thentian

He is mentioned a couple of times in gLuke, I think, but only as a reference for who others are:

Luke 6: 16 "And Judas the brother of James..."
Luke 24:10 "...and Mary the mother of James..."

Maybe he thought James was such a well known character that he didn't think it was necessary to elaborate on it? Or, maybe he did elaborate on it, but what he wrote wasn't acceptable to Eusebius and co...

Ben C Smith

This is actually Jude of James, where the relationship usually supplied is son of. However, you are hardly the first to suggest that this Jude (Judas), one of the twelve, was actually the brother of Jesus.

This is basically parallel to Mark 15.40, 47; 16.1.

The second idea seems to have little to commend it (it would be more plausible if it came well before Eusebius, say, in century II), but the first is well worth considering.

Characters of much lesser stature than James of Jerusalem are given a proper introduction in Acts; this James just appears in dialogue, as if the reader needs nothing further.

Ben.

thentian

I may have partly gotten that idea from gThomas as well, because of "Judas Didymos (twin) Thomas". Is this the same Judas as mentioned in Matthew and Mark? If one accepts it as a possibility that J had a twin brother, can one then go on to wildly speculate that James, because he is mentioned before the others in Mark and Matthew is the oldest of the brothers? If so, it would make a mockery of Mary's supposed virginity, thus explaining why there are so few mentions of J's brothers...

See, I'm as good at coming up with wild theories as anybody!

Ben C Smith

No, I think the Thomas in the gospel of Thomas is the Thomas mentioned in all the apostolic lists (separate from Jude of James); Thomas is Aramaic for twin. IOW, Thomas is Aramaic for the Greek Didymos.

The virginity of Mary certainly explains a lot of the patristic references (or nonreferences). It made a lot of the fathers nervous to suggest that Jesus had a biological brother, and several ways out were devised.

Ben.

aa5874

What really does a claim that Jesus has a brother achieve? Is the brother a witness that Jesus was a God on earth or just an ordinary man?

All the information about James seems only in reference to being the brother of Jesus or son of Mary.

However, if James is a witness to Jesus being a God, then this is an implausible proposition, on the other hand, if James is a witness to Jesus just being an ordinary man, then the NT can be discarded as a compilation of books without credibilty, since the NT presents Jesus as the Son of the God of the Jews who rose from the dead and ascended through the clouds.

thentian

Well, the catholics are taking the position that these brothers are the children of Joseph through a previous marriage, so I guess they figure they're in the clear. Of course, there is not a hint of any such thing in the NT.

So the Thomas in gThomas is called Judas Twin Twin? Er... any idea what is going on with that? Hmm... and then there was a person following J around by the name of Twin? Doubting Twin... interesting!

Toto

I think I see what you are trying to do. I think you are trying to find clues that reflect an underlying history, without overstating them.

Robert Eisenman thought that James was an important figure who had been written out of early Jewish Christian history, but that there were enough clues to reconstruct an idea of what really happened. But his "method" involved a lot of imaginative filling in the gaps and unconventional dating of the DSS. I read parts of his book when it came out, but AFAIK he has fewer followers than Doherty (although he does have credentials and tenure.)

I'm not sure what you think this clue shows. Mark and Matt have James as a brother of Jesus; Luke has clearly read (at least) Mark, but omits any mention of a brother named James. Is there any significance to this? It sounds to me like the identities of Jesus' brothers was not important to Luke.

gLuke and Acts have the same author, but are not consistent in many details; the narrative in Acts brings the family of Jesus back into the prayer circle, with no indication that Jesus' brother would be a leader in a Jerusalem group in a short time. If anything, this argues against the idea that James the leader was Jesus' biological brother.

Paul and Luke in Acts refer to a James who was a leader of a Jerusalem group; Paul calls him the Brother of the Lord; Acts does not.

Josephus mentions a James who was important enough in the Temple hierarchy to be stoned to death; who may also be the brother of Jesus called Christ (or some other Jesus.)

I don't see any good reason to link all of these James.

You've got the making of a historical novel here, but not a lot to work with as history.

Ben C Smith

That is it, and well put.

I agree; it was unconventional, and probably just plain wrong.

That may be the significance. There may also be more than that.

See Crossan, The Historical Jesus (or via: amazon.co.uk), for how natural it would be for a member of his family to broker the ministry started by Jesus. That it would take place is not mysterious, IMO; that nobody tells us the origins of James of Jerusalem is what is odd.

Agreed. Paul also indicates that James was not the only brother of the Lord, yet Acts lacks that term altogether.

Unless brother really means brother in Paul and Christ really means Christ in Josephus.

I agree that the evidence is scattered. But let me ask you: Why do you think Acts brings this James in out of nowhere? What do you think is going on?

Ben.

Toto

This is the problem with Crossan. He tries to jump from possible to historical.

I think that James Tabor has based his theories on this presumed probability, and has about as many followers as Eisenman (and he also has tenure.)

Perhaps.

I am sure that Christ in Josephus refers to Jesus Christ, but I am not sure Josephus put it there.

Possibly James was the leader in a Messianic Jewish faction, a proto-Christian group. When Christians in the second century created their history, they incorporated him, and a letter from him, whether he wrote it or not.

Ben C Smith

I do not think Crossan is doing that; I think he is reading some texts that have the brothers of Jesus disbelieving in him and other texts that have the brother of Jesus later leading the Jerusalem church, and telling why (even in the absence of an explicit explanation how this transformation took place) this is a natural and almost expected development. IOW, his history is coming from his reading of texts, not from his possibilities, which he is using only to support the texts.

So has Robert Price, at least in a hypothetical sort of way.

I knew that was what you were trying to say.

That is possible.

At any rate, and this is what I was after in my first couple of posts on this thread, the issue is much more than merely Luke-Acts never mentions James was the brother of Jesus. The fact is that Luke-Acts introduces this James to us in a weird way, period. For my money, Luke knows more about this James than he is letting on, and for some reason he is not telling us. Whether what he knows includes the information that James was the brother of Jesus is open to question, but if our other sources give us good reason to think he was, then it seems likely that Luke knew this, and is not letting us know. Of course, if our other sources are indeterminate, then we are in the dark with Luke-Acts, too.

I recall making a simple argument somewhere for the brother of the Lord in Paul being a literal brother. Let me see if I can do it again:

1. The first meaning to explore for this phrase in Paul is that of fellow believer, since Paul frequently uses brother to mean that.
2. However, the uses of this phrase in Galatians 1.19; 1 Corinthians 9.5 are unique in that they use the genitive of the Lord, whereas Paul elsewhere uses the prepositional phrase in the Lord to convey a spiritual relationship with the Lord Jesus.
3. 1 Corinthians 9.5 ensures that this term or title is not limited to James of Jerusalem only; IOW, it is not a personal moniker of his. It tells us that he belongs to a group called the brothers of the Lord.
4. 1 Corinthians 9.5 also seems to tell us that this group is not identical to the apostles in general, though there may be overlap, since James himself appears to be called an apostle in Galatians 1.19. Also, the group does not seem to be coterminous with all believers at large, since it is placed between a closed group (the apostles) and an individual (Cephas); this point rules out texts such as Romans 8.29 as parallels, since in such texts all believers appear to be called brothers.
5. 1 Corinthians 9.5 also seems to tell us that the brothers of the Lord are male, since their wives are the topic under discussion; that is, brothers is not used in the inclusive sense it has in some other Pauline texts.
6. So brother(s) of the Lord cannot mean believers at large, cannot be a personal title for James, and apparently designates a closed male group.
7. Either this is a special group of believers that adopted this title or the term brother is to be taken literally. I will be the first to admit that the former is possible; but I think we have the right to ask for clearer evidence that such a group existed. The latter requires no special evidence beyond ruling out the usual Pauline meaning(s) for brother (which we have done above), leaving the literal, primary definition almost by default.

Everything I have seen so far on this board that tries to make brother of the Lord mean something other than a literal brother fudges the evidence somewhere. I have seen brother of the Lord taken as brother in the Lord, as my brothers, and as a member of a special sect (for which little or no other evidence is generally produced).

Ben.