he was the James of the inner circle. I believe that his next target was Peter for the very same reason. Herod was trying to demoralize the new movement by picking off its leaders in true Empire and Hellenistic fashion. I believe we are not provided the history of developments in the Jerusalem church during the years that Paul is working through his "Christian seminary" experience because we don't really need to know in order to understand the more important story. I believe that the "James" of the Jerusalem Council and the Epistle is the brother of Jesus and of Jude. AND (most importantly) I am not so attached to my beliefs to make an issue of them in terms of fellowship or otherwise. This is one of many issues that we can live and let live with no significant consequence to the Gospel or to the life of faith. Thank you for your diligence and your willingness to share both your strong convictions and your personal opinions with us all. Grace and Peace to you.

@coveredinhisdust 2 года назад

A very reasonable and logical position to take. Without a doubt, I am swayed by what makes sense in a rabbinical Jewish setting and universal practice (with things like Pesach) and it impacts my relationship with the historical details. That might be to my own detriment!

@AbrahamsBridges 5 месяцев назад

Marty, there is a Hebrew gospel of Matthew. Have you studied it? The early church references it, but they call it heretical because it doesn’t include key features that the Greek Matthew does, such as the virgin birth.

@meredithgrotti7511 3 месяца назад

I have wondered if you believe Jesus would have had brothers in consideration of Jesus asking John to consider Mary as his mother. I know it’s not quite the same topic but I have wondered about it.

@AlexWatson-qv4xq 7 месяцев назад

You mentioned how brother refers to kinship near the end when talking about James being called the brother of Jesus. I was wondering about Mark 5:37 where it says Peter, James, and John the brother of James. Could you clarify why they would refer to specifically these disciples this way and not others. Was it just because they were so close within Jesus’ inner circle? And why not say, “Peter and his brothers James and John” since he was the main leader of the disciples. I also found it interesting that most of the time it lists James first and John second but in Luke it is usually the other way around as well as in Acts 1. Is there a reason Luke would have switched it from the other Gospel writers to make John first instead of James?

@coveredinhisdust 7 месяцев назад

Oh wow, I’ve never noticed the switched order in Luke’s writings; I feel like that bolsters my case/feelings about Matthew account that I discuss in the video here. As far as your first question, I again think that this points to my conclusion. It’s specifying that John is the brother of ANOTHER James (son of Zebedee), where the first James is son of Alphaeus. So “Peter, James, and John the brother of [the other] James.” It’s the only reading that makes sense as to why it would be written that way.

@pennyschueneman2351 3 года назад

Marty, Can you please read those 2 references in Hebrew in your clarification video, (& translate into English), you cited in the Greek Gospel of Matthew? You implied the Hebrew does not state “....sons of Zebedee....”, in the 2 passages, but I don’t recall you stating that explicitly. Or, you can just reply to my comment. Thank you for your clarification! Penny

@coveredinhisdust 3 года назад

Hey Penny! This is actually not what you heard there. To truly explain it would be pages worth of explanation, so I’ll try to do it succinctly here. It’s not that there is an issue of translation. I’m suggesting that there is an addition to the Greek manuscript. That “sons of Zebedee” was not in the original gospel. First of all, historians (Eusebius and others) mention the fact that Matthew’s gospel was originally written in Hebrew. This means that at the very best, the Greek manuscripts we have do not represent the original and they are late. Second, scholars like David Flusser, Robert Lindsay, David Bivin, and others believer that Matthew wrote a Hebrew text that was then rewritten into a Greek text which was than reorganized by the early church. This all sounds like something we should panic about. I dont believe so and I have no problem reading Matthew as an inspired account. I do question the validity of the Greek (of Matthew specifically) as a pure representation of the author’s inspired intent. I also believe that these later forms of Matthew could be altered by an early church that found themselves at odds with the “men from James” (see Galatians) and the circumcision party... that they would want to “adjust James out of the story” and replace him with another. I know that these are major suggestions, but they are mine. As I said in the video, no matter which direction you take, you have details that will need to be explained. This is what I believe makes the most sense based on the evidence we have.

@TimptingNo1 2 года назад

I like the idea.

@PatriceWard1787 3 года назад

Have you come across those who originally were passionate about how "inaccurate you supposedly were", become satisfied with the explanation of your theory presented here, or do they still debate you on this?

@coveredinhisdust 3 года назад

Most folks fall into two camps... either they have simply never considered all the details or they are incredibly well-versed in their own position. Without a doubt, my own position here has some big gaps and some beliefs about Matthew that are not popular (and that goes in the academic realm), so this is far from an open-shut case. Mainly I’m leaning on the historical setting of Jewish rabbinic traditions of that period and making some assumptions. The is understandably not enough to convince many; maybe it shouldn’t be. So I think most probably stay in their position, while having a better understanding of my own. And that’s the intent here, not to convince or persuade, but just to explain why I see it the way I see it. I’m not sure if many change their mind at all to be honest, and that’s ok.