spin

Why do people think that James the brother of the lord has anything to do with Jesus? This seems to rely heavily on an a priori understanding of the phrase "brother of the lord" that equates the lord with Jesus. Are the "brothers of the lord", 1 Cor 9:5, blood relatives of Jesus? What about the 500 brothers in similar circumstances in 1 Cor 15:6?

Malachi, does ii get acknowledgement in your forthcoming publication?


spin

Doug Shaver

Going just by what Paul himself actually wrote, all we can say is maybe, maybe not.

Paul does not refer to James as the "brother of Jesus." He refers to James as "brother of the lord." The context does not make it the least bit clear whether, in Paul's mind at the moment he wrote it, "the lord" was a reference to Jesus or to God. Anyone who insists that "brother of the lord" = "brother of Jesus" and cannot reasonably be construed otherwise is purely and simply begging the question.

yalla

Romans 8.28ff
" ..god works for good with those who love him, who are called according to his purpose. For those whom he foreknew he also predestined to be conformed to the image of his son in order that he might be the first-born among many brethren "
Now does this suggest that JC is the first born of many brethren?
Romans 12.5
"...so we...are one body in Christ.."
1Cor 1.9
''...god...by whom you were called into the fellowship of his son''.
Does this suggest that JC had many 'fellows'., whatever that denotes?
1Cor 6.5
"Can it be that there is no man wise enough to decide between members of the brotherhood but brother goes to law against brother....'
Well IMO there is some sort of 'brotherhood' that is not kin based.
2Cor2.12
"...my brother Titus..."
Is Titus considered to be the kin brother of Paul?
2Cor 6.16ff
"..as god said....you shall be my sons and daughters...'
Now if those persons referred to in that verse are the sons and daughters of god, AND JC is the son of god, what relationship [non-kin] does that make them and JC?

I submit, that taken out of isolation and put into the context of Paul's believers being 'one in Christ' and noting his ubiquitous use of kin terms to denote this, that Paul's description of James as 'brother of the lord [whoever that may be] does not warrant the conclusion that, contrary to all other examples, a kin relation is here implied.
cheers
yalla

Malachi151

I am reading The Christ Myth (or via: amazon.co.uk) by Drews and he says on page 172 that Jerome wrote "James was called the Brother of the Lord on account of his great character , of his incomparable faith and extraordinary wisdom...."

I have been unable to find this passage in the writings of Jerome. Did Drews make this up, was it a mistake, or is this something that Jerome wrote but I just can't find it?

PhilVaz

St. Jerome wrote a whole treatise on "brothers" and "sisters" of Jesus in his Against Helvidius. He basically came up with the argument that "adelphos" can mean "cousin" based on the OT LXX and NT uses of the words. The old Catholic Ency article on "brethren of the Lord" is helpful. Catholics and the original Protestant Reformers accepted this argument. Before St. Jerome, most Christians believed the "brothers" were children of Joseph from a previous marriage. I believe Origen takes this position. The perpetual virginity of Mary was a strong belief of the early Church, even before St. Jerome. The "brothers" were not literal blood brothers according to the orthodox (although the Montanist Tertullian, and later heretic Helvidius disputes this).

St. Jerome discusses the "James the brother of Jesus" passage in his Against Helvidius (c. 383 AD), here:

"If he [speaking of one of the 'James'] is not an apostle, but a third James (who he can be I cannot tell), how can he be regarded as the Lord's brother, and how, being a third, can he be called less to distinguish him from greater, when greater and less are used to denote the relations existing, not between three, but between two? Notice, moreover, that the Lord's brother is an apostle, since Paul says, Galatians 1:18-19 'Then after three years I went up to Jerusalem to visit Cephas, and tarried with him fifteen days. But other of the Apostles saw I none, save James the Lord's brother.' " (Against Helvidius 15)

St. Jerome believed James was the Lord's brother in a "wider" sense of cousin or relative, as orthodox Catholics and the original Protestants (Luther, Calvin, Zwingli, and Wesley) believed.

Phil P

Malachi151

Thanks Phil, but that's not the passage quoted by Drews, which I am still curious about.

That kind of argument doesn't really go very far in separating Jesus from the earthly realm anyway. The quote that Drews presents is much more similar to Origen's quote.

TedM

True. My own take on it is below. They are mostly all arguments from silence, but these are silences which taken together ring out fairly loud to me. It is interesting to me that the statement is made in such a matter-of-fact way. While I suppose it could be an interpolation--a clarification from a scribe who wanted to distinguish between the first leader James and James, the brother of John--the disciples mentioned in the gospels, calling it an interpolation still leaves 1 Cor 9:5 as another reference to “the Lord” having brothers.


1. While Paul does CLEARLY use the term "brother" metaphorically, it is NOT clearly used that way here, nor in 1 Cor 9:5. "Brother IN the Lord" is VERY DIFFERENT than "Brother OF the Lord". It's one thing to say you have brothers in the family headed by God himself, and quite another to say you are God's brother. Sufice it to say that we have no evidence that Paul EVER uses "brother of the Lord" in a clearly metaphorical fashion.

2. Where "brother" is used metaphorically nowadays, "brother of X" is NOT used that way nowadays. "My brother", "brother John", "our brother", are used, but not "brother of Bob". Why? because the typical meaning of "brother of Bob" is always considered to be biological.

3. To my knowledge, there is no evidence that the term "brother of the Lord" was ever used. There is a name that meant "brother of Jehovah", but it was a proper name, was very uncommon, and it was not a title or group designation.

4. If it is metaphorical, it wasn't given to just one man as a political title. It was applied to more than one person: 1 Cor 9:5 "Do we not have the right to be accompanied by a sister as wife, as the other apostles and the brothers of the Lord and Cephas?"

5. There is no evidence that such a group of individuals with an honored title/designation of 'brothers of the Lord" existed among early Christians or in the Jewish culture. Philo doesn't mention them. Josephus doesn't mention them. None of the NT writers mention them. Neither Church historian Hegessipus or Eusibious (sp?) mention them. No early writings mention this special group at all, although we have records that talk about James, and the apostles, deacons, elders, etc... Why did no one write about what would have been such a special group and what happened to this privileged "brothers of the Lord" group, if it really existed? And, why did it die out?

6. I would expect Paul to have talked about this group further if it was a special metaphorical group. He doesn't explain the criteria for inclusion or exlusion as one might expect: It appears to have excluded the apostles since Paul mentions them separately in 1 Cor 9:5. He shows great concern for what makes up an aposle, but not what makes one become a "brother of the Lord". He writes about the family of God, and about becoming adopted "sons of God", but says not a word about the special ones who actually become God's brothers. And, when he mentions James, he doesn't also refer to the other two pillars, Cephas and John, as brothers of the Lord. He neither explains the criteria for inclusion/exclusion, nor does he show any concern for such criteria, as one might expect given the contexts in which the phrase is used, as well as Paul's other writings.

7. The references to Jesus having brothers are fairly early in the tradition. I would expect that a Jesus/Messiah who began as a mythical character would NOT have had brothers in the first place, and had that been the first tradition, it would have quickly been edited out of the story in the evolution of the traditions.


IMO the most likely conclusion to make of the utter lack of even a hint of evidence of a group of men who others considered to be worthy of the title of "brother of the Lord", is that such a group never existed. The reference was intended to be just what a straightforward reading yields---a simple description of a biological relationship with Jesus.

ted

Malachi151

I don't think that there are early references to Jesus having brothers. There is only one reference in all of Paul's writings, and I think that that reference is a later interpolation by proto-Catholics used to subordinate Paul to Peter and James.

There is no reference to brothers in The Gospel of Thomas, even though "James the Just" is referenced, he is not called his brother.

TedM

What about 1 Cor 9:5?

If you assume Galations reference is an interpolation (something that doesn't seem unreasonable to me), you still have to deal with 1 Cor 9:5. That's early isn't it? As such, all my arguments from silence would seem to still be valid.

Good point about Thomas. although the dating of that one is highly debated. What I meant to portray was the idea that even if you excuse the alleged references by Paul, the tradition of having brothers existed by say 70-80 AD (gospels) and only grew from there. That is contrary to what I would expect for the Messiah of the Jews who started out as the ever-existent Son of God who lived and died in the skies. I wouldn't expect the initial account of his human life to include brothers because he was so special, and if it did, I wouldn't expect that tradition to not only be accepted and copied but to have grown the way it did. I'd expect the incarnation of God to have not have had brothers.

ted

Malachi151

1 Cor 9:5 is obviously not talking about literal brothers, for why would literal brothers have anything to do with anything, they were supposedly, according to later scriptures, not even involved in any ministry and had rejected Jesus.