• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

James, the Lord's brother

dogsgod

Well-Known Member
Believers point to Galatians 1:19 "I did not see any other apostle except James, the Lord's brother" as evidence for Jesus' literal brother in spite of the fact that the Epistle writers refer to brother/s and brethren dozens of times as if in reference to a brotherhood.

The gospels don't refer to Jesus' brother as a disciple or of any importance. He's mentioned once in Mark 6:3 in passing and is never mentioned again. Luke/Acts doesn't even name James as a brother of Jesus.

Where does the idea come from that Jesus' brother James became a leader of a Christian community if not from the gospels and Acts?
 

Smoke

Done here.
Acts clearly shows James as the leader of the early Jesus community. Do you doubt that this is the same James as Jesus' brother, or do you doubt that he had a brother at all?
 

Jayhawker Soule

-- untitled --
Premium Member
Where does the idea come from that Jesus' brother James became a leader of a Christian community if not from the gospels and Acts?
Gospel of Thomas
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."​
Eusebius, Church History, Book II:
1. First, then, in the place of Judas, the betrayer, Matthias, who, as has been shown was also one of the Seventy, was chosen to the apostolate. And there were appointed to the diaconate, for the service of the congregation, by prayer and the laying on of the hands of the apostles, approved men, seven in number, of whom Stephen was one. He first, after the Lord, was stoned to death at the time of his ordination by the slayers of the Lord, as if he had been promoted for this very purpose. And thus he was the first to receive the crown, corresponding to his name, which belongs to the martyrs of Christ, who are worthy of the meed of victory.

2. Then James, whom the ancients surnamed the Just on account of the excellence of his virtue, is recorded to have been the first to be made bishop of the church of Jerusalem. This James was called the brother of the Lord because he was known as a son of Joseph, and Joseph was supposed to be the father of Christ, because the Virgin, being betrothed to him, "was found with child by the Holy Ghost before they came together," as the account of the holy Gospels shows.

3. But Clement [Titus Flavius Clemens (c.150 - 215)] in the sixth book of his Hypotyposes writes thus: "For they say that Peter and James and John after the ascension of our Saviour, as if also preferred by our Lord, strove not after honor, but chose James the Just bishop of Jerusalem."​
Also ...
Fragment X of Papias refers to "James the bishop and apostle". Epiphanius' Panarion 29.4 describes James as a Nazirite.

The pseudepigraphical First Apocalypse of James associated with James's name mentions many details, some of which may reflect early traditions: he is said to have authority over the twelve Apostles and the early church; this work also adds, somewhat puzzlingly, that James left Jerusalem and fled to Pella before the Roman siege of that city in 70 CE. (Ben Witherington suggests what is meant by this was that James' bones were taken by the early Christians who had fled Jerusalem).

[source]​
Why?
 
Last edited:

dogsgod

Well-Known Member
Acts clearly shows James as the leader of the early Jesus community. Do you doubt that this is the same James as Jesus' brother, or do you doubt that he had a brother at all?

I doubt this is the same James as Jesus' brother.
 
Last edited:

dogsgod

Well-Known Member
Gospel of Thomas
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."​


This would have been a perfect opportunity for Jesus to say, "Go to my brother James," but he doesn't. Odd that he would refer to his own brother as James, the just.
Eusebius, Church History, Book II:
1. First, then, in the place of Judas, the betrayer, Matthias, who, as has been shown was also one of the Seventy, was chosen to the apostolate. And there were appointed to the diaconate, for the service of the congregation, by prayer and the laying on of the hands of the apostles, approved men, seven in number, of whom Stephen was one. He first, after the Lord, was stoned to death at the time of his ordination by the slayers of the Lord, as if he had been promoted for this very purpose. And thus he was the first to receive the crown, corresponding to his name, which belongs to the martyrs of Christ, who are worthy of the meed of victory.

2. Then James, whom the ancients surnamed the Just on account of the excellence of his virtue, is recorded to have been the first to be made bishop of the church of Jerusalem. This James was called the brother of the Lord because he was known as a son of Joseph, and Joseph was supposed to be the father of Christ, because the Virgin, being betrothed to him, "was found with child by the Holy Ghost before they came together," as the account of the holy Gospels shows.​


Paul referred to James as brother of the Lord once, and dozens of times uses brother and brethren and even brothers of the Lord when not referring to literal brothers, and he never names him as Josephs' son. We know that gMark mentions once that Jesus had a brother named James, but he doesn't include a birth story, so doesn't name Joseph. Eusebius must be getting his information from Matthew. But again Matthew only mentions Jesus' brother once when he is copying from gMark, Jesus' brother was not a disciple nor given any importance at all. Luke/Acts doesn't name any of Jesus' siblings.

3. But Clement [Titus Flavius Clemens (c.150 - 215)] in the sixth book of his Hypotyposes writes thus: "For they say that Peter and James and John after the ascension of our Saviour, as if also preferred by our Lord, strove not after honor, but chose James the Just bishop of Jerusalem."
My point exactly. Paul refers to Peter, James and John as pillars, and the gospels recast these community leaders as the three main disciples of Jesus, without giving Jesus' brother James any role at all, just a mere mention that he is a brother of Jesus, and that's it.
Also ...
Fragment X of Papias refers to "James the bishop and apostle". Epiphanius' Panarion 29.4 describes James as a Nazirite.

The pseudepigraphical First Apocalypse of James associated with James's name mentions many details, some of which may reflect early traditions: he is said to have authority over the twelve Apostles and the early church; this work also adds, somewhat puzzlingly, that James left Jerusalem and fled to Pella before the Roman siege of that city in 70 CE. (Ben Witherington suggests what is meant by this was that James' bones were taken by the early Christians who had fled Jerusalem).​


Again, James, son of Zebedee, brother of John, and partner of Peter, was portrayed as a main disciple.

[source]​
Go to Bible Gateway and use the key word reference to key in James. You will get every single reference to James ever mentioned in the gospels and Acts, and you will quickly see that the idea that Jesus' brother as a community leader must have been a much later Christian developement. The Epistle attributed to James doesn't have him say he's a brother either.
 

dogsgod

Well-Known Member
OK, I got suckered in by a troll that gets a rise out of baiting people. Live and learn.
 

dogsgod

Well-Known Member
Who do you think he is?

I think he is James, son of Zebedee. Paul refers to James, Peter, and John as "pillars". They are portrayed as the three main disciples in the gospels. James is the first disciple introduced. Luke/Acts doesn't even so much as name any of Jesus' brothers, so how can we ever assume that a James referred to in Acts is Jesus' brother?
 

Smoke

Done here.
I think he is James, son of Zebedee. Paul refers to James, Peter, and John as "pillars". They are portrayed as the three main disciples in the gospels. James is the first disciple introduced. Luke/Acts doesn't even so much as name any of Jesus' brothers, so how can we ever assume that a James referred to in Acts is Jesus' brother?
James the son of Zebedee is killed in the twelfth chapter of Acts, before we see James presiding over the community in chapter fifteen.
 

dogsgod

Well-Known Member
James the son of Zebedee is killed in the twelfth chapter of Acts, before we see James presiding over the community in chapter fifteen.

That is true according to Acts, and well before that, in Acts, chapter nine, Paul makes his first trip to Jerusalem, some details differ but the time line corresponds with Galatians 1:19 wherein he refers to James, son of Zebedee, as James, the Lord's brother. So in any event, Paul is not referring to James' literal brother since James is not killed until chapter 12.

Acts 9:26-27 26When 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. 27But 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.

Galatians 1:19 I saw none of the other apostles—only James, the Lord's brother.

Acts 12:2 He had James, the brother of John, put to death with the sword.
 
Last edited:

dogsgod

Well-Known Member
Smoke, after James is killed in chapter twelve, who is the James that is referred to in the remaining chapters?

Here are all the remaining references to James in Acts:


  1. Acts 12:17
    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 12:16-18 (in Context) Acts 12 (Whole Chapter)
  2. Acts 15:13
    When they finished, James spoke up: "Brothers, listen to me.
    Acts 15:12-14 (in Context) Acts 15 (Whole Chapter)
  3. Acts 21:18
    The next day Paul and the rest of us went to see James, and all the elders were present.
 
Last edited:

Smoke

Done here.
Smoke, after James is killed in chapter twelve, who is the James that is referred to in the remaining chapters?
I think it's obviously Jesus' brother James. James the son of Zebedee was already dead.

You've misunderstood the timeline. Acts doesn't precisely agree with Galatians, but I think we can piece a better timeline together.

Acts says that after his visionary experience Paul continued on to Damascus, then "after many days" he went to Jerusalem, where "he assayed to join himself to the disciples: but they were all afraid of him, and believed not that he was a disciple. But Barnabas took him, and brought him to the apostles, and declared unto them how he had seen the Lord in the way, and that he had spoken to him, and how he had preached boldly at Damascus in the name of Jesus. And he was with them coming in and going out at Jerusalem."

Paul says: "Neither went I up to Jerusalem to them which were apostles before me; but I went into Arabia, and returned again unto Damascus. Then after three years I went up to Jerusalem to see Peter, and abode with him fifteen days. But other of the apostles saw I none, save James the Lord's brother."

Despite the obvious difficulty here -- Acts makes it sound like Paul was much better acquainted with the community than Paul's account does -- I think this is the same visit.

"Afterwards," Paul says, "I came into the regions of Syria and Cilicia." Acts says, "And he spake boldly in the name of the Lord Jesus, and disputed against the Grecians: but they went about to slay him. Which when the brethren knew, they brought him down to Caesarea, and sent him forth to Tarsus."

Tarsus was in Cilicia, so both accounts show him going to Cilicia after this visit.

Then, in Acts 11, Barnabas goes to Tarsus to get Saul, and brings him back to Antioch. A prophet from Jerusalem comes to Antioch and predicts a great famine, so the folks at Antioch take up a collection and send it to Jerusalem by Barnabas and Saul.

While Saul is at Jerusalem, James the son of Zebedee gets killed (at the beginning of chapter 12), and only after that (at the end of chapter 12) do Saul and Barnabas return to Antioch. The Antiochians send them off on what is traditionally called Paul's first missionary journey, which is described in chapters 13 and 14.

Then a theological disagreement comes up, and Paul goes to Jerusalem to defend his position.

Acts describes it like this:
And certain men which came down from Judaea taught the brethren, and said, Except ye be circumcised after the manner of Moses, ye cannot be saved.

When therefore Paul and Barnabas had no small dissension and disputation with them, they determined that Paul and Barnabas, and certain other of them, should go up to Jerusalem unto the apostles and elders about this question.

And being brought on their way by the church, they passed through Phenice and Samaria, declaring the conversion of the Gentiles: and they caused great joy unto all the brethren.

And when they were come to Jerusalem, they were received of the church, and of the apostles and elders, and they declared all things that God had done with them.

But there rose up certain of the sect of the Pharisees which believed, saying, That it was needful to circumcise them, and to command them to keep the law of Moses.

And the apostles and elders came together for to consider of this matter.
Paul describes it like this:
Then fourteen years after I went up again to Jerusalem with Barnabas, and took Titus with me also.

And I went up by revelation, and communicated unto them that gospel which I preach among the Gentiles, but privately to them which were of reputation, lest by any means I should run, or had run, in vain.

But neither Titus, who was with me, being a Greek, was compelled to be circumcised:

And that because of false brethren unawares brought in, who came in privily to spy out our liberty which we have in Christ Jesus, that they might bring us into bondage:

To whom we gave place by subjection, no, not for an hour; that the truth of the gospel might continue with you.
Paul's account is more strident, but the point is that this is the same visit. Paul, when he speaks of meeting "James, Cephas, and John, who seemed to be pillars," is clearly talking about this meeting at Jerusalem, which was presided over by James.

James the son of Zebedee was already dead. James the brother of Jesus, "who seemed to be [a pillar]," is the one who presided over that council and the one who rendered a decision at it. The whole circumcision controversy was after the death of James the son of Zebedee.
 
Last edited:

dogsgod

Well-Known Member
Smoke, I will comment on the time line later, I'm pressed for time right now.

How do you draw the conclusion that James is the brother of Jesus? Acts doesn't name Jesus brothers, so we can't get that information from Acts.
 

Smoke

Done here.
How do you draw the conclusion that James is the brother of Jesus? Acts doesn't name Jesus brothers, so we can't get that information from Acts.
No, you can't. However, there aren't that many men named James mentioned in the New Testament, and apart from Acts 15 only two of them -- James the son of Zebedee and James the brother of Jesus -- are shown doing or saying anything.

James the son of Alphaeus is only mentioned in lists of disciples.
James the son of Cleophas isn't really mentioned; his existence is inferred by people trying to reconcile the various gospel accounts.

James the son of Zebedee was dead before Acts 15. There's nothing at all to indicate that James the son of Alphaeus was a prominent leader in the church, while Galatians and a very strong tradition within Christianity indicate that James the brother of Jesus was.

The James of Acts 15 was either the brother of Jesus, which is what almost every reader of the account has thought, or he was another, otherwise unknown, James. I can't see any reason to invent a new James, so I can't help but wonder what your reason is for resisting the idea that this was Jesus' brother. What idea of yours does that conflict with?
 

dogsgod

Well-Known Member
Luke /Acts makes no mention of Jesus' brothers, he never so much as names them. Here is the only mention of Jesus having brothers in Acts, it's near the beginning:

Acts 1:13
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. 14They all joined together constantly in prayer, along with the women and Mary the mother of Jesus, and with his brothers.

There are two groups here, one of men and other of women and children, and it is clear which group Jesus' brothers belong to. Where does the Christian tradition come from that James, brother of Jesus, became a leader of a Christian community. How does one come to the conclusion that this James referred to past Acts 12 is Jesus' brother?
 
Last edited:

dogsgod

Well-Known Member
About the time line. Paul makes two trips to Jerusalem, one described in Galatians 1 and the other, fourteen years later, according to Paul as described in Galatians 2. Acts writes of two trips to Jerusalem, the first in Acts 9 and the second in Acts 12. It is in the first trip to Jerusalem that we see the reference to James, brother of the Lord. When Paul meets James in Jerusalem the second time, he never states that he's meeting with a different James.
 
Last edited:

dogsgod

Well-Known Member
No, you can't. However, there aren't that many men named James mentioned in the New Testament, and apart from Acts 15 only two of them -- James the son of Zebedee and James the brother of Jesus -- are shown doing or saying anything.
No, James, the brother of Jesus is not even named much less shown to do or say anything unless one assumes it is the brother of Jesus that Acts 15 is referring to.

James the son of Alphaeus is only mentioned in lists of disciples.
At least he is mentioned, so we know his name. Reading Luke/Acts we don't know the names of Jesus' brothers.


James the son of Zebedee was dead before Acts 15.
There's reason to consider that the mention of James' death in Acts 12 was an interpolation. Within context the story is about Peter's arrest and escape which makes the mention awkward, and the next time the author refers to James it leaves the reader scratching his head wondering who is this James if James was just killed. Without the line about James' death the reader has no reason to ask any awkward questions. It reads better without it.

There's nothing at all to indicate that James the son of Alphaeus was a prominent leader in the church, while Galatians and a very strong tradition within Christianity indicate that James the brother of Jesus was.
Everything hinges on one line from Galatians, "James, brother of the Lord" for this tradition it seems. Why assume that THIS "brother" is to be taken as a literal brother when the other dozens of times "brother" refers to a brotherhood? The assumption that it must be taken literally raises far more questions than it answers?

The James of Acts 15 was either the brother of Jesus, which is what almost every reader of the account has thought, or he was another, otherwise unknown, James. I can't see any reason to invent a new James, so I can't help but wonder what your reason is for resisting the idea that this was Jesus' brother. What idea of yours does that conflict with?
The idea that from reading Luke/Acts we don't know the names of Jesus' brothers and sisters.

James, Peter and John were "pillars" as far as Paul was concerned, leaders of a Christian community. Within the synoptic gospels we read of disciples James, Peter and John. Paul's writings predate the gospels. If the author of Mark was writing allegorical fictions of a Pauline tradition, why did he not write of James, brother of Jesus rather than James, son of Zebedee? Why is Jesus' brother ignored by the gospel writers?
 
Last edited:

Smoke

Done here.
The idea that from reading Luke/Acts we don't know the names of Jesus' brothers and sisters.
So what?

James, Peter and John were "pillars" as far as Paul was concerned, leaders of a Christian community. Within the synoptic gospels we read of disciples James, Peter and John. Paul's writings predate the gospels. If the author of Mark was writing allegorical fictions of a Pauline tradition, why did he not write of James, brother of Jesus rather than James, son of Zebedee? Why is Jesus' brother ignored by the gospel writers?
Quite possibly because the gospel writers -- or at least the writers of the synoptics -- were writing within a Pauline tradition that was at odds with the Judaism of James and the original Jesus community.
 
Top