Greek New Testament: Strategic Changes on Ideological Grounds

[USU78]

This is so very Book-of-Mormony:

https://today.duke.edu/2019/06/mary-or-martha-duke-scholars-research-finds-mary-magdalene-downplayed-new-testament-scribes?fbclid=IwAR1P7Y6owY_uJF-ZtQin9ZFboeHSnkrTRMqZ5O-2IiIYv6-A0u3eD8bVvRI

[longview]

So many maries, so hard to keep track of.  But Magdalene seems pretty prominent to me.  I am inclined to believe Lazarus, Mary and Martha were related and Magdalene was not.  Does anybody have a good source for whoever claims that Jesus was married to Magdalene?

[USU78]

This guy:  http://web.csulb.edu/centers/sjco/

believes that all of the names in the Greek New Testament are obfuscated in order to obscure both Mary Magdalene and James the brother of the Master.  Hence three (or more) Marys and two Jameses.  His thesis is that there were only two Marys, mother and Magdelene, and one James, apostle and brother.  Here is his principal book on the subject:  

JAMES THE BROTHER OF JESUS (Viking, 1997/Penguin, 1998)

[MiserereNobis]

Will Dan Brown update the DaVinci Code?

[USU78]

10 minutes ago, MiserereNobis said:

Will Dan Brown update the DaVinci Code?

😂🤣😂

But what do you really think of the Dukie's find on the variations in early documents, including the name/number changes?

[Robert F. Smith]

3 hours ago, USU78 said:

This guy:  http://web.csulb.edu/centers/sjco/

believes that all of the names in the Greek New Testament are obfuscated in order to obscure both Mary Magdalene and James the brother of the Master.  Hence three (or more) Marys and two Jameses.  His thesis is that there were only two Marys, mother and Magdelene, and one James, apostle and brother.  Here is his principal book on the subject:  

JAMES THE BROTHER OF JESUS (Viking, 1997/Penguin, 1998)

Yes, and he also maintained that James was the primary leader of the Christian Church before Peter.

[clarkgoble]

57 minutes ago, Robert F. Smith said:

Yes, and he also maintained that James was the primary leader of the Christian Church before Peter.

Worth noting that his views never really caught on. Particularly the idea of James being leader before Peter.

While I think we have to be aware of textual corruption - particularly early corruption - most of these things are pretty speculative without strong textual evidence. (Which is obviously not forthcoming) Significant given 1 Nephi 13's warning about corruption.

[USU78]

1 hour ago, Robert F. Smith said:

Yes, and he also maintained that James was the primary leader of the Christian Church before Peter.

Yup, he did.  When I read it through the 2nd time, I came to the conclusion that he spun a whole lot of "gold" out of not very much straw.

[rpn]

7 hours ago, longview said:

So many maries, so hard to keep track of.  But Magdalene seems pretty prominent to me.  I am inclined to believe Lazarus, Mary and Martha were related and Magdalene was not.  Does anybody have a good source for whoever claims that Jesus was married to Magdalene?

The reason I think Jesus was married to Mary Magdelene is that He appeared first to her.   The only way that is consistent with priesthood and authority is if He was.   And it also explains why she was at the crucifixion with His mother.   (Would the soldiers have let a prominent woman leader not his wife remain at that point, in that culture? )

[Robert F. Smith]

2 hours ago, USU78 said:

Yup, he did.  When I read it through the 2nd time, I came to the conclusion that he spun a whole lot of "gold" out of not very much straw.

He was a teacher of mine at CSULB, but we had many disagreements on fundamental issues.  At least he was willing to discuss anything and everything.  What a crazy guy.

[Robert F. Smith]

3 hours ago, clarkgoble said:

Worth noting that his views never really caught on. Particularly the idea of James being leader before Peter.

While I think we have to be aware of textual corruption - particularly early corruption - most of these things are pretty speculative without strong textual evidence. (Which is obviously not forthcoming) Significant given 1 Nephi 13's warning about corruption.

Actually, Jesus' brother James was a very important, highly respected man in Jerusalem:  James the Just was executed by order of the Sanhedrin in about 62 A.D. (Eusebius, Ecclesiastical History, II, 23, citing Clement of Alexandria, and Hegesippus, both of whom say that James was Bishop of Jerusalem; Josephus, Antiquities, XX, 9, 1).

[USU78]

45 minutes ago, Robert F. Smith said:

Actually, Jesus' brother James was a very important, highly respected man in Jerusalem:  James the Just was executed by order of the Sanhedrin in about 62 A.D. (Eusebius, Ecclesiastical History, II, 23, citing Clement of Alexandria, and Hegesippus, both of whom say that James was Bishop of Jerusalem; Josephus, Antiquities, XX, 9, 1).

Eisenman kept rehearsing the notion of James taking on the role of High Priest in the debir, being dragged out and pitched out of the place, then beaten to death with clubs.

What was he doing there?

[Robert F. Smith]

1 hour ago, USU78 said:

Eisenman kept rehearsing the notion of James taking on the role of High Priest in the debir, being dragged out and pitched out of the place, then beaten to death with clubs.

What was he doing there?

There is no reason to assert that James was HP.  However, there is a story of him being beaten to death with clubs, after he failed to die when flung from a high point of the temple mount.

[MiserereNobis]

19 hours ago, USU78 said:

😂🤣😂

But what do you really think of the Dukie's find on the variations in early documents, including the name/number changes?

Honestly, Biblical scholarship isn't an interest of mine. I guess superficially this is intriguing but I do find it minor. My faith doesn't rest upon the inerrancy of every word in the Bible. Instead, it is a gift given me by God through the intercession of the Blessed Virgin Mary.

[The Nehor]

2 minutes ago, MiserereNobis said:

Honestly, Biblical scholarship isn't an interest of mine. I guess superficially this is intriguing but I do find it minor. My faith doesn't rest upon the inerrancy of every word in the Bible. Instead, it is a gift given me by God through the intercession of the Blessed Virgin Mary.

I see what you did there.  

[USU78]

4 minutes ago, MiserereNobis said:

Honestly, Biblical scholarship isn't an interest of mine. I guess superficially this is intriguing but I do find it minor. My faith doesn't rest upon the inerrancy of every word in the Bible. Instead, it is a gift given me by God through the intercession of the Blessed Virgin Mary.

Not everybody has to be interested in the same things.  No problem.

BTW, have I told you this week you two Catholic Twins are such a breath of fresh air in the middle of all of that TULIP Crew we used to see so much of, and members of which occasionally drop by.  It's just such a great testimony that, notwithstanding the loss of institutional authority (as we LDS perceive it), you RC members are our brothers in very deed.

[USU78]

9 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said:

There is no reason to assert that James was HP.  However, there is a story of him being beaten to death with clubs, after he failed to die when flung from a high point of the temple mount.

I agree.  That's part of the "all that 'gold' spun from so little straw" I was referring to.  So, he wore his knees out praying.  Doesn't mean he was in a part of the temple he shouldn't have been (from the Herodian/Sadducean perspective).

[The Nehor]

13 minutes ago, USU78 said:

I agree.  That's part of the "all that 'gold' spun from so little straw" I was referring to.  So, he wore his knees out praying.  Doesn't mean he was in a part of the temple he shouldn't have been (from the Herodian/Sadducean perspective).

Yeah, sensationalism sells better then reason so many go for the outrageous theory and it seems at that point you do not need evidence to popularize it. I am sure some of them actually believe it and are not just doing it to sell books but it is obnoxious. See also “aliens built the pyramids”.

[clarkgoble]

12 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said:

Actually, Jesus' brother James was a very important, highly respected man in Jerusalem:  James the Just was executed by order of the Sanhedrin in about 62 A.D. (Eusebius, Ecclesiastical History, II, 23, citing Clement of Alexandria, and Hegesippus, both of whom say that James was Bishop of Jerusalem; Josephus, Antiquities, XX, 9, 1).

There's conflicting dates for his death. Either 62 AD or between 68-70 AD depending upon whether you follow Josephus or Eusebius. After Peter fled Herod then James takes over although he doesn't live that long. Then after Jerusalem falls the remaining leadership flees. It's that crucial period after the first fall of Jerusalem where some of us see the apostasy really getting going since it was so disruptive. The Eusebius section quoting Hegesippus in Commentaries on the Acts of the Church is worth quoting.

• James, the Lord's brother, succeeds to the government of the Church, in conjunction with the apostles. He has been universally called the Just, from the days of the Lord down to the present time. For many bore the name of James; but this one was holy from his mother's womb. He drank no wine or other intoxicating liquor, nor did he eat flesh; no razor came upon his head; he did not anoint himself with oil, nor make use of the bath. He alone was permitted to enter the holy place: for he did not wear any woollen garment, but fine linen only. He alone, I say, was wont to go into the temple: and he used to be found kneeling on his knees, begging forgiveness for the people-so that the skin of his knees became horny like that of a camel's, by reason of his constantly bending the knee in adoration to God, and begging forgiveness for the people.

Not completely clear what he means by the holy place - the temple or a particular place within the temple.

Where things get more tricky is Eusebius saying James led the church in Jerusalem for 30 years. That suggests that Peter no longer dealt just with Jerusalem even though he was one of the leadership. I think that's where the conflict over who was in charge arises along with that passage in The Gospel of Thomas where Jesus says James is leader. 

• The Lord after his resurrection imparted knowledge to James the Just and to John and Peter, and they imparted it to the rest of the apostles, and the rest of the apostles to the seventy, of whom Barnabas was one.

I tend to read it as Peter was in charge, but James is made Bishop. Then James succeeds Peter.

Eusebius also says James died just before the siege of Jerusalem (with some, like Origen, blaming the seige on his death). Josephus, who I think you followed, says he was thrown off the temple and stoned just before  Lucceius Albinus becomes in charge for the Romans. So that's 62. The date is significant since Peter dies around 64 AD. If James was a leader it'd just be for the four years after Peter's death and de facto leader while Peter was awaiting his fate - and possibly during the period after Peter flees Herod. Some take Acts 12 as implying his death much earlier although I don't know how popular that view is. The claims of his death in Rome are admittedly fairly late. (Towards end of 2cd century)

[Robert F. Smith]

51 minutes ago, clarkgoble said:

There's conflicting dates for his death. Either 62 AD or between 68-70 AD depending upon whether you follow Josephus or Eusebius. After Peter fled Herod then James takes over although he doesn't live that long. Then after Jerusalem falls the remaining leadership flees. It's that crucial period after the first fall of Jerusalem where some of us see the apostasy really getting going since it was so disruptive. The Eusebius section quoting Hegesippus in Commentaries on the Acts of the Church is worth quoting.

• James, the Lord's brother, succeeds to the government of the Church, in conjunction with the apostles. He has been universally called the Just, from the days of the Lord down to the present time. For many bore the name of James; but this one was holy from his mother's womb. He drank no wine or other intoxicating liquor, nor did he eat flesh; no razor came upon his head; he did not anoint himself with oil, nor make use of the bath. He alone was permitted to enter the holy place: for he did not wear any woollen garment, but fine linen only. He alone, I say, was wont to go into the temple: and he used to be found kneeling on his knees, begging forgiveness for the people-so that the skin of his knees became horny like that of a camel's, by reason of his constantly bending the knee in adoration to God, and begging forgiveness for the people.

Not completely clear what he means by the holy place - the temple or a particular place within the temple.

Eusebius is confused, which is to be expected for someone so far removed from Jewish Christianity.  James would certainly not have any of the privileges of a Kohen, and would not have been allowed inside the temple.

51 minutes ago, clarkgoble said:

Where things get more tricky is Eusebius saying James led the church in Jerusalem for 30 years. That suggests that Peter no longer dealt just with Jerusalem even though he was one of the leadership. I think that's where the conflict over who was in charge arises along with that passage in The Gospel of Thomas where Jesus says James is leader. 

• The Lord after his resurrection imparted knowledge to James the Just and to John and Peter, and they imparted it to the rest of the apostles, and the rest of the apostles to the seventy, of whom Barnabas was one.

I tend to read it as Peter was in charge, but James is made Bishop. Then James succeeds Peter.

Eusebius also says James died just before the siege of Jerusalem (with some, like Origen, blaming the seige on his death). Josephus, who I think you followed, says he was thrown off the temple and stoned just before  Lucceius Albinus becomes in charge for the Romans. So that's 62. The date is significant since Peter dies around 64 AD. If James was a leader it'd just be for the four years after Peter's death and de facto leader while Peter was awaiting his fate - and possibly during the period after Peter flees Herod. Some take Acts 12 as implying his death much earlier although I don't know how popular that view is. The claims of his death in Rome are admittedly fairly late. (Towards end of 2cd century)

Some scholars have interpreted the conflicting information as evidence of competition for leadership between the Twelve and the Family of Jesus, much as we saw between Brigham & the Twelve versus Emma and Joseph Smith III.  This is merely one of a number of interesting characteristics in common between early Christianity and early Mormonism covered by Professor John Gager of Princeton in his 1982 Tanner Lecture at the MHA annual meeting (JMH, 9 [1982]:53-60).

[Robert F. Smith]

1 hour ago, USU78 said:

I agree.  That's part of the "all that 'gold' spun from so little straw" I was referring to.  So, he wore his knees out praying.  Doesn't mean he was in a part of the temple he shouldn't have been (from the Herodian/Sadducean perspective).

He was killed by the same group who killed his big brother and for most of the same reasons.

[USU78]

9 minutes ago, Robert F. Smith said:

He was killed by the same group who killed his big brother and for most of the same reasons.

So I believe, too.  To what extent the Romans were involved, though, is not at all clear to me, unlike the incident involving his big brother.

[Robert F. Smith]

5 minutes ago, USU78 said:

So I believe, too.  To what extent the Romans were involved, though, is not at all clear to me, unlike the incident involving his big brother.

The Romans were absent (change in administration) and there was hell to pay when the new admin came in.

[USU78]

20 minutes ago, Robert F. Smith said:

The Romans were absent (change in administration) and there was hell to pay when the new admin came in.

So, you place his death during the first revolt?

 

[RevTestament]

22 hours ago, USU78 said:

This guy:  http://web.csulb.edu/centers/sjco/

believes that all of the names in the Greek New Testament are obfuscated in order to obscure both Mary Magdalene and James the brother of the Master.  Hence three (or more) Marys and two Jameses.  His thesis is that there were only two Marys, mother and Magdelene, and one James, apostle and brother.  Here is his principal book on the subject:  

JAMES THE BROTHER OF JESUS (Viking, 1997/Penguin, 1998)

Archaeology actually shows that Yacob(James), Joshua(Yeshua), and Mary(Miriam) were very common names in Yeshua's day. Probably because these names were prominent in the Torah, and in Israeli foundational history.  The NT does things like saying "the other Mary." That doesn't sound too much like purposeful obfuscation. It seems more likely the names were just common like history shows, so I put his book on the dustbin to be read last... just sayin. There was a time in US history when it would not be uncommon to have 2-3 James' in a single classroom. Certain names are very common in Scottish history because of a habit of naming sons after their fathers and uncles - James/Yacob is one of those.

I believe the BoM is talking about changes which brought about doctrines - not name obfuscation.