|
Veteran Member
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Colorado
Posts: 8,674
|
James, the brother of the Lord
I think that it's time to clear this issue up, and I also think that James is the lynch-pin to the whole Jesus Myth issue as well.
#1) If there was someone named James that was a leader of the early Christian community and Paul and others had personal contact with him and he was a brother of Jesus in any way, step, half, normal, whatever, then Jesus of course existed.
#2) If the person called James was NOT a brother of Jesus in any way, then not only does this remove the only seemingly solid historical tie to Jesus, but it also demonstrates that the 2nd and 3rn century Christians fabricated a nonexistent person out of thin air, either intentionally or unintentionally. If they fabricated James, surely that shows how easy it would have been to fabricate Jesus too, either consciously or unconsciously.
I recently made a major revision to my JM book, which I called a second edition, and one of the big additions was a section on James. Here it, cut and pasted exactly from the book:
Quote:
James, not the brother of Jesus
Contrary to Christian tradition, Christian writings show that James the prominent church leader cannot be the brother of Jesus, and indeed he may have been "the beloved disciple"
Christian tradition holds that Jesus' "brother" James (presumably his step-brother among Catholics) became a leader of the Christian community after Jesus' death and came to be known as "James the Just". This is actually a very big issue in the Christian faith, as James the Just is a major figure in the "post-Jesus" era and had many later stories and legends written about him. That this James is the brother of Jesus is highly important to many Church traditions and beliefs, and it's also very important for tying Jesus into history, but was the James who was an important figure in the early Christian community really a literal brother of Jesus?
Presumably the earliest mention of a James who is a leader in the Christian community is found in the letters of Paul, and it is a passage in Paul's letter to the Galatians that much of the tradition rests on.Galatians 1:
11 I want you to know, brothers, that the gospel I preached is not something that man made up. 12 I did not receive it from any man, nor was I taught it; rather, I received it by revelation from Jesus Christ.
13 For you have heard of my previous way of life in Judaism, how intensely I persecuted the church of God and tried to destroy it. 14 I was advancing in Judaism beyond many Jews of my own age and was extremely zealous for the traditions of my fathers. 15 But when God, who set me apart from birth and called me by his grace, was pleased 16 to reveal his Son in me so that I might preach him among the Gentiles, I did not consult any man, 17 nor did I go up to Jerusalem to see those who were apostles before I was, but I went immediately into Arabia and later returned to Damascus.
18 Then after three years, I went up to Jerusalem to get acquainted with Peter and stayed with him fifteen days. 19 I saw none of the other apostles—only James, the Lord's brother. 20 I assure you before God that what I am writing you is no lie.
This seems pretty cut a dry, Paul says that he met James, who was "the Lord's brother", and we know that Paul called Jesus "the Lord", so this must mean that Paul met the literal brother of Jesus, right? Not so fast.
Many people, including Earl Doherty and Arthur Drews, have pointed out that the term brother or brothers was regularly applied to apostles and members of the church in general and conclude that this is how it was being used here as well.
The 500 brothers mentioned in 1 Corinthians 15, as well as "brothers" mentioned in 1 Corinthians 9, are examples that are often cited to show Paul's use of brothers of the Lord in ways that clearly don't mean literal relatives.1 Corinthians 9:
5 Do we not have the right to be accompanied by a believing wife, as do the other apostles and the brothers of the Lord and Peter?
Some people even try to argue that this mention of brothers in 1 Corinthians 9 means relatives, but this really wouldn't make sense, for why would literal brothers of Jesus even be a part of this issue, especially since in later accounts where literal brothers of Jesus are discussed they have nothing to do with him or his movement. Indeed Jesus' family is portrayed as being rejected by him in the Gospels.
There is also a similar usage of brothers in Philippians.Philippians 1:
12 Now I want you to know, brothers, that what has happened to me has really served to advance the gospel. 13 As a result, it has become clear throughout the whole palace guard and to everyone else that I am in chains for Christ. 14 Because of my chains, most of the brothers in the Lord have been encouraged to speak the word of God more courageously and fearlessly.
The issues go well beyond this, however. Who is James and what role does James play? Paul goes on to tell us in Galatians that James is considered one of the pillars of the Christian community.Galatians 2:
9 James, Peter and John, those reputed to be pillars, gave me and Barnabas the right hand of fellowship when they recognized the grace given to me. They agreed that we should go to the Gentiles, and they to the Jews. So, here we have James, Peter, and John, who are reputed in Paul's time to be the most important members of the movement. What other sources tell us about these key figures? What other sources would lead us to think that Jesus had a brother named James and that his brother is an important figure in the Christian community? Actually, none of the other early Christian sources would lead us to this conclusion, and indeed they all lead to a different conclusion.
There are only two Gospels that name the supposed brothers of Jesus, the Gospel of Mark and the Gospel of Matthew, which simply copies from Mark. The Gospel of Mark only mentions literal brothers of Jesus one time, and then they disappear from the narrative.
Mark 6:
1 Jesus left there and went to his hometown, accompanied by his disciples. 2 When the Sabbath came, he began to teach in the synagogue, and many who heard him were amazed.
"Where did this man get these things?" they asked. "What's this wisdom that has been given him, that he even does miracles! 3 Isn't this the carpenter? Isn't this Mary's son and the brother of James, Joseph, Judas and Simon? Aren't his sisters here with us?" And they took offense at him.
4 Jesus said to them, "Only in his hometown, among his relatives and in his own house is a prophet without honor." 5 He could not do any miracles there, except lay his hands on a few sick people and heal them. 6 And he was amazed at their lack of faith.
This is where the author of Mark introduces Jesus' family, and they are never mentioned again in the Gospel after that, not even his mother Mary. Indeed Jesus totally rejects his family in the Gospel of Mark.
Mark does make many mentions of an important James though, and that is James son of Zebedee, who is counted among the disciples of Jesus. In fact, James son of Zebedee is among the very first disciples that are introduced in the Gospel of Mark.Mark 1:
16 As Jesus walked beside the Sea of Galilee, he saw Simon and his brother Andrew casting a net into the lake, for they were fishermen. 17 "Come, follow me," Jesus said, "and I will make you fishers of men." 18 At once they left their nets and followed him.
19 When he had gone a little farther, he saw James son of Zebedee and his brother John in a boat, preparing their nets. 20 Without delay he called them, and they left their father Zebedee in the boat with the hired men and followed him. First we are introduced to Simon, who is renamed Peter, and then we have James and John, the sons of Zebedee. Throughout the Gospel of Mark and the other synoptic Gospels, Peter, James, and John are the most important disciples, who go everywhere with Jesus.Mark 5:
36 Ignoring what they said, Jesus told the synagogue ruler, "Don't be afraid; just believe."
37 He did not let anyone follow him except Peter, James and John the brother of James. 38 When they came to the home of the synagogue ruler, Jesus saw a commotion, with people crying and wailing loudly. 39 He went in and said to them, "Why all this commotion and wailing? The child is not dead but asleep." 40 But they laughed at him. These are the three disciples that are with Jesus at the Transfiguration.Mark 9:
2 After six days Jesus took Peter, James and John with him and led them up a high mountain, where they were all alone. There he was transfigured before them. 3 His clothes became dazzling white, whiter than anyone in the world could bleach them. 4 And there appeared before them Elijah and Moses, who were talking with Jesus. The Gospel of Mark also tells of discontent among the apostles towards James and his brother John.Mark 10:
35 Then James and John, the sons of Zebedee, came to him. "Teacher," they said, "we want you to do for us whatever we ask."
36 "What do you want me to do for you?" he asked.
37 They replied, "Let one of us sit at your right and the other at your left in your glory."
38 "You don't know what you are asking," Jesus said. "Can you drink the cup I drink or be baptized with the baptism I am baptized with?"
39 "We can," they answered. Jesus said to them, "You will drink the cup I drink and be baptized with the baptism I am baptized with, 40 but to sit at my right or left is not for me to grant. These places belong to those for whom they have been prepared."
41 When the ten heard about this, they became indignant with James and John. If we take the Gospel of Mark as an allegorical fiction, then of course none of these things really happened. Instead, this is most likely a setup by the author for the later event of the crucifixion, where the author places criminals at the left and right hand of Jesus. This is similar to the setup where Simon Peter rebukes Jesus and Jesus proclaims that his followers should "take up their cross and follow me," while later in the story a stranger named Simon from Cyrene is the one who carries his cross.
Nevertheless, Peter, John, and James are presumably real people that were mentioned by Paul several times. The Gospel of Mark is built on some tradition, and may indeed be built on Pauline tradition, which would explain why the other apostles are poorly portrayed in the Gospel of Mark. The Gospel of Mark is a story with meaning that does reflect traditions and does talk about the real Christian community. Peter, James, and John probably were real people, who really went by those names, and who really were Christian apostles and community leaders. Much of what we are told about them in Christian sources, however, is probably just legend, but they probably were real people and this Gospel probably does reflect real relationships among the apostles.
It would not make sense for the writer of Mark to spend so much effort building up the character of James son of Zebedee if this person were not a pillar of the Christian community. In all of the synoptic Gospels, James, John, and Peter are the three main disciples, and Paul tells us that the three main people considered to be pillars of the Christian community during his time were James, John, and Peter as well, but Christian tradition holds that the James that Paul was talking about was the literal brother of Jesus. Given that the Gospels were all written after the works of Paul, and that the Gospels serve as a backdrop for the Christian movement, and that the Gospels establish the positions of the major Christian leaders, it would not make any sense for the Gospels to totally ignore James the literal brother of Jesus while playing up this other James son of Zebedee who is an apostle, if James the brother of Jesus is who became a leader of the Christian community.
There is much more to this case however. The Gospels make it clear that James son of Zebedee is the partner of Peter.Luke 5:
8 When Simon Peter saw this, he fell at Jesus' knees and said, "Go away from me, Lord; I am a sinful man!" 9 For he and all his companions were astonished at the catch of fish they had taken, 10 and so were James and John, the sons of Zebedee, Simon's partners. It is important to note that the author of the Gospel of Luke never names any siblings of Jesus. He mentions brothers of Jesus one time but the names of the brothers are omitted.Luke 8:
19 Now Jesus' mother and brothers came to see him, but they were not able to get near him because of the crowd. 20 Someone told him, "Your mother and brothers are standing outside, wanting to see you."
21 He replied, "My mother and brothers are those who hear God's word and put it into practice." In the Gospel of Luke the rejection of Jesus' family is absolute, the author doesn't even bother to name his siblings. The point is made clear that his mother and brothers do not hear or practice God's word.
The author of the Gospel of Luke is also the author of Acts of the Apostles, which supposedly describes what happened after Jesus died. In Acts of the Apostles it is absolutely clear that the James who is a prominent leader is not a literal brother of Jesus.
Parts of Acts are written in a first person style, but it is doubtful that the author of Acts was actually present for any of this. Acts was probably written some time between 90 and 130 CE, using a combination of the letters of Paul and other sources. The Harper Collins NRSV Study Bible has this to say about the authorship of Acts:Authorship:
... The author remains anonymous, although he will be referred to as "Luke" in deference to tradition. From indications within the two volumes [Luke and Acts], it appears that Luke may be a gentile Christian who has received a good education and has made careful study of Jewish scriptures.
Sources:
...The sections of Acts written in the first-person plural ("we") often prompt the suggestion that Luke had a journal (his own or that of one of Paul's companions), but the use of first-personal plural may simply be a stylistic device. The parts of Acts that are written in the first-person plural may or may not actually be real first hand accounts, but what is certain is that the introduction of Acts is definitely not a first hand account, and the introduction of Acts is the only place that mentions literal "brothers" of Jesus. This is in a scene closely following the ascension of Jesus into heaven.
Let's look at this introduction and the mention of Jesus' brothers more closely:Acts 1:
12 Then they returned to Jerusalem from the hill called the Mount of Olives, a Sabbath day's walk from the city. 13 When they arrived, they went upstairs to the room where they were staying. Those present were Peter, John, James and Andrew; Philip and Thomas, Bartholomew and Matthew; James son of Alphaeus and Simon the Zealot, and Judas son of James. 14 They all joined together constantly in prayer, along with the women and Mary the mother of Jesus, and with his brothers.
15 In those days Peter stood up among the brothers (a group numbering about a hundred and twenty) 16 and said, "Brothers, the Scripture had to be fulfilled which the Holy Spirit spoke long ago through the mouth of David concerning Judas, who served as guide for those who arrested Jesus— 17 he was one of our number and shared in this ministry." This part of Acts is either completely made up by the author or is the author's retelling of tradition, but this is not even a potential eyewitness account as it is not one of the sections that includes the "we" passages, which begin after the 12th chapter of Acts. The author lists the names of the apostles starting with those who are considered "pillars" of the Christian movement. The first three apostles he lists are Peter, John, and James. The James that he lists among the first three is the James who is considered a pillar. We see these same names listed by Paul in Galatians.Galatians 2:
9 James, Peter and John, those reputed to be pillars, gave me and Barnabas the right hand of fellowship when they recognized the grace given to me. They agreed that we should go to the Gentiles, and they to the Jews. After the author of Acts lists the apostles, he then says that they joined Mary and the brothers of Jesus. Mary and the brothers are clearly a different group of people, whom the apostles are said to have joined with. This is the one and only mention of literal brothers of Jesus in Acts, and between both the Gospel of Luke and Acts the author never provides any names for any of the supposed brothers of Jesus. A "James brother of Jesus" is never introduced. However, things do get tricky in Acts of the Apostles. It is also important to note that there was a second James listed among the apostles as well, James son of Alphaeus.
In Acts of the Apostles the travels of Paul are discussed as well as the actions of Peter, James, and the other supposed apostles. The term "the brothers" is used several times to talk about some group of people, which seems to include James. However, in Acts 12 the text says that James son of Zebedee was killed, and this is where much confusion starts.Acts 1:
In those days Peter stood up among the brothers (a group numbering about a hundred and twenty) 16 and said, "Brothers, the Scripture had to be fulfilled which the Holy Spirit spoke long ago through the mouth of David concerning Judas, who served as guide for those who arrested Jesus— 17 he was one of our number and shared in this ministry."
Acts 10:
23 Then Peter invited the men into the house to be his guests. The next day Peter started out with them, and some of the brothers from Joppa went along. 24 The following day he arrived in Caesarea. Cornelius was expecting them and had called together his relatives and close friends. 25 As Peter entered the house, Cornelius met him and fell at his feet in reverence. 26 But Peter made him get up. "Stand up," he said, "I am only a man myself."
Acts 12:
1 It was about this time that King Herod arrested some who belonged to the church, intending to persecute them. 2 He had James, the brother of John, put to death with the sword. 3 When he saw that this pleased the Jews, he proceeded to seize Peter also. This happened during the Feast of Unleavened Bread. 4 After arresting him, he put him in prison, handing him over to be guarded by four squads of four soldiers each. Herod intended to bring him out for public trial after the Passover.
Acts 12:
16 But Peter kept on knocking, and when they opened the door and saw him, they were astonished. 17 Peter motioned with his hand for them to be quiet and described how the Lord had brought him out of prison. "Tell James and the brothers about this," he said, and then he left for another place.
Acts 15:
12 The whole assembly became silent as they listened to Barnabas and Paul telling about the miraculous signs and wonders God had done among the Gentiles through them. 13 When they finished, James spoke up: "Brothers, listen to me. 14 Simon has described to us how God at first showed his concern by taking from the Gentiles a people for himself. 15 The words of the prophets are in agreement with this, as it is written:
Acts 21:
15 After this, we got ready and went up to Jerusalem. 16 Some of the disciples from Caesarea accompanied us and brought us to the home of Mnason, where we were to stay. He was a man from Cyprus and one of the early disciples.
17 When we arrived at Jerusalem, the brothers received us warmly. 18 The next day Paul and the rest of us went to see James, and all the elders were present. 19 Paul greeted them and reported in detail what God had done among the Gentiles through his ministry.
20When they heard this, they praised God. Then they said to Paul: "You see, brother, how many thousands of Jews have believed, and all of them are zealous for the law. We can see here several instances of the use of "the brothers," as well as the references to James and a discussion of Paul meeting James in Jerusalem in Acts 21. Nowhere in Acts does the author state that any James is a brother of Jesus, and in the passage that describes Paul's meeting with James, the author says that Paul met with the brothers, though clearly not literal brothers of Jesus.
We have two problems here though. First of all, James son of Zebedee was supposedly killed in Acts 12, and second of all, this isn't the first mention of Paul meeting the apostles in Jerusalem in the book of Acts. The first mention in Acts of Paul (also called Saul) meeting the apostles occurs in Acts 9.Acts 9:
Saul spent several days with the disciples in Damascus. 20 At once he began to preach in the synagogues that Jesus is the Son of God. 21 All those who heard him were astonished and asked, "Isn't he the man who raised havoc in Jerusalem among those who call on this name? And hasn't he come here to take them as prisoners to the chief priests?" 22 Yet Saul grew more and more powerful and baffled the Jews living in Damascus by proving that Jesus is the Christ.
23 After many days had gone by, the Jews conspired to kill him, 24 but Saul learned of their plan. Day and night they kept close watch on the city gates in order to kill him. 25 But his followers took him by night and lowered him in a basket through an opening in the wall.
26 When he came to Jerusalem, he tried to join the disciples, but they were all afraid of him, not believing that he really was a disciple. 27 But Barnabas took him and brought him to the apostles. He told them how Saul on his journey had seen the Lord and that the Lord had spoken to him, and how in Damascus he had preached fearlessly in the name of Jesus. 28 So Saul stayed with them and moved about freely in Jerusalem, speaking boldly in the name of the Lord. 29 He talked and debated with the Grecian Jews, but they tried to kill him. 30 When the brothers learned of this, they took him down to Caesarea and sent him off to Tarsus.
31 Then the church throughout Judea, Galilee and Samaria enjoyed a time of peace. It was strengthened; and encouraged by the Holy Spirit, it grew in numbers, living in the fear of the Lord. Though there are elements of the story in Acts that don't correspond to the writings of Paul, the basic timing works out. The first meeting between Paul and the apostles occurs in Acts before the supposed death of James son of Zebedee, and this presumably corresponds to Paul's first meeting with Peter and James in Galatians 1. The details of these accounts are different, but the basic timing can be viewed as compatible.Galatians 1:
15 But when God, who set me apart from birth and called me by his grace, was pleased 16 to reveal his Son in me so that I might preach him among the Gentiles, I did not consult any man, 17 nor did I go up to Jerusalem to see those who were apostles before I was, but I went immediately into Arabia and later returned to Damascus.
18 Then after three years, I went up to Jerusalem to get acquainted with Peter and stayed with him fifteen days. 19 I saw none of the other apostles—only James, the Lord's brother. 21 Then I went into the regions of Syria and Cilicia, 22 and I was still unknown by sight to the churches of Judea that are in Christ; 23 they only heard it said, 'The one who formerly was persecuting us is now proclaiming the faith he once tried to destroy.' 24 And they glorified God because of me.
Galatians 2:
1 Then after fourteen years I went up again to Jerusalem with Barnabas, taking Titus along with me. 2 I went up in response to a revelation. Then I laid before them (though only in a private meeting with the acknowledged leaders) the gospel that I proclaim among the Gentiles, in order to make sure that I was not running, or had not run, in vain.
...
9 James, Peter and John, those reputed to be pillars, gave me and Barnabas the right hand of fellowship when they recognized the grace given to me. They agreed that we should go to the Gentiles, and they to the Jews. From Paul's letters it shows that he met with Peter and James at some early point, and then he went back to Jerusalem 14 years later and met with the apostles again. Nowhere, in Paul's letters does Paul indicate that the James he met the first time is different from the James that he met the second time, and at any rate, he mentions that the apostle James was "the Lord's brother" when discussing the first meeting. Paul also never says anything about James dying. Acts says that Paul first met the disciples in Damascus, which contradicts what the letters of Paul say. It's certain that Acts is not totally accurate, and that the author of Acts made a few things up or based some story elements on traditions that were made up. The book of Acts is where the Gospel story was merged with the apostolistic reality, and as can be expected when blending fact with fiction, inconsistencies arose. This is all the more interesting in Acts because there is a clear differentiation between Acts 1-12 and the later chapters, which contain a more historical story line.
We know one thing for sure though, which is that as far as the author of Acts was concerned, "James" was not a literal brother of Jesus, because a brother of Jesus named James is never mentioned by the author of Acts in either of his works. He wouldn't just introduce an unknown character out of the blue that is supposed to be the real life brother of Jesus without even stating that the person was the brother of Jesus. In Christian tradition, and in most Bibles that have footnotes, the mentions of James after the supposed killing of James son of Zebedee are referenced as the brother of Jesus via footnotes that tie this James to the passage from Paul in Galatians that says "the Lord's brother". Clearly, though, this is not legitimate as nothing within Acts itself makes this association. So, what are the possible answers to who this James is?
There are several possibilities. The first possibility is that the James mentioned after the supposed death of James son of Zebedee is James son of Alphaeus who was also listed as an apostle who was among them during this incident. This would mean that Paul possibly met with James son of Zebedee in Galatians 1 and James son of Alphaeus in Galatians 2.
The second possibility is that the author of Acts somehow got his sources confused and he accidentally recorded the killing of the wrong James, or he put this incident at the wrong place in the time line and in fact Peter and James were not put in prison until later. This could be the case, in which case the killing of "James" in other accounts, such as the accounts of Hegesippus and Josephus, which we will look at later, could be describing the same incident that is described in Acts 12, though Acts 12 is out of order.
This is not unlikely actually, because Acts is considered to exist in two distinct parts, chapters 1 through 12 and chapters 13-28, which are thought to be derived from two different sources that were combined together. In fact there could be overlap with these sections, and thus what is described in Acts 21 could actually have occurred at the same time as what is in Acts 9. These could well be two different descriptions, from two different sources, of the same events, in which case both of the meetings of Paul with James as described in Acts would be talking about James son of Zebedee, and the killing of James son of Zebedee in Acts 12 would likely have occurred in the 60s CE.
If that is the case then the other mentions of the the killing of James, possibly by Josephus and Hegesippus, are really talking about the killing of James son of Zebedee, who was called "James the Just" and "the brother of the Lord". James son of Zebedee would perhaps have had those titles because he was some outstanding community leader.
A third option is that Acts 12:2 is a later interpolation, inserted into the text in order to blot James son of Zebedee out of the history.
In both the writings of Paul and in the Gospels conflict between James son of Zebedee and the others is shown. There was some kind of tension between the brothers of Zebedee and the rest of the apostles. It appears, according to the writings of Paul, that James and John Zebedee held to a more Jewish version of the faith and did not embrace the Gentile apostleship.
In the 1st century, however, James son of Zebedee was considered a pillar of the Christian community, but perhaps later Christians sought to exclude him from the tradition and sever ties to his sect.
There is support for Acts 12:2 being an interpolation within the text itself, because there is no discussion of the death of James, and the narrative goes on as if nothing happened. Indeed if you take that one sentence out no one would ever suspect that the James being talked about in later chapters was no longer James son of Zebedee.
If this James really were killed at this point in the Acts narrative, and this narrative were true, then there would have been no reason for the Gospels to have played up the role of James son of Zebedee in the first place. The playing up of his role in the Gospels was presumably done because of this person's later leadership. This was a means of establishing who the leaders were, by tying them into important roles in the narrative. So much effort was put into establishing the trio of Peter, James, and John in the Gospels, while the brothers of Jesus had one line written about them in each Gospel, which only stated that Jesus rejected them, yet we are to then believe that the James mentioned among the Peter, James, and John of later importance refers to a different James than the one referred to in the Gospels and Acts? This clearly makes no sense.
There is even further support for the idea that James the pillar whom Paul met was not a literal brother of Jesus and was perhaps James son of Zebedee.
One of the few other early mentions of James comes from the Gospel of Thomas, which does not mention any literal brothers of Jesus, nor does it ascribe a brotherly status to James.12 The disciples said to Jesus, "We know that you are going to leave us. Who will be our leader?"
Jesus said to them, "No matter where you are you are to go to James the Just, for whose sake heaven and earth came into being."
- Gospel of Thomas
This seems like an odd thing to have Jesus say if "James the Just" is the brother of Jesus, as this would have been the perfect place to have Jesus say "Turn to my brother James the Just," etc. Not only would it be odd not to call James his brother here, but it's also odd to give the reason, "for whose sake heaven and earth came into being." This is quite a strange thing to say in any account, ascribing the entire creation of the universe to the grandeur of this one man.
This leads to other questions. In the synoptic Gospels we have James son of Zebedee, along with his brother John, portrayed as one the the three most important disciples and the one perhaps closest to Jesus. In the Gospel of Thomas we have Jesus saying that "James the Just" is the one "for whose sake heaven and earth came into being."
What, then, do we have in the Gospel of John? In the Gospel of John, James and John son of Zebedee are never named, but we do have an unnamed "beloved disciple". Who is the beloved disciple, and why does he remain unnamed? This question has puzzled scholars for centuries, but the answer may well be that James son of Zebedee is the "beloved disciple" in the Gospel of John precisely because by the time that the Gospel of John was written James son of Zebedee had become a pariah, thus he was not mentioned by name. His sect, by that time, may have been rejected by those who viewed the Jesus Christ movement as a Gentile movement, while James' sect had been a more Jewish oriented group.
Traditionally John son of Zebedee has been considered the "beloved disciple" and author of the Gospel of John, but scholars today recognize that this is not not likely to be the case. But why would this Gospel have been ascribed to John in the first place? One of the main reasons is that neither John nor James, two people considered to be the most important apostles, are mentioned in the Gospel of John. How could one explain the fact that two of the most important apostles aren't in the last Gospel? The explanation that gained favor was that this Gospel was written by John son of Zebedee himself, which is why he never mentioned himself, supposedly out of humility.
This is all highly unlikely however. The more reasonable explanation is that James and John Zebedee were not mentioned because they were out of favor at that time in the community in which this Gospel was written.
However, with the beloved disciple the author of John may have been stating that there was someone who played an important role in the early church, who was viewed by the early community as one of the greatest apostles, but this person was now anathema, the one "whose name we dare not speak", James son of Zebedee.
Let's look at the Gospel of John to get a better understanding of the "beloved disciple".John 13:
22 His disciples stared at one another, at a loss to know which of them he meant. 23 One of them, the disciple whom Jesus loved, was reclining next to him. 24 Simon Peter motioned to this disciple and said, "Ask him which one he means."
25 Leaning back against Jesus, he asked him, "Lord, who is it?"
John 19:
25 Near the cross of Jesus stood his mother, his mother's sister, Mary the wife of Clopas, and Mary Magdalene. 26 When Jesus saw his mother there, and the disciple whom he loved standing nearby, he said to his mother, "Dear woman, here is your son," 27 and to the disciple, "Here is your mother." From that time on, this disciple took her into his home. These are the only clear references to the beloved disciple in what is believed to be the original text. There is another reference to "the disciple whom Jesus loved" in John 21, but John 21 was probably added to the text later by a different author, and thus may not clearly play into the same theme.John 21:
7 Then the disciple whom Jesus loved said to Peter, "It is the Lord!" As soon as Simon Peter heard him say, "It is the Lord," he wrapped his outer garment around him (for he had taken it off) and jumped into the water. 8 The other disciples followed in the boat, towing the net full of fish, for they were not far from shore, about a hundred yards. 9 When they landed, they saw a fire of burning coals there with fish on it, and some bread.
...
15 When they had finished eating, Jesus said to Simon Peter, "Simon son of John, do you truly love me more than these?"
"Yes, Lord," he said, "you know that I love you."
Jesus said, "Feed my lambs."
16 Again Jesus said, "Simon son of John, do you truly love me?"
He answered, "Yes, Lord, you know that I love you."
Jesus said, "Take care of my sheep."
17 The third time he said to him, "Simon son of John, do you love me?"
Peter was hurt because Jesus asked him the third time, "Do you love me?" He said, "Lord, you know all things; you know that I love you."
18 Jesus said, "Feed my sheep. I tell you the truth, when you were younger you dressed yourself and went where you wanted; but when you are old you will stretch out your hands, and someone else will dress you and lead you where you do not want to go." 19 Jesus said this to indicate the kind of death by which Peter would glorify God. Then he said to him, "Follow me!"
20 Peter turned and saw that the disciple whom Jesus loved was following them. (This was the one who had leaned back against Jesus at the supper and had said, "Lord, who is going to betray you?") 21 When Peter saw him, he asked, "Lord, what about him?"
22 Jesus answered, "If I want him to remain alive until I return, what is that to you? You must follow me." 23 Because of this, the rumor spread among the brothers that this disciple would not die. But Jesus did not say that he would not die; he only said, "If I want him to remain alive until I return, what is that to you?" The addition of John 21 was probably done in order to establish Peter as the rightful leader of the Christian community and to tie the Church to the traditions in his name. It's not clear that the later author had the same intentions as the earlier author with the usage of the the beloved disciple. Since John son of Zebedee has traditionally been identified as the beloved disciple, hence the reason that this is called the Gospel of John, it is likely that the author who added John 21 believed that the beloved disciple was John himself.
However, the unnamed disciple in the Gospel of John would seem to be James son of Zebedee, as James was the one given prominence in the synoptics and the one who is named as the most important in the Gospel of Thomas. All of this comes together not only to make perfect sense, but to explain many things that are unexplainable via the traditional Christian interpretation.
Peter, James and John sons of Zebedee were clearly the central apostles in the early Christian movement. Later on, as the Peterine and Pauline sects broke away and became dominant, James and his Jewish sect became anathema, and this would be why, by the time the Gospel of John was being written, the names of James and John were not mentioned, instead James was called "the disciple whom Jesus loved" to indicate that this was talking about an important person who nevertheless was to remain unnamed.
Later, in the second century, the rewriting of history took place and James son of Zebedee was replaced in the Christian tradition with a fictitious "James brother of Jesus", not necessarily intentionally by all those involved, but perhaps unintentionally out of real ignorance and confusion by later Christians.
If this is the case, then the reason that Paul called James "the Lord's brother" in Galatians is because James was seen as such a major pillar of the community, whom people called a "brother of the Lord", which was a title similar to "the Just". Paul's "the Lord's brother" was just a version of "James the Just", as mentioned in the Gospel of Thomas, both of which were talking about James son of Zebedee. This would also why the author of the Gospel of John put Mary at the crucifixion scene and had Jesus say to Mary in John 19:26-27 that this disciple was now "her son".
This would be the author of John's way of saying that this is the apostle who was called "the Lord's brother", a.k.a. "James the Just", a.k.a. James son of Zebedee, a real person and the real leader of the early Judean church. Indeed the 2nd century Christian scholar Origen alluded to as much himself.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
- Against Celsus; Origen
So, the answer to the issue of whether or not Paul met a literal brother of Jesus, which would tie Jesus into history, is no, Paul did not meet a literal brother of Jesus, he most likely met James son of Zebedee, who was a pillar of the Jewish sect of Christ worshipers. This James was only later considered to be a literal brother of Jesus. It was probably the early Christian chronicler Hegesippus, in the late 2nd century, who recorded the first concrete association of James the Just as the literal brother of Jesus, helping to cement this view into Church tradition.James, the Lord's brother, succeeds to the government of the Church, in conjunction with the apostles. He has been universally called the Just, from the days of the Lord down to the present time. For many bore the name of James; but this one was holy from his mother's womb. He drank no wine or other intoxicating liquor, nor did he eat flesh; no razor came upon his head; he did not anoint himself with oil, nor make use of the bath. He alone was permitted to enter the holy place: for he did not wear any woolen garment, but fine linen only. ... Therefore, in consequence of his pre-eminent justice, he was called the Just, and Oblias, which signifies in Greek Defense of the People, and Justice, in accordance with what the prophets declare concerning him.
- Commentaries on the Acts of the Church; Hegesippus, 165-175 When Hegesippus says "the Lord's brother" here he is taking this from tradition, but here it is clearly meant as the "literal brother of Jesus", and by this time he himself probably really believed that was who this James was. From the 3nd century on it was assumed that the James who was an early church leader was a literal "brother of the Lord".
In further support of this there is also the Epistle of James, which is traditionally associated with "James the Just", supposedly the literal brother of Jesus, but the letter itself does not say that the author is a brother of Jesus.James 1:
James, a servant of God and of the Lord Jesus Christ, To the twelve tribes scattered among the nations: Greetings.
Why would this greeting not say "James, a brother of the Lord Jesus Christ," if this person was indeed his brother? Nothing in the letter indicates that this James is a brother of Jesus. It's hardly believable that a literal brother of Jesus would not indicate such in a letter authored by him, or that if this letter is pseudonomous the person writing in the name of James, presumably to lend authority to the writing, would not have indicated that James was the brother of Jesus if James being the brother of Jesus was indeed a part of the tradition at that time.
So, against the claim that the James Paul described meeting in Galatians 1 was a literal brother of Jesus, we have the fact that none of the other early Christian writings indicate that the important figure who was called James was a brother of Jesus, nor do any brothers of Jesus play important roles in any of the Gospels. Even if the "beloved disciple" is not James son of Zebedee, it is clear that the author of Acts did not consider any James that he talked about to be a family member of Jesus. While Acts is a flawed and legendary writing, it is inconceivable that something so substantial would be overlooked by the author. The whole point of Acts was to clarify the authority of the major apostles and community leaders. That the author of Acts would have left out the fact that one of the community leaders was a literal brother of Jesus simply makes no sense. If the author of Acts believed that any of the "Jameses" that he mentioned were literal brothers of Jesus, then he would have stated so in his writing, so it is clear that even by the time Acts was written the belief that James was a family member of Jesus was not yet established. Regardless of who the second James in Acts was, it clearly wasn't "the brother of Jesus".
Unless all of the writers between Paul and the late 2nd century, those being the the writers of the Gospels, Acts, and the Epistles, didn't realize or simply forgot that James was a literal brother of Jesus, then it's clear that the James who was an important apostle and played an important role in the community was not a literal brother of Jesus, and thus Paul did not describe meeting a literal brother of Jesus in Galatians 1:19.
|
I haven't proof read this yet, so if anyone catches any errors, let me know 
|
03-20-2007, 12:33 PM
) Very curious about the possible division of Acts. Any literature on the net about this?
