What is the biblical justification for Peter as the first Pope?

[robrecht]

Again, that's not what I asked. I asked "Is it a fact that a large number of historians view James as the leader of the church after the death of Jesus? Yes or no? Do you agree or disagree with these scholars?"

You're going to have to quote a specific historian and his or her views if you want that kind of detail. But, in general, I would not assume absolutes, either about historical realities 2,000 years ago, or about the views of historians opinions now.

[Catholicity]

While there is somewhat of a point here to foudy's objection about St. Peter with Matt 16:19 and Matt 18:18. Peter is also called Rock.

I can't find much to object to St. Peter as the Roman Church Leader. And certainly via traditional movement the RCC has a valid tracing back to St. Peter as the 1st Pope or Archbishop. However he would have been more or less considered the leader of the 1st among the Churches. The others would have been leaders among churches in other districts. or what we see as the modern known Orthodox Churches.

[OingoBoingo]

Source: The Jewish Teachers of Jesus, James, and Jude by David A. deSilva

Within a short span, James emerges as the leader of the Jerusalem church and its mission (Acts 15:12-21; 21:17-18; Gal 1:18; 2:9, 12). That he rose to such prominence is a matter of record; how he came to such promience is far less clear.

Biological kinship with Jesus appears to have been a factor in the selection of leaders in the Jerusalem church to preside, as it were, over the non-Pauline, Jewish Christian movement. James the Just emerges as the first appointed leader of the Jerusalem church and its mission within the first decade after the crucifixion...

The author of Acts gives no account of the process by which, or the time at which, James emerged as the leader of the Jerusalem church. Peter appears to act as the de facto leader during the initial phases of the movement's organization and expansion...A significant disruption occurs, however, with Saul's persecution of the Jesus movement, with the result that many prominent figures within the movement leave Judea. Peter goes away to conduct missionary work in Samaria and Caesarea. When he eventually returns to Jerusalem, he is arrested and imprisoned by Herod, who had just executed James, the brother of John (Acts 12:1-13). After Peter's mysterious release, the author makes his first reference to James the Just by name in a way that suggests his preeminence by this point in the story: "Tell this [the story of Peter's release] to James and to the brothers/believers" (Acts 12:17).

This episode is often taken as the occasion for Jame's rise to leadership, but it presumes rather than establishes it. If there were such an occasion in the Acts story line, it would most naturally have been in connection with Peter's earlier departure from Jerusalem under the shadow of Saul's persecution. An earlier rise to prominence is also supported indirectly by Paul's letters to the Christians in Galatia, in which he speaks about his meeting with the "pillars" (styloi) of the Christian movement, naming James (by which he means "the Lord's brother," as in Gal 1:18-19) ahead of Peter/Cephas and John (Gal 2:6, 9). If Paul's private visit to consult with these pillars about the mission in Antioch is to be identified with any visit by Paul to Jerusalem in Acts, it is more likely the visit in Acts 11:27-30. Peter's prominence in the story of Acts may significantly outlast his preeminence. We can well imagine a scenario after the ascension in which Peter, the strongest personality among the Twelve, emerges as natural interim leader, particularly if James had not (long) been a follower of Jesus prior to the resurrection. As questions arose concerning who should be designated the movement's leader, as Peter's calling took more of a missionary shape (perforce, according to the Acts narrative), and as James became a stronger and more fully formed disciple, a transition to James's leadership could be quite natural.

Early church historians were not reticent to flesh out the details of the transition of leadership. Eusebius (Hist. Eccl. 2.1.2-3) quotes a tradition from Clement of Alexandria naming James as the first elected leader of the church, chosen by Peter, James, and John after Jesus' ascension: "Peter and James and John after the Ascension of the Savior did not struggle for glory, because they had previously been given honor by the Savior, but chose James the Just as Overseer of Jerusalem" (Hist. Eccl. 2.1.3). This tradition may have been fueled by the attention to administrative details in Acts 1, where Judas's successor is elected in an orderly fashion, and Acts 6, where the order of deacons is established to provide for the welfare of Hellenistic Jews in the Jerusalem Christian community. Eusebius locates the selection of James around the time of Stephen's martyrdom, which would again suggest Saul's persecution and the dispersion of prominent Christian leaders as the occasion for officially installing James as the leader there.

This tradition seems to have emerged as an explanation for how James the Just came to be leader of the church when he was not in the inner cicle of Jesus during the latter's eatherly ministry, particularly the "triumvirate" of Peter and the two sons of Zebedee, James and John, that figures prominently in the Gospels narratives (Mark 5:37; 9:2; 14:33). Those who were honored by Jesus during his earthly ministry bestow the office of overseer upon a fourth party who was not so honored and whose claim to leadership the three could reasonably have been expected to resist. The title "bishop" may conjure up anachornistic images of his office, but "overseers" of religious communities are known in Judea, as in the mebaqqer (overseer) of the Qumran sect...

Once in place as overseer of the Jerusalem church and, by extension, the overall Christian mission until the westward shift of the movement's center of gravity, James continues in this capacity until 62 CE.

© Copyright Original Source

Source: Israel's God and Rebecca's Children by April D. DeConick

It appears that one of the first Christian titles attached to Jesus was "Holy and Righteous One" (Acts 3:14; 7:52), a title which also is given to his brother James ("the Just"), the person who emerges as the leader of the Jerusalem Christians following Jesus' death.

© Copyright Original Source

Source: The Jewish World Around the New Testament by Richard Bauckham

From this point of view it is of great significance that the early Jerusalem church, under James's leadership, already saw itself as the temple of the messianic age. This made possible what happened at the Jerusalem conference recounted in Acts 15, when those members of the Jerusalem church who opposed the inclusion of Gentiles as Gentiles were marginalized and the Pauline mission approved, with the qualifications stated in the so-called Apostolic Decree (Acts 15:29-29).

© Copyright Original Source

Source: A marginal Jew John P. Meier

...James who was "the brother of the Lord [Jesus]" (Gal 1:19) and the later leader of the Jerusalem church (Gal 2:9; Acts 12:17; 15:13; 21:18).

© Copyright Original Source

Source: Just James: The Brother of the Jesus in History and Tradition by John Painter

The situation in Antioch provided the first test of the accord for representatives from Jerusalem, and it was James who gave the definitive Jerusalem position, and Peter bowed to his leadership. James intervened through anonymous delegates (2:12) who are sometimes identified with the messengers of Acts 15:22-35. To do this it must be assumed that James sent them independently subsequent to the assembly. In that case they represented his viewed rather than the agreed and known position of the assembly. Their message did not concern minimal requirements for Gentiles but demanded fundamental separation of the two missions in the withdrawal of Jewish believer from table fellowship with Gentile believers.

It is rather dramatic to say that Peter withdrew, "fearing those of the circumcision party." A precise translation is "fearing the circumcision," and it has been argued that unbelieving Jews in Antioch were the source of Peter's fears. Peter feared the reaction of the Jews to the failure to keep the Jewish food and purity laws. But why should this fear emerge only after the appearance of the messengers from James? Fear of the circumcision party is implied by comparison with the use of the term in 2:1-10, in which James is portrayed as the party's leading representative. Given the status and standing of Peter, some great authority must have been behind the circumcision party and been the source of his fear. This can only be James.

© Copyright Original Source

Source: Beginning from Jerusalem by James D.G. Dunn

James who, as we shall see, comes to be regarded, with some justification, as the arch-conservative within the earliest Christian movement, seems fully to have recognized and agreed with the gospel for the uncircumcised. That is, he acknowledged and accepted that in extending his grace/Spirit to uncircumcised Gentiles who believed in Messiah Jesus, God was truly at work, and in a precedent-creating way. Whatever happened thereafter, that was a momentous decision which James took, acknowledged leader of the Jerusalem church, the mother church, as he already was. Even if Paul describes the episode in a way most favourable to himself and the Gentile mission, the key fact is that James gave his right hand in formal agreement with that mission. Whatever happened thereafter should not be allowed to cloud or to detract from that crucial agreement. For it was that agreement which made it possible for the expanding movement to hold together, even to the degree that it did. It was that agreement which prevented the mission pioneered by Paul from splintering away to become one of the many movements which flare and flourish for a few generations and then fade away. And it was the participation of james in the agreement which ensured that it would have such an outcome. James, in other words, became in this agreement one of the architects and foundations of a Christianity which embraced Jew and Gentile without discrimination.

© Copyright Original Source

(Dunn actually devotes an entire section to James's leadership in Beginning from Jerusalem).

This is just a small sample, but I hope you get the point.

[OingoBoingo]

You're going to have to quote a specific historian and his or her views if you want that kind of detail. But, in general, I would not assume absolutes, either about historical realities 2,000 years ago, or about the views of historians opinions now.

By the way, I found this to be a peculiar reply. I never brought up absolutes, so I'm not really sure where that's coming from, and I find it strange that in your reply right before this you changed my "the leader" to "a leader". I can't help but think that that was deliberate on your part. As knowledgable as you are (am I mistaken in believing that you are or were a NT historian?), I find it unbelievable that you're unfamiliar with scholars referring to James as the leader of the early Christian movement. I realize that as a Roman Catholic you may feel some need to defend a traditional view of Peter as the first leader of the Christian movement, but you're usually less partisan in your historical views on this forum. That's not to say that your view is necessarily wrong, but, again, it seems you're doing a lot of dodging in your replies to me. Maybe its just my imagination though.

I'm anticipating that, based on the citations I've offered, your main point of contention will be James's leadership over the Jerusalem church vs. the Christian movement at large (you've already suggested this to a degree). I'm hoping that the few citations I've scrounged up though will make it clear that Jerusalem was the center the early Christian movement. I'm hoping you'll pay attention to deSilva's remarks that James was the leader/Overseer of the "Jerusalem church and, by extension, the overall Christian mission until the westward shift of the movement's center of gravity", to Bauckham's remarks that the "Jerusalem church, under James's leadership, already saw itself as the temple of the messianic age", to Painter's remarks that Peter bowed to James's leadership, and to Dunn's remarks that James was "the acknowledged leader of the Jerusalem church, the mother church".

Again, if you're simply in disagreement with these scholars about James's preeminence, that's perfectly fine. If there's more to your view than a simple agree/disagree, that's fine too. I just want to make sure that I'm not crazy for assuming that there are historians out there (a lot of them, in fact) that think of James as the leader of the early Christian movement after Jesus' death.

[robrecht]

Source: A marginal Jew John P. Meier

...James who was "the brother of the Lord [Jesus]" (Gal 1:19) and the later leader of the Jerusalem church (Gal 2:9; Acts 12:17; 15:13; 21:18).

© Copyright Original Source

It would be better for you to start with one historian at a time and learn (or outline for me) their methodology and presuppositions, caveats and engagement with other historians, in order to see if we disagree, and if so, where and how. So let's start with Meier. Note in your quote (IV, 203), he does not say when James became the leader of the Jerusalem church. Was it after Peter left? Did his leadership extend over all other churches, including those founded by Peter or Paul or where they were in attendance? The earliest and only direct witness cited here is Galatians 2,9, where Paul mentions three acknowledged pillars: James, Cephas, and John. Because James is mentioned first, does that he mean that he was the leader, while Cephas and John were not? They are all to go to the circumscribed, while Paul and Barnabas were to go to the Gentiles. Later on, Cephas would come to Antioch, and at first eat with the Gentiles. When he was perceived by Paul as hypocritically caving in to men who came from James, Paul stood up to him. Was Peter just being polite to these Jewish Christians or perhaps Jewish non-Christians and recognizing their kosher practices? Was he subservient to James' authortiy? Even if the latter, and that is a rather big if, Paul was certainly not. He stood up for what he thought was right in this church. Paul certainly did not see James' authority as extending to other churches.

In some places, I am willing to consider a more prominent role of James than Meier. For example, Meier is increasingly certain that James and Joses, the sons of Mary, witnesses of the crucifixion are not the same brothes of Jesus mentioned in Mk 6 (I 355 n 21, III 254 n 9). Tabor, on the other hand, would like to see this as members of Jesus' royal family being faithful to Jesus even when the other disciples were not, even as the Beloved Disciple at the foot of the cross in John's gospel, and as the author of the letter of James. Some even see James the son of Alphaeus or James the son of Zebedee as a literary fiction meant to cover the importance of James, the bother of Jesus, as one of the first and most important early disciples and apostles of Jesus all along. I don't think the gospel of Mark (or John) can be used to support such detailed reconstructions of the identities and activities of Jesus' followers during his earthly ministry. Accordingly, James could have had even more authority among the other disciples and apostles in Jerusalem.

The quote you give from Meier is not from a historical treatment of the role of James in the early church. It is merely a tangential remark in a discussion of the author of the letter of James in a four volume work reconstructing his probable portrait of the historical Jesus. From a methodological point of view, I belong to a more rigorous school of historical thought that does not recognize some foundations of Meier's method, eg, use of some sources as independent attestation, 'though I do recognize him as a very accomplished scholar, obviously. If you want to get a sense of his view of the evolution of early church leadership, you would be better served by reading his (and Raymond Brown's) Antioh and Rome. Note p 2: "Founded before AD 40, the church at Antioch quickly becam the battleground of the most important apostles known to us: Paul, Peter, and James. At the beginning of the second century, Antioch is the first church known to have articulated a rationale for authoritative church structure centered on a single bishop surrounded by a group of presbyters and deacons (the so-called “monarchical” episcopate, or more accurately monepiscopate).” It is debated among scholars who won the confrontation between Paul and Peter in Antioch. Meier and Brown are decisively in the Petrine camp (p 14): “… Paul went on to imprint his vision of Christianity on Asia Minor, while James stayed in Jerusalem. But Peter, having won out over Paul at Antioch, may have remained the dominant figure there for some time. This may be the historical basis of the later, anachronistic tradition that Peter was the first bishop of Antioch. It is hardly surprising, therefore, that such an authority on Antioch as Downy things that Matt 16:18 represents the tradition of Antioch concerning the foundation of the church there.” With respect to the some of the motivating factors in Luke’s account in Acts (p 26): “With regard to methodological questions, almost all exegetes would agree that Paul’s presentation in Galatians 2, while not free of a polemical bias, must be our primary source. Luke is interested in presenting a basically harmonious situation, with Antioch submitting readily to Jerusalem, with Jerusalem defending the mission to the Gentiles without circumcision, and with James as the chief and climactic spokesman for the circumcision-free mission.”

So, I do not see exactly where Meier and I supposedly disagree on any substance. I am a little more willing to keep some historical judgments open, eg, I am not so sure Peter won the debate at Antioch, certainly not from a long-term perspective. I do not disagree that James was a leader in the Jerusalem church, the most prominent leader at times, but I would not assume a monepiscopate in Jerusalem at this time, and I would not exaggerate his authority over other churches, certainly not over Paul’s churches, ‘though Paul feels some need to submit to other apostles, namely James, Cephas and John.

I’ll take a look at the other people you mention as time permits, but hopefully you will have a sense of some of the methodological assumptions at play here.

[robrecht]

By the way, I found this to be a peculiar reply. I never brought up absolutes, so I'm not really sure where that's coming from, and I find it strange that in your reply right before this you changed my "the leader" to "a leader". I can't help but think that that was deliberate on your part.

The difference between James being a leader of the church in Jerusalem and the leader of the whole Christian movement is the absolute that I am speaking of here.

As knowledgable as you are (am I mistaken in believing that you are or were a NT historian?), I find it unbelievable that you're unfamiliar with scholars referring to James as the leader of the early Christian movement. I realize that as a Roman Catholic you may feel some need to defend a traditional view of Peter as the first leader of the Christian movement, but you're usually less partisan in your historical views on this forum. That's not to say that your view is necessarily wrong, but, again, it seems you're doing a lot of dodging in your replies to me. Maybe its just my imagination though.

I do think you are making a few assumptions here. I am, of course, familiar with the view of James as the leader of the early Christian movement, but I think you are oversimplifying the views of some, eg, Meier. My Roman Catholic upbringing has nothing to do with this, as should be apparent from my responses here and elsewhere. And I am not dodging anything. Your questions just do not always admit of simple 'yes' or 'no' answers.

I'm anticipating that, based on the citations I've offered, your main point of contention will be James's leadership over the Jerusalem church vs. the Christian movement at large (you've already suggested this to a degree). I'm hoping that the few citations I've scrounged up though will make it clear that Jerusalem was the center the early Christian movement. I'm hoping you'll pay attention to deSilva's remarks that James was the leader/Overseer of the "Jerusalem church and, by extension, the overall Christian mission until the westward shift of the movement's center of gravity", to Bauckham's remarks that the "Jerusalem church, under James's leadership, already saw itself as the temple of the messianic age", to Painter's remarks that Peter bowed to James's leadership, and to Dunn's remarks that James was "the acknowledged leader of the Jerusalem church, the mother church".

I will look at their views as time permits, but I not currently have any of their books. So, unless you do, it may not be as easy to identify their methodology, presuppositions, and more detailed treatment of the subject matter (if it exists).

Again, if you're simply in disagreement with these scholars about James's preeminence, that's perfectly fine. If there's more to your view than a simple agree/disagree, that's fine too. I just want to make sure that I'm not crazy for assuming that there are historians out there (a lot of them, in fact) that think of James as the leader of the early Christian movement after Jesus' death.

I think you will find that most historians are likely to agree with my methdological concerns, and admit to the necessary caveats, especially if you look at scholarly treatments rather than popularist works written for a general audience.

[robrecht]

Source: Israel's God and Rebecca's Children by April D. DeConick

It appears that one of the first Christian titles attached to Jesus was "Holy and Righteous One" (Acts 3:14; 7:52), a title which also is given to his brother James ("the Just"), the person who emerges as the leader of the Jerusalem Christians following Jesus' death.

© Copyright Original Source

I don't disagree with this. It says nothing about when James became the leader of the Jerusalem Christians, the nature of his leadership in Jerusalem or elsewhere, or of his relationship with other leaders. It does not appear to be a historical study of the role of James in the church, but she does take the unconventional position that the letter of James was written in Jerusalem before 60 CE and thus presumably by James himself (10). Most historians would not agree with this.

http://books.google.com/books?id=4QIwvdHdrUkC

[robrecht]

I'm hoping you'll pay attention ... to Bauckham's remarks that the "Jerusalem church, under James's leadership, already saw itself as the temple of the messianic age" ...

You may be taking Bauckham's remarks out of context. He is speculating that Paul's (and later deutero-Pauline) language about Christians being the temple probably originated in Jerusalem. That may well be, but he leaves out 1 Cor 3,16-17 and 1 Cor 6,19, which increases the liklihood that Paul himself, being a good Jew well versed in scripture, might also be originally responsible for this analogy. At any rate, Paul applies this language to his own communities and it should not be understood by as the Jerusalem church seeing itself as the universal messianic temple under James leadership. We've already seen that Paul did not likely have this view of James' role in his churches, even if the imagery was not his own creation.

Here's the rest of your quote of Bauckham (190):

"From this point of view it is of great significance that the early Jerusalem church, under James's leadership, already saw itself as the temple of the messianic age. This made possible what happened at the Jerusalem conference recounted in Acts 15, when those members of the Jerusalem church who opposed the inclusion of Gentiles as Gentiles were marginalized and the Pauline mission approved, with the qualifications stated in the so-called Apostolic Decree (Acts 15:29-29)."

http://books.google.com/books?id=zKUwQzUITCwC

I do not know Bauckham's view of Luke's redactional point of view, but he here is refering to the account in Acts rather uncritically, presumably because this is not the primary topic of his essay.

Are we absolutely sure that James himself did not oppose the inclusion of Gentiles as Gentiles? Many think that James, and his emissaries, were the party of the circumcision that Paul is battling, requiring Gentile Christians to be circumcised, thus becoming full members of the traditional Israel. We're not sure of that, but he did seem to have a more strict reading of the requirements of the law for Jewish Christians than Paul and Peter (at least at times). Are we to totally believe Luke's irenic account? Note that he conveniently leaves out the role of James and Cephas in the problems at Antioch that prompted the so-called Council of Jerusalem. But even Luke acknowledges some dissension within the Jerusalem community on this point. Recall Meier and Brown's consideration of Luke's redactional concerns. I suspect that Bauckham might certainly agree if this were the topic of his discussion. More importantly, note that Bauckham does not even mention the differing account of the results of the Council of Jerusalem as recounted by Paul in Galatians. If this were a scholarly treatment of the role of leadership in the earliest church, Bauckham would have certainy discussed this. Instead he is merely discussing the Jewish background of early Christianity, about which I surely agree. He is well known for his defense of the gospels (and Acts?) as derived from eye-witness accounts and this is problematic for most historians.

[OingoBoingo]

It would be better for you to start with one historian at a time and learn (or outline for me) their methodology and presuppositions, caveats and engagement with other historians, in order to see if we disagree, and if so, where and how.

I'm not interested in each and every scholar's methodologies, presuppositions, caveats, etc. I already know those things exist. I'm interested in a simple answer to the simple question, "Is it a fact that a large number of historians view James as the leader of the church after the death of Jesus? Yes or no? Do you agree or disagree with these scholars?" Its super basic stuff. I'm not really sure why you're making this as complicated as you are. Maybe as a Catholic you have some ulterior motive for doing so, maybe you like showing off how much you know, maybe you just enjoy discussing minutia, maybe you're afraid that without going into elaborate detail people will misinterpret your view. I don't know. I'm betting its a combo of the last two.

So let's start with Meier. Note in your quote (IV, 203), he does not say when James became the leader of the Jerusalem church.

You're right, he doesn't say when. What he does says is that he was the leader of the Jerusalem church. It was for that reason, and that reason only that I found it appropriate to quote Meier. In post #22, #27, and #29 I could not get you to commit to the wording "the leader". Instead you stuck with the phrase "a leader". Maybe you had in mind that James was "the leader" of the Jerusalem church in those posts, but stopped from saying "the leader", because you didn't believe his influence and authority was felt outside of Jerusalem. Again, I don't know.

The earliest and only direct witness cited here is Galatians 2,9, where Paul mentions three acknowledged pillars: James, Cephas, and John. Because James is mentioned first, does that he mean that he was the leader, while Cephas and John were not?

Well, as you saw, deSilva thinks its a possibility.

Was he subservient to James' authortiy?

As you saw, Painter thinks so.

Paul certainly did not see James' authority as extending to other churches.

Strange then that he made a big show about going to Jerusalem to get his Gospel message approved, and then went out and collected money to bring back to Jerusalem in hopes (one would assume) to curry favor.

The quote you give from Meier is not from a historical treatment of the role of James in the early church.

I never intended to provide specific quotes from historical treatments on James's role. I only intended to point out that many scholars call James the leader of the early Christian movement following Christ's death. If you think Meier only goes as far as to say that James was the leader of the Jerusalem church only, with little or no influence within the Christian movement outside of the Jerusalem church, then fine.

So, I do not see exactly where Meier and I supposedly disagree on any substance.

I do not disagree that James was a leader in the Jerusalem church, the most prominent leader at times, but I would not assume a monepiscopate in Jerusalem at this time, and I would not exaggerate his authority over other churches, certainly not over Paul’s churches, ‘though Paul feels some need to submit to other apostles, namely James, Cephas and John.

Good. Then maybe we're moving slowly in the right direction. I've gotten you from "James was a leader in the early church" to "James was the leader of the Jerusalem church" (well sort of, you kind of flipped flopped a bit in the first part of that second quote).

I am, of course, familiar with the view of James as the leader of the early Christian movement

Wow! Why didn't you say so from the start instead of having me chase down citations like I was a crazy man for making the claim?

but I think you are oversimplifying the views of some, eg, Meier.

Sure I'm simplifying. I had a simple question, and all I wanted was a simple answer. I think you're overcomplicating.

My Roman Catholic upbringing has nothing to do with this, as should be apparent from my responses here and elsewhere. And I am not dodging anything. Your questions just do not always admit of simple 'yes' or 'no' answers.

Sure they do.

I don't disagree with this. It says nothing about when James became the leader of the Jerusalem Christians, the nature of his leadership in Jerusalem or elsewhere, or of his relationship with other leaders. It does not appear to be a historical study of the role of James in the church, but she does take the unconventional position that the letter of James was written in Jerusalem before 60 CE and thus presumably by James himself (10). Most historians would not agree with this.

http://books.google.com/books?id=4QIwvdHdrUkC

Yep, I know its not a historical study on the role of James in the church, and I know it says nothing about when James became the leader of the Jerusalem Christians. I cited DeCormick for the same reason I cited the other scholars; She had no problem saying that James emerged as the leader.

You may be taking Bauckham's remarks out of context. He is speculating that Paul's (and later deutero-Pauline) language about Christians being the temple probably originated in Jerusalem. That may well be, but he leaves out 1 Cor 3,16-17 and 1 Cor 6,19, which increases the liklihood that Paul himself, being a good Jew well versed in scripture, might also be originally responsible for this analogy. At any rate, Paul applies this language to his own communities and it should not be understood by as the Jerusalem church seeing itself as the universal messianic temple under James leadership. We've already seen that Paul did not likely have this view of James' role in his churches, even if the imagery was not his own creation.

I don't see how your rebuttal clarifies how i've taken Bauckham out of context. Bauckham says that the Jerusalem church saw itself in a prominent role (the temple of the messianic age), and that James was the leader. Its a fairly straightforward comment.

Here's the rest of your quote of Bauckham (190):

"From this point of view it is of great significance that the early Jerusalem church, under James's leadership, already saw itself as the temple of the messianic age. This made possible what happened at the Jerusalem conference recounted in Acts 15, when those members of the Jerusalem church who opposed the inclusion of Gentiles as Gentiles were marginalized and the Pauline mission approved, with the qualifications stated in the so-called Apostolic Decree (Acts 15:29-29)."

Yes, I know. I provided the entirety of that quote in post #33.

I do not know Bauckham's view of Luke's redactional point of view, but he here is refering to the account in Acts rather uncritically, presumably because this is not the primary topic of his essay.

Are we absolutely sure that James himself did not oppose the inclusion of Gentiles as Gentiles? Many think that James, and his emissaries, were the party of the circumcision that Paul is battling, requiring Gentile Christians to be circumcised, thus becoming full members of the traditional Israel. We're not sure of that, but he did seem to have a more strict reading of the requirements of the law for Jewish Christians than Paul and Peter (at least at times). Are we to totally believe Luke's irenic account? Note that he conveniently leaves out the role of James and Cephas in the problems at Antioch that prompted the so-called Council of Jerusalem. But even Luke acknowledges some dissension within the Jerusalem community on this point. Recall Meier and Brown's consideration of Luke's redactional concerns. I suspect that Bauckham might certainly agree if this were the topic of his discussion. More importantly, note that Bauckham does not even mention the differing account of the results of the Council of Jerusalem as recounted by Paul in Galatians. If this were a scholarly treatment of the role of leadership in the earliest church, Bauckham would have certainy discussed this. Instead he is merely discussing the Jewish background of early Christianity, about which I surely agree. He is well known for his defense of the gospels (and Acts?) as derived from eye-witness accounts and this is problematic for most historians.

None of this is pertinent to my question "Is it a fact that a large number of historians view James as the leader of the church after the death of Jesus? Yes or no? Do you agree or disagree with these scholars?" You finally answered the first part of the question in post #36. The second part appears to be that no, you do not necessarily agree with scholars who make that sort of blanket statement, because of uncertainty about when James came to prominence within the church, and because of doubts about James's influence outside of Jerusalem. Had you stated that opinion back in post #22, or post #27, or even post #29 it would have save a lot of time. I kind of feel like I got nothing out of this exchange other than a run around.

[robrecht]

I'm not interested in each and every scholar's methodologies, presuppositions, caveats, etc. I already know those things exist. I'm interested in a simple answer to the simple question, "Is it a fact that a large number of historians view James as the leader of the church after the death of Jesus? Yes or no? Do you agree or disagree with these scholars?" Its super basic stuff. I'm really not sure why you're making this as complicated as you are. Maybe as a Catholic you have some ulterior motive for doing so, maybe you like showing off how much you know, maybe you just enjoy discussing minutia, maybe you're afraid that without going into elaborate detail people will misunderstand your view. I don't know. I'm betting its a combo of the last two...

You're right, he doesn't say when. What he does says is that he was the leader of the Jerusalem church. It was for that reason, and that reason only that I found it appropriate to quote Meier. In post #22, #27, and #29 I could not get you to commit to the wording "the leader". Instead you stuck with the phrase "a leader". Maybe you had in mind that James was "the leader" of the Jerusalem church in those posts, but stopped from saying "the leader", because you didn't believe his influence and authority was felt outside of Jerusalem. Again, I don't know.

Well, as you saw, deSilva thinks its a possibility.

As you saw, Painter thinks so.

Strange then that he made a big show about going to Jerusalem to get his Gospel message approved, and then went out and collected money to bring back to Jerusalem in hopes (one would assume) to curry favor.

I never intended to provide specific quotes from historical treatments on James's role. I only intended to point out that many scholars call James the leader of the early Christian movement following Christ's death. If you think Meier only goes as far as to say that James was the leader of the Jerusalem church only, with little or no influence within the Christian movement outside of the Jerusalem church, then fine.

Good. Then maybe we're moving slowly in the right direction. I've gotten you from "James was a leader in the early church" to "James was the leader of the Jerusalem church" (well sort of, you kind of flipped flopped a bit in the first part of that second quote).

Wow! Why didn't you say so from the start instead of having me chase down citations like I was a crazy man for making the claim?

Sure I'm simplifying. I had a simple question, and all I wanted was a simple answer. I think you're overcomplicating.

Sure they do.

Yep, I know its not a historical study on the role of James in the church, and I know it says nothing about when James became the leader of the Jerusalem Christians. I cited DeCormick for the same reason I cited the other scholars; She had no problem saying that James emerged as the leader.

I don't see how your rebuttal clarifies how i've taken Bauckham out of context. Bauckham says that the Jerusalem church saw itself in a prominent role (the temple of the messianic age), and that James was the leader. Its a fairly straightforward comment.

Yes, I know. I provided the entirety of that quote in post #33.

None of this is pertinent to my question "Is it a fact that a large number of historians view James as the leader of the church after the death of Jesus? Yes or no? Do you agree or disagree with these scholars?" You finally answered the first part of the question in post #36. The second part appears to be that no, you don't agree with these scholars because of uncertainty about James's prominence within the church, as because of doubts about James's influence outside of Jerusalem. Had you stated that opinion back in post #22, or post #27, or even post #29 it would have save a lot of time. I kind of feel like I got nothing out of this exchange other than a run around.

I'm sorry you're so disappointed. I feel like you have been very rude and unnecessarily confrontational, questioning my motivations and demanding simple answers. In the meantime I have worked hard to give you the best answers I can to what you feel is a very simple question. I refuse to give a simple answer to what is, in fact, a very complicated issue. If all you want is soundbytes from very general or introductory treatments or peripheral comments, you have them. The issue of James' authority and influence outside of the Jerusalem church is just about as complicated a question in Christian origins as there is. Sorry about that, but that is just the way it is. I have not yet read your quotes from DeSilva, Painter, and Dunn yet, but I did track down the source for DeSilva.

[OingoBoingo]

I'm sorry you're so disappointed. I feel like you have been very rude and unnecessarily confrontational, questioning my motivations and demanding simple answers.

Yes, I've been rude and I apologize for that, but I find it irritating to see you go into, what appears to me, long-winded and extraneous detail. You tend to nitpick my posts apart (here and elsewhere) to the point that I can't even see how we're on topic anymore. I prefer to cut through the bull and get at the heart of a discussion. I can only assume that you're used to talking with other academics and students about these issues in detail, rather than amateurs and armchair historians on a nonprofessional discussion forum.

In the meantime I have worked hard to give you the best answers I can to what you feel is a very simple question. I refuse to give a simple answer to what is, in fact, a very complicated issue. If all you want is soundbytes from very general or introductory treatments or peripheral comments, you have them. The issue of James' authority and influence outside of the Jerusalem church is just about as complicated a question in Christian origins as there is. Sorry about that, but that is just the way it is. I have not yet read your quotes from DeSilva, Painter, and Dunn yet, but I did track down the source for DeSilva.

Yes. I wanted something much closer to a soundbyte than the multi-paragraph answers you provided that provided me with no more answer than I had before you replied. My questions were simple and straightforward, and I figured you could tell from how simple and straightforward they were that I wanted a simple and straightforward answer. I've read plenty of scholars that are able to give good simple answers to complicated questions, so I know that this is not an impossible task, and I honestly don't think the question "Is it a fact that a large number of historians view James as the leader of the church after the death of Jesus?" is nearly as complicated as you're making it out to be. You don't need to finish reading the rest of the quotes I've provided. I suspect your post #36 is about as close as I'm going to get to the sort of answer I was expecting.

[robrecht]

Yes, I've been rude and I apologize for that, but I find it irritating to see you go into, what appears to me, long-winded and extraneous detail. You tend to nitpick my posts apart (here and elsewhere) to the point that I can't even see how we're on topic anymore. I prefer to cut through the bull and get at the heart of a discussion. I can only assume that you're used to talking with other academics and students about these issues in detail, rather than amateurs and armchair historians on a nonprofessional discussion forum.

Yes. I wanted something much closer to a soundbyte than the multi-paragraph answers you provided that provided me with no more answer than I had before you replied. My questions were simple and straightforward, and I figured you could tell from how simple and straightforward they were that I wanted a simple and straightforward answer. I've read plenty of scholars that are able to give good simple answers to complicated questions, so I know that this is not an impossible task, and I honestly don't think the question "Is it a fact that a large number of historians view James as the leader of the church after the death of Jesus?" is nearly as complicated as you're making it out to be. You don't need to finish reading the rest of the quotes I've provided. I suspect your post #36 is about as close as I'm going to get to the sort of answer I was expecting.

What was wrong with my initial simple response I gave you in #22 to your three initial far reaching questions? If all you wanted was a simple response, that should have sufficed nicely, I think. But then you wanted to understand better, and then you seemed to want to challenge my simple answers, and question my motives, etc. I think you should take some responsibility for your disappointment in my good faith and generous efforts to respond to your questions. But, if not, I once again apologize for disappointing you.

[OingoBoingo]

What was wrong with my initial simple response I gave you in #22 to your three initial far reaching questions? If all you wanted was a simple response, that should have sufficed nicely, I think. But then you wanted to understand better, and then you seemed to want to challenge my simple answers, and question my motives, etc. I think you should take some responsibility for your disappointment in my good faith and generous efforts to respond to your questions. But, if not, I once again apologize for disappointing you.

Nope. Your post #22 was filled with a number of non-answers, and what I saw as side commentary. I asked if you knew if it was the consensus view among scholars that Peter was the first among equals. You gave me the vague reply that "first among equals is an ecclesiological formula, not an historical opinion", and then later admitted that you couldn't even define primacy of honor and first among equals because it meant different things to different people. When I mentioned that I recalled reading somewhere that it wasn't uncommon for relations to head the movement of a popular Rabbi, you pointed out that Tabor had a minority theory about royal bloodlines. I didn't have this theory in mind at all, but since I can't remember where I read about the relative theory I had in mind, I dropped that point. When I commented that the scholars I've read lean towards the idea that James was the leader of the early church after Jesus, you commented on it sideways by saying that he was "a" leader of the church, that some communities outside of Jerusalem saw him as "the" leader, but that there wasn't a single leader of the whole movement. I didn't know if you meant that comment as a rebuttal to me personally, if you disagreed with the scholars I've read, or if you didn't believe that I had read scholars who said this. That's why I asked for clarification in posts #23, #26, #28, #30 and so on, but you wouldn't give me a straight answer. You just kept talking around the point, and made a number of side points that I was already familiar with, but I didn't see the pertinence to.

I have to say I'm finding it very odd that I have to summarize our entire discussion as though the source of my frustration about our exchange were not obvious. We just did this dance. Maybe you're right though. Maybe its me. I have to say, I find talking to you unnecessarily complicated. Maybe we're just incompatible discussion partners.

[robrecht]

Nope. Your post #22 was filled with a number of non-answers, and what I saw as side commentary. I asked if you knew if it was the consensus view among scholars that Peter was the first among equals. You gave me the vague reply that "first among equals is an ecclesiological formula, not an historical opinion", and then later admitted that you couldn't even define primacy of honor and first among equals because it meant different things to different people. When I mentioned that I recalled reading somewhere that it wasn't uncommon for relations to head the movement of a popular Rabbi, you pointed out that Tabor had a minority theory about royal bloodlines. I didn't have this theory in mind at all, but since I can't remember where I read about the relative theory I had in mind, I dropped that point. When I commented that the scholars I've read lean towards the idea that James was the leader of the early church after Jesus, you commented on it sideways by saying that he was "a" leader of the church, that some communities outside of Jerusalem saw him as "the" leader, but that there wasn't a single leader of the whole movement. I didn't know if you meant that comment as a rebuttal to me personally, if you disagreed with the scholars I've read, or if you didn't believe that I had read scholars who said this. That's why I asked for clarification in posts #23, #26, #28, #30 and so on, but you wouldn't give me a straight answer. You just kept talking around the point, and made a number of side points that I was already familiar with, but I didn't see the pertinence to.

I have to say I'm finding it very odd that I have to summarize our entire discussion as though the source of my frustration about our exchange were not obvious. We just did this dance. Maybe you're right though. Maybe its me. I have to say, I find talking to you unnecessarily complicated. Maybe we're just incompatible discussion partners.

Maybe you should just stop asking me questions. Ecclesiology means it is not even in the same ballpark as a consensus of historical scholars. The answer about James was essentially the same answer that you ended up with at the end, only ever so slightly more nuanced than the simple answer you wanted. And my answer about rabbinic relations was direct--no it was not true. I only added Tabor because it seemed like the closest theory I could think of to what you were asking about that did have some scholarly support. You do not need to summarize our conversation.

[OingoBoingo]

Maybe you should just stop asking me questions.

Yes, I think that would probably be for the best.