Talk:James, brother of Jesus/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

James' Names

• "James son of Alphaeus" is "James the Less" and
• "James the Just" is "James the Brother of the Lord"
• It is the identification of these two with each other that is disputable and needs an independent sentence with citation.
• My rewrite was to make this clear. If you disagree please indicate why and discuss.--Carlaude (talk) 15:50, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Let's not start making simple "is" claims. It seems that the confusion is that you have misunderstood what "adelphotheos" means. It has nothing to do with Alphaeus. It does not mean "son of Alphaeus". What it means is "brother of God"; that is, it is the epithet for James the Brother of the Lord. Tb (talk) 18:16, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Historical Jesus was a son of soldier named Panthera (or Pandera)(greek). Yehoshua-ben-Pandera. also called Jeshu ha-Notzri. The stem of this word means 'to keep oneself separate' -- an indication of the ascetic nature of sect. The expression 'Jesus of Nazareth' is therefore a mistranslation of 'Jeshu ha-Notzri'. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.50.198.215 (talk) 08:04, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

Such opinions, whether true or false, are not particularly relevant to this page. Tb (talk) 17:46, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

Acts

Hi, I am an Anglican too. Why is it important to state which chapters of Acts, James is not mentioned? - Ret.Prof (talk) 18:34, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

I think the point is that if James the Just were of considerable importance right away, he would figure in sooner. Instead, we find that he is of minimal importance during Jesus' life, and in Jerusalem only after some space of time has passed. The picture painted by Luke, then, is of a church led by the Twelve, in which later--perhaps after the death of James son of Zebedee and the scattering then--he comes to prominence, but not before. So while the exact interpretation we should draw from this data is uncertain to say the least, it is relevant data. Tb (talk) 18:37, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Good point and I also agree with you edit to The Gospel According to the Hebrews - Ret.Prof (talk) 18:43, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

And thanks for your attention to the article; it is better now than it was! Tb (talk) 19:59, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Adelphotheos

Perhaps this should have an alternative translation "relative of God" to avoid offending some denominations :) Grover cleveland (talk) 18:03, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Not sure what you mean. The word "adelphos" means brother. If people are offended at the word, they're offended at the word, and we don't help it by translating it incorrectly in the hopes that they can't read the Greek. Tb (talk) 18:10, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Hegesippus

"Hegesippus has been cited over and over again by historians as assigning the date of the martyrdom to 69 AD" (Schaff, Philip (1904) Henry Wace "A Select library of Nicene and post-Nicene fathers of the Christian church" BiblioBazaar ISBN-10: 1110373465)--BruceGrubb (talk) 02:21, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

james/jacob

The statement that Jacob and James come from the same Hebrew root is not true. The letters are not the same, and there is no "J" at all in Hebrew. Jacob is pronounced Yaakov. Can anyone shed light on this?--Gilabrand (talk) 20:13, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Its found in the Greek I know - Iakobos is Greek for James, Iakob or Iakobos is Jacob (pardon my bad transliterations). Pastordavid (talk) 20:18, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

James is an English invention, probably to make it sound less Jewish. The German is Jakobus, the Latin is Iacobus, the Greek is Iakobos, the Hebrew is Yaakov — the obvious English is Jacob. 75.14.211.158 (talk) 01:12, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Um, let's not assume racist or otherwise unpleasant motives. "James" comes from Old French; it's cognate to "Jaime" in Spanish. It comes from "Iacomus", a variant of "Iacobus" in Latin. The reason the yod became a J is the result of a longer process. Hebrew yod generally became iota in Greek, which became I in Latin. That's what happened here. Then consonantal I in Latin (originally like an English Y) became more roughly pronounced, to give the "zh" sound of a French J and then the English "J" sound. Tb (talk) 05:23, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Regardess, the reason this name has been translated James instead of the obvious Jacob needs to be in the article. I would guess it has something to do with the egotisical King James (not King Jacob). --GabrielVelasquez (talk) 03:46, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

The use of James as the translation of "'Iakobus" from Greek to English did not originate with the translators working on the KJV... Tyndale in his 1395 translation also uses James in place of Jacob in the New Testament. In the earlier, pre-Norman (i.e. pre-1066) editions of the New Testament translated into Saxon renders "Iacobes" and "Iacobus". ThamusvsThoth (talk) 17:58, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

Citations needed

The "Influence" section is woefully lacking in citations. Also, I believe any statements attributed to a writer, such as Robert Eisenman and Ben Witherington, would have to be supported by specific page numbers and exact quotations in which the statements which they are claimed to have made are clearly and explicitly sourced. John Carter 15:59, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Robert Eisenman is being cited in support of the explanation for the epithet "the Just", but no mention is made of the fact that his views are controversial. As I understand it he argues for a very different picture of James than the traditional one. Martijn Meijering (talk) 17:52, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

Veneration

The infobox says that James is "Venerated in All Christianity" - as in, venerated as a saint. However, it is apparent that not all branches of Christianity "venerate" James. TuckerResearch (talk) 23:39, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

Recent edits

Below is a section that was recently added and worked upon. I removed it because it did not supply any sources and seemed like original research, but I didn't want it to get ignored either, so I brought it here so we can decide if it's possible to find reliable sources and put it back in/integrate any new info better into the existing article. I can see this took a lot of effort to write.

-- Joren (talk) 16:08, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

Most Christians consider this James to be the author of the Epistle of James, and Jude, his brother (Jude 1:1), also mentioned in the above listed gospels is the author of the Epistle of Jude. Critical scholarship since the 1800s has questioned this tradition which dates to the earliest records of the Church and supposes these letters to have been written by anonymous Christians seeking to give their writing authority by using the names of two apostles.

Protestant Christians believe James to be a literal brother of Jesus, as he is seemingly described in Galatians 1:19, and induce that he is, therefore, a son of Mary the wife of Joseph. There are difficulties in this interpretation despite the use of the word ἀδελφός adelphos (from the same womb). For example, adelphos is also used (as the plural adelphoi in Luke 22:32 when Simon Peter is charged by Jesus to "strengthen your brothers", contextually meaning the other apostles, after he has recovered from his lapse in denying he knew Jesus. So the word "brother" could and is shown to have wider usage and meaning in the ancient world than simply and only meaning a biological brother of the same mother.

Catholic/Orthodox Views on James' Biological Relationship to Jesus

Roman Catholic and Orthodox Christians cannot accept James the Less as the son of Mary, the mother of Jesus, since James is identified as the son of Mary the wife of Alphaeus Cleophas (Matthew 10:3, 27:56; Mark 3:18, 15:40, 16:1; Luke 6:15, 16, 24:10, John 19:25; Acts 1:13). Catholics and Orthodox believe as a matter of dogma that Mary the mother of Jesus is "ever-virgin" in Greek aeiparthenos. This was understood at the Third Ecumenical Council (Ephesus) in 449, and proclaimed at the Fifth Ecumenical Council (Constantinople II) in 553-54. The belief was defined as dogma at the Twelfth Ecumenical Council (Lateran IV) and reaffirmed at the Fourteenth Ecumenical Council ([[Lyons}} II) and the Nineteenth Ecumenical Council (Trent). Even the latest, the Twenty-first Ecumenical Council (Vatican II) affirms the title "ever-virgin" for Mary in the apostolic constitution Lumen Gentium. This belief precludes Mary from having any more children.

The Orthodox believe the four brothers and at least three sisters of Jesus mentioned in Matthew 13:55 and Mark 6:3 (James, Joses, Thaddaeus, Simon) are from an earlier marriage contracted by Joseph. This tradition is found in what was a very influential, although admittedly apochryphal, Protoevangelium of James or Infancy Gospel of James dating to circa 150 (see Gospel of James). James the Less would therefore be an older half-brother of Jesus, and so preserving belief in the perpetual virginity of Mary.

Catholics of the Roman and 26 other churches comprising the Catholic Church, on the other hand, believe these brothers and sisters are first cousins, based on the evidence of the above cited scriptural passages and the witness of Hegesippus, the Christian historian of the 2nd century who interviewed the grandsons of Jude. These men affirmed that Cleophas was the brother of Joseph, as noted by Eusebius in III:11 of his Church History. So the woman at the foot of the Cross called "Mary of Cleophas, sister of the mother of Jesus" in John 19:25 is more precisely the "sister-in-law" of the Virgin Mary.

Much biblical scholarship posits that Alphaeus and Cleophas are either the same man or two separate men married to the same woman since Matthew, Mark and Luke say that, among the women at the foot of the Cross was Mary the wife of Alphaeus. This would mean that this woman corresponds to the Mary of Cleophas noted as standing with the Mary the mother of Jesus by John.

The three Synoptic Gospels clearly say that the James the Less mentioned in the lists of the apostles is the son of Mary the wife of Alphaeus (Cleophas?) and brother of Joses and Jude in Matthew 10:4, 27:56; Luke 6:16 and Jude 1:1. Paul also attests to James, the brother of the Lord, as being one of the Twelve in Galatians 1:19, so the James Paul knew must be the same as the brother of Joses and Jude Thaddaeus in the Gospels.

A Protestant Interpretation of James' Relationship to Jesus

OK, a few points. I cannot believe most Christians believe James is the author of the Epistles of James. Historically, yes, most Christians prior to recent critical scholarship have believed all the words of the NT were written by the person apparently named, but in recent times virtually everyone agrees that, with the exception of some of the Pauline epistles, they were in fact written by parties other than those named. Regarding a lot of the rest of the material, I think probably the best way to go is to check Painter's book Just James, which seems to be the most commonly accepted recent full-length study of the subject. One could also check works about early Christianity and biographies of saints for some of the other material. But, at the very least, I have to say that words like "most" should be avoided completely in articles like this, unless that word is used specifically by a reliable source in this context, and even then I would make sure to indicate in the text itself that it was the writer making that claim. James is a rather contested topic in Christianity, and the article probably should reflect that. Much of the disagreement seems to be between Catholic/Orthodox and later Christians, but it is still a disagreement. John Carter (talk) 21:16, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

The belief itself is perfectly cromulent if for no other reason than that, not having ever researched the matter, it is natural for one to assume that an "epistle of James" would be from "James". However, it does not cite a source, and cromulence is not sufficient to justify including original research here. Also, "most" is rather weasel-wordish, and avoids giving serious consideration to who actually believes it. This article already has too many somes and mosts.

The "Catholic/Orthodox Views on James' Biological Relationship to Jesus" section looks more salvageable; that could be a rather interesting section about the historical development of the Catholic and Orthodox positions, if it were to be properly sourced. What do you think? Is it worth re-working it? Is it worth bothering to do what the original contributor should have done in the first place?  :)

-- Joren (talk) 21:46, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

Probably. The Catholic Encyclopedia here might be a useful source, at least initially. This page, while admittedly written by a Catholic advocate and placed on a clearly Catholic website, is also a fairly highly-regarded site, even if obviously pro-Catholic. They could probably serve as a start. I can try to find Painter's book, and some of the more extensive encyclopedic and semi-hagiographic entries in the next few days. Obviously, hagiographies themselves are very dubious, but they provide much of the information we have, and I'll try to check them too. John Carter (talk) 22:06, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

Full Brother

The article has a section saying James may have been the son of Mary and Joseph, making him Jesus' full brother. This is simply not the case, as Jesus was born of Mary and the Holy Spirit. So, unless James was also a physical Son of God, then he is not a full brother of Christ. --Willthacheerleader18 (talk) 00:04, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

You are welcome to your personal opinion on this, but it is not an argument for stating it as a fact. Also, you seem to misunderstand the source, which identifies the Mary in question with Mary of Clopas. Your edit does not reflect the source. Martijn Meijering (talk) 00:34, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

If you're talking about the opening paragraph, then perhaps we should explain that the Catholic encyclopedia is refering to the wife of Clopas. Since it says just "Mary" instead of "Mary, wife of Clopas", the natural assumption of most people is that it is referring to Mary, wife of Joseph instead. What say you?Farsight001 (talk) 04:25, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

Dispute Tags

I am thinking about removing the dispute tags, but I wanted to put my reasoning here so people could discuss.

The first dispute tag is the religious text as primary source. However, the section is New Testament References. The section is simply trying to lay out all references to James in the New Testament. This is a useful section, and criticism, in the form of other historical references to James, should go in other sections.

The second dispute tag is a neutrality tag on the section about possible interpretations of James being the brother of Jesus. Since all possible interpretations are laid out, and none is favored, I see no reason to question the neutrality.

Qowieury (talk) 04:48, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

New perspectives on James and early Jewish Christians

First, I myself don't see any particular objections to the removal of the tags discussed in the above section.

Having said that, I do think that there is a potentially serious discussion about how the New Perspectives on Paul might impact the content relevant to James and the early Jewish Christians. Certainly, one of the "angles" of the reinterpretation of Paul is that the move away from Judaism was more radical and perhaps unsupported than had been often discussed before. A corollary would be that the perspective of James and the early Jewish Christians might be seen as moving more to the center in terms of the application of Jesus' principles. There are sources which argue that. Having said that, I myself am far from sure where the bulk of such content should be best placed. A few of the options include this article, the main Jewish Christians article, the Jerusalem Church or Nazarenes article, and, maybe, the New Perspectives on Paul article. Some discussion regarding this matter would probably be useful. John Carter (talk) 16:28, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

Since those ideas are rather speculative, this article would not be a place to put them. It would be essential to not have any original research. Although James the Just is the leader of the Jewish Christians, he was killed so early that placing him in the middle of any conflict between Jewish Christians and Pauline Christians is anachronistic. It is more likely that Jewish Christians (when they were divided from Pauline Christians) saw themselves as hearkening back to what they thought James would have done. The only statement by James that has any historical basis on this issue is cited in Acts and Galatians where James supports Paul's decision to not extend the Jewish law to Gentile Christians.

I do not know the other articles you cited there, but Jewish Christians and Jerusalem Church could both potentially have well cited sections on these ideas, although these ideas should not take over the tone of the article. Qowieury (talk) 04:38, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

WP:COMMONNAME

I am not sure that this WP:TITLE meets WP:COMMONNAME. Variants of "James the Lord's brother" (Gal.1:19) appear to be more common in WP:RS sources. i.e. the absence of Hegesippus' "just" is more common. "Lord" would be POV, but "James, the brother of Jesus" would meet NPOV. In ictu oculi (talk) 02:15, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

Death date of James

Should a date of 69 be given equal prominence in the lead with the 62 date inferred from Origen's reading of Josephus? If Ananus ben Ananus ordered the stoning of James the Just, and Ananus died c.68, wouldn't that present a problem? Also, Origen clearly states (following Josephus) that James died during the reign of Nero. Does any modern scholar (i.e. not from 100 years ago) think 69 is a viable date? Ignocrates (talk) 22:42, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

There are two different irreconcilable accounts. Lung salad (talk) 10:12, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

Yes, I know. I'm asking if one of the dates, presumably 69 CE, is considered a minority view by modern scholars. We need a review article that addresses this topic; preferably, one that summarizes the thinking of modern scholars in the last 10 years. Ignocrates (talk) 16:40, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

There is no consensus on that point because writers don't careless, from what I have seen. And 19th century scholars present more facts about the subject matters such as this because they were more critical. Today's scholars can be described as sprawling wafflers. Lung salad (talk) 13:49, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

Unclear passage

The article currently reads "Wells also noted that the Church Father Origen, who consulted the works of Josephus in around 248, related a different account of the death of James that linked it with the siege of Jerusalem, something not found in our current manuscripts of Josephus, [51] a fact that is repeated by mainstream Biblical scholars. [52][53]" This is unclear because it appears that Origen is saying James died during the fall of Jerusalem and that is not what Origen is saying at all. Origen is saying Rome beseiged Jerusalem because they killed James. The link is a causal link. I will make an appropriate change to the article. RonCram (talk) 18:54, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

Citations and Other Stuff

The article needs more citations throughout, as well as more careful ones than citing Eisenman; he's not only widely criticized, but trying to identify a phrase as ambiguous as "The Righteous Teacher" with this figure is quite problematic; as an example of needing citations (as well as not vilating NPOV,

"Josephus' account of James' death is more credible because the Acts of Apostles doesn't mention anything about James after the year 60. Josephus, however, does not mention in his writings how James was buried, which makes it hard for scholars to determine what happened to James after his death."

Where's the citation? Who says that one documents is less credible than another? And doesn't anyone working on this article understand the scholarship which considers Josephus's writings (Josephus writes polemically at times, and not always in-line with the facts, as is known; though he's a crucial source for historical insights and pieces). Or what about

While one may find it difficult to cite the absence of information implied by "Acts... doesn't mention anything...", the line has been removed for the lack of neutrality (credibility judgment) you mentioned. As to your question regarding the reader's understanding of Josephus and current opinion about his scholastic tendencies (or the lack thereof), one may wonder what point you are trying to get across. Some schools of thought treat all historians as subjective (and thus unreliable) witnesses, while others seek a degree of veracity through cross-reference with other historical sources. Unfortunately, an averaged view of history seen through the combinatorial lens of multiple authors may merely provide one with the popular view prevailing at the time, rather than a perspective more focused. In the case of Josephus' writings concerning Christianity, we run into the opposite problem, that being a distinct lack of good cross-reference material. Are you suggesting that a discussion of his credibility be placed on the James the Just page rather than Josephus', or might you be hoping that someone will come forward with more historical evidence? Unless you have the keys to the Vatican Vaults or access to some lost cache from the Alexandrian Library, the second option may be difficult. That being said, your statement below regarding the weak work of modern Biblical "scholars" and the need for new and quality research is strongly endorsed. 24.28.67.118 (talk) 11:34, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

"A number of modern Biblical scholars, such as Raymond E. Brown, while admitting the Greek of this epistle is too fluent for someone whose mother tongue is Aramaic, argue that it expresses a number of his ideas, as rewritten either by a scribe or by a follower of James the Just."

Because no offense, but if scholars have argued about the authenticity of a letter based on supposed mother tongues...despite that ancient Israel was a cosmopolitan multilingual center, they're morons: and yes, I did just say there are scholars who are morons; it's something I don't like to do, and I'm even uneasy with, somewhat, however there are perfectly fluent writers and speakers of second and third languages in the world you wouldn't be able to differentiate; there also the large likelihood that the people in Israel, as increasingly is understood, would have spoken more than a single language: something especially easy to do when you're in constant contact with several tongues, more especially when this is the case since childhood.

This article could really use the work of real experts (and not just sensationalist ones); that is, scholars of more careful work than the kind that blindly (before any real consideration of the evidences) jumps the gun and declared the Dead Sea Scrolls to be from the Essenes (an increasingly discounted pronouncement that has unfortunately captivated the public mind); or the kind of scholarship as speculative and embarrassingly pathetic as much that has occurred regarding those scrolls (such as Eisenman's work)...there are a small but growing portion of scholars who're more considerate and cautious, and more consistent with the evidences and known facts--at least one I know of at Hebrew University. I would love to do more research and take-notes to bring with sources, but admit I'm quite busy...so all I can do is recommend wider reading be done and this article be improved, at least for now. TheResearchpersona

tooMuchData

05:49, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

If Raymond Brown makes a historical-critical claim as above, your feelings are not enough to counter. He is not "a" scholar. He is one of "the" scholars. If he thinks that the Greek used in the Letter of James implies a mother-tongue familiarity that is never achieved outside of one's own language with rare exceptions, and thinks that a poor Jewish man (possibly a carpenter) from Galilee would not have had such a familiarity, then he is probably right. However, he is only arguing that James must have had a Greek-speaking secretary who either cleaned up the language or translated an original from Aramaic. The quote you begin with is actually arguing against taking a sensationalist stance. 66.87.26.216 (talk) 06:59, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

Even Paul of Tarsus used a secretary, see for example Romans 16:22. 75.0.15.84 (talk) 04:57, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

It's extremely subjective for someone to decide that a certain document was written in Greek too good to have been learned by a non-native speaker. The same way a native speaker learned, a non-native one could as well, especially when you have a huge amount of Greek speakers in the church since the 30's, reaching the need for a council about Gentile converts (Acts 15, Galatians 2). The same way Josephus and Paul himself learned pretty good Greek (and I don't think Paul's Greek is anything worse than the Epistle of James' is), so could have James, writing around 60 AD. Paul's use of secretaries was not very substantial because all of his letters have the same style despite different secretaries, thus the Greek in Paul's letters is primarily due to Paul himself. Brown (and you) would have to present his arguments before coming down with a judgment like that. Cornelius (talk) 02:47, 25 December 2012 (UTC)