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

Discussion about the New Testament, apocrypha, gnostics, church fathers, Christian origins, historical Jesus or otherwise, etc.
gryan
Posts: 407
Joined: Fri Jun 01, 2018 4:11 am

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

Post by gryan »

davidmartin wrote: Mon Aug 30, 2021 11:21 pm So you get the 3 basic groups exerting their influence until orthodoxy emerges a century later and tries to set things down in order which is a long process
Paul's group can't explain the gospels but it does provide much theology
The brother James's group explains quite a bit of Matthew and Revelation and some doctrines like hell
The gospel James's group explains gospel of John, the sayings source like Thomas and Mark in general and the Odes
I like my make my distinctions text based. I've never heard of "brother James" or "gospel James."

Sorry to be so picky, but IMHO, Paul saw "pillar" James as supportive of his gift and as giving him the genuine right hand of fellowship. By contrast, he saw "the Lord's brother" James, and his party--"some from James"--as opposition. They had lured Cephas/Peter in his direction of the circumcision party at around the time Galatians/2 Cor 10-13 was written. The direct mentions of the name James in the NT have to be clarified one way or the other.

IMHO, Pillar James is represented in:
1) Gal 2:9 as a supporter of Paul's gift and his mission of inclusion of uncircumcised Gentiles.
2) 1 Cor 15:7 as having seen he risen Lord.
3) Acts 15 as an advocate for Paul's mission.
4) Mark 16:1 as "the James" son of the woman Matt dubs as "the other Mary" (Cf Lk 12:40).
5)The honorary (or perhaps actual) "author" of the epistle of James.

James the Lord's brother is represented in:
1) Gal 1:19 and 2:12 as "different" from the other apostles, and as inspiration for the pro-circumcision party that influenced Cephas/Peter to stop eating with uncircumcised Gentiles.
2) Mark 6:3 and 15:40 as "the lesser James", another "son of Mary"--the "Mary" known in Jesus' hometown as Jesus' mother (Cf parallels in Matt).

How the history behind the text is reconstructed sociologically and how it relates to the origin of the phrase, "James the Just" -- viewtopic.php?p=126443#p126443 -- is all dependent on the close reading and interpretation of these early primary texts where someone named "James" is mentioned directly.
davidmartin
Posts: 883
Joined: Fri Jul 12, 2019 2:51 pm

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

Post by davidmartin »

what i find fascinating is the thought that the circumcision party actually did influence things despite being at odds with Paul
Is that where a doctrine like hell came from? That's what i think as my original interest in this stuff derived from looking at the hell doctrine as i doubted it was original given how patchy it appears in the NT

Judging by the Clementine literature, if this indeed reflects something of them, they were powerful and persuasive right down into the patristic era
But it's them rather than Paul that is the fringe group IMO. Their claims rest upon a family connection and their insistence of winning over Peter to their cause. It seems they constructed a gospel that influenced Matthew. Why should Acts seek to smooth over the history? That makes sense if the orthodox Christians accepted some of the circumcision party's claims, sought to admit them into their ranks and convert them. The church can then claim the traditions of James as their own and trace their apostolic lineage back through them, while fully accepting Paul! Not a bad days work

The pillar James and his churches had more in common with Paul having a high Christology and similar views on salvation (as per gospel of John). If this is correct differences between Paul and a reconstructed pillar James shouldn't obscure the greater difference with the circumcision group who didn't see salvation except through their interpretation of the law
Seeking back into the origins means one can go past the upstart circumcision group back to Paul then from there to a reconstructed original group, and that pathway is highlighted by the information found in the epistles and gospels that point to a messianic revival movement making an impact approximately when and where it was thought to have started
gryan
Posts: 407
Joined: Fri Jun 01, 2018 4:11 am

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

Post by gryan »

davidmartin wrote: Tue Aug 31, 2021 3:26 am what i find fascinating is the thought that the circumcision party actually did influence things despite being at odds with Paul
Is that where a doctrine like hell came from? That's what i think as my original interest in this stuff derived from looking at the hell doctrine as i doubted it was original given how patchy it appears in the NT

Judging by the Clementine literature, if this indeed reflects something of them, they were powerful and persuasive right down into the patristic era
But it's them rather than Paul that is the fringe group IMO. Their claims rest upon a family connection and their insistence of winning over Peter to their cause. It seems they constructed a gospel that influenced Matthew. Why should Acts seek to smooth over the history? That makes sense if the orthodox Christians accepted some of the circumcision party's claims, sought to admit them into their ranks and convert them. The church can then claim the traditions of James as their own and trace their apostolic lineage back through them, while fully accepting Paul! Not a bad days work

The pillar James and his churches had more in common with Paul having a high Christology and similar views on salvation (as per gospel of John). If this is correct differences between Paul and a reconstructed pillar James shouldn't obscure the greater difference with the circumcision group who didn't see salvation except through their interpretation of the law
Seeking back into the origins means one can go past the upstart circumcision group back to Paul then from there to a reconstructed original group, and that pathway is highlighted by the information found in the epistles and gospels that point to a messianic revival movement making an impact approximately when and where it was thought to have started
Good commentary.

Re: pseudo-cementine recognitions

Last night I was skimming them with a view for my Jameses hypothesis. There was one series of dialogues where one scene has the name James with no epithet, for which there is a translator's footnote saying "presumably the Lord's brother". In the next James scene, the James is the son of Zebedee, brother of John. In the next James scene, the James is James son of Alphaeus. Then, in the next James scene, it is "our James". That series told me that the writers was acutely aware of the multiple Jameses problem one faces when reading the name James in the NT. The only place I saw where James was called explicitly, "the Lord's brother" was in the intro by Rufinus. This is my memory of what I saw in last nights incomplete reading. The other thing I noticed was that there was no place where James was interviewed about his memories of growing up with Jesus or what it was like to have Mary as his mother. Kind of like reading the epistle of James in the NT, there was no evidence given to suggest that this was someone who knew Jesus in the ordinary historical sense of a blood brother.

Also, I'm not actually convinced that pseudo-clement is anti-Paul. The "enemy" reference is a possible reference to Paul, especially, in my mind, given Paul's statement in Galatians: "Have I become your enemy by telling you the truth?" I think a lot of ancient readers read that and thought, Yes, Paul--your truth is offensive to me. I think the community that produced gMatt may have experienced that sentiment as somewhat of a goad to write out things that were obviously produced in dialogue with Paul's writings, and done so with a grudging respect, even done with a sense of obedience to the saying of Jesus: "Love your enemies." I think Paul is a poster child for Matt 25 -- "If you have done it for the least of these my brethren you have done it unto me." It was been argued in scholarly circles that "my brethren" refers to the disciples, but has anyone published a recognition that "the least of these" could be an allusion to Paul? Paul famously talked about being hungry and naked and weak and in need of hospitality. I think the community of Matt would have taken Paul in out of a sense of hospitality, and would have treated him as a brother, but with a sense of superiority suggested in the saying that goes something like this: "whoever breaks one of the least of the commands, and teaches others to do likewise will be least in the kingdom."

Another place where Matt is written obviously in dialogue with Paul is in the scene where Peter calls Jesus Christ and Jesus replies: "flesh and blood did not reveal this to you, but my father in heaven." That resembles Gal where Paul talks about a revelation of Christ that is not from a human source, then goes on to say, "I did not consult immediately with flesh and blood." Neither in Matt, in respect to Peter, who is pictured as being equal to Paul in the quality of his revelation, nor in Gal, IMHO, does this imply that refusal to discuss Jesus as a flesh and blood person with a flesh and blood history. Also, I find it interesting that the opposition is between a flesh and blood source, and "my father in heaven" which is a family metaphor. In other words, the contrast is between the flesh and blood father of Jesus and the heavenly father as a source of the revelation. I think this speaks against family lineage as the source of Jesus' Lordship.

This has implications for how I imagine Paul's consult with James the Lord's flesh and blood brother. I Imagine Paul respected James for his kinship with Jesus. I imagine Paul telling James about his experience of revelation and getting James's feedback on its meaning. I can imagine James the Lord's brother saying to Paul: "flesh and blood did not reveal that to you. It came from our father in heaven." So imagine a real confirmation of Paul's call coming from James the Lord's brother. This is all speculation, of course. That said, I also imagine that when it came to table fellowship with uncircumcised Gentile converts, Paul and James the Lord's brother had different practices and teachings. Paul was offended that James the Lord's brother's influence was hampering his mission which involved table fellowship between "brothers" of Jewish background like himself, and those of Gentile background. In Gal Paul laments that under the influence of some from James, not only did Peter withdraw from table fellowship, also other "Jews" and even Barnabus was led in a similar direction. Paul does not say how it worked out between him and Cephas, after his open confrontation with Cephas. This is because, for the purposes of the letter to the Galatians, it does not matter. Paul is the role model most fitting for imitation by the Galatians, not Peter. Paul is saying implicitly: "Don't be like Peter--become as I am". And Paul's argument against Cephas's decision to eat with Gentiles in Antioch "won" in the sense that Paul's argument was published in the NT, and Peter's response is nowhere to be found, except, in some respects in documents like pseudoClement, where Peter talks about not eating with unbaptized believers. In pseudoClement, Peter has standards about who he will eat with. But oddly, as far as I read it, the standard was baptism, not circumcision. So the Peter of pseudoClement is maybe open to eating with uncircumcised converts as long as they are baptized.

These are some musings on James in pseudo Clement and echoes of Paul, perhaps as beloved enemy, in Matt. For my current hypothesis on the origin of the phrase "James the Just" see here: viewtopic.php?p=126443#p126443
Last edited by gryan on Wed Sep 01, 2021 2:47 am, edited 1 time in total.
davidmartin
Posts: 883
Joined: Fri Jul 12, 2019 2:51 pm

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

Post by davidmartin »

It's such a long text to trawl through i really struggle to stay focused!
The other thing I noticed was that there was no place where James was interviewed about his memories of growing up with Jesus or what it was like to have Mary as his mother. Kind of like reading the epistle of James in the NT, there was no evidence given to suggest that this was someone who knew Jesus in the ordinary historical sense of a blood brother
That's the exact same impression I got. I thought OK Ebionites this is your chance to convince me with all kinds of historical details and there's very little. I got the feeling that this is some kind of pre-existing tradition that's appropriated Jesus to advance itself. The theology is quite strange like the insistence the Hebrew scriptures contained falsifications and James knows the hidden key to discern this. The idea of this repeating pattern of false teaching coming first then true teaching coming after to oppose it is strange.

This is what made me skip past the Ebionites and look elsewhere even if there's writings we don't have of theirs it's hard to make sense of the diversity of early Christianity emerging from these beginnings, but if it had charismatic beginnings that could be understood in different ways that makes more sense. Maybe they lost sight of the beginnings and became more interested in their own ideas, maybe we almost didn't get any gospels at all
gryan
Posts: 407
Joined: Fri Jun 01, 2018 4:11 am

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

Post by gryan »

GakuseiDon wrote: Mon Jul 19, 2021 4:04 am
gryan wrote: Mon Jul 19, 2021 3:44 amAnd on p 34 of the book James the Just and His Mission By Bruce Chilton, Jacob Neusner · 2001,
"Another tradition transmitted by Clement made James the Just, Cephas, and John the recipients of secret knowledge."

I suppose that this might be their source, but I'm not sure:
Perhaps Eusebius derived it from Clement of Alexandria, Stromata Book 6:
http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/t ... book6.html

For we now dare aver (for here is the faith that is characterized by knowledge ) that such an one knows all things, and comprehends all things in the exercise of sure apprehension, respecting matters difficult for us, and really pertaining to the true gnosis such as were James, Peter, John, Paul, and the rest of the apostles. For prophecy is full of knowledge (gnosis), inasmuch as it was given by the Lord, and again explained by the Lord to the apostles.

I wonder if Clement of Alexandria was alluding of this particular verse:

Gal 2:9
"And having known (the verb here is γινώσκω) the grace having been given to me, James and Peter and John, those esteemed to be pillars, gave to me and Barnabas the right hands of fellowship..."
gryan
Posts: 407
Joined: Fri Jun 01, 2018 4:11 am

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

Post by gryan »

DCHindley wrote: Sun Aug 29, 2021 3:41 am I don't think that "James the Just" (Jacob the Righteous One) was invented as a nick name until the 2nd century CE (the 101-200 range). This was Hegesippus' invention. To me, H. clearly created his account of James' death from several sources, not all of which I am convinced were stories about "James the brother of Jesus."

My theory, tracing the story not to Ant 20:200 but to a hypothetical account of the trial of James son of Sosas, the Idumean General who was active during the war years of 66-70, before the war ruler Simon bar Gioras, here:
viewtopic.php?p=12830#p12830

While this could be called pure speculation, that should be no objection here on this board recently. The theory is supported by two Psalms (well, one, as the two occasions are duplicates), that exclusively use the Hebrew word "Oblias" (the term that H. claimed was James the Just's nick-name) together with the real Hebrew word for "bulwark" (the meaning that H. erroneously gives to the word), that just happens to be about someone heading toward the fortified city (Jerusalem) from Idumea. This is all based on the story of the Idumean intervention in Jerusalem during the war, which involves the former HP Ananus and his 2nd in command Jesus, who both gave speeches on the wall of the city to scold the Idumeans for their intervention as they sat outside the city walls, which had been closed to them. When the revolutionary party found a way to let them in, they killed Ananus & Jesus and threw their dead bodies "down" (the city wall) where they would not let anyone bury them.

This is explained here:
viewtopic.php?p=57087#p57087

Why did Hegesippus "embellish" things this way? Well, it makes for a good story ...

viewtopic.php?p=86566#p86566

DCH :clap:
Thanks for sharing that point of view.
User avatar
DCHindley
Posts: 2975
Joined: Mon Oct 07, 2013 9:53 am
Location: Ohio, USA

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

Post by DCHindley »

gryan wrote: Wed Sep 01, 2021 1:42 pm
DCHindley wrote: Sun Aug 29, 2021 3:41 am I don't think that "James the Just" (Jacob the Righteous One) was invented as a nick name until the 2nd century CE (the 101-200 range). This was Hegesippus' invention. To me, H. clearly created his account of James' death from several sources, not all of which I am convinced were stories about "James the brother of Jesus."

My theory, tracing the story not to Ant 20:200 but to a hypothetical account of the trial of James son of Sosas, the Idumean General who was active during the war years of 66-70, before the war ruler Simon bar Gioras, here:

viewtopic.php?p=12830#p12830
unt
viewtopic.php?p=57087#p57087

Why did Hegesippus "embellish" things this way? Well, it makes for a good story ...

viewtopic.php?p=86566#p86566
Thanks for sharing that point of view.
The way I see it, and considering the way people tend to reinterpret past events from the POV of the interpreter, anything that transpired between the death of a purported real James the brother of Jesus and Hegesippus' time when the story first pops up can have influenced the telling.

This even goes for Jesus, whose deeds and sayings does bear a vague resemblance with those of that same Simon Bar Giora.

I once ran across a book, Simon Son of Man: A Cognomen of Undoubted Historicity, Obscured by Translation and Lost In The Resplendence Of A Dual Appellative, by John I Riegel and John H Jordan, dated 1917, which claims that Simon Bar Giora was in fact the original Son of Man.

https://ia800503.us.archive.org/1/items ... 023mbp.pdf

DCH
gryan
Posts: 407
Joined: Fri Jun 01, 2018 4:11 am

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

Post by gryan »

gryan wrote: Mon Jul 19, 2021 3:44 am
"Now Clement, writing in the sixth book of the Hypotyposes, makes this statement. For he says that Peter and James and John, after the Saviour's ascension, though pre-eminently honoured by the Lord, did not contend for glory, but made James the Just, bishop of Jerusalem."
EUSEBIUS: ECCLESIASTICAL HISTORY, BOOK VI. ii. X.
http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/t ... ments.html
Re: Gal 2:5 textual variant may be the origin of the claim that "Peter and James and John, after the Saviour's ascension, though pre-eminently honoured by the Lord, did not contend for glory, but made James the Just, bishop of Jerusalem."

According to the Western Text of Gal 2:5 supported by Irenaeus, Turtullian and Victorinus--Instead of "we did not yield in submission to them for a time", the original, authorial text was "we yielded in submission to them for a time." If, as I understand the scenario, "the false brothers who came in by stealth" (Gal 2:4) are to be identified with "The coming as to some from James [the Lord's brother]" (Gal 2:12). And James the pillar was not the Lord's brother. Then, in accord the tradition passed down from Clement, James the pillar did indeed yield in submission to the authority James the Lord's brother (when he along with the other pillars and Paul and Barnabus yielded "for a time" to "the false brothers who came in by stealth").

Note: This reconstruction supports Turtullian's claim that the "we did not yield" text was a non-authorial interpolation.

Since I do not identify "James the Lord's brother" as the original "James the Just" I'm inclined to think that that either everyone Eucebius quotes misread Galatians by identifying James the pillar as the Lord's brother, or else Eucebius misquoted them.
gryan
Posts: 407
Joined: Fri Jun 01, 2018 4:11 am

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

Post by gryan »

gryan wrote: Sat Sep 11, 2021 6:37 am
gryan wrote: Mon Jul 19, 2021 3:44 am
"Now Clement, writing in the sixth book of the Hypotyposes, makes this statement. For he says that Peter and James and John, after the Saviour's ascension, though pre-eminently honoured by the Lord, did not contend for glory, but made James the Just, bishop of Jerusalem."
EUSEBIUS: ECCLESIASTICAL HISTORY, BOOK VI. ii. X.
http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/t ... ments.html
Re: Gal 2:5 textual variant may be the origin of the claim that "Peter and James and John, after the Saviour's ascension, though pre-eminently honoured by the Lord, did not contend for glory, but made James the Just, bishop of Jerusalem."

According to the Western Text of Gal 2:5 supported by Irenaeus, Turtullian and Victorinus--Instead of "we did not yield in submission to them for a time", the original, authorial text was "we yielded in submission to them for a time." If, as I understand the scenario, "the false brothers who came in by stealth" (Gal 2:4) are to be identified with "The coming as to some from James [the Lord's brother]" (Gal 2:12). And James the pillar was not the Lord's brother. Then, in accord the tradition passed down from Clement, James the pillar did indeed yield in submission to the authority James the Lord's brother (when he along with the other pillars and Paul and Barnabus yielded "for a time" to "the false brothers who came in by stealth").

Note: This reconstruction supports Turtullian's claim that the "we did not yield" text was a non-authorial interpolation.

Since I do not identify "James the Lord's brother" as the original "James the Just" I'm inclined to think that that either everyone Eucebius quotes misread Galatians by identifying James the pillar as the Lord's brother, or else Eucebius misquoted them.
Re: Interpreting Gal 2:5 and paradox of yielding to the false brothers for the sake of the truth of the gospel.

Rom 3:1 and 7
1What, then, is the advantage of being a Jew? Or what is the value of circumcision? 2Much in every way. First of all, they have been entrusted with the very words of God...

However, if the falsehood in me (ἐν τῷ ἐμῷ ψεύσματι) accentuates the truth of God (ἡ ἀλήθεια τοῦ Θεοῦ), to the increase of His glory, why am I still condemned as a sinner?

Gal 2:5 (western text)
We yielded [i.e. to the false brothers, ψευδαδέλφους Gal 2:4] for a time, so that the truth of the gospel (ἡ ἀλήθεια τοῦ εὐαγγελίου) might continue with you.

This text of Gal 2:5 is the shorter western text of Gal 2:5 interpreted, with Turtullian , as the authorial original, indicating that Paul yielded to the "false brothers" for a time, and did circumcise Titus/Timothy (two names, one person, as understood by Turtullian) in Galatia after the meeting with the pillars, Peter/Cephas and James in Jerusalem (Acts 16:3).
viewtopic.php?p=40544#p40544
Similarly, Peter yielded to "some from James"/aka "the false brothers" in withdrawing from eating with Gentiles. Paul called Peter a hypocrite, even though he was a hypocrite too--They had a difference in timing (they both yielded in submission for a time), not in principle with respect to "the truth of the gospel".

Rom 3:7
However,
if (εἰ) the falsehood in me accentuates the truth of God, to the increase of His glory,
why am I still (τί ἔτι) condemned as a sinner?

Gal 5:11a
Now, brothers,
if (εἰ) I am still preaching circumcision,
why am I still (τί ἔτι) being persecuted?

The Galatians knew he had circumcised Timothy/Titus out of submission to the false brothers/"some from James", thus the ones troubling the Galatians (the pro-circumcision ones) had some justification for claiming that Paul was "still preaching circumcision."

I'm pondering some of these rhetorical parallels that I am just now seeing for the first time, but I don't claim to have clarity about what it signifies.
gryan
Posts: 407
Joined: Fri Jun 01, 2018 4:11 am

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

Post by gryan »

RE: Cement's view of "James the Just" as James son of Alphaeus, on close reading.

Eusebius writes:

3. But Clement 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.”
4. But the same writer, in the seventh book of the same work, relates also the following things concerning him: “The Lord after his resurrection imparted knowledge to James the Just and to John and Peter, and they imparted it to the rest of the apostles, and the rest of the apostles to the seventy, of whom Barnabas was one.

In a footnote, (by, I think, someone other than translator Philip Schaff, 1819–1893) wrote:

"Clement evidently identifies James, the brother of the Lord, with James, the son of Alphæus (compare the words just above: “These delivered it to the rest of the apostles,” in which the word “apostles,” on account of the “Seventy” just following, seems to be used in a narrow sense, and therefore this James to be one of the Twelve), and he is thus cited as a witness to the cousin hypothesis (see above, Bk. I. chap. 12, note 13). Papias, too, in a fragment given by Routh (Rel. Sac. I. p. 16) identifies the two. But Hegesippus (quoted by Eusebius in chap. 23) expressly states that there were many of this name, and that he was therefore called James the Just to distinguish him from others. Eusebius quotes this passage of Clement with apparently no suspicion that it contradicts his own opinion in regard to the relationship of James to Christ. The contradiction, indeed, appears only upon careful examination."

https://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/npnf20 ... i.ii-p22.1

------------

RE: "The contradiction, indeed, appears only upon careful examination."

On an even more careful examination Shaff's opening presumption is open to question. He wrote: "Clement evidently identifies James, the brother of the Lord, with James, the son of Alphæus..."

Alternatively, Clement may have (or may have been working from a source that correctly, in my view) regarded James son of Alphaeus alone as "James the Just", and regarded "James, the Lord's brother" as a different person.
Post Reply