Amaleq13

Actually, after considering the subject more, can we assume 1)Jesus really had brothers, 2) that one of them was named "James", and 3) that this is the same "James" depicted as subsequently leading the group in Jerusalem?

Paul refers to the James in Jerusalem as "the brother of the Lord" once. First, "the" doesn't seem appropriate if Jesus had more than one brother but I'm not sure how certain we can be of this article. Second, "the Lord" appears to be a Messianic title that Paul would only apply to the Risen Christ. He refers to Christ's pre-crucifixion existence as lacking any reputation or power and indicates that the title was only bestowed after the resurrection. Does it makes sense for Paul to call James "the brother of the Risen Savior"?

Josephus' alleged short reference has James as the brother of Jesus, called Christ (only with the Jesus reference before James' name).

If Paul and other Christians were calling James "the brother of the Lord", where did "the brother of Jesus" come from? If James rejected Jesus prior to the resurrection, why would any Jesus follower refer to him at all?

In deference to Johann, I would also add the following piece of evidence:

The Gospel of Thomas refers to "James the Just" and portrays Jesus as recognizing him as a legitimate leader.

Amaleq13

Seems to me like you might need to start your own thread. I'm willing to concede that portions of GTh might be as early as Q but figuring out the specifics gets complicated.

I think there is a significant difference between "not real" and "not extant". There are clearly very good reasons to adopt the assumption of Q as a common source used independently by the authors of Mt and Lk but I also acknowledge that the argument cannot be considered conclusive without any actual copy. Personally, I think the existence of GTh and the liklihood that it has been expanded from an original list of sayings stands strengthens the Q hypothesis.

If you plan to lurk here, I would be interested in any evidence you consider relevant from GTh.

Toto

I don't recall anything suggesting that James was a leader before 32 CE. Josephus only has him being stoned in 62 CE (IIRC), and we don't know his age at that time. One would not guess from Josephus that James was other than a Jewish priest, even though he might be the brother of Jesus.

Hegesippus (and other sources) are here. Hegesippus says (quoted by Eusebius)

The Gospel of Thomas has Jesus recommending James the Just, but this hardly seems like good evidence that James was a leader before Jesus died - it seems more like an attempt to cement and validate James' position once he attained it.

How do you think all this fits together? Do you think that Jesus was crucified much later than 32? That James was very old in 62? That James was an independent leader who came over to the early church?

Johann_Kaspar

Well I am quite new here!
Can be agreed with portions. With later editions and deletions.
Expanded or reduced... Well after all I could follow you on that point considering an old Thomas as a first version of a text which will be submitted to considerable editing afterwards in many different directions. While Thomas kept the original form.
Lurk? Excuse me I do not get you.
And sorry but I do not understand exactly also what you are asking. Could you reformulate it?

Doctor X

Maybe James had Junior rubbed out:

Now there is a conspiracy . . . when Junior started to move from a secular philosophy to proclaiming his divinity and demanding--as all divine men do--the women--for Mary Magdelene was James' wife. . . .

Man, see what speculation and too much caffeine lead to?

Back to more seriousness, Amaleq13, I am not convinced that the Josephus and other accounts of James are legitimate, but I do not have a reason to doubt Paul--who does not agree with him! Mk, as you note, has no problem with Junior having brotherS--uses it for the basis of a parrable. The problem is that it is all speculation. It seems to me that the Synoptics "dealt with" a few "difficult" topics:

1. Failure to be recognized.
2. Failure of the disciples to recognize him as divine.
3. Betrayal by followers.

we can add others, of course. It seems to me that groups that made him divine broke off from the "main body" and later attacked the "main body."

The problem with my "theory" is the time involved. If you agree Mk is after the fall of Jerusalem there probably was not much of a "Pillars of Jerusalem" group left--you also have whatever is left of Paul's groups--perhaps they flourished and disctated the formation of the religion. Thus, the charge that "they" did not "recognize him" could be a simple insult--much like various sects call rivals--"heretics" and "godless." Thus, it may not be evidence that the immediate followers of Junior did not consider him divine.

Similarly, the indictment of "rock-head" Cephas/Peter as "denying him" seems to be a charge that hung much like Jessie Jackson trying to convince people he held the dying Martin Luther King in his arms--untrue . . . and the incident still hounds him. Was Peter hounded for it? Or . . . is it just a made up charge?

Who knows? Fun to speculate!

I would have to "re-check" my Q books on whether or not the more divine elements are "earliest layer"--Johann_Kaspar: yes, a hypothetical book is believed to have layers!--but even if it does, when was it written in the process of the mythmaking?

Who knows? Fun to speculate!

--J.D.

Amaleq13

I didn't suggest he was a "leader" necessarily, only that he had obtained a good reputation prior to the death of Jesus and independently of any relationship to Jesus.

True, and I suppose we can't assume that he was important simply because Josephus tells us that "those in the city who seemed most moderate and skilled in the law were very angry" when James and some unnamed others were unjustly condemned. That he specifically names "James" from among the others, however, seems to at least suggest more prominence, no?

The pesky issue of dating the evidence raises its ugly head. Maybe not. Early or late, it seems relevant that James is notreferred to as the brother of Jesus or "the Lord" but only as "the Just".

I think the evidence suggests that, independent of but simultaneous to the ministry of the living Jesus, James had a reputation among his fellow Jews as "the Just". This was how he was known and how he was differentiated from other guys name "James".

I think the evidence offered also suggests that, if he was called "the brother of the Lord", it was not until after he accepted the gospel of the Risen Savior.

This reference by Paul seems strange to me even within the context of an assumed historical Jesus. Bernard Muller, in a different thread, asserted that it was unlikely that any Jew would call someone "the brother of the Lord" meaning Lord=God but he didn't reply when I asked for the evidence leading to that conclusion. It may have gotten lost in the turmoil. Given some specifically Jewish difficulty with such a reference, why should it be any different for the Jewish Paul to make such a reference to the Risen Savior?

Can we reliably reject the possibility that the "Lord" in this reference to James refers to God?

Given the way Paul refers to the Risen Christ throughout his letters, is it reasonable that he would essentially burden that title with such an earthly attachment? It just seems very odd for Paul to refer to the Resurrected Savior as having a brother. I could see him calling James "the brother of Jesus" thinking of the earlier, fleshly relationship but the use of a messianic title seems inappropriate. Sort of in the sense of "when the Risen Christ was human, James was his brother". Abbreviating that concept with a reference to the heavenly entity rather than the incarnated flesh, seems odd to me.

That this is a unique reference from Paul does not help matters.

Amaleq13

I'm no veteran. I just started posting here a few weeks ago.

With regard to the Q-GTh connection, I like Crossan's take on it where the two groups were originally one but split. I'm not sure either "side" can be said to retain the original better than the other. One moves in a more gnostic direction (GTh) while the other went in a more apocalyptic direction (Q).

Meaning "not directly participating but regularly reading the posts". I was inviting you not to simply lurk but to share any GTh info you think is relevant.

Doctor X

Unless the author and his readers would have known he was the brother?

I love speculation. . . .

--J.D.

Amaleq13

Hmmm, James as member of the illegal Sanhedrin? Interesting...

IMHO, neither of the alleged Jesus references in Josephus are genuine but they are references to the brother issue even if by the hand of a Christian interpolator. What do you mean, exactly, when you say that Paul does not agree?

Which, of course, constitutes a possible motivation to fabricate such a detail.

It seems relevant to this issue to point out that while Paul portrays "James, Cephas, and John" as pillars in Jerusalem, Mark portrays three guys by the same name as Jesus' closest disciples. Doherty argues that Mark has simply taken the "pillars" and turned them into Disciples but I'm trying to make sense of the same evidence within the context of a historical Jesus. Is the only thing compelling us to conclude that these were two different guys named "James" Paul's reference to the brother of the Lord?

I'm not sure I'm following you. It seems to me the evidence, with regard to how Jesus was understood goes (over time):

Divinely inspired Teacher/Prophet --> Risen Messiah --> God

I think the first group either converted to the second or was overwhelmed by the popularity of it. Could you be more specific about the timing problem?

Amaleq13

That would make it even more significant since the author still chose to refer to James by his "original" title.

That said, is there anything to support the assumption that the author(s) knew or knew a tradition that claimed James was the brother of Jesus.

I realize you enjoy speculating but I'm just trying to limit the speculation to what can be supported by the text.