spin

Let's face it: the gospels show Jesus uninterested in his family and his family thinking he was out of his mind. This is not good starting material for a brother of Jesus becoming head of the Jerusalem church, a Galilean peasant, we are led to believe, having developed a state of righteousness that made him famous.

Using conclusion driven reasoning the Jesus historicist argues, trusting the basic reality of the narrative, that the James listed as Jesus' brother in Mk 6:3 (whose only other mention is the Matthaean parallel, 13:55) must have reformed, got religion and righteousness.

The book of Acts knows two Jameses, neither of which is referred to as the brother of Jesus. Perhaps Josephus knew something that the gospel writers and the writers of Acts didn't know.

Yet every Jesus historicist I've heard from has the need to believe that Paul's "James the brother of the lord" must mean the physical brother of Jesus. It's on a post-it nailed to their foreheads.

Just as there are two James in Acts, there are also two among the disciples, James son of Zebedee and James son of Alphaeus. This last name coming from חלפי xlpy, which, due to some speakers' pronunciation, could also be rendered in Greek as Clopas (and perhaps Cleopas), so that Jn 19:25 "Mary wife of Clopas" should be seen as "Mary mother of James", Mk 16:1. That means "Mary mother of James" is not an oblique reference to Jesus' mother, though it may have been taken as such.

As things stand the only reason that "James the brother of the lord" is believed to be the brother of Jesus is that writers and interpreters have confused the usage of the non-titular "lord" shifting it onto Jesus. With the context of Paul's letter to the Galatians being lost other than what can be reconstructed from the letter itself, we are left to reinterpret his words based on unverifiable inferences.

Is the first reference to James the Jerusalem church leader as the brother of Jesus first mentioned by Origen?


spin

ApostateAbe

Is the first reference to James the Jerusalem church leader as the brother of Jesus first mentioned by Origen?

Not in my opinion. I think James, the Lord's brother means brother of Jesus because later Christians interpreted it that way, there was no debate, and there seems to be no plausible alternative meaning. Another meaning would leave the intended reader either confused or misinformed about which "James" is referred to. And it would require that Christians very quickly forgot the old meaning that Paul presumed the reader would understand. It seems to be very much a no-brainer.

Go ahead and answer your own question. Was Origen really the one to turn James the brother of the lord into James the brother of Jesus?

spin

You get no biblical support for the James conjecture whatsoever. Acts knows nothing about the James brother of Jesus issue. Do you think the authors knew about the James/Jesus connection and didn't mention it? You have nothing tangible to support your "opinion" from the biblical text. You merely have later tradition. Your "no-brainer" is more correctly "no brain involved". What the ancient reader would understand regarding "James the brother of the lord" is totally occulted from us and no matter of conjecture will allow you to get past that problem.

Nothing will come of nothing: speak again.


spin

ApostateAbe

You could save some time with writing and just type, "You're wrong × 8. spin."

Chili

I like it! A new church in the New Jerusalem? And James is only in Mark and Matthew? That Mary the wife of Clopas was at the foot of the cross in John has a 'overshadowing' effect to show the greatness of this Jesus who's mother was there but was not present in Matthew or Mark = a different Jesus here in John who preached a different Gospel.

To be frank about it I think that James was 'gang-banged' into Galilee at a charismatic rally where he got the urge to convert his own people instead of himself.

Zaphod

Abe, you could save us all some time, too.

I'm convinced you will never change your mind on this, as you have remained impenetrable to very persuasive demonstrations that the usage of the term is decidedly NOT to indicate a filial relationship.

Your response to this explicit documentation is always mere assertion. We get it.

aa5874

Also, unless it can be shown that Paul did live in the 1st century then "the brother of the Lord" argument is a total waste of time.

It cannot be assumed Paul lived in the 1st century. The Church writers did not know what Paul wrote it is people who lived hundreds of years afterwards who are now trying to decipher the Pauline writings.

The Church writers claimed all the writings with the name Paul are authentic. But this has been deduced to be false or very unlikely to be true.

And in any event, Jesus of the NT cannot be historicise or made human when in the very Canon where a Pauline writer claimed he met James the Lord's bother it is also claimed Jesus was the child of the Holy Ghost.

ApostateAbe's argument is just completely flawed.

There is one Jesus in the Canon, the one who was the Creator, the offspring of the Holy Ghost of God without a human father.

spin

Given the opportunity to say something in defense for your opinion, surely you could come up with a more evidentially aware response.

The most you've done is appeal to what later christians believed, though how they should know you don't seem to have explained. Using the same logic as yours, you should expect earlier christians to be trinitarians because that's how later christians interpreted the bible. (As I've said to you before, you can't use later opinions to understand earlier texts. You don't know how those later opinions were formed.)

Do you want to play or not? If James was the brother of Jesus why didn't the writers of Acts acknowledge it? If James were the brother of Jesus why didn't Paul indicate it unequivocally? What makes you think from biblical indications that James was the brother of Jesus? I guess it has nothing to do with the fact that Jesus rejected his family in the texts and his family reciprocated. Isn't Origen the first to promote the idea that James was the brother of Jesus?


spin

Doug Shaver

How much later? Who is the earliest Christian writer we know of who unambiguously indicates that he thinks the Jerusalem church was led for a time by Jesus' sibling?

JoeWallack

JW:
Actually, Origen supports spin's understanding:

http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/anf0....i.xlviii.html

If Origen is referring to our Galatians than Origen's understanding of Paul's use of the offending term "brother of the Lord" is primarily figurative. Exactly what spin is saying. One wonders though how Origen deduces this from our Galatians indicating that his Galatians may not have been ours or even worse, that Origen's explanation is based on non-extant Paul which evidenced the figurative use. Add to this that Paul has something of a reputation for the figurative. None of this proves a figurative meaning by Paul, it's just evidence against a literal meaning.

For those who need points sharply explained, we are sitting here with:

1) No first hand witness says Church James was Jesus' brother.

2) No second hand witness says Church James was Jesus' brother.

3) Paul, whose human sources we are unsure of, provides indirect evidence, that Church James was Jesus' brother, by using an ID which could be figurative.

4) Paul lacks credibility as a witness so evidence from him needs confirmation.

5) The original Gospel is clear that Jesus' brother James, rejected Jesus and the exponentially more likely candidate for Church James was Jesus' disciple James who was not his brother. It's also been demonstrated that the original Gospel uses names in a fictitious way. No confirmation there.

6) "Matthew"/"Luke" accept "Mark's" Jesus' family rejection.

7) "John", c. 160, exorcises the family rejection for theological reasons.

8) Origen, 3rd century, is the first to make the clear literal family connection but understands Paul's connection as primarily figurative.

So where is the confirmation of the uncredible Paul's questionable use of "brother"?

Since I find it increasingly difficult to distinguish the two, I also hereby create the titles, "aa the minor" and AA the capo, brother of the Noah Creedterra Historia (perhaps I should have written this before I signed the new Rules of Engagement).

AA, I myself think that Paul is referring to James as a literal brother of Jesus, but you have so many criteria problems:

1) Source

2) Credibility

3) Confirmation

4) Transmission

5) Contrary evidence

I do not consider it proven or a historical fact.



Joseph

ErrancyWiki