Vinnie

I put up a small piece on James, the Brother of Jesus. Its very basic and can be summarized as follows: In this small essay I focus on the independent traditions from the first century that mention James, the brother of the Lord. GMark, Galatians, and Antiquities 20 provide independent historical confirmation that James was the brother of Jesus. I conclude that these references secure Jesus' spot as a figure in history.

<a href="http://www.geocities.com/ilgwamh/brotherofthelord.html" target="_blank">http://www.geocities.com/ilgwamh/brotherofthelord.html</a>

Vorkosigan

Hi Vin, good to see you hanging around again! Here is my response to Peter from another thread:

Peter wrote:
A search of the ante-Nicene Church Fathers, the extracanonical writings, and the New Testament will produce no instance in which James is identified as "the brother of Jesus" (let alone "the brother of Jesus called Christ"). It is thus not likely to be a phrase to come naturally from a Christian pen when identifying James.

&lt;shakes head&gt;
&lt;wipes eyes&gt;
&lt;sound of gears grinding in head&gt;

Here's the whole passage:

• 1. AND now Caesar, upon hearing the death of Festus, sent Albinus into Judea, as procurator. But the king deprived Joseph of the high priesthood, and bestowed the succession to that dignity on the son of Ananus, who was also himself called Ananus. Now the report goes that this eldest Ananus proved a most fortunate man; for he had five sons who had all performed the office of a high priest to God, and who had himself enjoyed that dignity a long time formerly, which had never happened to any other of our high priests. But this younger Ananus, who, as we have told you already, took the high priesthood, was a bold man in his temper, and very insolent; he was also of the sect of the Sadducees, who are very rigid in judging offenders, above all the rest of the Jews, as we have already observed; when, therefore, Ananus was of this disposition, he thought he had now a proper opportunity [to exercise his authority]. Festus was now dead, and Albinus was but upon the road; so he assembled the sanhedrin of judges, and brought before them the brother of Jesus, who was called Christ, whose name was James, and some others, [or, some of his companions]; and when he had formed an accusation against them as breakers of the law, he delivered them to be stoned: but as for those who seemed the most equitable of the citizens, and such as were the most uneasy at the breach of the laws, they disliked what was done; they also sent to the king [Agrippa], desiring him to send to Ananus that he should act so no more, for that what he had already done was not to be justified; nay, some of them went also to meet Albinus, as he was upon his journey from Alexandria, and informed him that it was not lawful for Ananus to assemble a sanhedrin without his consent. (24) Whereupon Albinus complied with what they said, and wrote in anger to Ananus, and threatened that he would bring him to punishment for what he had done; on which king Agrippa took the high priesthood from him, when he had ruled but three months, and made Jesus, the son of Damneus, high priest.

Peter, I've always believed this to be a marginal gloss, and now you've gone and made me think about this again.

Josephus does not identify "James." He identifies "the brother of Jesus" whose name happens to be James. Further on in the passage, he refers to two other Jesus,' one the son of Damneus who was made high priest (outlined above) and a couple of sections on, Jesus son of Gamaliel who follows him in that position.

It seems to me that the marginal gloss must be the messiah comment, and not the entire "Jesus" comment. What if the original text read "The brother of Jesus, whose name was James.." -- in other words, an ordinary bloke named James -- and the Jesus reference is to Jesus Damneus. Although the reader would need to get to the end of the section to see the connection, what if James is the son of Damneus as well and the brother of that Jesus, and the High Priesthood goes to that family as compensation for the unfortunate death of a brother (James).

Just tossing out an idea. I'm sure it has been hashed out before -- what's the answer?

Vorkosigan