James 1.1 and 2.1.

[John2]

Also, regarding the earliest layers of the James the Just = Jesus' brother tradition, in the Hebrew Matthew which pre-dated Papias (whenever you suppose he lived), Jesus calls James the Just his brother (whatever you suppose is meant by "brother").

The Gospel also which is called the Gospel according to the Hebrews, and which I have recently translated into Greek and Latin and which also Origen often makes use of, after the account of the resurrection of the Saviour says, “but the Lord, after he had given his grave clothes to the servant of the priest, appeared to James (for James had sworn that he would not eat bread from that hour in which he drank the cup of the Lord until he should see him rising again from among those that sleep)” and again, a little later, it says “'Bring a table and bread,' said the Lord.” And immediately it is added, “He brought bread and blessed and broke and gave to James the Just and said to him, 'my brother eat your bread, for the son of man is risen from among those that sleep.'” Jerome Il. Men 2

This is supported (if it's not an interpolation) by 1 Cor. 15:7 ("Then he appeared to James").

And this is the same gospel said to have been known to Hegesippus in EH 4.22.7:

And from the Syriac Gospel according to the Hebrews he quotes some passages in the Hebrew tongue, showing that he was a convert from the Hebrews.

[Ben C. Smith]

Also, regarding the earliest layers of the James the Just = Jesus' brother tradition, in the Hebrew Matthew which pre-dated Papias (whenever you suppose he lived), Jesus calls James the Just his brother (whatever you suppose is meant by "brother").

The Gospel also which is called the Gospel according to the Hebrews, and which I have recently translated into Greek and Latin and which also Origen often makes use of, after the account of the resurrection of the Saviour says, “but the Lord, after he had given his grave clothes to the servant of the priest, appeared to James (for James had sworn that he would not eat bread from that hour in which he drank the cup of the Lord until he should see him rising again from among those that sleep)” and again, a little later, it says “'Bring a table and bread,' said the Lord.” And immediately it is added, “He brought bread and blessed and broke and gave to James the Just and said to him, 'my brother eat your bread, for the son of man is risen from among those that sleep.'” Jerome Il. Men 2

This is supported (if it's not an interpolation) by 1 Cor. 15:7 ("Then he appeared to James").

That is what I meant by this in the OP:

It is easy to find texts which affirm that James is a Christian leader, and it is easy to find texts which affirm that James is the brother of Jesus; but it is not all that easy to find texts that do both (both Paul and the gospel of the Hebrews being battlegrounds on that front, and Hegesippus being the next witness thereafter).

[John2]

It is easy to find texts which affirm that James is a Christian leader, and it is easy to find texts which affirm that James is the brother of Jesus; but it is not all that easy to find texts that do both (both Paul and the gospel of the Hebrews being battlegrounds on that front, and Hegesippus being the next witness thereafter).

Ah, right (I'm tired at the moment). Well, then the Gospel of the Hebrews is the best bet, since (in my view) it pre-dates Papias. It has (come on, almost) everything we need: "James the Just" and Jesus himself calling him "my brother." Adding Mark 6:3, Hegesippus and Paul's "brother of the Lord" seals the deal for me. It's as good as it's going to get anyway, and it's enough for me to feel comfortable making this judgment call.

[John2]

The alternatives seem more improbable to me, i.e., that there was a group called "the brothers of the Lord" (which is unattested by anyone), that Paul's "brother of the Lord" is an interpolation (though granted it is unattested in some copies of Galatians, but then why would anyone add it?), and that Hegesippus made up James' relationship to Jesus (and the other relatives of Jesus, who are attested by Julius Africanus).

I'm turning into a staunch defender of Hegesippus, not because he calls James the brother of the Lord and I want James to be the brother of Jesus, but because a) he is the earliest church historian, b) I find what he says in other respects holds water, and c) he is said to have known (and quoted from) the Gospel of the Hebrews (which in my view pre-dates Papias) and "other matters as taken from the unwritten tradition of the Jews."

[John2]

Plus I don't think Josephus' reference to James "the brother of Jesus who is called Christ" is an interpolation, and I think it refers to James the Just and not to a brother of Jesus ben Damneus as some argue.

Josephus mentions Jesus ben Damneus by name twice and alludes to him once, and in those cases he is called "Jesus, son of Damneus" and "the high priest" and never "Christ." And why would anyone call him Christ (who served less than a year) over other high priests (or "Christs") named Jesus, like, for instance, Jesus ben Gamaliel, who Josephus says replaced Jesus ben Damneus in Ant. 20.9.4 and served as high priest for almost twice as long and was highly regarded by Josephus and Rabbinic Judaism even after he had served. As his Wikipedia page notes:

The Talmud states; "Joshua b. Gamala came and ordained that teachers of young children should be appointed in each district and each town, and that children should enter school at the age of six or seven." He is therefore regarded as the founder of the institution of formal Jewish education.

Although no longer High Priest, Yehoshua remained one of the leaders of Jerusalem ... Josephus reports that Yehoshua was an "intimate friend," who reported a plot to replace Josephus as general of Galilee to Josephus' father. Because his father wrote to him of the plot, Josephus was able to resist it.

Yehoshua attempted peaceably to prevent the fanatic and pugnacious Idumeans from entering Jerusalem during the Zealot Temple Siege. After they had come into possession of the city, these fanatics took bloody vengeance on him, by executing him, as well as Ananus, as traitors to their country.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joshua_ben_Gamla

That's a lot more than what is said by anyone about Jesus ben Damneus. All his Wikipedia page says about his career is that he replaced Ananus and served less than a year.

Jesus ben Damneus was made high priest after the previous high priest, Ananus son of Ananus, was removed from his position for executing James the brother of Jesus (James the Just). Jesus ben Damneus himself was deposed less than a year later.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jesus_son_of_Damneus

So if any "Jesus" in Ant. 20 besides the Christian Jesus is meant by "Jesus, who is called Christ," I would pick Jesus ben Gamaliel over Jesus ben Damneus because he stands out a lot more. But the only Jesus I'm aware of who was ever actually "called Christ" is Jesus Christ.

Another thing going against the idea that Josephus' "Christ" is Jesus ben Damneus for me is that Josephus goes on to say in Ant. 20.9.2 that Ananias, the father of Ananus, the priest who sentenced James to death, went on to become friends with Jesus ben Damneus and Albinus (the governor who had replaced Ananus with Jesus ben Damneus) by giving them gifts, which sounds to me more like someone who is trying to say "no hard feelings" and keep their finger on the levers of power after his son was deposed (and which is in keeping with the wealth and power of the house of Hanan, as Stern, for example, discusses on pages 606-607 here in The Jewish People in the First Century: https://books.google.com/books?id=DPzZT ... us&f=false) rather than someone trying to make amends (through gifts!) for his son having just sentenced Jesus' ben Damneus' brother James to death.

But as for the high priest, Ananias he increased in glory every day, and this to a great degree, and had obtained the favor and esteem of the citizens in a signal manner; for he was a great hoarder up of money: he therefore cultivated the friendship of Albinus, and of the high priest [Jesus ben Damneus], by making them presents.

[Ben C. Smith]

I'm turning into a staunch defender of Hegesippus, not because he calls James the brother of the Lord and I want James to be the brother of Jesus, but because a) he is the earliest church historian, b) I find what he says in other respects holds water, and c) he is said to have known (and quoted from) the Gospel of the Hebrews (which in my view pre-dates Papias) and "other matters as taken from the unwritten tradition of the Jews."

Well, then the Gospel of the Hebrews is the best bet, since (in my view) it pre-dates Papias. It has (come on, almost) everything we need: "James the Just" and Jesus himself calling him "my brother." Adding Mark 6:3, Hegesippus and Paul's "brother of the Lord" seals the deal for me. It's as good as it's going to get anyway, and it's enough for me to feel comfortable making this judgment call.

I remain quite skeptical of the historical value of any of those texts. Dating Hegesippus as the earliest church historian and one of his sources as earlier than Papias tells me nothing of his overall reliability, nor of the reliability of those sources. I need authentication.

[Ben C. Smith]

Plus I don't think Josephus' reference to James "the brother of Jesus who is called Christ" is an interpolation, and I think it refers to James the Just and not to a brother of Jesus ben Damneus.

If the Josephan reference to James (the Just) is genuine, then the game is probably up, of course.

[robert j]

Liberty or freedom (eleutheria) is not an especially common word in the NT ... When Paul uses it, he seems to mean especially freedom from the Mosaic law, for example in his account of the Antioch incident, in which the “circumcision faction” apparently discovered that Jews were eating with uncircumcised Gentiles at the church in Antioch:

2.4 But because of false brethren secretly brought in, who slipped in to spy out our freedom which we have in Christ Jesus, that they might bring us into bondage

If, as it seems from your statement here, you think Galatians 2.4 is about Paul's story of the kerfuffle in Antioch over table regulations --- would you explain further why you think this is the case?

[andrewcriddle]

I have admitted and still admit that there is no smoking gun aimed against this reconstruction, which is very close to what I consider to be the mainstream option.

But what do you think of this alternative?

1. James is the leader of a special group called "the brothers of the Lord." He is not related physically to Jesus, nor does he believe Jesus to be the Messiah. It is known as a conscious datum (and not merely by the lack of evidence to the contrary) that he does not believe in Jesus. He wields tremendous influence among Jewish sectarians (your Josephan Fourth Philosophy).
2. The urge to make James a Christian in the tradition would have been intense, I imagine, given Paul's dealings with him and the reach of his influence. So some tradent(s) baptized him posthumously as a believer.
3. At roughly the same time, some other tradent(s) thought that "brother of the Lord" meant "physical brother of Jesus," and brought Jesus into James' family accordingly.
4. The above two moves were not made across the entire tradition equally and immediately. Some tradents (Luke, the authors of James and Jude, and Thomas) remained either uninformed or unconvinced that James was Jesus' physical brother, while other tradents (Matthew, Mark, John) remained uninformed or unconvinced that James was a believer and had to make out that the James in the triumvirate of Peter, James, and John was not actually the brother of Jesus; he was some other James (the son of Zebedee).

I imagine you will find my interpretation of "brother of the Lord" difficult, and that you will want to interpret Mark as standing, through Peter, closer to the original tradition than this theory would imply. Is that correct? Is there anything else?

This scenario would explain why, in your words, Luke "chose not to mention" that James was Jesus' brother: Luke was either not aware or not convinced that he was. Either his copy of Galatians lacked 1.18 (like some ancient copies apparently did) or Luke interpreted that line in the same way that my tentative reconstruction does; and it would be easy to assume that Jesus' brother James in Mark was a different James, since that was a pretty common name, especially given that Mark 15.40 calls him "James the Less" instead of something uniquely designating James of Jerusalem (James the Just or what have you).

ETA: In short, it seems possible to me that the authors/editors of our extant texts were not always sure which figures were the same and which were different, and they theorized on the matter as best they could given their biases, the same as we do given ours.

I have difficulty in regarding 1 Corinthians 9:5

Do we not have the right to take along a believing wife, as do the other apostles and the brothers of the Lord and Cephas?

as referring to a non-Christian group of "brothers of the Lord" .

Andrew Criddle

[Ben C. Smith]

I have admitted and still admit that there is no smoking gun aimed against this reconstruction, which is very close to what I consider to be the mainstream option.

But what do you think of this alternative?

1. James is the leader of a special group called "the brothers of the Lord." He is not related physically to Jesus, nor does he believe Jesus to be the Messiah. It is known as a conscious datum (and not merely by the lack of evidence to the contrary) that he does not believe in Jesus. He wields tremendous influence among Jewish sectarians (your Josephan Fourth Philosophy).
2. The urge to make James a Christian in the tradition would have been intense, I imagine, given Paul's dealings with him and the reach of his influence. So some tradent(s) baptized him posthumously as a believer.
3. At roughly the same time, some other tradent(s) thought that "brother of the Lord" meant "physical brother of Jesus," and brought Jesus into James' family accordingly.
4. The above two moves were not made across the entire tradition equally and immediately. Some tradents (Luke, the authors of James and Jude, and Thomas) remained either uninformed or unconvinced that James was Jesus' physical brother, while other tradents (Matthew, Mark, John) remained uninformed or unconvinced that James was a believer and had to make out that the James in the triumvirate of Peter, James, and John was not actually the brother of Jesus; he was some other James (the son of Zebedee).

I imagine you will find my interpretation of "brother of the Lord" difficult, and that you will want to interpret Mark as standing, through Peter, closer to the original tradition than this theory would imply. Is that correct? Is there anything else?

This scenario would explain why, in your words, Luke "chose not to mention" that James was Jesus' brother: Luke was either not aware or not convinced that he was. Either his copy of Galatians lacked 1.18 (like some ancient copies apparently did) or Luke interpreted that line in the same way that my tentative reconstruction does; and it would be easy to assume that Jesus' brother James in Mark was a different James, since that was a pretty common name, especially given that Mark 15.40 calls him "James the Less" instead of something uniquely designating James of Jerusalem (James the Just or what have you).

ETA: In short, it seems possible to me that the authors/editors of our extant texts were not always sure which figures were the same and which were different, and they theorized on the matter as best they could given their biases, the same as we do given ours.

I have difficulty in regarding 1 Corinthians 9:5

Do we not have the right to take along a believing wife, as do the other apostles and the brothers of the Lord and Cephas?

as referring to a non-Christian group of "brothers of the Lord" .

Andrew Criddle

What I wonder is whether we are applying both the term ("Christian") and the concept too rigidly too early. We pay lip service to the idea that there was no necessarily great divide between Christianity and Judaism as early as Paul, but then I am not sure that we always follow through on that insight. Doubtless this is at least partly because Paul himself makes such a huge deal of Jesus Messiah/Christ. But would other members of Judaic sects have done the same? Would they have even cared that much? We wind up treating Paul as from one religion and mainstream Jews as from another, but what if, to apply a purely Christian analogy, Judaism at large plays the role of Christianity, James' sect plays the role of Lutheranism, and Paul's sect plays the role of breakaway Anabaptists or whatnot? Not a perfect analogy, but I am seeking something that makes Paul's particular messianic concerns as unimportant and possibly even weird to James as the Anabaptists' insistence on adult baptism was to the first Lutherans, even though both groups stood under the same overarching Protestant umbrella (and, indeed, the Anabaptists would not even have existed without Lutherans having broken ground first).

In fact, what if that triumvirate of James, Cephas, and John was ecumenical? What if the threesome represented, not a single sect, but rather three separate sects united under one banner for various purposes? In that case Cephas perhaps represented a position more sympathetic to Paul than James did. (I have no idea about John. Does anybody?)

Bear in mind that I am likely to be completely wrong about this. But I want to grasp fully exactly why. What prevents it?