Was James Brother of Lord because he was one of the 70 disciples?

Discussion about the New Testament, apocrypha, gnostics, church fathers, Christian origins, historical Jesus or otherwise, etc.
Post Reply
Giuseppe
Posts: 4997
Joined: Mon Apr 27, 2015 5:37 am
Location: Italy

Was James Brother of Lord because he was one of the 70 disciples?

Post by Giuseppe » Tue Mar 05, 2019 8:04 am

Luke 10
10 After this the Lord appointed seventy-two others and sent them two by two ahead of him to every town and place where he was about to go. 2 He told them, “The harvest is plentiful, but the workers are few. Ask the Lord of the harvest, therefore, to send out workers into his harvest field. 3 Go! I am sending you out like lambs among wolves. 4 Do not take a purse or bag or sandals; and do not greet anyone on the road.

(Note that these 70 disciples are not prohibited to marry).

Here James is not one of the 12 apostles:

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 time of our Saviour to the present day; for there were many that bore the name of James.

http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/250102.htm

So this may justify why in 1 Cor 9.5 there is a distinction between the apostles and the 'brothers of the Lord'': the latter were not apostles.

Now, Hippolytus counts James among the 70 disciples:
1. James the Lord's brother, bishop of Jerusalem.
2. Cleopas, bishop of Jerusalem.
...
etc...

http://www.pravoslavieto.com/docs/sv_ot ... _12_70.htm

The view seems to be confirmed by Eusebius:

One could perhaps say that the twelwe would be the first apostles, but not least were also the excellent Paul who was ''called an apostle'' and "James the Lord's brother", who is remembered as the first bishop of the church that was established by the Savior himself in Jerusalem.

(Commentary on Isaiah, 17:5)

If the distant Corinthians have to know 'brothers of Lord'' with the right to take wifes (1 Cor 9:5), then it is more probable that these ''brothers of the Lord'' were the same ''70 disciples'' sent by Jesus "to every town and place" (Luke 10), than these people were carnal brothers of Jesus living in Jerusalem.

It would make sense, for Paul, to use a rethorical argument to the extent that, even these 70 disciples, who are famous people in virtue of their abstinence from any pleasure, well, just themselves (!), can have the pleasure of a wife, whereas the poor Paul can't.

The title ''of the Lord'' should be derived from the same words of Luke 10:

The harvest is plentiful, but the workers are few. Ask the Lord of the harvest, therefore, to send out workers into his harvest field. Go!

Insofar James is sent by the Lord, then he would become '''Brother of the Lord', as co-worker in the his new creation, just as the Son was co-worker for the old creation.
Nihil enim in speciem fallacius est quam prava religio. -Liv. xxxix. 16.

Giuseppe
Posts: 4997
Joined: Mon Apr 27, 2015 5:37 am
Location: Italy

Re: Was James Brother of Lord because he was one of the 70 disciples?

Post by Giuseppe » Tue Mar 05, 2019 8:15 am

So we have:

1) the carnal Brothers and mother of Jesus, neglected by Jesus because they believe him a fool.
2) the 12, neglected by Jesus because they are idiots.
3) the 70 disciples, who seem better people than 1 and 2, at least in the only Gospel where they are mentioned (probably Marcion introduced them as better people than the Judaizing 12).

By making the James of Galatians 1:19 the first of the 70 ''Brothers of the Lord'', and by making him the carnal brother of Jesus, the catholics succeed to make the despised people of point 1 (as not-Christian Jews) as one and the same of the best Gentile Christians (the 70 disciples) of the point 3.

Please reflect about this: the two opposite poles (anti-Christian Jews and gentile anti-Jewish Christians) were made one and the same group by making the first guy of the second group (the FIRST of the 70 disciples: James) as the FIRST of the carnal Brothers of Jesus mentioned in Mark (James).

Omen Nomen: Catholic-ism.
Nihil enim in speciem fallacius est quam prava religio. -Liv. xxxix. 16.

Giuseppe
Posts: 4997
Joined: Mon Apr 27, 2015 5:37 am
Location: Italy

Re: Was James Brother of Lord because he was one of the 70 disciples?

Post by Giuseppe » Tue Mar 05, 2019 8:49 am

So really the reception of Jesus among the his true Brothers - the question about who was really the brother of Jesus, and therefore knew him, the his true (alien?) Father - provoked all that explosion of 'seventy disciples' deserving themselves, more than the 12, the title of SPIRITUAL ''Brothers of Lord''. The fact that the seventy are found only in Luke makes them marcionite people par excellence.

So the title of TRUE (spiritual) ''Brothers of Lord'' was disputed in a first stage between the Judaizing 12 apostles and the marcionite 70 apostles.

By making the James of Gal 1:19 as the carnal brother of Jesus (really, carnal brother only via Joseph, therefore only a cousin, and never a brother if not for radical Judaizers who came much later, the ebionites), and by making him the first Bishop of Jerusalem (and virtually the first of the 'not-more-marcionite' 70 disciples), then the James of Gal 1:19 could be seen as the best of the Brothers of Jesus, both spiritual and carnal.


But for the historical Paul (unless any occurrence of brother of Lord is later interpolation), the Brothers of Lord were meant only in a spiritual sense, naming these particularly sacrificed Gentile disciples specially compelled by the spirit to preach abroad, and hence broken at every fatigue, just the precise virtue that has to be a marcionite virtue of the 70 disciples (for Luke 10) and a Judaizing virtue of the only 12 apostles (for the other gospels).
Nihil enim in speciem fallacius est quam prava religio. -Liv. xxxix. 16.

Bernard Muller
Posts: 3173
Joined: Tue Oct 15, 2013 6:02 pm
Contact:

Re: Was James Brother of Lord because he was one of the 70 disciples?

Post by Bernard Muller » Mon Mar 11, 2019 8:54 am

There are many lists of these 70's drawn very late (including the one in pseudo-Hippolytus, NOT Hippolytus) and with marked differences between them. They are obviously made up: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seventy_disciples
Why bother with that garbage?

Cordially, Bernard
I believe freedom of expression should not be curtailed

Post Reply