50 AD: Peter vs. Paul, Claudius' Expulsion of Jews, Jerusalem Council

[Bismarck]

According to J. J. Bütz, The Brother of Jesus, Paul must have written his Epistle to the Galatians before the Jerusalem Council of c. 50 AD. This is because Paul makes no mention of the Jerusalem Decree, sent out by James haTzaddik ("the Righteous" or "Just") and the Jerusalem Elders from that Council, acknowledging that gentiles did not need to be circumcized to become Christians (Acts 15). In that Decree, James haTzaddik explicitly disowns the "circumcision party" that plagued the Galatian congregation and prompted Paul's letter (v. 24). Indeed, after that Decree was issued, Paul would have had no need to write the letter in the first place.

Thus, the letter must have been written before c. 50 AD. Yet, it must have been written after Paul's First Missionary Journey (46-48 AD), when Paul first made inroads into Galatia. This means the letter was written from Antioch c. 49 AD when Paul "remained no little time with the disciples" (Acts 14:28).

Therefore, Galatians is Paul's earliest extant writing.



Scriptural Evidence:

(1) DISSENTION & CIRCUMCISION PARTY — Acts 15:1-2 = Galatians 2:11-14[/b]

But some men came down from Judea and were teaching the brothers, "Unless you are circumcised according to the custom of Moses, you cannot be saved." And after Paul and Barnabas had no small dissension and debate with them, Paul and Barnabas and some of the others were appointed to go up to Jerusalem to the apostles and the elders about this question.
Acts 15:1-2

But when Cephas came to Antioch, I opposed him to his face, because he stood condemned. For before certain men came from James, he was eating with the Gentiles; but when they came he drew back and separated himself, fearing the circumcision party. And the rest of the Jews acted hypocritically along with him, so that even Barnabas was led astray by their hypocrisy. But when I saw that their conduct was not in step with the truth of the gospel, I said to Cephas before them all, "If you, though a Jew, live like a Gentile and not like a Jew, how can you force the Gentiles to live like Jews?"
Galatians 2:11-14​

FURTHER IMPLICATIONS:

(1) Paul visited the Jerusalem Church after every Missionary Journey: 1st (Gal 2:1), 2nd (Acts 18:22), 3rd (Acts 21)


(2) The bitter acrimony between Paul and the Pillars of the Church (James & Peter) was quickly resolved — James said, "our beloved Barnabas and Paul" (Acts 15:25 — 50 AD); cf. Peter "our beloved brother Paul" (2 Peter 3:15 — 67 AD).


(3) Thus, Paul did not reject, but instead fully accepted, the authority of James, Peter, and the Jerusalem Church. In turn, the Jerusalem Church fully recognized Paul's ministry.


(4) Early Christianity was "bi-cameral" — Jewish Believers in Yeshua as Messiah were strictly Torah observant (including Paul), while Gentile Christians were only required to follow the Noahide Commandments of the Jerusalem Decree. Indeed, James haTzaddik explicitly states this fact (Acts 21:25).


(5) Paul's return to Jerusalem in 48 AD after his First Missionary Journey (46-48 AD) happened "fourteen years" after his conversion experience (Gal 2:1). Thus, Paul met the risen Jesus on the road to Damascus in 34 AD. Further, Paul lived in Damascus for the next "three years", from 34-37 AD (Gal 1:18).

Paul then fled from the city due to the persecution of the governor of King Aretas (2 Cor 11:32) prompted by the petitions of (influential) Jews to the same (Acts 9:23). This must have been in 37 AD — consistent with the fact that Aretas only had authority over Damascus from 37-40 AD under Emperor Caligula, after the death of Tiberius (Mar. 37 AD), and before Aretas' own death (40 AD).



FURTHER EVIDENCE for this CHRONOLOGY:

49 AD

(i) Peter and Paul argue in Antioch (Acts 15; Gal 2)

(ii) Emperor Claudius expells the Jews from Rome because of unrest evoked by Christians: "Since the Jews constantly made disturbances at the instigation of Chrestus, he [Emperor Claudius] expelled them from Rome" (Suetonius, Life of Claudius, 25:4; Acts 18:2)


CONCLUSION:

The expansion of the Messianic Mission to include Goyim, begun by Paul on his First Missionary Journey (46-48 AD), was an explosive "hot button" issue*.

It immediately sparked a fire-storm of controversy throughout World Jewry, from Judah to Antioch to Rome.

The harsh words between Peter and Paul in Antioch were but a muted echo of the "flame-fest" that erupted elsewhere, particularly in Rome.

* In Acts 22, Paul address the Jews in the Temple. The Jews listen patiently to him for several minutes, until he says:

Acts 22:21-22
"And he [the Messiah] said to me, 'Go! For I will send you far away to the Gentiles.'" They listened to him up to this statement, and then they raised their voices and said, "Away with such a fellow from the earth, for he should not be allowed to live!"​

NOTE: Could it be that James haTzaddik wrote the Epistle of James at this time?

James 1:19,26
Know this, my beloved brethren, but everyone must be quick to hear, slow to speak and slow to anger... If anyone thinks himself to be religious, and yet does not bridle his tongue but deceives his own heart, this man's religion is worthless.​

Not only does this seem to reflect tensions like those between Peter and Paul, and Jews and Christians in Rome, but James also emphasizes "works of the Law" and "doing the Law" (James 1). This seems to address these very issues, brought to the fore by Paul's mission to the Goyim.

 

[David Lamb]

According to J. J. Bütz, The Brother of Jesus, Paul must have written his Epistle to the Galatians before the Jerusalem Council of c. 50 AD. This is because Paul makes no mention of the Jerusalem Decree, sent out by James haTzaddik ("the Righteous" or "Just") and the Jerusalem Elders from that Council, acknowledging that gentiles did not need to be circumcized to become Christians (Acts 15). In that Decree, James haTzaddik explicitly disowns the "circumcision party" that plagued the Galatian congregation and prompted Paul's letter (v. 24). Indeed, after that Decree was issued, Paul would have had no need to write the letter in the first place.

I had never heard ther name "James haTzaddik", so I looked it up on Google. The first of the four "hits" was a message from you, word-for-word the same as the one I am replying to, on a forum called "Jerusalem Perspective Online". (I'm not saying there is necessarily anything wrong with doing that). The other three hits were all items you had written. Which led me to wonder - did you coin this strange-sounding name for James? I'm not criticising, just wondering what your reason was. Is it based on Scripture?

 

[Bismarck]

I had never heard ther name "James haTzaddik", so I looked it up on Google. The first of the four "hits" was a message from you, word-for-word the same as the one I am replying to, on a forum called "Jerusalem Perspective Online". (I'm not saying there is necessarily anything wrong with doing that). The other three hits were all items you had written. Which led me to wonder - did you coin this strange-sounding name for James? I'm not criticising, just wondering what your reason was. Is it based on Scripture?

Tzaddik, Zadok, etc, is the Hebrew word for "Righteous". David Bivin uses it in his books about Light on the Difficult Words of Jesus. James would have been called, not "James the Just", but Yakob ha Zadok amongst the Jews of Jerusalem. Josephus, too, when speaking his own tongue, would have said those words. It seems more authentic, like being able to read the OT in Hebrew instead of only English translations of Latin/Greek translations of the Hebrew.

 

[Bismarck]

Regarding the Theology:

There is a major movement afoot to estrange Paul (Gentiles) from James (original Hebrew mission of Messiah).

Scholars, and the $$ behind them that funds books and DVDs (=propaganda), highlight every scene of dischord to invent a schism between Paul and James. Thereby, they sever the legitimacy of the whole gentile mission upon which Christianity is based.

However, this is a-scriptural. Butz, whom I cited, is one of these authors. However, he is inconsistent, as proven by the fact that I used his words against him. For, he showed how Galatians must have pre-dated the Jerusalem Council.

But, that being the case, the fact that Paul fought with Peter and Barnabas (Gal 2) in 49 AD is resolved by the fact that Peter and Barnabas acknowledge Paul at the Jerusalem Council (Acts 15) soon thereafter in 50 AD. Moreover, James disowns the trouble-makers who used his authority to drive a wedge between Peter/Barnabas and Paul.

I could add that Paul and Barnabas "part ways" (Acts 15:39) over the issue of taking John Mark along at the start of the Second Missionary Journey (51-53 AD). But it was towards the end of this trek that Paul evangelized Corinth (Acts 18). And Paul only later wrote letters back to Corinth (I & II Corinthians) from Ephesus on his Third Missionary Journey (54 - 58 AD).

So, if Paul and Barnabas are estranged in 51 AD (Acts 15:39) before Paul ever reaches Corinth, how do you explain that Paul and Barnabas are refered to together in I Cor 9:6, indicating that the Corinthian Christians knew both of them together? Clearly, Barnabas must have rejoined Paul in Corinth in 52 AD, even if only briefly, so that the Corinthian congregation knew of both of them together. So, regardless of your position on Galatians, the heated exchange in Acts 15:39 cannot be exaggerated into a full blow schism, as you will hear many claim.

 

[David Lamb]

Tzaddik, Zadok, etc, is the Hebrew word for "Righteous". David Bivin uses it in his books about Light on the Difficult Words of Jesus. James would have been called, not "James the Just", but Yakob ha Zadok amongst the Jews of Jerusalem. Josephus, too, when speaking his own tongue, would have said those words. It seems more authentic, like being able to read the OT in Hebrew instead of only English translations of Latin/Greek translations of the Hebrew.

Thank you for the explanation, Bismarck. But where is James called "James the Just" in English bibles? I can only find "James the son of Zebedee" (4 times), "James the son of Alphaeus" (4 times), "James the less", "James the brother of John", and "James the Lord’s brother".

I wonder why you called him "James" (English name) rather than the Hebrew "Yakob", if you thought Hebrew more authentic. Also, do you not believe that Jesus and the disciples spoke Aramaic?

By the way, I must apologise for mis-spelling your name (missing out the c) on another thread.

 

[Bismarck]

Dear David,

Can we agree that Scripture means what it says? With YHWH-God, and God-breathed scripture, "No means yes" type things don't ever happen, yes?

John 19:20
Therefore many of the Jews read this inscription, for the place where Jesus was crucified was near the city; and it was written in Hebrew, Latin and in Greek.


John 20:16
Jesus said to her, "Mary!" She turned and said to him in Hebrew, " Rabboni!" (which means, Teacher).


Acts 21:40, 22:2
When he had given him permission, Paul, standing on the stairs, motioned to the people with his hand; and when there was a great hush, he spoke to them in the Hebrew dialect, saying...

And when they heard that he was addressing them in the Hebrew dialect, they became even more quiet; and he said,


Acts 26:14
"And when we had all fallen to the ground, I heard a voice saying to me in the Hebrew dialect, 'Saul, Saul, why are you persecuting me? It is hard for you to kick against the goads.'​

The Dead Sea Scrolls (DSS) are written in Hebrew:

About 80% to 85% of the Dead Sea Scrolls are written in one of three dialects of Hebrew, Biblical Hebrew, "Dead Sea Scroll Hebrew" , or proto-Tannaitic Hebrew. Biblical Hebrew dominates in the Biblical scrolls, and DSS Hebrew in scrolls which some scholars believe were composed at Qumran. Also some scrolls are written in Aramaic and a few in Koine Greek.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dead_Sea_Scrolls

The DSS reflect the spoke language of Judah in the time of Jesus. Hebrew dominated, with some loan-words from Aramaic and even Greek.

Biblical and extra-Biblical evidence agree — Hebrew was the (principal) tongue of the Messiah.

 

[LeBuick]

Biblical and extra-Biblical evidence agree — Hebrew was the (principal) tongue of the Messiah.

I've never heard this, I'm not saying Jesus could not speak Hebrew but I thought the tounge spoken in his area was Arimaic?

 

[Bismarck]

I've never heard this, I'm not saying Jesus could not speak Hebrew but I thought the tounge spoken in his area was Arimaic?

You have also "heard" it said, by the Jesus Seminar (who are the same types of scholars that say "Aramaic"), that the Gnostic Gospel of Thomas is a "legitimate 5th Gospel".

But an early Church Father, Irenaeus wrote:

"But it is not possible that the Gospels can be either more or fewer in number than they are. ...since the "pillar and ground" of the church is the Gospel and the spirit of life, it is fitting that she should have four pillars...From this fact, it is evident that the Word... gave us the gospel under four forms but bound together by one spirit."
Irenaeus, Against Heresies, 3.11.8​

Thus, with liberal scholarship like you have today, you must "take care what you listen to" (Mark 4:24).

 

[Bismarck]

Regarding the Theology:

There is a major movement afoot to estrange Paul (Gentiles) from James (original Hebrew mission of Messiah).

Scholars, and the $$ behind them that funds books and DVDs (=propaganda), highlight every scene of dischord to invent a schism between Paul and James. Thereby, they sever the legitimacy of the whole gentile mission upon which Christianity is based.

However, this is a-scriptural. Butz, whom I cited, is one of these authors. However, he is inconsistent, as proven by the fact that I used his words against him. For, he showed how Galatians must have pre-dated the Jerusalem Council.

But, that being the case, the fact that Paul fought with Peter and Barnabas (Gal 2) in 49 AD is resolved by the fact that Peter and Barnabas acknowledge Paul at the Jerusalem Council (Acts 15) soon thereafter in 50 AD. Moreover, James disowns the trouble-makers who used his authority to drive a wedge between Peter/Barnabas and Paul.

I could add that Paul and Barnabas "part ways" (Acts 15:39) over the issue of taking John Mark along at the start of the Second Missionary Journey (51-53 AD). But it was towards the end of this trek that Paul evangelized Corinth (Acts 18). And Paul only later wrote letters back to Corinth (I & II Corinthians) from Ephesus on his Third Missionary Journey (54 - 58 AD).

So, if Paul and Barnabas are estranged in 51 AD (Acts 15:39) before Paul ever reaches Corinth, how do you explain that Paul and Barnabas are refered to together in I Cor 9:6, indicating that the Corinthian Christians knew both of them together? Clearly, Barnabas must have rejoined Paul in Corinth in 52 AD, even if only briefly, so that the Corinthian congregation knew of both of them together. So, regardless of your position on Galatians, the heated exchange in Acts 15:39 cannot be exaggerated into a full blow schism, as you will hear many claim.

Acts 15 (PETER)
8 "And God, who knows the heart, testified to them giving them the Holy Spirit, just as He also did to us;
9 and He made no distinction between us and them, cleansing their hearts by faith.
...
11 "But we believe that we are saved through the grace of the Lord Jesus, in the same way as they also are."
​

Romans 3:23-24 (PAUL)
23 for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God,
24 being justified as a gift by His grace through the redemption which is in Christ Jesus;​

Peter and Paul espouse the same theology.

 

[LeBuick]

You have also "heard" it said, by the Jesus Seminar (who are the same types of scholars that say "Aramaic"), that the Gnostic Gospel of Thomas is a "legitimate 5th Gospel"..

Wrong guy, I know there are 4 Gospels.

 

[David Lamb]

Dear David,

Can we agree that Scripture means what it says?

Yes, of course.

With YHWH-God, and God-breathed scripture, "No means yes" type things don't ever happen, yes?

Sorry, I am not at all sure what you mean by that.

John 19:20
Therefore many of the Jews read this inscription, for the place where Jesus was crucified was near the city; and it was written in Hebrew, Latin and in Greek.​

I think you read more into my earlier message than was there. I did not say that Jesus did not know the Hebrew language, but that I thought that his everyday language of communication was Aramaic.

John 20:16
Jesus said to her, "Mary!" She turned and said to him in Hebrew, " Rabboni!" (which means, Teacher).

The bible does not say that He spoke to her in Hebrew. John 20.16 says simply:

Joh 20:16 Jesus saith unto her, Mary. She turned herself, and saith unto him, Rabboni; which is to say, Master.​

The Online Bible Greek lexicon, the New American Standard Greek Lexicon, and Strong's Concordance are united in saying that "Rabboni" is "of Aramaic origin." Young's Analytical Concordance actually describes it as "Aramaic".

Acts 21:40, 22:2
When he had given him permission, Paul, standing on the stairs, motioned to the people with his hand; and when there was a great hush, he spoke to them in the Hebrew dialect, saying...

And when they heard that he was addressing them in the Hebrew dialect, they became even more quiet; and he said,


Acts 26:14
"And when we had all fallen to the ground, I heard a voice saying to me in the Hebrew dialect, 'Saul, Saul, why are you persecuting me? It is hard for you to kick against the goads.'

The Dead Sea Scrolls (DSS) are written in Hebrew:

The DSS reflect the spoke language of Judah in the time of Jesus. Hebrew dominated, with some loan-words from Aramaic and even Greek.

Biblical and extra-Biblical evidence agree — Hebrew was the (principal) tongue of the Messiah.

Although I still believe He spoke in Aramaic, that was not the main point of my earlier message, and as far as I can see, it is a matter which makes no difference to the truth of the gospel. My main points were to ask you two questions, neither of which (as far as I can see) you have answered yet:

1. Where is James called "James the Just" in English bibles? (I am not saying he isn't, just that I cannot find it).

2. Why do you call him "James" (English name) rather than the Hebrew "Yakob", if you thought Hebrew so much more authentic that you give him the description "haTzaddik" in Hebrew?​