The Assault on James by Paul at the Temple Steps
from The Recognitions of Clement

Chapter LXVIII.-The Rule of Faith.

"These sayings of Gamaliel did not much please Caiaphas; and holding him in suspicion, as it seemed, he began to insinuate himself cunningly into the discussions: for, smiling at what Gamaliel had said, the chief of the priests asked of James, the chief of the bishops,⁶¹ that the discourse concerning Christ should not be drawn but from the Scriptures; `that we may know, 'said he, `whether Jesus be the very Christ or no.' Then said James, `We must first inquire from what Scriptures we are especially to derive our discussion.' Then he, with difficulty, at length overcome by reason, answered, that it must be derived from the law; and afterwards he made mention also of the prophets."

Chapter LXIX.-Two Comings of Christ.

"To him our James began to show, that whatsoever things the prophets say they have taken from the law, and what they have spoken is in accordance with the law. He also made some statements respecting the books of the Kings in: what way, and when, and by whom they were written, and how they ought to be used. And when he had discussed most fully concerning the law, and had, by a most clear exposition, brought into light whatever things are in it concerning Christ, he showed by most abundant proofs that Jesus is the Christ, and that in Him are fulfilled all the prophecies which related to His humble advent. For he showed that two advents of Him are foretold: one in humiliation, which He has accomplished; the other in glory, which is hoped for to be accomplished, when He shall come to give the kingdom to those who believe in Him, and who observe all things which He has commanded. And when he had plainly taught the people concerning these things, he added this also: That unless a man be baptized in water, in the name of the threefold blessedness, as the true Prophet taught, he can neither receive remission of sins nor enter into the kingdom of heaven; and he declared that this is the prescription of the unbegotten God. To which he added this also: `Do not think that we speak of two unbegotten Gods, or that one is divided into two, or that the same is made male and female. But we speak of the only-begotten Son of God, not sprung from another source, but ineffably self-originated; and in like manner we speak of the Paraclete.'⁶² But when he had spoken some things also concerning baptism, through seven successive days he persuaded all the people and the high priest that they should hasten straightway to receive baptism."

Chapter LXX.-Tumult Raised by Saul.

"And when matters were at that point that they should come and be baptized, some one of our enemies,⁶³ entering the temple with a few men, began to cry out, and to say, `What mean ye, O men of Israel? Why are you so easily hurried on? Why are ye led headlong by most miserable men, who are deceived by Simon, a magician? 'While he was thus speaking, and adding more to the same effect, and while James the bishop was refuting him, he began to excite the people and to raise a tumult. so that the people might not be able to hear what was said. Therefore he began to drive all into confusion with shouting, and to undo what had been arranged with much labor, and at the same time to reproach the priests, and to enrage them with revilings and abuse, and, like a madman, to excite every one to murder, saying, `What do ye? Why do ye hesitate? Oh sluggish and inert, why do we not lay hands upon them, and pull all these fellows to pieces? 'When he had said this, he first, seizing a strong brand from the altar, set the example of smiting. Then others also, seeing him, were carried away with like readiness. Then ensued a tumult on either side, of the beating and the beaten. Much blood is shed; there is a confused flight, in the midst of which that enemy attacked James, and threw him headlong from the top of the steps; and supposing him to be dead, he cared not to inflict further violence upon him."

Chapter LXXI.-Flight to Jericho.

"But our friends lifted him up, for they were both more numerous and more powerful than the others; but, from their fear of God, they rather suffered themselves to be killed by an inferior force, than they would kill others. But when the evening came the priests shut up the temple, and we returned to the house of James, and spent the night there in prayer. Then before daylight we went down to Jericho, to the number of 5000 men. Then after three days one of the brethren came to us from Gamaliel, whom we mentioned before, bringing to us secret tidings that that enemy had received a commission from Caiaphas, the chief priest, that he should arrest all who believed in Jesus, and should go to Damascus with his letters, and that there also, employing the help of the unbelievers, he should make havoc among the faithful; and that he was hastening to Damascus chiefly on this account, because he believed that Peter had fled thither.⁶⁴ And about thirty days thereafter he stopped on his way while passing through Jericho going to Damascus.  At that time we were absent, having gone out to the sepulchers of two brethren which were whitened of themselves every year, by which miracle the fury of many against us was restrained, because they saw that our brethren were had in remembrance before God."

----- Original Message -----

From: Jack Snyder

To: Randy Vaughan

Sent: Sunday, March 06, 2005 1:51 PM

Subject: RE: Dating James

You wouldn't mind if I published this discourse? 

I get more hits than I deserve.  I'm sure it would be helpful.

Especially if I put links to the books.

Thanks.

 

Hope the criticism is at least constructive. My responses below. We'll stay in touch.

I definitely appreciate you note.  I get a lot of critcism.  Let's stay in touch.

See below.

Interesting observation. Many scholars are at least beginning to see the correlation between James, Galatians and Romans. Eisenmann thinks the writers of James are responding to Romans. I think Romans and Galatians. What makes you think its the James writers reading Galatians rather than the other way around. I do feel James is written in a more mid-century style rather than a late first or early second century 'forgery'. Although I'm leaning against James being the author regardless of the date.

 

First, I think that, though it may have been redacted later, James the Just wrote James.  I didn't use to feel that way.  Obviously, James has been translated into Greek.  It's clear to me that Paul is commenting on James in Galatians -- so some leader of the circumcision party wrote it, and before Galations.  Maybe this is the text you read: http://jacksonsnyder.com/arc/2003/paulonjames.htm 

Furthermore, do you notice how many times Paul repudiates being a liar?  WIth Eisenman giving James credit for the MMT and other DSSs that talk incessantly about the liar, and Paul defending the accusation of being a liar throughout his texts, we definitely see an EARLY date to (at least) the kernal of James. 

 

I first became interested in the book of James, from a historical perspective years ago, when I realized the word he used for 'church' is 'synogogue'.

 

I've also found your summary of Saulus in Josephus and the recognition of Paul in the Psuedoclementine documents invaluable. When we look at Acts, Paul's writings, the psuedo Pauline documents, the Ebionites material found, and the in between the line reading in James, we come away with an even more interesting Paul. 

 

Well, they have to be the same, especially when we consider Queen Helen's relief efforts of Jerusalem with a Saulus as agent.  As ridiculous as it sounds, I couldn't sleep last night for thinking about these relationships.  I'd just reread Chilton's James and that incredible book review of Eisenman's James by Robert M. Price.  http://www.depts.drew.edu/jhc/RPeisenman.html

I'm with you.  You're the only person I know that knows anything about this stuff.  But it's absolutely fascinating.

 

I've actually corresponded with Chilton. Liked his book on Paul. His 'household of Ceasar' theory needs revamping. Like most he assumes Epraphadotus (probably spelled wrong, doing it from memory) is different from Nero's and Domitians'. Nothing major, the book was excellent. I need to pick up his James book.

 

I've found it interesting that so many scholars dismissed the Saulus in Josephus as our Paul, when they have quite a few interesting parellels that can't be ignored. The Clement document was discounted because it wasn't actually from Clement and was thought to be apocryphal rather than Ebionite. Good stuff! 

 

I read the Recognitions long before Eisenman.  At least in the first book, there is a lot of sense made.  And who's to say that it wasn't a novel based on Clement's journals.  Paul Meier writes stuff like this all the time and makes a fortune.  All very historical, but made interesting.

 

 

Questions and your opinions

 

Is it possible Paul had at least a passing meeting of the earthly Jesus? His connection with the Herodians, familiarity with the region that many of these 'Christian' fellowshipped has me wondering. Why was he so crazed about going after the Way? There were many groups that 'blasphemed' or had odd doctrines within Judism. I'm thinking that as being part of the Herod 'family' he had the same reaction that caused John the Baptist's execution and maybe Jesus'. What is your opinion? 

 

This gets us into an area that we can't traverse unless we put our faith aside for a moment.  Or maybe we need more faith.  AN Wilson's book on Paul has him as a Temple Guard during the crucifixion of Yahshua.  Recognitions has him (along with another witness) pushing James down the Temple steps.  Eisenman thinks he's a spy.  Paul said he never met him in the flesh though somewhere.

 

On the other hand, we have only Paul's word on where he got his doctrine.  He said he received it from no man but Messiah.  He had a special supernatural interview, like moses, in which was imparted the doctrine of Paul.  There are times I want to through out the whole corpus.  But then when I read SOME of it, it does indeed seem sublime.  No?

 

I think brother Paul is much like our modern day Pentecostals (I have nothing against them). He believes only God has instructed him. I believe he was convinced of Yeshua's resurrection and learned of his life from those he tortured. His assessment of the 'Christ' came from others as well. He can then attribute his education to the Spirit. Much like if you gave me a million dollars, I still may say, 'thank you God'. Especially if I, for whatever reason, didn't want to give you credit.

 

I liked AN Wilson, not so sure about the temple guard thing. Although a tent-maker, Saul had more clout than a temple guard. Or, maybe my idea of a temple guard needs to be re-educated.

 

What do you think it was that 'converted' Paul? After being so vehemently persecuting the Way, he becomes one. Much is attributed to the 'vision' on the road to Damascus. I, however, feel that the 'kicking against the pricks' indicates a more reasonable and logical reason for his conversion and convincing of the resurrection of Yeshua, along with the 'vision'.

 

Well, you and I have seen (nearly) as atonishing conversions.  If indeed Yahshua were going to move his search for the elect, or lost sheep, out of Jerusalem, his brethren weren't the ones to do it.  The Epistle of Apostles has Yahshua prophesying the advent of Paul.  Though otherwise unknown, this is dated early.

http://jacksonsnyder.com/sss/pages/Epistle%20of%20the%20Apostles.htm

Eisenman says he converted, cut his hair and took a Nazarite vow and took Tychicus into the temple (causing a riot) because he was in love with Caiaphas' daughter!  Man, I don't know about that. 

 

I believe on the Ebionite side there is some slander and anymosity, thereby we get his being in love with the priests daughter. Although I like Eisenmann, he made some assumptions, I think. Things that are simply coincidences are made into hidden facts. I think.

 

Not to take any credit from Paul, but I think the movement was making some headway before him or besides him. It appears the Romans had already established a 'Christian' community apart from him.

 

I think what makes our Paul so historic (besides all of the other Saulus stuff and extra-biblical writings) is that he writes. He's prolific. Which has made him stand out more than others. Without him, Barnabas would have been our dude. Maybe.

 

With the above in mind. Have you read Crossans' 'In Search of Paul'? Excellent!!!! He makes a strong case for Paul not just going after Gentiles, but the God-fearers and God-worshippers. He makes not that although Paul was sent to the Gentiles, he continues to go to the synogogues and that his letters carry a lot of Old Testament, which Gentiles would not have know about. I buy his theory and the I bought the book.

 

I also think Paul's use of possible Aramaic prose in Philippians ch. 2, 1 Corinthians 15 and in the psuedo Pauline Timothy (God was manifested in the flesh) is a great 'tell' (as the poker players say) of some 'Pauline' doctrine prior to his writings. It's possible, if nothing to be dogmatic about.

 

In your opinion how significant was Paul's persecution of the Way? In terms of number. Foxes book of Martyr has an unrealistic 2,000.

 

IF he was a Herodian, IF he was the brother of Costabarus, IF his sister was in with Agrippa, IF he was a Roman spy, IF the Way (Halakah) were all the various groups that called themselves that, then Paul and his gang of thugs could have done major damage.  However I think Josephus tells us there were only 4,000 Essenes in Palestine and Egypt.  Foxe wrote a hagiographic history -- his intention, I think, was more in the line of venerating martyrs than reporting history.

 

On one hand, I've always felt that if Paul had done so much damage. Why were the Way so forgiving of him. Forgiveness, yes, beautiful, yes, realistic... maybe not.

 

Many are coming to the conclusion that Jesus' beliefs were more like James than Pauls. As we peel away the legend layers we come up with a more orthodox Jew James, that probably only felt Jesus' was resurrected. That being the closest thing resembling our current versions of Christianity. I feel that Peter is a missing link here. He seems to be stradling the fence and probably leaned more towards Paul's theology. What's your opinion?

 

I'm like you.  Peter, by Paul's own word, was phlegmatic and wishy-washy about it.  He had to get out of Jerusalem due to persecution, and found celebrity among the Gentiles of Paul's converts.  From Galatians, we know that he was, after all, eating with the uncicumcised.  Man, you are dead on there.  Have you read Kerygma Petrou?

 

Have not read Kerygma Petrou? I will now. Peter is an important link. Many are beginning to feel because Paul didn't know Jesus in the flesh, he's off base regarding Yeshua's beliefs. Forget his visions. James should know what Jesus knew. However, James wasn't really hanging with his brother before the resurrection, right? Peter was. Simply because someone is your brother doesn't make them the authority on you.

 

Sorry for the lengthy response. It's good to find someone to share your interest. 

 

Tell me more about yourself. 

 

I live in central Jersey. While not a typical inerrant Bible Christian, I do attend a church that is and I lead their Education Department. I lean heavily on Paul's 'grace thing' although I wouldn't call myself a Calvinist.

 

I've read your statement of beliefs.

 

Randy Vaughan