aa5874

The evidence does suggest James the Just was a Pauline invention using Josephus' Antiquities of the Jews 20.9.1.

Galatians 1.19 specifically refers to an APOSTLE called James.

There was a tradition in the Jesus cult that there TWO Jameses who were Apostles.

James the Just was the Son of Alphaeus and the other was James the son of Zebedee who was killed by Herod.

It is specifically stated in Church History.

Church History 2.1 The apostle James in Galatians 1.19 is the character called the apostle James the son of Alphaeus.

James the son of Zebedee was killed by the sword according to Acts.

In Jerome's De Viris Illustribus it is specifically stated that James the Just who is called the Lord's brother was the son of the sister of Mary so could NOT be an actual brother of Jesus even if his father was Joseph.

Joseph was NOT the father of Jesus according to tradition.

Jerome's De Viris Illustribus Again, the Pauline Corpus is not corroborated--NONE of the Gospel authors wrote about an apostle called James the Lord's brother.

TedM

There are 2 James's listed in the disciple lists found in the gospels and Acts. However, the Son of Alphaeus is not also identified as James the Just. He may be, if Jerome's opinion is correct since Alphaeus is identified as Clopas, who by combining the crucifixion accounts of Matthew and John would have been Jesus' uncle., but it isn't 100% clear. The absence of any identification of James the Just in the Gospels and Acts is the source of confusion.

Jerome does quote the Gospel of Hebrews as saying James the Just was at the Last Supper, so it may be that he was one of the Twelve, but that isn't required, as surely more than 12 people journeyed with Jesus to Passover, and his cousins/family likely would have been among them (his mother and other relatives were at the cross).

So there may have been 3 prominent James': 2 disciples and a 'brother' or 'cousin'.


This not established. See above.


This was Jerome's opinion, and as your quote shows he indicates that others had a different opinion. This shows that by Jerome's time it wasn't clear, though there appears to be agreement that he was related by blood to Jesus.

But neither did they identify by title an apostle called James the Just. What the Gospels DO corroborate is that Jesus had a brother (or cousin) named James (Matthew and Mark). As does Josephus. As does Heggesippus, who as a Nazarene himself (per Eusebius) should have known whether James the Just was Jesus' relative or not (He says he was).

aa5874

Writers of the Jesus cult claimed James the Just was the Son of the sister of Mary wife of Cleophas or Alphaeus.

There can be no confusion when there is ADDITIONAL details.

That is the specific purpose of ADDITIONAL details to resolve ambiguity.

Again, examine the fragments of Papias.

In the Gospels and Acts of the Apostles an apostle James is also listed as the SON of ALPHAEUS.

In Church History 2.1, James the Just is ONE of the TWO Jameses--the other was beheaded.

Acts 12:1-2 KJVJames the brother of John is apostle James the Son of Zebedee.

James the Just is apostle James son of Alphaeus.

Essentially, the Pauline Corpus is NOT corroborated and there is NO support in or out the Canon.

Galatians 1.19 is a source of fiction.

The Lord Jesus of the NT had NO human brother called apostle James.

In fact, in Josephus, there is NO character called an apostle or apostle James the Just bishop of Jerusalem.

TedM

There was more than one Alphaeus walking around. In fact, Matthew/Levi's father was also an Alphaeus (Mark 2:14), yet he isn't listed as James' brother.

Nevertheless, I am somewhat comfortable with your conclusion that:


However, I don't think your conclusion here follows, and I'll tell you why below it:

Two reasons: First, as I understand it, the term "brother" back in those days was applied to cousins. As such, 1:19 is strongly corroborated by the gospels (since his aunt had a son named James - ie = Jesus' cousin) and Jerome says that James the Just was James the son of Alphaeus, who was both an apostle and the cousin (="brother") of Jesus.

Second, Josephus corroborates that Jesus Christ had a brother named James who was likely was in a prominent position in Jerusalem. Josephus didn't have to indicate that he was bishop of Christians or called James the Just to corroborate, in great part, Gal 1:19.

aa5874

Galatians 1.18-19 deals SPECIFICALLY with Apostles called Peter and James.

Galatians 1. 18-19 It is now an extremely simple matter to resolve--a piece of cake. James is claimed to be an Apostle.

There are at least FOUR lists of the Apostles in the Canon.

1. Matthew 10.2. Mark 33. Luke 64. Acts 1 There is NO apostle that is called the Lord's brother in the FOUR lists of Apostles.

As soon as it was claimed that the Pauline writer saw an APOSTLE called James it was either the Son of Zebedee or the Son of Alphaeus.

The Pauline Corpus is a source of fiction based on the FOUR lists in the Canon and the writings attributed to Eusebius, Papias and Jerome.

In and out the Canon, the character Jesus had NO human brother called Apostle James.

Galatians was most likely composed AFTER the writings of Josephus' Antiquities of the Jews 20.9.1 and AFTER the Gospels and Acts of the Apostles.

MrMacSon

Which stories are you proposing "stem from a misreading of Josephus' related passage"?

1. Hegesippus's?
2. Eusebius'?
3. some of the NT stories??
4. a combination? or
5. all?

TedM

You apparently didn't read or follow what I said about that. There is a decent case to be made for saying that Clopas and Alphaeus are the same person based on the Aramaic and Greek. The gospels mention a Mary, the sister of Jesus' mother had a son named James, and was married to Clopas. That James then could be the Apostle James, son of Alphaeus. That would make this James a cousin to Jesus. Since there was no Aramaic word for 'cousin' the translation to Greek would have been 'brother', it appears. Therefore James the son of Alphaeus in the Gospels would have been stated to have been Jesus' brother. That's the line of reasoning. Jerome specifically corroborates all of this, as you pointed out.

Secondly Josephus corroborates that James and Jesus Christ were considered 'brothers', and it is likely (since he bothered to even mention James) that James was prominent in Jerusalem.

Plus 2 gospels mention a James being the Lord's brother, without specifically stating he was an apostle. However, one could be an 'apostle' without being in the list of Twelve! Remember, Paul considered himself an apostle.

In addition, one need not conclude that the James of Gal 1:19 is also James the 'pillar'/leader in Gal 2, although most assume that.

Therefore Gal 1:19 is corroborated much more than you seem to realize.

spin

You should be starting to doubt this reference.

I have had an argument here for years that Origen, saying he knew of the James story from Josephus, didn't get it from him, because Josephus certainly says nothing about the fall of Jerusalem being related to the death of James. Try and find any definite Josephan information in Origen, CC 1.42. None there. Instead it is probable that Origen intuited this idea from his reading of Hegesippus (a name confused in antiquity with Josephus), who notes that the fall of Jerusalem happened "immediately after" the death of James. Origen confused Josephus with Hegesippus. A later scribe, reading Origen couldn't find the reference in Josephus so it would seem left a note in the margin, "the brother of Jesus called christ", which later crept into the text. This explains why we have the horrible syntax in Josephus.

It always stuns me that scholars can take Josephus nowhere else talking about the messiah (christ), yet doing so in both instances of a reference to Jesus. It's incredible and a sure indicator of a christian scribal hand at work.

Actually no corroboration involved. We see that it required a later interpretation that accepted the special κυριος bring used for Jesus, leading to the development of Hegesippus's tradition fragment, used by Origen, then inserted into Josephus. This is the churning over of ideas in a developing tradition. AJ 20.200 which originally talked of James and certain others was changed to reflect what Origen got from his reading of Hegesippus.

aa5874

Apparently, you do not read Galatians 1.18-19. Again, the Galatians writer is specifically claiming that he met TWO apostles in Jerusalem.

One was Peter and the other was James the Lord's brother.

Again, there are Two Jameses who were apostles and NONE was called the Lord's brother.

One apostle James was the Son of Zebedee and the other apostle James was the Son of Alphaeus.

In the Canon, Jesus was NOT the Son of Zebedee or the Son of Alphaeus--Jesus was born AFTER his mother was made PREGNANT by a Spirit.

Again, this was an extremely easy matter to resolve. Let us now continue and examine the Parents of Jesus.

Matthew 1 The conception by a SPIRIT is corroborated in gLuke 1.

Luke 1 Again, we have ZERO corroboration for Galatians 1.19 in the Canon. None of the Apostles listed were the son of a SPIRIT.

Jesus was the Son of a Holy Spirit and Mary.

I am extremely delighted that you say "Paul" considered himself an apostle because you have actually highlighted the fundamental problem with the Pauline Corpus.

The claim that Pauline writers were Apostles is NOT corroborated in the Gospels.

The Pauline Corpus is a source of fiction, fraud, forgeries, false attribution, multiple unknown authors and was unknown up to at least 180 CE.

TedM

I do, and it's on my list to look at someday.

It doesn't seem odd to me, as long as Josephus made it clear that Jesus was 'called' Christ.


You seem to not understand what the meaning of 'corroboration' is. Maybe you meant to say 'proven' instead of 'involved'. The fact that Origen clearly attributes mention of James to Josephus means that either he corroborates James' role correctly or he corroborates it incorrectly. Theories about Origen being 'confused' need some pretty good support to be taken seriously. Maybe that exists..dunno.