"Brother of the Lord" and martyrdom

[Tenorikuma]

Since the value of Galatians as evidence of the historical Jesus hinges greatly on the meaning of the phrase "brother of the Lord", I found the following to be of interest.

In Stromata III, Clement of Alexandria writes that a "man of gnosis" who has become righteous and truly spiritual is worthy to be called a "brother to the Lord". In Stromata VI and in two quotes preserved by Eusebius, he writes that James the Just (whom he seems to equate with James son of Zebedee) and the other apostles were men of true gnosis.

In Stromata IV.4, Clement writes that someone who is martyred by the Lord will be greeted as a "brother" in the afterlife. He also uses "brothers" as a term for martyrs in ch. 7.

Is it possible that "brother to/of the Lord" was a term of respect especially bestowed upon martyrs?

Incidentally, Clement seems to be one of the earliest sources to claim that James the Just was made the bishop of Jerusalem, as well as to give details of his martyrdom. If anyone knows of an earlier source besides possibly Hegesippus (whose information seems to differ from Clement's), please share.

[DCHindley]

The problem with those witnesses to James earlier than Origen, such as Hegesippus and Clement of Alexandria, are that they come via Eusebius who wrote his Church History in the early 4th century CE. You can never be sure where he preserves the actual words of these writers and where he adds his own twists.

But if you want to know what these fragments say, here are the texts as found (I believe) in the Post Nicene Fathers translation of Eusebius (I got them via CCEL or Bibleworks):

3) The manner of the death of James has been already indicated by the above mentioned words of Clement, who records that he was thrown from the pinnacle of the temple and was beaten to death with a club. But Hegesippus, who lived immediately after the apostles, gives the most accurate account in the fifth book of his memoirs. He writes as follows:
4) James, the brother of the Lord, succeeded to the government of the church in conjunction with the apostles. He has been called the just by all from the times of the Lord to the present day, for there were many that bore the name of James. He was holy from the womb of his mother.
5) He drank no wine nor strong drink, nor did he eat flesh. No razor came upon his head; he did not anoint himself with oil, and he did not use the bath.
6) He alone was permitted to enter into the holy place; for he wore not woolen but linen garments. And he was in the habit of entering alone into the temple, and he was frequently found upon his knees begging forgiveness for the people, so that his knees became hard like those of a camel in consequence of his constantly bending them in his worship of God and asking forgiveness for the people.
7) Because of his exceeding great justice he was called the just, and oblias, which in Greek signifies a bulwark of the people, and justice, in accordance with what the prophets declare concerning him.
8) Now some of the seven sects, which existed among the people and which have been mentioned by me in the memoirs, asked him: What is the gate of Jesus? And he replied that it was the savior.
9) On account of these words some believed that Jesus is the Christ. But the sects mentioned above did not believe either in a resurrection or in the coming of one to give to every man according to his works. But as many as believed did so on account of James.
10) Therefore, when many even of the rulers believed, there was a commotion among the Jews and scribes and Pharisees, who said that there was danger that the whole people would be looking for Jesus as the Christ. Coming therefore in a body to James they said: We entreat you, restrain the people, for they have gone astray in regard to Jesus, as if he were the Christ. We entreat you to persuade all that have come to the feast of the Passover concerning Jesus; for we all have confidence in you. For we bear you witness, as do all the people, that you are just and that you do not respect persons.
11) Persuade, therefore, the multitude not to be led astray concerning Jesus. For the whole people, and all of us also, have confidence in you. Stand therefore upon the pinnacle of the temple, that from that high position you might be clearly seen, and that your words may be readily heard by all the people. For all the tribes, with the gentiles also, have come together on account of the Passover.
12) The aforesaid scribes and Pharisees therefore placed James upon the pinnacle of the temple and cried out to him and said: Just one, in whom we ought all to have confidence, forasmuch as the people are led astray after Jesus, the crucified one, declare to us what the gate of Jesus is.
13) And he answered with a loud voice: Why do you ask me concerning Jesus, the son of man? He himself sits in heaven at the right hand of the great power, and is about to come upon the clouds of heaven!
14) And, when many were fully convinced and gloried in the testimony of James, and said: Hosanna to the son of David, these same scribes and Pharisees said again to one another: We have done badly in supplying such testimony to Jesus. But let us go up and throw him down, in order that they may be afraid to believe him.
15) And they cried out, saying: Oh, oh, the just man is also in error! And they fulfilled the scripture written in Isaiah: Let us take away the just man because he is troublesome to us; therefore they shall eat the fruit of their works.
16) So they went up and threw down the just man, and said to each other: Let us stone James the just. And they began to stone him, for he was not killed by the fall; but he turned and knelt down and said: I entreat you, Lord God our father, forgive them, for they know not what they do.
17) And while they were thus stoning him one of the priests of the sons of Rechab, the son of the Rechabites, who are mentioned by Jeremiah the prophet, cried out, saying: Cease! What are you doing? The just one is praying for you!
18) And one of them, one of the fullers, took the club with which he beat out clothes and struck the just man on the head. And thus he suffered martyrdom. And they buried him on the spot, by the temple, and his monument still remains by the temple. He became a true witness, both to Jews and Greeks, that Jesus is the Christ. And immediately Vespasian besieged them.
19) These things Hegesippus at any rate also relates at length along with Clement. And James was so marvelous a one, and so acclaimed among all the rest for his justice, that the sensible ones of the Jews opined that this was the cause of the siege of Jerusalem, which happened immediately after his martyrdom for no other reason than their daring act against him.

4) [Hegesippus] also describes the beginnings of the heresies which arose in his time in the following words:
4b) And after James the just had suffered martyrdom, as the Lord had also on the same account, Symeon, the son of the uncle of the Lord, Clopas, was appointed the next bishop. All proposed him as second bishop because he was a cousin of the Lord. Therefore they called the church a virgin, for it was not yet corrupted by vain discourses.

3) But Clement in the sixth book of his Hypotyposeis writes as follows: For they say that Peter and James and John after the ascension of the savior, as if also preferred by the Lord, did not strive for glory, but rather elected James the just to be bishop of Jerusalem.
4) And the same [Clement] in the seventh book of the same work says also these things concerning him: The Lord after the resurrection delivered knowledge to James the just and to John and to Peter, and they delivered it to the rest of the apostles, and the rest of the apostles to the seventy, of whom Barnabas was one.
5) But there were two Jameses, one being the just one, who was cast down from the pinnacle and was beaten unto death with a club by a fuller, and another who was beheaded.
6) Paul indeed makes mention of the same just one, writing: But I did not see any other of the apostles except James the brother of the Lord

Once you get to Origen, Eusebius and Jerome, things get really, really confused. The story of the trial of a certain James, "brother of Jesus called Christ," in Josephus' Antiquities 20.200, is conflated with the account that Eusebius says comes from conveniently lost works of Hegesippus and Clement of Alexandria, where James is thrown from the pinnacle of the temple, then clubbed to death.

I suspect this conflation (mixing together of traditions) originally was occasioned by Origen encountering a marginal gloss in a copy of Antiquities 20.200 commenting on the negative tone Josephus had towards the High Priest Ananus, son of Ananus, in contrast to the very positive one he had previously expressed about him in War of the Jews 4.162-193, 238-270, 286-288. There, Josephus had plainly stated that he thought the destruction of the city was due to Ananus' death at the hands of the Idumeans during the Jewish War. Josephus had also mentioned a junior chief priest named Jesus, who had given a speech on the wall of the temple to dissuade the people from continuing the revolt, and suffered death along with Ananus. For what it is worth, the Idumeans threw both of their bodies from the wall of the temple into the valley below to remain unburied. The gloss probably went something like this: "Is this the same fellow (meaning Ananus) on whose account the city was destroyed? He would have been better off attributing the destruction to Jesus (the junior chief priest who gave the speech and was killed along with Ananus by the Idumeans)!"

Origen appears to have taken the gloss (fancy word for a marginal comment) to refer to that certain James, not Ananus, and assumed it must have been the James who was "brother of the Lord" mentioned in Galatians. Origen read it to say "This one (assuming the author of the gloss, who he may have actually thought was Josephus himself, meant James the brother of Jesus) is the one on whose account the city suffered destruction. He should have ascribed the destruction to the death of Jesus (the Christ)!" In my opinion, the James in question was likely actually the brother of someone also named Jesus (probably without the "called Christ" at this point), who would have been a brother of a rival chief priest named Jesus, which was what made the trial controversial to begin with.

If you want, I could post that info as well, but I warn you that there will be so many twists and turns that you may need to take a Dramamine to counter the motion sickness.

DCH

Since the value of Galatians as evidence of the historical Jesus hinges greatly on the meaning of the phrase "brother of the Lord", I found the following to be of interest.

In Stromata III, Clement of Alexandria writes that a "man of gnosis" who has become righteous and truly spiritual is worthy to be called a "brother to the Lord". In Stromata VI and in two quotes preserved by Eusebius, he writes that James the Just (whom he seems to equate with James son of Zebedee) and the other apostles were men of true gnosis.

In Stromata IV.4, Clement writes that someone who is martyred by the Lord will be greeted as a "brother" in the afterlife. He also uses "brothers" as a term for martyrs in ch. 7.

Is it possible that "brother to/of the Lord" was a term of respect especially bestowed upon martyrs?

Incidentally, Clement seems to be one of the earliest sources to claim that James the Just was made the bishop of Jerusalem, as well as to give details of his martyrdom. If anyone knows of an earlier source besides possibly Hegesippus (whose information seems to differ from Clement's), please share.

[Tenorikuma]

Thanks for the reply, DCH. I have read Carrier's article on the "brother of Jesus called Christ" insertion and Origen's confusion between Josephus and Hegesippus, so I'm aware that Josephus is referring to James ben Damneus.

For now, I'm combing through every single extant Christian work of the first few centuries for references to any and all people named James, as well as the use of "brother" as a non-biological title. My hunch is that James the Just, bishop of Jerusalem is an invention of 2nd-3rd century Christian tradition, based on a confusion between James son of Zebedee, the James mentioned briefly in Mark as part of Jesus' family, and perhaps other characters named James (including the one in Josephus). There seem to be seven characters by that name in the NT, and early authors even within the canon cannot keep them straight.

James is remarkably absent in nearly all early Christian works. Clement and Hegesippus, writing at the end of the 2nd century, seem to be the first to write about James the Just, and that's only if we trust Eusebius' quotations. So far, all 2nd-century texts seem to assume that the only apostle James is the one always mentioned along with John and Peter — that is, James son of Zebedee.

Furthermore, it appears from Stromata that "brother of the Lord" was a reverent way of referring to Christians who had either achieved perfect Christian gnosis, or who had been martyred for their Lord. This suggests the possibility that when Paul (or the author of Galatians) wrote "James, the brother of the Lord," it was a pious way of saying "James the martyr". This, then, would not be evidence for a historical Jesus, but rather, evidence that James was dead by the time of the author's writing.

Does Hegesippu's account strike anyone else as implausible? There's far too much Scripture quoting in there — it sounds like a bunch of creative writing to me, like the Gospels.

[stephan happy huller]

You know the ideas you are researching here related to 'the brother of the Son of God' are very similar to those I have put forward in the other thread about the Man of God. If you think about the early influence of 'adoptionism' - that in baptism you get adopted by God as his son, is also very similar. If you look at Secret Mark for a moment you have two ideas present that are very similar to what you are suggesting here. First you die then you are adopted in baptism. The adoption isn't explicit but Clement also takes a great interest in a lost gospel saying 'see your brother, see your God.' I think seeing Jesus as he is - 'a brother' - led to seeing oneself in the 'other' and helped establish 'adoption' to God the Father.

Clement repeatedly says that the first step to perfection (and thus 'adoption') is destroying lust. Presumably being established in a 'dead state' (= death) succeeds in killing off lust and thus prepares the way for being able to see Jesus as he really is and with it 'ritual brotherhood' and adoption.

[stephan happy huller]

There is also another passage in Clement where it sounds (to me at least) that he uses 'brother' as an angelic hypostasis. I will have to dig it up.

[Tenorikuma]

Yes, I think "ritual brotherhood" is a good way to put it, and I agree about the adoption/inheritance language. In Stromata VI, Clement stresses that James, Peter, John and Paul had become "true heirs of the Lord's adoption" — i.e. they had inherited the very same status as adopted sons of God that Jesus had, becoming Jesus' brothers.

Under this paradigm of soteriology or theosis, calling a deceased apostle a "brother of the Lord" would not be understood to indicate blood kinship.

[Peter Kirby]

The point that James is singled out as the brother of the Lord, with the definite article, is sometimes pressed into service. Like a monk in English would be "a brother of God" and not "the brother of God," the point is that we would expect James in Gal. 1.19 to be thus described as brother of the Lord (without the definite article -- because there is no indefinite article in Greek, the effect is achieved by omitting the definite one).

They might not be right, but I like to try to push the discussion along, even if there aren't any ardent advocates around to do it for us.

[Tenorikuma]

But Jesus supposedly had other brothers, so the indefinite article should also be used in the case of kinship, by that logic.

Still, your point is taken. Then again, in the context of Galatians, whatever the meaning, the title seems to be applied to distinguish James in some important way. Among the exclusive group mentioned, James is the only one who is a brother of the Lord, whether by kinship or martyrdom. Thus, he is the brother.

Also, how often is Peter called Peter the Apostle? And Paul, Paul the Apostle? All the time, I think.

[stephan happy huller]

Benjamin had 11 brothers but was still "the brother of Levi," "the brother of Joseph" etc.

[JoeWallack]

JW:
I have not seen anyone else mention this but looking at the context of Galatians 1 it is all about Paul in competition with others for a Gospel and Paul claiming a superior source of Revelation in contrast to a source of human. Almost every verse of this Chapter supports this theme so no need to list out all of the specific excerpts.

The offending verse:

Galatians 1:19

But other of the apostles saw I none, save James the Lord`s brother.

Is the only reference in the Chapter to a possible human source for a Gospel. The brother (real physical brother, no tricks) of Jesus. This all fits the theory that James was the biological brother of Jesus and Paul considered James a competitor to some extent. James promoted Jesus based on Jesus' life which Paul could not do since he did not know Jesus. Paul promoted Jesus based on Jesus' death where he was not at a disadvantage.

When Paul refers to James as the brother of Jesus (Lord) his intent is to discredit James and not credit him. The entire context of Galatians 1 is that a source of dead Jesus is superior to a source of live Jesus. As always this sure sounds like what Satan would say, that you can not start living until you die, so you should sacrifice yourself to death. It's enough to make you turn Jew!


Joseph

ErrancyWki