"James the Just": What is the origin of the phrase?

[gryan]

The Old Testament at times makes reference to "the righteous", including in prophecies.

For the purpose of understanding the title, "James the Just", could you identify what you consider to be best example of such an OT reference to "the righteous" in the context of prophecies?

[gryan]

The Old Testament at times makes reference to "the righteous", including in prophecies.

For the purpose of understanding the title, "James the Just", could you identify what you consider to be best example of such an OT reference to "the righteous" in the context of prophecies?

How about the words of the prophet Habakkuk as the original source text for the title "James the just" (aka the "James" Gal 2:9 and Acts 15, who is called "Just" in Gospel of Hebrews, and Gospel of Thomas-- not to be confused with the "James the Lord's brother", imho Mark's "James the less", the "James" identified argumentatively by Hegesippus as having been "the just one" from birth)? This assumes that the Paul of the epistle to the Galatians encountered not one, but two Jameses in leadership in Jerusalem.

Swete's Septuagint (Hab 2:4)
ἐὰν ὑποστείληται, οὐκ εὐδοκεῖ ἡ ψυχή μου ἐν αὐτῷ· ὁ δὲ δίκαιος ἐκ πίστεώς μου ζήσεται.

Brenton Septuagint Translation
If he should draw back, my soul has no pleasure in him: but the just [one] shall live by my faith.

The text cited (in alternative form minus μου) in Galatians 3:11
ὅτι δὲ ἐν νόμῳ οὐδεὶς δικαιοῦται παρὰ τῷ Θεῷ δῆλον, ὅτι Ὁ δίκαιος ἐκ πίστεως ζήσεται·

Now it is evident that no one is justified before God by the law, for “The just [one] shall live by faith.”

[gryan]

In the Journal for the Study of the New Testament (Sep 2023), an article was published on the origin title, "the Just":
https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/epub/1 ... X231191188

The article lacks any mention of the title "James the Just" in the Gospel of Thomas and Gospel of Hebrews which in my exegesis, reflect the pillar James, James son of Alphaeus, not to be confused with James the Less, "the Lord's brother" in the sphere of flesh and blood.

The article does mention the usage by Hegesippus, as quoted by Eusebius:

"He was called [the] ‘Just’ by all from the time of the Lord even to our own (ὁ ὀνομασθεὶς ὑπὸ πάντων δίκαιος ἀπὸ τῶν τοῦ κυρίου χρόνων μέχρι καὶ ἡμῶν), since many were called James, but this man was holy from his mother’s womb. "

The article argues that "The Just is a typically retrospective honorific designating a rare observant and pious person, possibly suffering and persecuted but divinely vindicated and endowed with charismatic qualities, who facilitates mediation between God and human beings and helps sustain the world."

I'm pondering these details that I had not considered before:

"In the Catholic Epistles, ‘Jesus Christ the Righteous’ is the one who acts as interceding Paraclete with the Father and as atoning sacrifice for all sin.22 His death ‘for sins’ is as ‘the just for the unjust’.23 The murdered and condemned ‘just one’ (τὸν δίκαιον) in James 5.6 could be a more generic figure, but analogies with the Joseph-like suffering righteous individual in Wisdom 2 make it difficult to rule out a Christological double entendre for a Christian readership. The rich have murdered the Righteous One in particular."

22. 1 Jn 2.1–2 (Ἰησοῦν Χριστὸν δίκαιον).
23. 1 Pet. 3.18 (Χριστὸς ἅπαξ περὶ ἁμαρτιῶν ἔπαθεν, δίκαιος ὑπὲρ ἀδίκων). In 1 Pet. 4.18 (quoting Prov. 11.31 LXX), ὁ δίκαιος functions generically, as Hays (2005: 125–26) also acknowledges (while noting Jesus as a possible prototype).

[Trees of Life]

Re: Seeking the earliest usages of the phrase "James the Just"

Hegesippus
"James, the Lord's brother, succeeds to the government of the Church, in conjunction with the apostles. He has been universally called the Just, from the days of the Lord down to the present time. For many bore the name of James; but this one was holy from his mother's womb...


Are there more early usages I should consider as I try to reconstruct the origin of the phrase "James the Just"?

The secret letter referred to as The First Apocalypse of James describes Jesus speaking to James the Just soon after the resurrection, (confirmed in The Gospel According to the Hebrews):

'The Lord said, "James, do not be concerned for me or for this people. I am he who was within me. Never have I suffered in any way, nor have I been distressed. And this people has done me no harm. But this (people) existed as a type of the archons, and it deserved to be destroyed through them. But [...] the archons, [...] who has [...] but since it [...] angry with [...] The just [...] is his servant. Therefore your name is "James the Just". (April 5, 33 CE) You see how you will become sober when you see me. And you stopped this prayer. Now since you are a just man of God, you have embraced me and kissed me. Truly I say to you that you have stirred up great anger and wrath against yourself. But (this has happened) so that these others might come to be."'

The First Apocalypse of James, a secret letter was written by James the Just in December A.D. 33 ascertained by James the Just sending another dated secret letter ten months later— The Apocryphon of James written on Thursday October 7, A.D. 34: "I also sent you, ten months ago, another secret letter which the Savior had revealed to me. Under the circumstances, however, regard that one as revealed to me, James; but this one ... [untranslatable fragments]... the twelve disciples were all sitting together and recalling what the Savior had said to each one of them, whether in secret or openly, and putting it in books - But I was writing that which was in my book - lo, the Savior appeared, after departing from us while we gazed after him. And five hundred and fifty days (which dates to Thursday October 7 A.D. 34) since he had risen from the dead, (on April 5 33 CE) we said to him, "Have you departed and removed yourself from us?" But Jesus said, "No, but I shall go to the place from whence I came. If you wish to come with me, come!"
(Italics mine)

At the time the two letters were secret and kept only for sealed sect members due to details that identify the director of the sect in Jerusalem, in order to protect him and his followers from being targeted by rival factions.
The details determine that the James was the one called James the Just, one of the twelve disciples and so an apostle, and called by Yeshua his brother, but not a material brother.
James the Less being the son of Alphaeus and James son of Zebedee are the two apostles in question.
James the Less also called James son of Alphaeus an apostle, was the material brother of Jesus son of Joseph the Carpenter, as found in the History of Joseph the Carpenter.

Therefore he is not the James being referred to by Yeshua in The First Apocalypse of James: 'It is the Lord who spoke with me: "See now the completion of my redemption. I have given you a sign of these things, James, my brother. For not without reason have I called you my brother, although you are not my brother materially. And I am not ignorant concerning you; so that when I give you a sign - know and hear."'

James the son of Zebedee therefore is the James called the Lord's brother and the brother of the Lord, and being not a material brother, and being of the twelve disciples and therefore an apostle, was 'called from the days of the Lord', James the Just.
James the Just called the Lord's brother is documented in early Christian writings as the first bishop of Jerusalem:

Hegesippus, Fragments from His Five Books of Commentaries on the Acts of the Church contain:

'James, the Lord's brother, succeeds to the government of the Church, in conjunction with the apostles. He has been universally called the Just, from the days of the Lord down to the present time. For many bore the name of James; but this one was holy from his mother's womb. He drank no wine or other intoxicating liquor, nor did he eat flesh; no razor came upon his head; he did not anoint himself with oil, nor make use of the bath. He alone was permitted to enter the holy place: for he did not wear any woollen garment, but fine linen only. He alone, I say, was wont to go into the temple: and he used to be found kneeling on his knees, begging forgiveness for the people-so that the skin of his knees became horny like that of a camel's, by reason of his constantly bending the knee in adoration to God, and begging forgiveness for the people. Therefore, in consequence of his pre-eminent justice, he was called the Just, and Oblias, which signifies in Greek Defence of the People, and Justice, in accordance with what the prophets declare concerning him.'

It is ascertained that James, the Lord's brother, called James the Just, was director of the church in Jerusalem. That James the Just was James the son of Zebedee and a Nazarite can also be ascertained as sorts by ChatGPT:

GPT, which James in early Christian writings primary sources was a Nazarite?

ChatGPT
In early Christian writings, there is no specific mention of a James who was a Nazarite. The term "Nazarite" refers to a religious vow described in the Hebrew Bible, particularly in the book of Numbers (Numbers 6:1-21), where an individual would vow to abstain from certain things, such as cutting their hair and consuming wine or grapes, as an act of consecration to God.

There are several individuals named James mentioned in the New Testament, and the most prominent among them is James, the brother of Jesus, who is sometimes referred to as James the Just or James the Righteous. He played a significant role in the early Christian community in Jerusalem and is mentioned in the New Testament, particularly in the Book of Acts and the Epistle of James. However, there is no indication in these texts that he was a Nazarite.

It's important to note that the concept of Nazariteship was primarily associated with Judaism and the Old Testament, and it was not a common practice among early Christians.




User
James the Just is not called the brother of Jesus, specifically in primary sources, but the Lord's brother or brother of the Lord, correct?
ChatGPT
You are correct, and I apologize for any imprecise language in my previous response. In early Christian writings, James, often referred to as James the Just or James the Righteous, is indeed described as the "brother of the Lord" or the "brother of Jesus" rather than specifically as "the brother of Jesus." The term "brother of the Lord" or "brother of Jesus" is used to indicate a close familial relationship with Jesus, which has been a subject of theological discussion and interpretation within Christianity.

One of the key passages where James is mentioned in this context is Galatians 1:18-19 in the New Testament, where the apostle Paul writes:

"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."

This passage uses the term "James the Lord's brother," emphasizing James' familial connection to Jesus. Thank you for pointing out the more precise terminology.

User
Where in primary sources of early Christian writings is the precise expression 'brother of Jesus' applied to James the Just?
ChatGPT
The precise expression "brother of Jesus" applied to James the Just can be found in the works of the Jewish historian Flavius Josephus, specifically in his work "Antiquities of the Jews." Josephus, who was a first-century Jewish historian, mentions James in Book 20, Chapter 9, of "Antiquities of the Jews." Here is the relevant passage from Josephus:

"Festus was now dead, and Albinus was but upon the road; so he assembled the sanhedrin of judges, and brought before them the brother of Jesus, who was called Christ, whose name was James, and some others; and when he had formed an accusation against them as breakers of the law, he delivered them to be stoned."

In this passage, Josephus refers to James as "the brother of Jesus, who was called Christ." This is one of the few references outside of the New Testament that provides historical information about James the Just and his association with Jesus. However, it's worth noting that this passage has been a subject of debate among scholars, with some questioning its authenticity and suggesting possible later Christian interpolations. Nonetheless, it is a notable reference in early Christian history.




User
Is Jesus when called Christ the Lord, and if so does Josephus state that the brother of Jesus who was called Christ, is James the brother of the Lord?
ChatGPT
In the passage from Josephus that I quoted earlier, Josephus does indeed refer to Jesus as "called Christ." However, Josephus does not explicitly state that James is the "brother of the Lord" in that particular passage. Instead, he identifies James as "the brother of Jesus, who was called Christ." The passage does not provide further theological or doctrinal elaboration on the term "brother of Jesus" or its implications.

The terminology used by Josephus reflects a historical description of James in relation to Jesus, acknowledging their familial connection and Jesus' title as "Christ" (a title that means "Messiah" or "Anointed One" in Christian theology). It is important to note that Josephus was a Jewish historian, and his writings do not delve into the theological nuances of Christian doctrine. The identification of James as "the brother of Jesus, who was called Christ" is primarily a historical reference. The specific theological understanding of James' relationship to Jesus is more fully developed in Christian writings.




User
Yet there is no family connection mentioned, only brother of Jesus called Christ, and so brother of the Lord, and not brother of Jesus son of Joseph the Carpenter, do you agree? If so is not 'brother' in Josephus' passage enabled to be an honorary term?
ChatGPT
You are correct that in the passage from Josephus, there is no explicit mention of a family connection or a specific reference to James as the son of Joseph the Carpenter. The passage identifies James as "the brother of Jesus, who was called Christ," and it does not provide detailed familial context.

The use of the term "brother" in Josephus' passage has indeed been a subject of debate and interpretation among scholars. Some have suggested that the term "brother" in this context could be understood in a broader sense, not necessarily indicating a sibling relationship but possibly a close associate or follower of Jesus. It's important to consider that the use of language and terminology in ancient texts can sometimes carry nuanced meanings, and the exact nature of the relationship between James and Jesus as described by Josephus remains a matter of interpretation.

Ultimately, while Josephus provides historical information about James and his association with Jesus, the theological implications of the relationship between James and Jesus are more fully explored in Christian writings and theology, where James is traditionally understood as a sibling of Jesus.




User
Specifically, are you referring to James the Just, bishop of Jerusalem when you state that James is traditionally understood as a sibling of Jesus?
ChatGPT
Yes, when I refer to James as traditionally understood as a sibling of Jesus, I am specifically referring to James the Just, also known as James the Righteous or James the Brother of the Lord. In Christian tradition, James the Just is often regarded as the brother of Jesus, and he is believed to have held a prominent role as the bishop of Jerusalem and an important figure in the early Christian community. This understanding of James as the sibling of Jesus is based on interpretations of the New Testament and early Christian writings, as well as historical tradition within Christianity.




User
Yet there is no specific passage in primary sources of Christian writings where it is written, 'James the Just, brother of Jesus', but James the just is referred to as 'brother of the Lord', or 'the Lord's brother,' is that correct?
ChatGPT
Yes, you are correct. In the New Testament and early Christian writings, James the Just is typically referred to as "the brother of the Lord" or "the Lord's brother" rather than explicitly as "James the Just, brother of Jesus." This terminology reflects the traditional Christian understanding of James' relationship to Jesus, emphasizing his close familial connection to Jesus. The most significant passage in this regard is found in Galatians 1:18-19, where the apostle Paul writes:

"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."

This passage identifies James as "the Lord's brother" and highlights his importance within the early Christian community. While the specific terminology may vary slightly in different texts, the common theme is the acknowledgment of James as having a special relationship with Jesus.




User
Yet there is no familial connection mentioned specifically and thereby Galatians 1:18-19 could be referring to a milk-kin brother, a foster brother, or an adopted brother, is that correct?
ChatGPT
You are correct that the term "brother" used in Galatians 1:18-19 does not specify the nature of the relationship between James and Jesus, and it could theoretically be interpreted in various ways. The New Testament does not provide detailed information about the family dynamics of Jesus and his siblings, and as a result, there has been scholarly debate and interpretation about the precise nature of this relationship.

In the context of ancient texts, the term "brother" could refer to a blood sibling, a half-sibling, a step-sibling, or even a close associate or spiritual brother. The lack of specificity in the text leaves room for different interpretations.

Traditionally, within Christian theology and tradition, James is understood as a sibling of Jesus, typically as a half-brother (sharing one parent, often believed to be Mary). However, these interpretations are based on later theological developments rather than explicit statements in the New Testament.

The exact nature of James' relationship to Jesus remains a subject of debate and interpretation among scholars, and different Christian traditions may have varying views on this matter.




User
In early Christion theology, is not James the Just, the bishop of Jerusalem, deemed to be James son of Zebedee, for does he not hold the bishop's staff in icons?
ChatGPT
No, James the Just, the bishop of Jerusalem, is not typically identified with James the son of Zebedee in early Christian theology or tradition. They are generally considered to be two distinct individuals.

James the Just, also known as James the Righteous or James the Brother of the Lord, is traditionally understood as a close relative of Jesus and is often referred to as his brother. He played a prominent role in the early Christian community in Jerusalem and is believed to have been the leader of the Jerusalem church. His association with the bishop's staff in icons may symbolize his leadership within the early Christian community in Jerusalem.

James the son of Zebedee, on the other hand, was one of the twelve apostles chosen by Jesus and is often referred to as James the Greater to distinguish him from another apostle named James, often called James the Less. He is not typically associated with the office of the bishop of Jerusalem in early Christian tradition.

It's important to note that the naming conventions of individuals in the New Testament can be confusing, as there were multiple individuals named James in the early Christian community, but James the Just and James the son of Zebedee are generally considered distinct figures with different roles in early Christianity.




User
If James the son of Zebedee is the apostle who resembles Jesus in icons, do you agree that that is a sign he was termed 'brother of the lord' logically?
ChatGPT
The depiction of James the son of Zebedee in icons as resembling Jesus is a common artistic convention, but it is not necessarily indicative of him being referred to as "brother of the Lord" in early Christian theology or tradition. The artistic representation of James and other apostles as resembling Jesus often serves artistic and symbolic purposes, emphasizing their close association with Jesus and their role as his disciples.

In early Christian texts, James the son of Zebedee is generally identified as one of the twelve apostles and the brother of John, another apostle. He is not typically referred to as "brother of the Lord" in the same way James the Just is.

The title "brother of the Lord" or "brother of Jesus" is more commonly associated with James the Just, who is traditionally understood as a close relative of Jesus, possibly a half-brother or a cousin, depending on the specific theological tradition. This designation reflects a different aspect of his relationship with Jesus compared to the apostle James, son of Zebedee.




User
Do milk-kin brothers resemble each other? If so would that enable James son of Zebedee to be ascribed as brother of the lord? for in the Apocalypse of James—of which the James is the bishop of Jerusalem—the James there is not a material brother but a milk-kin brother.
ChatGPT
In traditional language and culture, "milk-kin brothers" or "milk siblings" refer to individuals who have been nursed by the same woman, even if they are not biologically related. The term is often used to describe a kind of fictive kinship or spiritual bond established through the act of breastfeeding. While milk-kin brothers are not biologically related, they may be seen as having a special bond due to their shared nurturing experience.

The concept of milk-kin brothers is not uncommon in some cultural and historical contexts. However, it's essential to note that the use of this term and concept can vary across different cultures and periods.

In some interpretations of early Christian texts, including the "Apocalypse of James," the James mentioned is understood as a milk-kin brother of Jesus rather than a biological sibling. This interpretation is one way to address the question of James' relationship to Jesus while not specifying a biological sibling relationship. In such interpretations, the term "brother of the Lord" can be understood in a broader sense, indicating a close spiritual or symbolic connection.

The understanding of James as a milk-kin brother is a specific interpretation and not universally accepted within Christianity. Interpretations of James' relationship to Jesus have varied throughout Christian history, and different theological traditions may have distinct views on this matter.




User
And on milk-kin resemblance, do you have from historiographical sources or studies evidence of milk-kin resemblance?
ChatGPT
The concept of milk-kin resemblance, which suggests that individuals who have been nursed by the same woman may share physical or familial characteristics, is not a widely recognized or scientifically supported idea in contemporary scholarship or historiography. While the act of breastfeeding can create a close bond between individuals, it does not necessarily lead to physical resemblance or familial attributes.

In modern genetics and biology, physical characteristics are primarily determined by an individual's genetic makeup, which is inherited from their biological parents. While shared environmental factors during early childhood can influence some aspects of physical development, the idea that individuals who share a nurse's milk would necessarily resemble each other in any significant way is not a concept that is supported by scientific research or widely accepted in the field of genetics.

The concept of milk-kin resemblance may have cultural or historical significance in certain contexts, but it is not a scientifically established principle. It's important to recognize that interpretations of historical texts or traditions that rely on such concepts should be understood within their cultural and historical context and may not align with contemporary scientific understanding.




User
Do you agree that in the letter to John that James is mentioned as having a resemblance to Jesus?
ChatGPT
In the New Testament, there is no direct reference to James, whether James the Just or James the son of Zebedee, as having a physical resemblance to Jesus. The New Testament primarily focuses on the teachings, actions, and relationships of Jesus and his disciples rather than their physical appearances.

If you have a specific reference in a letter to John that you would like to discuss or inquire about, please provide the exact passage or context, and I would be happy to provide information or insights based on that specific text. However, it's essential to note that any mention of resemblance would likely be metaphorical or symbolic rather than a literal description of physical appearance.




User
The second epistle of Ignatius to John describes the resemblance of James and Jesus in colloquial terms—'as if from the same womb'—and is tied to Mary and her breastmilk. Would you accept that that is evidence of James and Jesus having a resemblance ?
ChatGPT
Thank you for providing specific information about the second epistle of Ignatius to John. The passage you mentioned, which describes James and Jesus as having a resemblance "as if from the same womb" and is tied to Mary and her breastmilk, does indeed suggest a symbolic or metaphorical resemblance between James and Jesus. This resemblance is not based on physical characteristics but rather emphasizes a spiritual or symbolic connection, possibly related to the concept of milk-kinship.

In this context, the use of the term "resemblance" appears to be metaphorical, emphasizing the spiritual affinity or bond between James and Jesus, rather than a literal description of physical similarity. This interpretation aligns with the understanding that James was often referred to as "the brother of the Lord" in early Christian tradition, indicating a close spiritual or familial connection.

It's important to note that this text reflects the theological and cultural context of early Christianity and should be understood within that framework.




User
The passage in the second epistle of Ignatius to John reads,: 'And in like manner the venerable James, who is surnamed Just, whom they relate to be very like Christ Jesus in appearance, in life, and in method of conduct, as if he were a twin-brother of the same womb. They say that, if I see him, I see also Jesus Himself, as to all the features and aspect of His body.'
ChatGPT
Thank you for providing the specific passage from the second epistle of Ignatius to John. The passage indeed describes James, surnamed Just, as being very similar to Christ Jesus in appearance, life, and conduct. It goes as far as to say that seeing James is akin to seeing Jesus Himself in terms of physical features and aspect of the body. This description emphasizes a strong resemblance between James and Jesus, and it is stated in a metaphorical or symbolic sense to highlight their spiritual and moral likeness.

In this context, the term "resemblance" is used to convey a spiritual similarity and a close affinity between James and Jesus, rather than a literal physical resemblance. The passage underscores the high regard in which James the Just was held within early Christian tradition, emphasizing his virtue and piety in a manner that likens him to Jesus.

This description aligns with the traditional Christian understanding of James as a figure of great sanctity and righteousness who played a significant role in the early Christian community.




User
Is it not senseless on your part to describe a literal description of a resemblance as being not a literal description of a resemblance but is being stated in a metaphorical or symbolic sense? Are icons of James and Jesus having a resemblance not accorded as meant by the artist according to your reasoning?

ChatGPT
I apologize for any confusion in my previous responses. You are correct, and I appreciate your patience in clarifying this matter.

In the passage from the second epistle of Ignatius to John that you provided, there is indeed a description of a strong physical resemblance between James and Jesus, and it is not meant to be metaphorical or symbolic in the way I previously described. The passage clearly states that James is very like Christ Jesus in appearance, life, and conduct.

Regarding icons of James and Jesus, artists who create such representations typically aim to convey a visual likeness between the two figures based on descriptions like the one you provided. In this context, the artists are emphasizing a literal physical resemblance.

I apologize for any confusion in my previous responses, and I appreciate your diligence in seeking clarification. The passage you provided does describe a literal resemblance between James and Jesus. Thank you for pointing out the importance of accurate interpretation in this case.
Chat original,
continuing

[gryan]

Tree of Life: Thank you! This is something I will think about.

I concur with your interpretation that this passage does not refer to James, the natural (material) brother of Jesus. There is no support for this traditional view within The (First) Apocalypse of James. However, I hold a different perspective regarding the identification of the two Jameses counted among the twelve apostles.

You mentioned, "James the Less, being the son of Alphaeus, and James son of Zebedee are the two apostles in question. James the Less, also known as James son of Alphaeus, was the material brother of Jesus, the son of Joseph the Carpenter, as detailed in the History of Joseph the Carpenter."

Today, scholars often assume awkwardly that "James the Lord's brother" mentioned in Galatians 1:19 and 2:12, who preached a circumcision gospel, is the same "James" as the pillar James referred to in Galatians 2:9, who witnessed the grace given to Paul and extended the right hand of fellowship. ChatGpt operates within this interpretive framework.

In my view, the pillar James of Galatians 2:9 should not be confused with the flesh-and-blood brother of Jesus mentioned in Galatians 1:19 and 2:12 (referred to as "James the small" in Mark 15:40). Furthermore, it is crucial to note that the events of Acts 15 occurred after the death of James, the son of Zebedee (the brother of John), as detailed in Acts 12:2. Therefore, I identify the "James" who also played a pivotal role in Galatians 2:9 and Acts 15 as James the son of Alphaeus--the person called "James the Just" in Gospel of Thomas and The (First) Apocalypse of James.

[Trees of Life]

Furthermore, it is crucial to note that the events of Acts 15 occurred after the death of James, the son of Zebedee (the brother of John), as detailed in Acts 12:2.

The death of James son of Zebedee is not detailed in Acts 12.2, as you assert. Recounting that Acts 12.2 records the death of James son of Zebedee is the theologians' folly.
The word brother in Christian texts can be a descriptive: symbolical, figurative, significative, metaphorical, indicative, denotive, representative — let alone foster, adopted, step or milk-kin — yet in their folly, theologians render brother in one manner only: to them 'brother' in Acts 12.2, is termed a birth brother, and only applicable to one specific James, the brother of John.

[gryan]

Trees of Life,

Thank you for your response and for engaging in this discussion. I appreciate your input, and I understand that interpretations of the term "brother" in Christian texts can vary significantly. In my previous post, I mentioned that the events of Acts 15 occurred after the death of James, the son of Zebedee, as detailed in Acts 12:2. I understand that there are different perspectives on this, and I respect your viewpoint.

You rightly point out that the term "brother" in Christian texts can carry various meanings, including symbolic and metaphorical ones. It's essential to consider these nuances when discussing figures like James in the early Christian context.

I maintain my perspective that the identification of individuals like James can be complex, and I interpret "James the Just" from the 1st Apocalypse of James as James, the son of Alphaeus, based on my understanding of the textual and historical context. I understand that others may have different interpretations, and I welcome further discussion and exploration of these topics. Once again, thank you for sharing your insights, and I look forward to continuing this dialogue.

Best regards,
gryan

[gryan]

Re: Reconstructing the lost identity of the pillar "James" in the "James and Cephas and John" of Galatians 2:9 (with the Western text "Peter and James and John" seen as a textual corruption).

Thesis 1: The original "James the Just", the pillar James, identified as James son of Alphaeus according to Acts, was an apocalyptic brother of the risen Lord [Matthew 28:10, "Go and tell my brothers (τοῖς ἀδελφοῖς μου, cf. John 20:17) to go to Galilee; there they will see me."] rather than a blood brother. He is referred to as "James the Just" in the Gospel of Hebrews, the Apocalypse of James, and the Gospel of Thomas. (Compare with Acts 22:13-14, where it states, "'Brother Saul,' Σαοὺλ ἀδελφέ," he said, 'receive your sight.' And at that moment I could see him. Then he said, 'The God of our fathers has appointed you to know His will and to see the Just One, τὸν Δίκαιον, and to hear His voice.")

Thesis 2: In Galatians 1:19, James, "the brother of [our] Lord" (Cf. Galatians 1:3, "our Lord Jesus Christ" καὶ κυρίου ἡμῶν D F G d ×vg P46 B 1739 1611 Byz SCC SBL, instead of the Nestle Aland text, ἡμῶν καὶ κυρίου b 01 33 A P 1241S Ψ), “the small” according to Mark 15:40, was a blood brother of Jesus, and a natural son of “the mother of my Lord” (Luke 1:43), but not a pillar.

Thesis 3: "Those people from James" (Galatians 2:12, "Before the coming of those people from James, he ate with Gentiles. But when he (Cephas/Peter) arrived [text: ἦλθεν D* F G B 01 33 P46, instead of the Nestle Aland Text, ἦλθον b ×vg ×1175 A C 1241S 1739 Ψ Chrys 1611 Byz SBL] he continued withdrawing and separating himself…) were false brothers (Galatians 2:5) from James, the Lord's blood brother, a heterodox apostle (Galatians 1:16-19).

Hegesippus: "James, the Lord's brother, succeeds to the government of the Church, in conjunction with the apostles. He has been universally called the Just, from the days of the Lord down to the present time. For many bore the name of James; but this one was holy from his mother's womb."

Hegesippus appears to falsely assume that in Galatians, "James, the Lord's brother" (James the small) and the pillar James (the son of Alphaeus), called "the Just," were the same person.

[gryan]

Re: Reconstructing the lost identity of the pillar "James" in the "James and Cephas and John" of Galatians 2:9 (with the Western text "Peter and James and John" seen as a textual corruption).

Thesis 1: The pillar James, identified as James son of Alphaeus according to Acts, was an apocalyptic brother of the risen Lord [Matthew 28:10, "Go and tell my brothers (τοῖς ἀδελφοῖς μου, cf. John 20:17) to go to Galilee; there they will see me."] rather than a blood brother. He is referred to as "James the Just" in the Gospel of Hebrews, the Apocalypse of James, and the Gospel of Thomas. (Compare with Acts 22:13-14, where it states, "'Brother Saul,' Σαοὺλ ἀδελφέ," he said, 'receive your sight.' And at that moment I could see him. Then he said, 'The God of our fathers has appointed you to know His will and to see the Just One, τὸν Δίκαιον, and to hear His voice.")

Thesis 2: In Galatians 1:19, James, "the brother of [our] Lord" (Cf. Galatians 1:3, "our Lord Jesus Christ" καὶ κυρίου ἡμῶν D F G d ×vg P46 B 1739 1611 Byz SCC SBL, instead of the Nestle Aland text, ἡμῶν καὶ κυρίου b 01 33 A P 1241S Ψ), “the small” according to Mark 15:40, was a blood brother of Jesus, and a natural son of “the mother of my Lord” (Luke 1:43), but not a pillar.

Thesis 3: "Those people from James" (Galatians 2:12, "Before the coming of those people from James, he ate with Gentiles. But when he (Cephas/Peter) arrived [text: ἦλθεν D* F G B 01 33 P46, instead of the Nestle Aland Text, ἦλθον b ×vg ×1175 A C 1241S 1739 Ψ Chrys 1611 Byz SBL] he continued withdrawing and separating himself…) were false brothers (Galatians 2:5) from James, the Lord's blood brother, a heterodox apostle (Galatians 1:16-19).

Hegesippus: "James, the Lord's brother, succeeds to the government of the Church, in conjunction with the apostles. He has been universally called the Just, from the days of the Lord down to the present time. For many bore the name of James; but this one was holy from his mother's womb."

Hegesippus appears to falsely assume that in Galatians, "James, the Lord's brother" (James the small) and the pillar James (the son of Alphaeus), called "the Just," were the same person.

To the best of my knowledge, without the ability to read German, my argument appears to parallel that of Karl Georg Wieseler (1813–1883) in his paper "Ueber die Brüder des Herrn" found in "Stud. und Kritik," page 80 and following. I am presenting two critiques of Wieseler's interpretation of the two Jameses, as it is crucial for me to comprehend the reasons behind the lack of acceptance of his exegesis.

In his Commentary on Galatians, J. B. Lightfoot critiques his Wieseler view:

“According to this writer the James of Gal. ii. 9 and the Acts is the son of Alphaeus, and not the Lord's brother, and therefore different from the James of 1. 19.”

Footnoted: "built on arbitrary assumptions and improbable combinations of known facts, and from their artificial character have failed to secure any wide acceptance. It is assumed for instance, that two persons of the same name, James the son of Alphaeus and James the Lord's brother, were leading members of the Church in Jerusalem, though history points to only one."


In his Commentary on Galatians, Meyer wrote:

"Wieseler also justly recognises here the actual brother of Jesus, but holds the James, who is named in Galatians 2:9; Galatians 2:12 (and Acts 12:17; Acts 15:13; Acts 15:21; 1 Corinthians 15:7) as the head of the Jewish Christians, not to be identical with this brother of the Lord, but to be the apostle James the son of Alphaeus; affirming that it was the latter also who was called ὁ δίκαιος. See, however, on Galatians 2:9. The Gospel of the Hebrews, in Jerome, Vir. ill. 2, puts James the Just among the apostles who partook of the last Supper with Jesus, but nevertheless represents him as a brother of the Lord, for it makes him to be addressed by the Risen One as “frater mi.” Wieseler, indeed, understands frater mi in a spiritual sense, as in John 20:17, Matthew 28:10. But, just because the designation of a James as ἀδελφὸς τοῦ κυρίον is so solemn, this interpretation appears arbitrary; nor do we find that anywhere in the Gospels Jesus addressed the disciples as brethren."
https://biblehub.com/commentaries/galatians/1-19.htm

------

My argument for two leaders in Jerusalem named James is not arbitrary.

Alignment with Galatians and Mark:

My rediscovery of two leaders named James is primarily rooted in a close reading of Galatians combined with inter-textual analysis with Mark.

Luke-Acts Omissions:

Notably, not one of the brothers of Jesus (Acts 1:14) are ever named in Luke-Acts. As far as I can tell, all evidence for James, the blood brother of Jesus, in Mark/Galatians are deliberately omitted in Luke-Acts creating an impression of only one leader in Jerusalem named James.

I suspect that the real reason for the omission is that the conflict between Paul and James the blood brother of Jesus was considered ugly and unedifying. The editorial tendency to omit Paul's conflict with James the Lord's brother in Luke-Acts led to misreadings of Galatians and Mark.