Re: "James the Just": What is the origin of the phrase?
Posted: Tue Aug 17, 2021 1:28 am
Re: Origen on "James the Just"
"For in the 18th book of his Antiquities of the Jews, Josephus bears witness to John as having been a Baptist, and as promising purification to those who underwent the rite. Now this writer, although not believing in Jesus as the Christ, in seeking after the cause of the fall of Jerusalem and the destruction of the temple, whereas he ought to have said that the conspiracy against Jesus was the cause of these calamities befalling the people, since they put to death Christ, who was a prophet, says nevertheless--being, although against his will, not far from the truth--that these disasters happened to the Jews as a punishment for the death of James the Just, who was a brother of Jesus (called Christ),--the Jews having put him to death, although he was a man most distinguished for his justice. Paul, a genuine disciple of Jesus, says that he regarded this James as a brother of the Lord, not so much on account of their relationship by blood, or of their being brought up together, as because of his virtue and doctrine. If, then, he says that it was on account of James that the desolation of Jerusalem was made to overtake the Jews, how should it not be more in accordance with reason to say that it happened on account (of the death) of Jesus Christ, of whose divinity so many Churches are witnesses, composed of those who have been convened from a flood of sins, and who have joined themselves to the Creator, and who refer all their actions to His good pleasure." http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/t ... en161.html
-------
In my effort to understand Galatians as a coherent text, I find that it makes best sense to assume that James the Lord's brother and James the pillar were two different people. This reading of Galatians clashes with Origin's interpretion. Nevertheless, Origen identifies the key issues for interpretation of Paul's view of James the Lord's brother. Does Paul refer to James as the Lord's brother "on account of their relationship by blood, or of their being brought up together"? And/or, was it "because of his virtue and doctrine" (which provides Origin with a basis for calling him "James the Just")?
I think Origin was mistaken because he was trying to make the James's of Galatians fit his synthisis of Acts 15 and GMatt and Gospel of Hebrews on "James". By contrast, I interpret the Jameses NT Galatians first as part of a coherent letter, and second in light of GMark ,and third in light of Acts 15. I view GMatt as a destraction since his redaction of GMark erases the idea of James the brother of Jesus as "the lesser".
"For in the 18th book of his Antiquities of the Jews, Josephus bears witness to John as having been a Baptist, and as promising purification to those who underwent the rite. Now this writer, although not believing in Jesus as the Christ, in seeking after the cause of the fall of Jerusalem and the destruction of the temple, whereas he ought to have said that the conspiracy against Jesus was the cause of these calamities befalling the people, since they put to death Christ, who was a prophet, says nevertheless--being, although against his will, not far from the truth--that these disasters happened to the Jews as a punishment for the death of James the Just, who was a brother of Jesus (called Christ),--the Jews having put him to death, although he was a man most distinguished for his justice. Paul, a genuine disciple of Jesus, says that he regarded this James as a brother of the Lord, not so much on account of their relationship by blood, or of their being brought up together, as because of his virtue and doctrine. If, then, he says that it was on account of James that the desolation of Jerusalem was made to overtake the Jews, how should it not be more in accordance with reason to say that it happened on account (of the death) of Jesus Christ, of whose divinity so many Churches are witnesses, composed of those who have been convened from a flood of sins, and who have joined themselves to the Creator, and who refer all their actions to His good pleasure." http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/t ... en161.html
-------
In my effort to understand Galatians as a coherent text, I find that it makes best sense to assume that James the Lord's brother and James the pillar were two different people. This reading of Galatians clashes with Origin's interpretion. Nevertheless, Origen identifies the key issues for interpretation of Paul's view of James the Lord's brother. Does Paul refer to James as the Lord's brother "on account of their relationship by blood, or of their being brought up together"? And/or, was it "because of his virtue and doctrine" (which provides Origin with a basis for calling him "James the Just")?
I think Origin was mistaken because he was trying to make the James's of Galatians fit his synthisis of Acts 15 and GMatt and Gospel of Hebrews on "James". By contrast, I interpret the Jameses NT Galatians first as part of a coherent letter, and second in light of GMark ,and third in light of Acts 15. I view GMatt as a destraction since his redaction of GMark erases the idea of James the brother of Jesus as "the lesser".