We need more of Dr. Tabor - like an hour or more at a time. His mastery of the literature and culture of early Christianity puts him among the best scholars you have ever interviewed. I would love to hear more about his view of the Jerusalem community headed by James. What did they believe about Jesus? Did they accord him any heavenly status? What was their practice like? What was their practice of temple worship versus house meetings? Did they have a liturgy? Does Tabor believe that Jesus ever said the so-called words of institution? Since observant Jews did not consume blood, how is it possible that Jesus ever said these words? Why does Josephus report that James was renowned in Jerusalem for his holiness? What was James’s relationship with Paul and Paul’s version of Christianity?
As always, James Tabor is there to provide a lot of food for thought. I have read his books, and even when I don't agree with him, many of his proposals have made me think much more about the relationship between Jesus and Paul, or Jesus and his family. I'm planning to write a book on the historical Mary for the Hispanic world, but it's too bad that I have to wait until 2023 for Tabor's book on the matter. Having said that, the proposal that the "beloved disciple" is James the Just is intriguing, but I also think it is false. When I deal with the matter of Jesus' family in any of the Gospels, I ask myself: "how does the Gospel writer talk about Jesus' family?" Obviously, in the case of Mark, it shows his family in negative terms as unbelievers who thought Jesus had gone crazy. Even Jesus at one point laments that prophets are not accepted even by "their own kin" (Mark 6:4). In Matthew's case, it has a more positive picture of Jesus' family. When copying from Mark, "Matthew" eliminates a lot of the negative elements to Jesus' family (e.g. Matthew 12:46-50 & Markan sandwich 3:19b-21,31-35: "Matthew" omits the first part of the Markan sandwich / Matthew 13:54-58, compare with Mark 6:1-6; there is an important omission referring to "their own kin"). The reason for these omissions seems to be obvious. Matthew is the most pro-Torah Gospel than any of the others, hence it is closer to James' views on it. In the case of Luke (in this I will disagree a bit with Tabor), Jesus' family is presented in much more positive terms. Even when you consider Luke 8:19-21, the meaning of the passage is different from Mark's because it is recontextualized by Luke 1-2 (where we are told that Joseph and Mary actually believed in God's word). "Luke" also tells us Jesus' family along the disciples in Jerusalem waiting for the Holy Spirit (Acts 1:14). Admittedly, in Luke-Acts, Jesus' family is of less importance than the disciples, particularly Peter (while Paul is more important than Peter). What about the Gospel of John? IMHO, that Gospel shows a *negative* portrait of Jesus' entire family. During the wedding at Cana, he called his own mother "woman", and so too at the foot of the cross, establishing a significant distance from her. In John's Gospel, the author portrays Jesus' brothers as unbelievers of his message (John 7:5). This may be an interpolation, but maybe not. From the way that Jesus treats his own mother, and given that Jesus' family played no role in the rest of the Gospel, I don't see here a positive view of Jesus' family. Even if we eliminate that verse, I think the problem would still stand; all that the verse does is to reaffirm the skepticism from Jesus' family. Further, Jesus addressing Mary as "woman" on the Cross, and giving his mother to the beloved disciple's care (without mentioning James or any other of Jesus' brothers) sends a very powerful message to the readers of that Gospel: whoever is the beloved disciple, _he is superior to James_ ... in fact, _he is more kin to Jesus than James_ is! Why? Because Jesus referred to Mary as the beloved disciple's mother. Besides, during the Gospel, the beloved disciple is portrayed as spiritually _superior and closer to Jesus_ than any of the other disciples, even Peter (Peter is shown as a leader of the group who does not fully understand his teacher; he has to ask the beloved disciple who was going to betray him; the disciple lets Peter in the Supreme Priest's own courtyard; the disciple never denied Jesus, while Peter denied him three times; the disciple was the first to arrive at the empty tomb; Peter was revealed how he was going to die, while we don't know how the disciple was going to pass away or when). And note that the beloved disciple was known to the Supreme Priest. How likely is it that James was (at least at the time of Jesus' passion)? Because James had died some decades earlier (supposing that the Gospel of John was written ca. 95-100 CE) and he was still significant to the more Judaizing sector of Christianity of the time (which evidently the Gospel writer had problems with), I think that this is the most accurate interpretation.
James was the head of the church. He witnessed Jesus' ministry. Paul didn't. If James (and Peter) thought Paul's ministry was false that's because it was. Jesus appears to have been an observant Jew who preached the end times. That's pretty much it.
I have a silly question for you: how do you know that? There was no Peter. Paul wrote about Cephas. Peter is a nickname Paul used exactly once. What we may suspect is this, that Paul intentionally shut the door against the jews by his eucharist. Jesus may have well been a programm (Jahwe saves) and not a person. And the programm was to bring gentiles to the jewish side. That's called politics. Obviously Paul then hijacked that program and shut the door. That's pretty much it!!!
@@HistoryandReviews You are not good at reading my words. And you are simply in a controversial mood for no reason at all. There is a majority usage of Cephas and exceptional usage of Peter in paul's letters. So paul thought that cephas was the name by which the person was known by his readers and peter is a pun used only once. logic!
Always brilliant to have Dr. James Tabor on board for expert academic scholarship. Thank you Derek for your uncanny ability to bring the best of the best scholars to us. We appreciate all of your hard work, dedication and the courage to come forward with your personal story of leaving The Evangelical Fundamentalist Church. It takes loads of pressure off of the rest of us 😅!
Very Well Done----James Tabor Yahkov ha Zaddik, he, the most righteous man of his generation, chosen by Jesus, Yahshua ha Nazorean to be His leader of the original community-----and yet what we got via the RomanNT, was Saul the Apostle as the #1 spokesman via his letters..wow, how F..... Up is that.
Dr. Tabor sounds quite knowledgeable and i would have a fighting chance of knowing what point or point he was attempting to make if he would finish his sentences.
I've come to believe that the meaning of "keys" has been lost. It doesn't mean what most churches think it means. Brighamite churches come to mind, in particular.
In a recent reading of Matthew, Hebrews, and James, I wondered if the same person were the author of all three. The three books share a Judaic version of Christianity, seeking to establish Jesus as the Jewish messiah, and they're the only books in the New Testament to refer to Rahab.
No. The letter of James still shows eschatlogy, by extending the 40 years wandering in the desert to a 70 year period of the exile (adressing the tribes in the dispersion). So we have the adjustement of eschatlogy and that letter must hve been written past 70 AD. Hebrews skips the old covenant. Matthew is inspired by Mark (the Dan Brown of his time). - James is fully indipendent from Marks gospel - Hebrews is inderectly dependent on the gospels - Matthew fully depends on the gospel of Mark.
(1) The James in question here is also known as James The Less who was one of the 12 apostles. (2) He's the same James who wrote the epistle of James. (3) James was the son of a man named Alphaeus aka Cleophas (who was Joseph's brother) and a woman named Mary (who was the sister of the Mary we all know but had the same name). (4) The patriarchate of Jerusalem never stopped existing and James had successors just like Peter did. Right now there are three different claimants claiming the see of Jerusalem. Pierbattista Pizzaballa (Catholic), Theophilos III (Greek Orthodox), and Nourhan Manougian (Armenian).
That’s correct. Heggesipius and Papias close the apostles and the family attest to this. And his death Hippolytus says Apostle James son of Alphaeus in later second century matches the death described by Josephus. You can see this in the Gospel Matthew “other Mary” and John’s gospel Mary wife of Clopus and in Galatians “apostle AND brother”
Interesting video, but I don’t understand his argument that James was the beloved disciple who wrote John. If so, why would he say “for not even his brothers believed in him” -John 7:5 Seems like he would be straight up excluding himself from the roster ? Was there something I missed, if so please feel free to correct me .
He is mistaken about what he said regarding the wife of Moses in the end. Moses wife was a Midianite, not Ethiopian. There are actually 3 different people group with a very similar name with the letters K-S-M (parralels to Kushite in English). There is the group which the Midianites are a part of (who belongs to the Hebrew-Canaanite ethnos by the way), there is a group in the area of Babylon, and there is the group from Ethiopia. The reason for the confusion is the last one is the most known today and the common usage of the term nowadays. The other groups are much less known.
@@goyimtheurgy4154 Your comment is irrelevant. This refers to Moses's wife background based on what is known and told in the Bible. One can ask about the details of a character from a story whether that character is based on a historical person or not.
@@knows_too_much I didn't say anything about what you 'could or could not' do. Nor does what I said become irrelevant just because you want to speculate in some meta-fictional realm.
I seen on I believe on history channel I believe, that Paul on a missionary went a town ,seen a woman preaching out in the streets, condemned it , told authorities, they threw her into the lions den, but the lionesses protected her from the pride (male lion) so governor Herod pardoned her , & arrested & beheaded Paul?
I like the new introduction, but I miss the big black phallic microphone that pops up right in front of your face... perhaps I’m not the first to mention this.... oh yeah love James Tabor
How likely is it that James and Peter were leaders of the Jewish followers of Yeshu the Eqyptian who survived after the followers were attacked by Roman soldiers on the Mount of Olives?
Tabor does an excellent job summarising most of what we know about R. Yakkov bar Yosef haTzaddiq (= James the Just), the Galilean Daviddic blood brother of R.Yehoshua bar Yosef haNazir (= Jesus) but since these tiny videolets do not spend enough time on any subject to go into much detail there was not enough space to mention the citations of ‘James the Just’ in Josephus (Antiquities Book 20 chapter 9 - where his death by stoning under an interim & usurping antiDaviddic High Priest call’d Hananiah the Younger who summon’d an illegal quorum of the Sanhedrin to execute him) That the gospel of Thomas Logion 12 specifically names ‘James the Just’ as the Daviddic bloodline successor to the messianic-Apocalyptic Jesus movement in advance of Jesus’ execution is significant because it shews to what degree Daviddic blood lineages within the Nazorean Torah abiding (antiPauljne) Christian in choosing their first line of Daviddic overseers ((epi+skopoi = episkopoi ‘bishops’) before the 1st Fail’d Jewish War against Rome (66-72 CE) which is borne out by the way the first Ebionites prior to the War organis’d their Messianic Torah abiding antiPauline proCircumcision synagogues before splintering off after the War which had decimated their numbers (in wild contrast to the burgeoning Pauline antiTorah (‘antinomian’) antiCircumcision proGentile churches in the Diaspora who surviv’d the War virtually unscath’d) - Since ‘James’ in Hebrew is Yakkov I suppose we could call his Nazorean Jewish Torah abiding followers ‘Jacobite Messianists’ who oppos’d Pauline proGentile antiTorah Christianity which eventually became normative Christianity by the mid 2nd century - and in contrast to the comparatively numerous ‘Pauline’ (and pseudoPauline !) epistles in the New Testament we only have a single epistle of James roughly translated by someone fluent in Koine Greek from James’ original Aramaic epistle to the ‘lost sheep of the Elect of the house of Yisro’el scatter’d among the Gentiles’ - which shews just how skew’d towards Pauline Christianity the New Testament canon eventually became - Derek-please have Tabor on again to elucidate further his insightful take on this unsung hero of the earliest 1st century Christianities whose words echo & reinforce a great deal of the original teaching of the Jesus expounded in the logia of the canonical Greek gospels & Thomas…
When John returned to Ephesus in 64 AD (Paul was dead), James, the Just (brother of Jesus) was the head of the Covenant followers/believers of Christ in Jerusalem. At the time Paul refers to James, he (James) was the leader in Jerusalem. However John tells us: “For neither did his brethren (the brothers of Christ) believe in him.” (John 7:5) This statement is prior to the crucifixion thus neither James nor Jude "believe in him" until after the resurrection of Jesus. James, nor Jude were disciples (followers of Jesus) and neither of them was ever an apostle (neither was Paul). Even at the time Judas was to be replaced, with the necessity of appointing a twelfth apostle, neither James or Jude were given consideration. By the term "Covenant" it is meant Passover, Seven Days of Unleavened Bread and those Ten Commandments and laws presented through Moses after the Exodus. John the Baptist/Immerser was a follower of the "Covenant" but he was not a member of Judaism. Any who followed John the Baptist were not active members of Judaism, though they may have been previously. Jesus was a Jew, that is, of the tribe of Judah. Jesus was the Word thus He gave the Covenant/Ten Commandments and laws to Moses and as Jesus he obviously followed that Covenant but there is nothing that states Jesus was a member of Judaism, but he was associated with John the Baptist and his teachings, so much so that Jesus was baptized by John. If I follow the laws and the Covenant, including dietary, that does not make me a Jew of Judaism nor do I need to be of the family of Judah and thus a Jew.
I have never thought that James was ever Jesus's real brother. Everyone was Jesus's brother sister mother. That is how I have taken it. Don't think I would change my mind on this. Plus there were a few James.
If that is so why wasn't everyone distinguished as...Luke, Matthew, Mark, Mary Magdalene...."the brother/sister of Jesus"? Why did he get singled out with that distinction and the rest were only and ALWAYS just named? Pretty strange for him to be distinguished as such when nobody else got that tagline and then think it's a generalized statement rather than literal.
Jacob the Righteous ('James the Just') is not the so called beloved disciple in the fourth gospel, which was written to refute the heresiarchs Cerinthus and Merinthus. That character is easily identifiable ("Lo, how he loved him!" -John 11:36) as Eleazar ('Lazarus') likely borrowed from Luke 16:19-31 and employed by the gospel's author(s) as a literary device i.e. "the irreproachable, believable, trustworthy eyewitness." (John 20:31, 21:24)
15:48 where does Paul say that the 12 tribes are coming back? (Is Dr Tabor saying that Paul thinks they are coming back physically to Israel?) I have never been able to find any so-called "regathering" prophecies in the New Testament.
James's Hebrew name is Joshu who is John the Baptist who is the Teacher of Righteousness, of the dead Sea scrolls Essenes. The brother theme is their form of government vs the hierarchy of the Gentiles. He was stoned to death for preaching Jehovih who is anti slavery. The Romans behind Paul who was Roman aristocrat, and army General, were pro slavery and that's why they destroyed the Jewish sect of Essenes and brought Christianity to the world and why the world is enmeshed in slavery to this day.
Perhaps it would be better to call the dynastic idea an Imamate rather than a Caliphate as the former idea of religious leadership has become much more closely identified with familial heredity.
Everyone is a sibling of the Lord in a spiritual family when in Christ. Paul never makes a distinction of a biological, or spiritual brother for this James.
@@ghostriders_1 So the existence of Jesus makes you afraid and angry! Don't take yourself so seriously. Lighten up. Take your shoes off, prop up your feet, have a Weller's bourbon, watch an old black and white movie and give your inner demons a rest.
@@ghostriders_1 Some say that Socrates never existed, that he was just Plato's creation. Perhaps. Nevertheless, Socrates gave good advice: "Know thy self." You've got work to do.
James the just was not one of the 12 , Zebedee was a fisherman and father of James and John of the 12, and the the other James was Son of Alphaeus, who was also called Levi , Son of Alphaeus, if you read below you will see the disciple whom Jesus loved could only be one of 4 persons, and impossible that it was James the just , you will also know who wrote the book of John when you know who the disciple Jesus loved was,and more, including Joseph’s Surname. And you will understand why the Bible says Jesus loved him. John 19:26 “When Jesus therefore saw his mother, and the disciple standing by, whom he loved, he saith unto his mother, Woman, behold thy son!” “Then saith he to the disciple, Behold thy mother!
15:30 The twelve tribes = The new Israel. Jesus and his twelve Apostles replaced Jacob and his twelve sons, the old Israel. The sun, the moon, the stars (the old heaven) were >> Genesis 37,9
it makes me feel uneasy this reasoning and finding logic with the confines of the story. it comes across as arguments for historicity. ‘that puts him at the scene of the last supper’. ‘maybe that’s when james decided Jesus is the one ?’ ‘Jesus said…’ Q? am i missing the point here? maybe because this is usually a mythicism channel i assume we’re either arguing for or against historicity. is paul ‘going to see james’ within the story or in history?
he was a christian who belonged to a group of guys who where called "brothers of the Lord" where they Jesus his biological brothers? could be.... or it could be just a title....
In away Paul is the sunni version of christianity, meaning he wanted his version for all men, and blood does not matter. Where the James version is the shite version where family does matter and knowing the person who gave the teachings is far more important than some guy who had a vision. Of course sunni and shites do not argue about who muhmmad was or if he existed as Ali knew him and was relatled ( though adopted) the sunni say its matters not about blood but who is the most righteous. I think its very strange the Paulian version of Christianity won the day, esp. as the guy never knew Jesus. Paul most had some really good connections in the Roman empire for this to happen.
Derek a suggestion. Seems like you’re not directing to get opinions of the house house theory. You’re not coming out and asking. Just ask it. Say there’s this 2 house theory blah blah. Do you think he means that?
All of the members of the Nazarene Sect of the black Jews, went to Heaven, in the first century, 70CE. The Christian Gospel, is Man made The Nazarene Gospel, was, God made.
3:10 he makes a big common mistake, he claims blood relatives are important. That is untrue, legal relatives trump blood relatives in the old testament see levirate marriages, kindsman redemption, adoption. „Scholars“ often lack the most basic skills and thus err. Quote from Theodor Zahn in Forschungen: "Jesus was erroneously thought to be the son of David...he was this according to the law...The legal paternity of Jesus has importance...because only if Jesus is the son of a Davidian, he himself is a David-son."
The Roman Catholic church and their rules how they look at Mary and otherwise are not at all how any Bible believing and reading Christians i know interpret the scripture and or believe such things. I have never been Catholic nor have i evee been taught or believe in such a things as the Mother of Jesus being a forever virgin. I was taught and currently believe Jesus had real bothers. Yes half brothers because Joseph is not Jesuss Father but for sure Mary is Mother too them all.
All this talk about James not knowing who Jesus was and finally believing after he dies, it just doesn’t make sense to me. Imagine growing up with someone, in the same house, for nearly 30 years. There is no doubt that Mary would have often told, perhaps even celebrated, the events leading up to the birth of Jesus. Everyone in that household would know exactly who Jesus was. There would be no doubters. And his family would not have thought him crazy, as one of the gospel stories mentions. Just seems to me that all of this (the entire story of Jesus) is made up on the fly, very convoluted and contradictory, and does not comport in any way to reality.
Let me get this straight this guy thinks that politics with trump had something to do with his publishing being delayed. When the country was doing better than it had in that it had in decades until whoever they are released covid.
All of the members of the Nazarene Sect of the black Jews, went to Heaven, in the first century, 70CE. The Christian Gospel, is Man made The Nazarene Gospel, was, God made.
All of the members of the Nazarene Sect of the black Jews, went to Heaven, in the first century, 70CE. The Christian Gospel, is Man made The Nazarene Gospel, was, God made.
All of the members of the Nazarene Sect of the black Jews, went to Heaven, in the first century, 70CE. The Christian Gospel, is Man made The Nazarene Gospel, was, God made.
All of the members of the Nazarene Sect of the black Jews, went to Heaven, in the first century, 70CE. The Christian Gospel, is Man made The Nazarene Gospel, was, God made.
