Was "James the Lord's brother" Paul's thorn?

Discussion about the New Testament, apocrypha, gnostics, church fathers, Christian origins, historical Jesus or otherwise, etc.
davidmartin
Posts: 1049
Joined: Fri Jul 12, 2019 2:51 pm

Re: Was "James the Lord's brother" Paul's thorn?

Post by davidmartin »

i think there was a tradition/legend that Magdalene was the 'mother of the church' as the first early leader of it, and there's a sense that this early preaching 'bore' Jesus to the world, thus a direct symbological comparison with Mary the mother ensues. I think John is aware of that and reflects it but this exegesis wasn't carried forward into orthadoxy for long which favoured Peter as the rock. The woman at the well is the same thing told again
As an example Ode 23 speaks of a personified female 'message' that is set upon by evil exactly as per the woman of revelation and it says 'then there appeared at her head, a head that was revealed even the son of truth from the most high father' - thus 'at her head' means the preaching that revealed the son
In other words the commission of Magdalene to tell her brothers, etc, is a thinly disguised cover over an actual period of her preaching as a leader. if so wouldn't we like to know what that was or wasn't but if everyone else copied it and made it there own the mother she remains
What this means is there was an earlier phase prior even to Paul which is where the actual origins go directly back to, it might be a puzzle piece that we can't see exactly what's on it but knowing it's there is more than a little helpful is where i'm coming from not that it will appeal to most i think on here. Mythicists don't want to see historicity valued and believers don't want an independent Magdalene doing stuff in the background!
gryan
Posts: 590
Joined: Fri Jun 01, 2018 4:11 am

Re: Was "James the Lord's brother" Paul's thorn?

Post by gryan »

davidmartin wrote: Wed Jun 08, 2022 12:14 am i think there was a tradition/legend that Magdalene was the 'mother of the church' as the first early leader of it, and there's a sense that this early preaching 'bore' Jesus to the world, thus a direct symbological comparison with Mary the mother ensues. I think John is aware of that and reflects it but this exegesis wasn't carried forward into orthadoxy for long which favoured Peter as the rock. The woman at the well is the same thing told again
As an example Ode 23 speaks of a personified female 'message' that is set upon by evil exactly as per the woman of revelation and it says 'then there appeared at her head, a head that was revealed even the son of truth from the most high father' - thus 'at her head' means the preaching that revealed the son
In other words the commission of Magdalene to tell her brothers, etc, is a thinly disguised cover over an actual period of her preaching as a leader. if so wouldn't we like to know what that was or wasn't but if everyone else copied it and made it there own the mother she remains
What this means is there was an earlier phase prior even to Paul which is where the actual origins go directly back to, it might be a puzzle piece that we can't see exactly what's on it but knowing it's there is more than a little helpful is where i'm coming from not that it will appeal to most i think on here. Mythicists don't want to see historicity valued and believers don't want an independent Magdalene doing stuff in the background!
Thanks for this. I find that to be an interesting historical explanation for the importance of the "Mary" named Magdalene. Since the main focus of my own study is inter-textual, with a focus on Galatians, I return to Galatians/Mark possible inter-textual context on the idea of "mother". My thoughts are drawn to Paul's allegory of the two mothers:

Gal 4:21-31
Tell me, you who desire to be under the law, do you not listen to the law? 22For it is written that Abraham had two sons, one by a slave woman and one by a free woman. 23But the son of the slave was born according to the flesh, while the son of the free woman was born through promise. 24Now this may be interpreted allegorically: these women are two covenants. One is from Mount Sinai, bearing children for slavery; she is Hagar.... she corresponds to the present Jerusalem, for she is in slavery with her children. 26But the Jerusalem above is free, and she is our mother. 27For it is written,

“Rejoice, O barren one who does not bear;
break forth and cry aloud, you who are not in labor!
For the children of the desolate one will be more
than those of the one who has a husband.”

28Now you are brothers in the pattern of Isaac -- children of promise. 29But just as at that time he who was born according to the flesh persecuted him who was born according to the Spirit, so also it is now. 30But what does the Scripture say?

“Cast out the slave woman and her son, for the son of the slave woman shall not inherit with the son of the free woman.”

31So, brothers, we are not children of the slave but of the free woman.

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

I see a possible link between "the free woman" and Mary Magdalene. Or maybe "Mary of James" (Mark 16:1/Luke 24:10, aka "the other Mary" Matt 28:1/Matt 27:61) who I understand to be the mother of the other "James", the "pillar", James son of Alphaeus.

I also link "the slave woman and her son" with Mary, the flesh and blood mother of "James the less" and of Jesus -- whose flesh and blood/perishable body was laid in the tomb.

On who does and does not "inherit", Paul wrote:

"I tell you this, brothers: flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God, nor does the perishable (φθορὰ) inherit the imperishable (ἀφθαρσίαν)" (1 Cor 15:50).

On who does and does not "inherit", this is the companion passage in Galatians:

Gal 4:1-7
I mean that the heir, as long as he is a child, is no different from a slave, though he is the owner of everything, but he is under guardians and managers until the date set by his father. In the same way we also, when we were children, were enslaved to the elementary principles of the world. But when the fullness of time had come, God sent forth his Son, having become out of woman, having become under law (γενόμενον ἐκ γυναικός, γενόμενον ὑπὸ νόμον), to redeem those who were under law (ὑπὸ νόμον), so that we might receive adoption as sons. And because you are sons, God has sent the Spirit of his Son into our hearts, crying, “Abba! Father!” So you are no longer a slave, but a son, and if a son, then an heir through God.

On perishable vs imperishable, this is the companion passage in Galatians:

Gal 6:8
For the one who sows into to his own flesh will from the flesh reap things destined to perish (φθορὰν), but the one who sows into the Spirit will from the Spirit reap life in the age.
gryan
Posts: 590
Joined: Fri Jun 01, 2018 4:11 am

Re: Was "James the Lord's brother" Paul's thorn?

Post by gryan »

RE: My response to Jerome's Perpetual Virginity of Mary thesis.

Three key points of disagreement with Jerome:

1)James son of Alphaeus was not James the Less.
I will disagree with Jerome's historically influential claim that "Mary, mother of James the Less and Joses" was the mother of James son of Aphaeus. On the contrary, I argue that she was the natural mother of Jesus.

2)James son of Zebedee was not the greater James. I agree with Jerome's inference that the "James" who is called "the Less" is so named to distinguish him from another greater "James." But contrary to Jerome, I argue that it was "Mary mother of the James" named simply (Mark 16:1) who was the mother of the implicitly greater James -- James son of Alphaeus.

3)"James the Lord's brother" was not a pillar. With respect to "James the Lord's brother" in Galatians: contrary to Jerome's assumption that he was identical to James the pillar, I contend that "James the Lord's brother" was Mark's James the Less, and that the pillar named James was James son of Alphaeus, son of "Mary of James" (Mark 16:1).
In The Perpetual Virginity of Blessed Mary[Against Helvidius] paragraph 15,
https://www.newadvent.org/fathers/3007.htm

Jerome argued as follows:

Let me point out then what John says, John 19:25 But there were standing by the cross of Jesus his mother, and his mother's sister, Mary the wife of Clopas, and Mary Magdalene.
Yes. I agree, if you are saying that there were four women.
No one doubts that there were two apostles called by the name James, James the son of Zebedee, and James the son of Alphæus.
Yes. I agree.
Do you intend the comparatively unknown James the Less, who is called in Scripture the son of Mary, not however of Mary the mother of our Lord, to be an apostle, or not?
No. On the contrary, James the Less was the natural brother of Jesus as the hometown crowd in Mark indicated:

Mark 6:3-6
Is not this the carpenter, the son of Mary and brother of James and Joses and Judas and Simon? And are not his sisters here with us?” And they took offense at him. 4And Jesus said to them, “A prophet is not without honor, except (Οὐκ... εἰ μὴ, "not...except" echoes ὐκ... εἰ μὴ in Gal 1:19, "none... except, James the Lord's brother") in his hometown and among his relatives and in his own household.” 5And he could do no mighty work there, except that he laid his hands on a few sick people and healed them. 6And he marveled (καὶ ἐθαύμασεν, a verbal echo of Gal 1:6, "I marvel θαυμάζω that so quickly you are deserting from the One having called you") because of their unbelief.

Jesus was without honor among his own natural mother and brothers. Earlier in Mark, Jesus says something similarly alienated in relation to those who are identified as his "mother and brothers":

Mark 3:31-35
And his mother and his brothers came, and standing outside they sent to him and called him. 32And a crowd was sitting around him, and they said to him, “Your mother and your brothersc are outside, seeking you.” 33And he answered them, “Who are my mother and my brothers?” 34And looking about at those who sat around him, he said, “Here are my mother and my brothers! 35For whoever does the will of God, he is my brother and sister and mother.”

Jesus is harsh with respect to his natural mother and brothers and sisters. Family ties do not matter. All that matters is doing "the will of God."

This is the backgroud for interpreting "Mary of Joses" (Mark 15:47) as the merely natural mother of Jesus. It is an open question whether she is doing the will of God.
If he is an apostle, he must be the son of Alphæus and a believer in Jesus, For neither did his brethren believe in him.
No. James the Less was not one of the 12. James the Less was not James the son of Alphaeus.
If he is not an apostle, but a third James (who he can be I cannot tell), how can he be regarded as the Lord's brother, and how, being a third, can he be called less to distinguish him from greater, when greater and less are used to denote the relations existing, not between three, but between two?
No, James the Less is not "a third James." James the Less is one of the natural "brothers of the Lord" (1 Cor 9:5 and Gal 1:19), and one of the natural sons of Mark's "Mary of Joses" (Mark 15:47 cf. Mark 6:3 and 15:40).
But yes, I agree that James the Less is "called less to distinguish him from greater", i.e. the "James" mentioned in Mark 16:1.
Notice, moreover, that the Lord's brother is an apostle, since Paul says, Galatians 1:18-19 Then after three years I went up to Jerusalem to visit Cephas, and tarried with him fifteen days. But other of the Apostles saw I none, save James the Lord's brother.
Yes and No. I agree that James the Lord's brother is "of the apostles." However, I read ἕτερον not as "other" in the enumerative sense, but as "qualitatively different". Here is my translation: "But of the Apostles I discerned no qualitatively different one, except James the Lord's brother."
And in the same Epistle, Galatians 2:9 And when they perceived the grace that was given unto me, James and Cephas and John, who were reputed to be pillars, etc.
No. I do not assume James the pillar was "the Lord's brother." This was a private meeting (Gal 2:2). As a qualitatively different apostle, "James the Lord's brother" was not invited to the private meeting with "those recognized to be pillars."
And that you may not suppose this James to be the son of Zebedee, you have only to read the Acts of the Apostles, and you will find that the latter had already been slain by Herod.
Yes.
The only conclusion is that the Mary who is described as the mother of James the Less was the wife of Alphæus
I agree with the unstated assumption that James son of Alphaeus was the pillar James. But I disagree on two key points:

First, as noted, "Mary, mother of James the Less and Joses" was not the mother of James son of Aphaeus. It was "Mary mother of James" named simply (Mark 16:1) who was the mother of James son of Alphaeus. The "James" who is called "the Less" is so named to distinguish him from this other greater "James."

Second, in Galatians, "James the Lord's brother" (Mark's James the Less), was not the pillar named James -- that was James son of Alphaeus.

and sister of Mary the Lord's mother, the one who is called by John the Evangelist Mary of Clopas, whether after her father, or kindred, or for some other reason.
No. I understand John the Evangelist's "mother of Jesus" to be Mark's "mother of James the less and Joses". However, I understand John's "Mary of Clopas" as a possible reference to Mark's "Mary of James" (mother of James son of Alphaeus, Mark 16:1).
But if you think they are two persons because elsewhere we read, Mary the mother of James the Less, and here, Mary of Clopas, you have still to learn that it is customary in Scripture for the same individual to bear different names. Raguel, Moses' father-in-law, is also called Jethro. Gedeon, without any apparent reason for the change, all at once becomes Jerubbaal. Ozias, king of Judah, has an alternative, Azarias. Mount Tabor is called Itabyrium. Again Hermon is called by the Phenicians Sanior, and by the Amorites Sanir. The same tract of country is known by three names, Negebh, Teman, and Darom in Ezekiel. Peter is also called Simon and Cephas. Judas the zealot in another Gospel is called Thaddaeus. And there are numerous other examples which the reader will be able to collect for himself from every part of Scripture.
No, but Yes. Since I interpret Mary of James in Mark 16:1 to be the mother of James son of Alphaeus, I am inclined to agree that John's Mary of Clopas may be another name for her.
davidmartin
Posts: 1049
Joined: Fri Jul 12, 2019 2:51 pm

Re: Was "James the Lord's brother" Paul's thorn?

Post by davidmartin »

"Here are my mother and my brothers!"
my wacky idea is that this is another reference to Magdalene, and the hearers would think, how could she be his mother?
Because Magdalene was in that moment personified as the holy spirit, he didn't mean literally but figuratively his birth from above was greater than his physical birth. Later on this symbolism turned into Mary the virgin Mother which is kind of similar but the differences create this jarring effect.
I'm not saying this is gnostic i don't think so, it's all to do with the spiritual rebirth teaching which is right at the core of this new movement.
The strange thing is in this reading the Catholic attachment to the virgin isn't completely off base at all if this Mary really is understood to personify the holy spirit. In the case of Paul we don't see much of that, so i'm forced to think he preferred to omit this aspect perhaps to appeal to Hellenistic culture the better i don't know, but the prior more completely symbolised understanding pops up in the gospels and in corrupted form with the gnostics
All i'm saying is it's one option, maybe off base but an option when trying to spin together the fabric of the most primitive form of the movement, what it is not is bog standard Judaism i think all those attempts to link to Qumran and so on, the imagined 'James' sect are really futile and misleading, it is Judaism + Spirit, Christianity is the +Spirit bit that led this religion to it's greatness and a good % of the world following it! So that's where the focus should be in researching origins but i don't know what i'm talking about half the time
gryan
Posts: 590
Joined: Fri Jun 01, 2018 4:11 am

Re: Was "James the Lord's brother" Paul's thorn?

Post by gryan »

davidmartin wrote: Thu Jun 09, 2022 12:45 am "Here are my mother and my brothers!"
my wacky idea is that this is another reference to Magdalene
, and the hearers would think, how could she be his mother?
Because Magdalene was in that moment personified as the holy spirit, he didn't mean literally but figuratively his birth from above was greater than his physical birth. Later on this symbolism turned into Mary the virgin Mother which is kind of similar but the differences create this jarring effect.
Maybe. I'm pondering this.
Trees of Life
Posts: 46
Joined: Sun Apr 29, 2018 8:56 am

Re: Was "James the Lord's brother" Paul's thorn?

Post by Trees of Life »

gryan wrote: Sun Jun 05, 2022 10:16 am
My reading of John reflects my prior reading of the Jameses of Mark and Galatians:

Mark 15:47-16:1
Mary Magdalene and Mary the mother of Joses (the natural mother of James the less/James the Lord's brother and of Jesus) saw where he was laid. When the Sabbath was past, Mary Magdalene, Mary the mother of James ("the other Mary"/the natural mother of James son of Alphaeus/James the pillar), and Salome (the mother of Zebedee's sons) bought spices, so that they might go and anoint him.

At two interconnected points, my thesis is undoing the influence of Jerome's arguments in Perpetual Virginity of Mary, and Commentary on Galatians. In Mark, as I read it, James the less was not James son of Alphaeus; and also, in Galatians, James the Lord's brother (of "some from James" Gal 1:19/2:12) was not James the pillar.
Only one Mary is with Mary Magdalene observing where Jesus was laid, as depicted with, 'Mary the Magdalene, and Mary of Joses, were beholding where he was put',[Mark 15:47] and as depicted with, 'But Mary of Magdala was there, and the other Mary, sitting opposite the sepulchre',[Matthew 27:61].

Which relates that Mary of Joses and 'the other Mary' are not to be perceived as separate identities, but one.
gryan
Posts: 590
Joined: Fri Jun 01, 2018 4:11 am

Re: Was "James the Lord's brother" Paul's thorn?

Post by gryan »

Trees of Life wrote: Thu Jun 09, 2022 5:12 am
Only one Mary is with Mary Magdalene observing where Jesus was laid, as depicted with, 'Mary the Magdalene, and Mary of Joses, were beholding where he was put',[Mark 15:47] and as depicted with, 'But Mary of Magdala was there, and the other Mary, sitting opposite the sepulchre',[Matthew 27:61].

Which relates that Mary of Joses and 'the other Mary' are not to be perceived as separate identities, but one.
That logic does make sense when these two mentions of "Mary" at the burial of Jesus are taken in isolation. But Mark had mentioned Mary mother of "Joses" twice earlier, and Matthew used the designation "the other Mary" once again later. All these mentions need to be considered.

Here is a closer look at Matthew's two mentions of "the other Mary."

Matt 27:60 - 28:1
Then he rolled a great stone across the entrance to the tomb and went away. 61Mary Magdalene and the other Mary (ἡ ἄλλη Μαρία) were sitting there opposite the tomb.

62The next day, the one after Preparation Day, the chief priests and Pharisees assembled before Pilate. 63“Sir,” they said, “we remember that while He was alive that deceiver said, ‘After three days I will rise again.’ 64So give the order that the tomb be secured until the third day. Otherwise, His disciples may come and steal Him away and tell the people He has risen from the dead. And this last deception would be worse than the first.”

65“You have a guard,” Pilate said. “Go, make the tomb as secure as you know how.” 66So they went and secured the tomb by sealing the stone and posting the guard.

1After the Sabbath, at dawn on the first day of the week,a Mary Magdalene and the other Mary (ἡ ἄλλη Μαρία) went to see the tomb.

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

Would you agree that ἡ ἄλλη Μαρία refers to the same woman in both mentions? Assuming so, I will proceed with the parallel quotation from Mark, one of Matthew's literary sources, which presents a much briefer version of the two visits to the tomb, but never uses the language, "the other Mary".

Mk 15:47-16:1
Mary Magdalene and Mary the mother of Joses (Μαρία ἡ Ἰωσῆτος) saw where His body was placed. When the Sabbath was over, Mary Magdalene, Mary the mother of James (Μαρία ἡ τοῦ Ἰακώβου), and Salome bought spices so that they might go to anoint Jesus’ body.
----------------

My working hypothesis is that "Mary the mother of Joses" (Μαρία ἡ Ἰωσῆτος) and "Mary the mother of James" (Μαρία ἡ τοῦ Ἰακώβου) are two different women.

The “Mary” identified as “the mother of Joses” (Mk 15:47) was the birth-mother of James the Less (“the not-great one,” τοῦ μικροῦ, Mk 15:40) and his other “brothers and sisters” in the hometown-synagog sense of the words “brothers and sisters” (Mk 3:31-35, Mk 6:3-4, cf 1 Cor 9:5).

At the empty tomb, the “Mary” identified as “the mother of the James” (Mk 16:1) was probably the mother of James son of Alphaeus. There are three clues that differentiate her from “Mary the mother of Joses.” The first clue is Joses. The “Mary” identified by her middle son, “Joses,” is so named to differente her from the other Mary with a son named James. The second clue is the epithet, James the Less (the not-great one). This differentiates “James the Less” from another “James” who is comparatively “great.” The third clue is the definite article, “the James” (τοῦ Ἰακώβου), which suggests another, previously mentioned, greater James. There were two, but only two other men named James in Mark's narrative world. Both are named among the 12. James son of Zebedee was always identified in relation to his brother, John. Thus, “the James” named simply is probably James son of Alphaeus.

I assume that the author of Matthew understood Mark's Mary's as I do. Mark's "Mary the mother of James the Less and Joses" is one Mary (cf. Μαρία ἡ τοῦ Ἰακώβου καὶ Ἰωσὴφ μήτηρ, Matthew 27:56), and "Mary the mother of the James" is "the other Mary" (who also has a son named James--James son of Alphaeus)!

Thus, I have logical exegetical reasons for confidence that Mark's "James the Less" was not "James son of Alphaeus" and that the writers of Matthew, Luke and John all knew it.

In Matthew's telling, "the other Mary" was at both the burial of Jesus and the empty tomb. Matt does not disagree with Mark's claim that "Mary of Joses" was at the burial too. He just doesn't mention all three Marys who were there.

I welcome rebuttal.
Trees of Life
Posts: 46
Joined: Sun Apr 29, 2018 8:56 am

Re: Was "James the Lord's brother" Paul's thorn?

Post by Trees of Life »

gryan wrote: Thu Jun 09, 2022 5:47 am
Trees of Life wrote: Thu Jun 09, 2022 5:12 am
Only one Mary is with Mary Magdalene observing where Jesus was laid, as depicted with, 'Mary the Magdalene, and Mary of Joses, were beholding where he was put',[Mark 15:47] and as depicted with, 'But Mary of Magdala was there, and the other Mary, sitting opposite the sepulchre',[Matthew 27:61].'

Which relates that Mary of Joses and 'the other Mary' are not to be perceived as separate identities, but one.
'That logic does make sense when these two mentions of "Mary" at the burial of Jesus are taken in isolation. But Mark had mentioned Mary mother of "Joses" twice earlier, and Matthew used the designation "the other Mary" once again later. All these mentions need to be considered.'

Okay.

'Here is a closer look at Matthew two usages of the term "the other Mary."

Matt 27:60 - 28:1
Then he rolled a great stone across the entrance to the tomb and went away. 61Mary Magdalene and the other Mary (ἡ ἄλλη Μαρία) were sitting there opposite the tomb.


1After the Sabbath, at dawn on the first day of the week,a Mary Magdalene and the other Mary (ἡ ἄλλη Μαρία) went to see the tomb.'

--------------
Which relates that Mary of Joses and 'the other Mary' are not to be perceived as separate identities, but one.



Again.


'Mk 15:47-16:1
Mary Magdalene and Mary the mother of Joses (Μαρία ἡ Ἰωσῆτος) saw where His body was placed. When the Sabbath was over, Mary Magdalene, Mary the mother of James (Μαρία ἡ τοῦ Ἰακώβου), and Salome bought spices so that they might go to anoint Jesus’ body.'
----------------
Which relates that Mary of Joses and Mary of James and 'the other Mary' are not to be perceived as separate identities, but one.



Again.


'James son of Zebedee was always identified in relation to his brother, John.'

Not so.

Superscriptions to the book of the Catholic Epistle of James has early editions initiated in the Syriac, Latin, Greek, Arabic,Coptic etc, identifying incontrovertibly the authorship to James son of Zebedee, the James of the three disciples present at the transfiguration, identified as the Lord's brother, brother of the Lord, brother of God, the bishop of Jerusalem, and the Apostle James, [ Erpenius, Beza, Corbejensis, Tremellius, Michaelis editions, etc]

The stock name James in scripture is based on James the son of Zebedee.
gryan
Posts: 590
Joined: Fri Jun 01, 2018 4:11 am

Re: Was "James the Lord's brother" Paul's thorn?

Post by gryan »

Trees of Life wrote: Thu Jun 09, 2022 8:06 am
'James son of Zebedee was always identified in relation to his brother, John.'

Not so.

Superscriptions to the book of the Catholic Epistle of James has early editions initiated in the Syriac, Latin, Greek, Arabic,Coptic etc, identifying incontrovertibly the authorship to James son of Zebedee, the James of the three disciples present at the transfiguration, identified as the Lord's brother, brother of the Lord, brother of God, the bishop of Jerusalem, and the Apostle James, [ Erpenius, Beza, Corbejensis, Tremellius, Michaelis editions, etc]

The stock name James in scripture is based on James the son of Zebedee.
That identification of James son of Zebedee is new to me. In addition to the above, is James son of Zebedee identified as the pillar named first in Galatians (which would fit with Augustine's commentary on Galatians)? And also as "James the Just"?
Trees of Life
Posts: 46
Joined: Sun Apr 29, 2018 8:56 am

Re: Was "James the Lord's brother" Paul's thorn?

Post by Trees of Life »

gryan wrote: Thu Jun 09, 2022 12:16 pm
Trees of Life wrote: Thu Jun 09, 2022 8:06 am
'James son of Zebedee was always identified in relation to his brother, John.'

Not so.

Superscriptions to the book of the Catholic Epistle of James has early editions initiated in the Syriac, Latin, Greek, Arabic,Coptic etc, identifying incontrovertibly the authorship to James son of Zebedee, the James of the three disciples present at the transfiguration, identified as the Lord's brother, brother of the Lord, brother of God, the bishop of Jerusalem, and the Apostle James, [ Erpenius, Beza, Corbejensis, Tremellius, Michaelis editions, etc]

The stock name James in scripture is based on James the son of Zebedee.
That identification of James son of Zebedee is new to me. In addition to the above, is James son of Zebedee identified as the pillar named first in Galatians (which would fit with Augustine's commentary on Galatians)? And also as "James the Just"?
Yes. Peter, the chief Apostle is depicted as the chief pillar with James and John beside him, in Galatians 2:9.

James the Just is the 'brother of the Lord'—see the Apocryphons of James—matching with James son of Zebedee. James and Jesus were kinsmen of the tribe of Judah and were milk-kin brothers by their mothers. James is depicted as the brother of the Lord because he took after his co-milk mother the Virgin Mary, more so than his birth mother, Mary of Zebedee.

James and John, described as brothers at Acts 12:2, are also kinsmen of the tribe of Judah, and milk-kin brothers by their mothers, Mary of Alphaeus and Mary of Zebedee. James is called brother of John because he took after his co-milk mother Mary of Zebedee, more so than his birth mother, Mary first wife of Alphaeus son of Clopas. Alphaeus, after being widowed—see The History of Joseph the Carpenter—later married Maria/Mary, the sister of the Virgin Mariam/Mary.
Post Reply