jakejonesiv

Hi V!

The answer is quite possibly yes.

Brother of the Lord did not have the primary meaning of physical kinship.
Here is what Origin had to say. "Paul, a genuine disciple of Jesus, says that he regarded this James as a brother of the Lord, not so much on account of their relationship by blood, or of their being brought up together, as because of his virtue and doctrine." _Contra Celsum_ Book I Chap. XLVII.

Let's look at James the Just in Josephus a little closer, and why his association with Jesus may be an interpolation.

In the extant version of Josephus concerning James we find the following;
"Festus was now dead, and Albinus was but upon the road; so he assembled the sanhedrim of judges, and brought before them the brother of Jesus, who was called Christ, whose name was James, and some others, and when he had formed an accusation against them as breakers of the law, he delivered them to be stoned:" Josephus, _Antiquities_, Book 20, chapter 9.

Consider how this passage "backs into" James in a convoluted manner. We have Jesus named and identified as Christ before we ever find the name of the man brought before the judges. This indicates that the writer of this passage considered Jesus to be more important than James.

We should have expected a much more direct identifiaction of James. Is their any indication of that this is not the original wording?
Photius, in Codex 238 quotes Antiquties 20:9 as "James, the brother of the Lord."
http://www.tertullian.org/fathers/ph...ibliotheca.htm

This is a much smoother reading. Since Photis was a Christian it is hard to envision that he would replace an explicit reference "brother of Jesus, who was called the Christ" with the more ambiguos "brother of the Lord." This suggests that Josephus did indeed write "James, the brother of the Lord" and an interpolator latter "improved" it to be a reference to Jesus.

With the Christian overlay removed, "brother of the Lord" might well be equivalent to "brother of Yahweh". This is precisely what is suggested in _The Jesus the Jews Never Knew: Sepher Toldoth Yeshu and the Quest of the Historical Jesus in Jewish Sources_ by Frank R. Zindler, 2003. According to Zindler, a brother of the Lord was a member of a brotherhood commited to the service of Yahweh. When reaching the rank of leader, the individual became known as "the brother of the Lord."

Now we have an explanation for the origin of Galatians 1:19. Based on the original reading of Josephus, "the brother of the Lord" was interpolated into the text, confusing the Galatian James with "James the Just".

Is there any indication that elsewhere a Christian interpolater connected James with James the Just?

Yes.

Eusebius, _Ecclesiastical History_, Book 2, chapter 23, quotes a passage missing from our currrent Josephus. 'Josephus, at least, has not hesitated to testify this in his writings, where he says, "These things happened to the Jews to avenge James the Just, who was a brother of Jesus, that is called the Christ. For the Jews slew him, although he was a most just man."' None of this is a reference to Josephus, _Antiquities_, Book 20, chapter 9., because Eusebius goes on to say "And the same writer records his death also in the twentieth book of his Antiquities in the following words ...". This is evidence of a lost interpolation. Zindler argues that every reference in Josephus to Biblical characters Jesus, JBAP, and James are interpolations.

Jake Jones IV

Amaleq13

That summary statement glosses over the actual differences.

1) Paul refers to many of his fellow believers as "brothers".

2) Paul refers to James as "the brother of the Lord" and counts him as one of a central figure in Jerusalem along with men named John and Peter.

3) Paul refers to a group different from "apostles" and "Cephas" as "the Lord's brothers".


1) The author of Mark refers to Jesus having brothers and identifies one as named "James".

2) The author of Mark claims the family of Jesus thought he was crazy.

3) The author of Mark depicts three disciples as particularly close to Jesus and identifies them as "John", "James", and "Peter". The first two are brothers but not of Jesus.


Paul never refers to anyone as the "brother of Jesus" nor does he refer to James as having previously considered Jesus crazy.

The author of Mark never describes or even hints that Jesus' brother, James, ever changed his mind about his brother's mental status.

It is difficult to establish what the "plain reading" would be with regard to the singular reference Paul makes about James. Given that Paul is so eager to establish that he has equal authority with the other apostles, even to the point of being somewhat denegrating of the "high reputation" of the Jerusalem group, it is difficult to understand why he would choose to ever unapologetically accord James any special consideration. This is only more true if such a reference would bring to mind a living ministry he has apparently consciously avoided mentioning anywhere else in his letters.

You are welcome. I don't agree with all his conclusions or accept all of his claims but the book certainly causes one to see the evidence in a much different way.

Vorkosigan

When Mark writes about "Family" in Mark 3 he refers to mothers, brothers, and sisters, but not "Father." I wonder if those were all titles used in the early Church - a fellow of the Elect could be a mother, brother, or sister. That might be support for a titular Brothership for James.

In my view Mark knew Paul and is not an independent source. However, this may be construed as evidence on how James' position was understood in the early Church, which in turn may be evidence for James really being the biological brother of Jesus. But then Mark is probably written in the second century, which really makes it evidence of nothing.

Vorkosigan