Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Malachi151 · 03-08-2007, 06:38 AM

I've put together a case that I think is compelling and significant.

Quote:

James 1:
James, a servant of God and of the Lord Jesus Christ,
To the twelve tribes scattered among the nations:
Greetings.

Quote:

Mark 17:
1 After six days Jesus took with him Peter, James and John the brother of James, and led them up a high mountain by themselves. 2 There he was transfigured before them. His face shone like the sun, and his clothes became as white as the light. 3 Just then there appeared before them Moses and Elijah, talking with Jesus.

Quote:

Mark 5:
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.

Just to be clear which James this is:

Quote:

Mark 10:
Mark 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."

Quote:

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."

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.

Quote:

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

Quote:

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. 8The other disciples followed in the boat, towing the net full of fish, for they were not far from shore, about a hundred yards. 9When they landed, they saw a fire of burning coals there with fish on it, and some bread.

...

20Peter 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?") 21When Peter saw him, he asked, "Lord, what about him?"

22Jesus answered, "If I want him to remain alive until I return, what is that to you? You must follow me." 23Because 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?"

Quote:

John 13:
22 His disciples stared at one another, at a loss to know which of them he meant. 23One of them, the disciple whom Jesus loved, was reclining next to him. 24Simon 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?"

Quote:

Galatians 1:
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.

Quote:

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. 10 All they asked was that we should continue to remember the poor, the very thing I was eager to do.

Quote:

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, 3rd century

James son of Zebedee is the beloved disciple, which is why Paul called him a brother of the Lord, and he is the one originally called the Just. In later tradition this James, probably because of Paul, was confused with the minor mention James from Mark who was listed one time among his brothers.

This has to be correct looking at the data, and this not only overturns a lot of Christian tradition, but it also greatly supports that JM position, because it makes it clear why Paul called James the Lord's brother. This James was seen as a "pillar" in Paul's time, and all of the early Christians recognized that this James was one of the main apostles, so they wrote him into Gospels as a main disciple. Later, in the 2nd and 3rd century, people got confused, and I believe that it was Hegesippus who may have started this confusion when he wrote:

Quote:

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.
...
The aforesaid scribes and Pharisees accordingly set James on the summit of the temple, and cried aloud to him, and said: "O just one, whom we are all bound to obey, forasmuch as the people is in error, and follows Jesus the crucified, do thou tell us what is the door of Jesus, the crucified." And he answered with a loud voice: "Why ask ye me concerning Jesus the Son of man? He Himself sitteth in heaven, at the right hand of the Great Power, and shall come on the clouds of heaven."
And, when many were fully convinced by these words, and offered praise for the testimony of James, and said, "Hosanna to the son of David," then again the said Pharisees and scribes said to one another, "We have not done well in procuring this testimony to Jesus. But let us go up and throw him down, that they may be afraid, and not believe him." And they cried aloud, and said: "Oh! oh! the just man himself is in error." Thus they fulfilled the Scripture written in Isaiah: "Let us away with the just man, because he is troublesome to us: therefore shall they eat the fruit of their doings." So they went up and threw down the just man, and said to one another: "Let us stone James the Just." And they began to stone him: for he was not killed by the fall; but he turned, and kneeled down, and said: "I beseech Thee, Lord God our Father, forgive them; for they know not what they do."
And, while they were thus stoning him to death, one of the priests, the sons of Rechab, the son of Rechabim, to whom testimony is borne by Jeremiah the prophet, began to cry aloud, saying: "Cease, what do ye? The just man is praying for us." But one among them, one of the fullers, took the staff with which he was accustomed to wring out the garments he dyed, and hurled it at the head of the just man.
And so he suffered martyrdom; and they buried him on the spot, and the pillar erected to his memory still remains, close by the temple. This man was a true witness to both Jews and Greeks that Jesus is the Christ.
And shortly after Vespasian besieged Judaea, taking them captive.
- Commentaries on the Acts of the Church; Hegesippus, 165-175

James son of Zebedee is the beloved disciple, James son of Zebedee is the Just, James son of Zebedee was one of the pillars of the apostles, NOT a James who got one insignificant mention in the Gospel of Mark in a list of names who were brothers of Jesus.

S.C.Carlson · 03-08-2007, 07:06 AM

What's your position on fitting Acts 12:1-3 with 12:17?

12:1 About that time King Herod laid violent hands upon some who belonged to the church. 2 He had James, the brother of John, killed with the sword. 3 After he saw that it pleased the Jews, he proceded to arrest Peter also. (This was during the festival of Unleaved Bread.) . . . 17 . . . And he [scil. Peter] added, "Tell this to James and to the believers." Then he left and went to another place. (NRSV)

Stephen

Malachi151 · 03-08-2007, 07:41 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by S.C.Carlson

What's your position on fitting Acts 12:1-3 with 12:17?

12:1 About that time King Herod laid violent hands upon some who belonged to the church. 2 He had James, the brother of John, killed with the sword. 3 After he saw that it pleased the Jews, he proceded to arrest Peter also. (This was during the festival of Unleaved Bread.) . . . 17 . . . And he [scil. Peter] added, "Tell this to James and to the believers." Then he left and went to another place. (NRSV)

Stephen

The angel brought him back to life? :banghead:

Good point. Obviously the James mentioned after this passage can't be son of Zebedee, however the James in the Gospels that is always listed with Peter as one of the three main ones is James son of Zebedee.

The really weird thing is this:

Quote:

Mark 17:
1 After six days Jesus took with him Peter, James and John the brother of James, and led them up a high mountain by themselves. 2 There he was transfigured before them. His face shone like the sun, and his clothes became as white as the light. 3 Just then there appeared before them Moses and Elijah, talking with Jesus.

Quote:

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;

Obviously "Mark" is talking about James and John son of Zebedee. "Luke" is also talking about James and John son of Zebedee here as well.

Quote:

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. 10 All they asked was that we should continue to remember the poor, the very thing I was eager to do.

This would be saying here that James of Zebedee was replaced with another James, who is presumed to be the real brother of Jesus, but this is rather hard to beleive, though James was apparently a common name, the trio remains the same names in both cases?

It seems to me that there was some mixing up of traditions here. This is especially odd since I don't believe "Luke" ever names James as a brother of Jesus even in the Gospel of Luke, though I could be wrong on that.

Clearly James son of Zebedee is setup as a major apostle in the Gospels.

This defiantly makes things more complicated, but I wouldn't say that the issue is resolved in terms of saying that the James mentioned by Paul is not the one talked about in the Gospels as "son of Zebedee".

At this point it depends on how historical and true you think Acts is. If what Acts says is absolutely true (which we know that much of it is not) then obviously the James mentioned by Paul can't be James son of Zebedee. If Acts isn't factually reliable, but is reliable in terms of tradition, then its possible that there is some confusion here in the tradition.

I know what the traditional Christian take on the issue is, so I don't have to guess about that. This still wouldn't account for the beloved disciple issue, though, because the beloved disciple (if its really anyone in particular and not just a silly mystery) has to be one of "the Twelve".

Also, the James mentioned later in Acts I would assume is James son of Alphaeus, the only other James introduced by "Luke". This James is also James the brother of Jude, from which the Epistle of Jude is presumably associated.

So, this still doesn't go back to "James the brother of Jesus"

Niall Armstrong · 03-08-2007, 09:46 AM

Seeing James the son of Zebedee as the same as James the Just (and the beloved disciple) solves several problems:

1) Mark 10:35-45 makes more sense (at least in MJ-theory). Why should AMark have written such a scathing libel about a minor apostle? James the Just is the one who has the power in the early church, and would be a fitting target for someone like AMark who had a problem with “apostolic authority”. (The composition of the Acts, by a follower of Paul desirous to ensure that the latter inherits the same authority, also ensures that James is minimized, even divided. After this, AMark’s denigration of James is rather wasted…)
2) The connection between GThomas and GJohn gets an apostolic witness. The thematic parallels between these gospels are well known (such as the “I am” sayings; the “light”allegory; the Gnostic leanings; but also the distancing in GJohn from the doubting Thomas). So while GThomas at one point has identified James the Just as the rightful leader (as opposed to GMark), GJohn recognizes the same man as the beloved disciple. The unity (as well as the conflicts) of these gospels is due to this continuity.

I do doubt, though, that the writer of GJohn had a specific “beloved disciple” in mind. If he did, he would have named him. Why keep it a secret? It seems more likely that this was a matter of betting on both horses, so that followers of both James and John (who definitely were spiritual brothers, but not necessarily actual brothers) could both identify with the story. (Perhaps there was an estrangement between their followers that AJohn wished to overcome. The Johannine epistles may testify to the same.)

Malachi151 · 03-08-2007, 10:41 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Niall Armstrong

Seeing James the son of Zebedee as the same as James the Just (and the beloved disciple) solves several problems:

1) Mark 10:35-45 makes more sense (at least in MJ-theory). Why should AMark have written such a scathing libel about a minor apostle? James the Just is the one who has the power in the early church, and would be a fitting target for someone like AMark who had a problem with “apostolic authority”. (The composition of the Acts, by a follower of Paul desirous to ensure that the latter inherits the same authority, also ensures that James is minimized, even divided. After this, AMark’s denigration of James is rather wasted…)
2) The connection between GThomas and GJohn gets an apostolic witness. The thematic parallels between these gospels are well known (such as the “I am” sayings; the “light”allegory; the Gnostic leanings; but also the distancing in GJohn from the doubting Thomas). So while GThomas at one point has identified James the Just as the rightful leader (as opposed to GMark), GJohn recognizes the same man as the beloved disciple. The unity (as well as the conflicts) of these gospels is due to this continuity.

I do doubt, though, that the writer of GJohn had a specific “beloved disciple” in mind. If he did, he would have named him. Why keep it a secret? It seems more likely that this was a matter of betting on both horses, so that followers of both James and John (who definitely were spiritual brothers, but not necessarily actual brothers) could both identify with the story. (Perhaps there was an estrangement between their followers that AJohn wished to overcome. The Johannine epistles may testify to the same.)

So, from this you may be saying that "Luke" killed off James son of Zebedee as a part of apostilistic conflict, to ensure that the authority went to Paul, but the same trio remained, James, John, and Paul, because this was already well known.

In reality the James that Paul mentioned was James "son of Zebedee", but "Luke" pulls a switcheroo to make it look at a different James to make it look like this James is not "the beloved disciple", or "the Just", i.e. to look like that James, the main man, died.

That makes sense... maybe.

But what is most important is that there is no way that the James in Acts is a literal brother of Jesus. "Luke" never named any of Jesus' brothers either in Luke or Acts, the assumption that that James is a literal brother of Jesus only comes from reading Galatians back into Acts, which you can't just do of course.

I think that the James mentioned in Galatians IS still James son of Zebedee, even though according to Acts he can't be, but that Acts was just trying to snuff that character out. In fact, I would go so far as to investigate the killing of James in Acts 12 as a later interpolation, because it gets such small notice, and then it picks right back up with a James again as if nothing happened. It may not be, but it seems to me to either be an interpolation or "Luke" killing off James to break the chain of authority.

I agree that the beloved disciple may be no one, perhaps the whole point is that the unnamed disciple is the "one who testifies", but he never names that person, thus no one could have figured out how to question the testimony.

However, if ti were someone, I bet on James.

Niall Armstrong · 03-08-2007, 11:04 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Malachi151

So, from this you may be saying that "Luke" killed off James son of Zebedee as a part of apostilistic conflict, to ensure that the authority went to Paul, but the same trio remained, James, John, and Paul, because this was already well known.

Not too concerned about who did the "killing" of James. Your interpolation theory sounds believable. But the "killing" does fit with the general tendency of Acts, of transferring power from Pillars to Paul. If it wasn't done by the author of Acts ("Luke" or otherwise), it probably was done shortly after composition.

Perhaps the pauline community, believing to have produced the perfect outflanking of the James/John faction (Epistles--> Gospels --> Acts) found that the latter had composed the GJohn, and thereby got Jesus' approval of their authority. Splitting James up and killing off the disciple (leaving the Just hanging in the air, later to be adopted as the brother of Jesus) would make break the connection with the beloved disciple.
But now I'm getting too far out on the limb!

Niall Armstrong · 03-08-2007, 11:11 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Malachi151

But what is most important is that there is no way that the James in Acts is a literal brother of Jesus. "Luke" never named any of Jesus' brothers either in Luke or Acts, the assumption that that James is a literal brother of Jesus only comes from reading Galatians back into Acts, which you can't just do of course.

Agreed. And the reading of the Galatians quote could cause a war of articles to compete with another thread's war of pronouns....:Cheeky:

Niall Armstrong · 03-08-2007, 12:56 PM

From Robert Price's review of Robert Eisenman's "JAMES THE BROTHER OF JESUS" (1997)

Quote:

The Gospels give prominence to an inner circle of three: Peter, John son of Zebedee and John's brother James. And Galatians has the Three Pillars in Jerusalem: Peter, John son of Zebedee, and Jesus' brother James. What happened here? Surely the gospels' inner group of three is intended as preparatory for the Pillars, to provide a life-of-Jesus pedigree for the Pillars. But then why are there two different Jameses? Mustn't they originally have been the same? Eisenman says they were, but certain factions wanted to play up the authority of the shadowy college of the Twelve against the earlier authority of the Heirs and found it politic to drive a wedge between James the brother of Jesus and the Twelve, so James becomes James the Just on the one hand and James the brother of John on the other.

Knew this stuff was too good to be original....
But Eisenmann seems to believe James WAS the brother of Jesus, and that making him the son of Zebedee was an attempt to dethrone him. Easy enough for an MJ'er to disagree, but how to make it obvious?

Malachi151 · 03-08-2007, 01:08 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Niall Armstrong

From Robert Price's review of Robert Eisenman's "JAMES THE BROTHER OF JESUS" (1997)

Knew this stuff was too good to be original....
But Eisenmann seems to believe James WAS the brother of Jesus, and that making him the son of Zebedee was an attempt to dethrone him. Easy enough for an MJ'er to disagree, but how to make it obvious?

LOL, an interesting backwards take on the issue. I think my case makes more sense.

Thanks for that.

stuart shepherd · 03-08-2007, 02:17 PM

So who is the disciple that Jesus loved?
John 11:5 (King James Version)
5Now Jesus loved Martha, and her sister, and Lazarus.

In John chapter 21, why did Peter ask about the death of the disciple who Jesus loved?
Because Lazarus had been 'resurrected" from the grave.

Why was the disciple who Jesus loved at the cross.
John 19:26 (King James Version)
26When Jesus therefore saw his mother, and the disciple standing by, whom he loved, he saith unto his mother, Woman, behold thy son!
Because all the Apostles had run away and were scattered.

Who was the disciple known to the high priest?
John 18:16 (King James Version)
16But Peter stood at the door without. Then went out that other disciple, which was known unto the high priest, and spake unto her that kept the door, and brought in Peter.
I think that it was Lazarus. The Apostles were out of towners from Galilee and spoke with an accent. Lazarus was rich, lived in the Jerusalem suburbs of Bethany and was known to the Jews of the area.
John 11:18-19 (King James Version)
18Now Bethany was nigh unto Jerusalem, about fifteen furlongs off: [2 miles]

19And many of the Jews came to Martha and Mary, to comfort them concerning their brother.

Stuart Shepherd

03-08-2007, 07:06 AM	#2
S.C.Carlson Veteran Member Join Date: Jan 2005 Location: USA Posts: 1,307	What's your position on fitting Acts 12:1-3 with 12:17? 12:1 About that time King Herod laid violent hands upon some who belonged to the church. 2 He had James, the brother of John, killed with the sword. 3 After he saw that it pleased the Jews, he proceded to arrest Peter also. (This was during the festival of Unleaved Bread.) . . . 17 . . . And he [scil. Peter] added, "Tell this to James and to the believers." Then he left and went to another place. (NRSV) Stephen

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

03-08-2007, 09:46 AM	#4
Niall Armstrong Junior Member Join Date: Feb 2007 Location: Norway's Bible Belt Posts: 85	Seeing James the son of Zebedee as the same as James the Just (and the beloved disciple) solves several problems: 1) Mark 10:35-45 makes more sense (at least in MJ-theory). Why should AMark have written such a scathing libel about a minor apostle? James the Just is the one who has the power in the early church, and would be a fitting target for someone like AMark who had a problem with “apostolic authority”. (The composition of the Acts, by a follower of Paul desirous to ensure that the latter inherits the same authority, also ensures that James is minimized, even divided. After this, AMark’s denigration of James is rather wasted…) 2) The connection between GThomas and GJohn gets an apostolic witness. The thematic parallels between these gospels are well known (such as the “I am” sayings; the “light”allegory; the Gnostic leanings; but also the distancing in GJohn from the doubting Thomas). So while GThomas at one point has identified James the Just as the rightful leader (as opposed to GMark), GJohn recognizes the same man as the beloved disciple. The unity (as well as the conflicts) of these gospels is due to this continuity. I do doubt, though, that the writer of GJohn had a specific “beloved disciple” in mind. If he did, he would have named him. Why keep it a secret? It seems more likely that this was a matter of betting on both horses, so that followers of both James and John (who definitely were spiritual brothers, but not necessarily actual brothers) could both identify with the story. (Perhaps there was an estrangement between their followers that AJohn wished to overcome. The Johannine epistles may testify to the same.)

03-08-2007, 02:17 PM	#10
stuart shepherd Regular Member Join Date: Jan 2007 Location: Florida Posts: 315	So who is the disciple that Jesus loved? John 11:5 (King James Version) 5Now Jesus loved Martha, and her sister, and Lazarus. In John chapter 21, why did Peter ask about the death of the disciple who Jesus loved? Because Lazarus had been 'resurrected" from the grave. Why was the disciple who Jesus loved at the cross. John 19:26 (King James Version) 26When Jesus therefore saw his mother, and the disciple standing by, whom he loved, he saith unto his mother, Woman, behold thy son! Because all the Apostles had run away and were scattered. Who was the disciple known to the high priest? John 18:16 (King James Version) 16But Peter stood at the door without. Then went out that other disciple, which was known unto the high priest, and spake unto her that kept the door, and brought in Peter. I think that it was Lazarus. The Apostles were out of towners from Galilee and spoke with an accent. Lazarus was rich, lived in the Jerusalem suburbs of Bethany and was known to the Jews of the area. John 11:18-19 (King James Version) 18Now Bethany was nigh unto Jerusalem, about fifteen furlongs off: [2 miles] 19And many of the Jews came to Martha and Mary, to comfort them concerning their brother. Stuart Shepherd

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.