Detecting the Function of Pseudo-Papias Fragment X: Differentiating TWO Jameses in Galatians!

[Bernard Muller]

to gryan,

Who was the mother of this "James" who was "holy from his mother’s womb"?

Of course James, the brother of the Lord:

4. “James, the brother of the Lord, succeeded to the government of the Church in conjunction with the apostles. He has been called the Just by all from the time of our Saviour to the present day; for there were many that bore the name of James.

5. He was holy from his mother’s womb; and he drank no wine nor strong drink, nor did he eat flesh. No razor came upon his head; he did not anoint himself with oil, and he did not use the bath."

And that James was called "the just" to distinguish him from the other "James". The text is clear on that matter.

Of particular interest: Hegesippus does call "Judas" brother of the Lord "according to the flesh". And he says that "Symeon the son of Clopas" was a descendant of "the Lord's uncle." So, he seems to allow for a uterine brother of Jesus "according to the flesh". He also seems to allow for a cousin who is not called "brother" of the Lord. Maybe he was comfortable assuming that Mary the mother of Jesus had multiple biological children. If so, that makes his testimony stand as evidence against my two Jameses hypothesis.

Am I reading Hegesippus right?

Yes, you are. And "Luke" (2:7 "she brought forth her firstborn son" and "Matthew" (1:25 "but knew [had sex with] her not until she had borne a son; and he called his name Jesus.") were not opposed to that. Nor Paul in 1 Co 9:5 (... the other apostles and the brothers of the Lord and Cephas?) Note: the Lord is Jesus according to 9:1.

But there were two Jameses: one called the Just, who was thrown from the pinnacle of the temple and was beaten to death with a club by a fuller, and another who was beheaded. Paul also makes mention of the same James the Just, where he writes, Other of the apostles saw I none, save James the Lord's brother. Galatians 1:19

Clement of Alexandria was obviously referring to Hegesippus' passage about James, the brother of Jesus. The other James who was beheaded (according to Acts) is the brother of John.

Then James, whom the ancients surnamed the Just on account of the excellence of his virtue, is recorded to have been the first to be made bishop of the church of Jerusalem. This James was called the brother of the Lord because he was known as a son of Joseph, and Joseph was supposed to be the father of Christ

It is clear: James who was called the brother of the Lord is the one who became bishop of the church of Jerusalem. He was known as the son of Joseph, but Joseph was only supposed to be the father of Christ because Mary was impregnated by God, not by Joseph, according to gLuke & gMatthew.

Cordially, Bernard

[Bernard Muller]

to hakeem,

There were two apostles named James and none were identified as the brother of the Lord.

Right, because they were not brothers of the Lord.

Cordially, Bernard

[hakeem]

It is clear: James who was called the brother of the Lord is the one who became bishop of the church of Jerusalem. He was known as the son of Joseph, but Joseph was only supposed to be the father of Christ because Mary was impregnated by God, not by Joseph, according to gLuke & gMatthew.

Cordially, Bernard

It is clear the apostle called James the Lord's brother was made up

Gmark 3--Two apostles called James but none is the brother of Jesus,

GMatthew 10 --Two apostles called James but none is the brother of Jesus.

GLuke 6 --Two apostles called James but none is the brother of Jesus.

Acts 1---Two apostles called James but none is the brother of Jesus.

Fragments of Papias--James the Just the son of Alphaeus or Cleophas who was the bishop of Jerusalem.

The 1st Apocalypse of James--- James called the Lord's brother is not brother of Jesus.

Eusebius' EH 2.1.4--There were two Jameses--one the son of Zebedee and the other James the Just the bishop of Jerusalem.

Jerome's De Viris Illustribus ---James the Just called the Lord's brother is the son of Joseph and sister of Mary.

[Bernard Muller]

to hakeem,

You still have the same problem. There was no apostle with any name who was the Lord's brother even in the Gospels although they implied NT Jesus had at least four brothers and more than one sister.

Even if it is assumed the so-called Pauline Epistles were written before the Gospels then the fact that there is no apostle listed as a brother of Jesus by assumed later Gospel writers and that they implied Jesus had multiple brothers and sisters show that the Gospel writers were not conforming to the myth of Mary the perpetual virgin.

The gospels do not cover the decades after the crucifixion when some of Jesus' brothers would become apostles.
Even Peter is not declared an apostle in these gospels.

Also, the fact that the supposed fragment of Papias appears to support the perpetual virgin myth then this suggests it is a far later writing than proposed. The perpetual virgin myth was a very late doctrine of the Church.

What do you mean by very late? That doctrine started to be postulated in the 4th Century (among them Jerome in 383) and then adopted in 431. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Perpetual_virginity_of_Mary

About that supposed fragment of Papias:

Ben C. Smith wrote: ↑Thu Feb 04, 2021 11:55 am
If anything, Papias of Lombardy used Jerome or scholastics dependent upon Jerome (whose influence on the Latin West was immeasurable) to compose the passage. Just to be clear, though, my only point is that Papias of Hierapolis did not write Roberts and Donaldson's Fragment X. Modern collections of Papias' fragments rightly exclude that one, since it is not his.

Papias of Lombardy was active in 1040s–1060s.

Cordially, Bernard

[Bernard Muller]

to hakeem,

You still have the same problem. There was no apostle with any name who was the Lord's brother even in the Gospels although they implied NT Jesus had at least four brothers and more than one sister.

Even if it is assumed the so-called Pauline Epistles were written before the Gospels then the fact that there is no apostle listed as a brother of Jesus by assumed later Gospel writers and that they implied Jesus had multiple brothers and sisters show that the Gospel writers were not conforming to the myth of Mary the perpetual virgin.

The gospels do not cover the decades after the crucifixion when some of Jesus' brothers would become apostles.
Even Peter is not declared an apostle in these gospels.

Also, the fact that the supposed fragment of Papias appears to support the perpetual virgin myth then this suggests it is a far later writing than proposed. The perpetual virgin myth was a very late doctrine of the Church.

What do you mean by very late? That doctrine started to be postulated in the 4th Century (among them Jerome in 383) and then adopted in 431. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Perpetual_virginity_of_Mary

About that supposed fragment of Papias:

Ben C. Smith wrote: ↑Thu Feb 04, 2021 11:55 am
If anything, Papias of Lombardy used Jerome or scholastics dependent upon Jerome (whose influence on the Latin West was immeasurable) to compose the passage. Just to be clear, though, my only point is that Papias of Hierapolis did not write Roberts and Donaldson's Fragment X. Modern collections of Papias' fragments rightly exclude that one, since it is not his.

Papias of Lombardy was active in 1040s–1060s.

Cordially, Bernard

[gryan]

Papias wrote in the 2nd century. I doubt that Papias (or rather the pseudo-Papias writing later) would know who the different "Mary" were. And James as "bishop" appears in writing of the end of the 2nd century (Clement of Alexandria).
Once again, the passage has Jesus' brothers born from a mother other than Mary the mother of the Lord, seemingly to conform with the myth of Mary the perpetual virgin.

Thanks for that point on the context for calling James "bishop."

[hakeem]

The gospels do not cover the decades after the crucifixion when some of Jesus' brothers would become apostles.
Even Peter is not declared an apostle in these gospels.

What you say does not make sense since the Gospels were written decades after the time of Pilate.

The Gospels, written decades after the time of Tiberius, claimed NT Jesus had 12 apostles none of whom was the brother of Jesus

In fact, in Acts of the Apostles, written decades after the time of Festus, it is claimed that after the departure of Judas, the remaining eleven chose another apostle whose name was Matthias [Acts 1.26]

By the way, the Gospels do claim Peter was an apostle---[Matthew 10.2]

Also, the fact that the supposed fragment of Papias appears to support the perpetual virgin myth then this suggests it is a far later writing than proposed. The perpetual virgin myth was a very late doctrine of the Church.

What do you mean by very late? That doctrine started to be postulated in the 4th Century (among them Jerome in 383) and then adopted in 431. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Perpetual_virginity_of_Mary

Of course, you must have heard of forgeries and false attribution with regards to Christian writings. The NT itself is a most blatant example of forgeries, false attribution and interpolation.

If the perpetual virginity doctrine started in the 4th century then writings which support such teaching must be no earlier than that time.

[Bernard Muller]

to hakeem,

By the way, the Gospels do claim Peter was an apostle---[Matthew 10.2]

Yes, my mistake.

The Gospels, written decades after the time of Tiberius, claimed NT Jesus had 12 apostles none of whom was the brother of Jesus

Yes, but during the public life of Jesus, James and other brothers of Jesus were not among the alleged 12 followers. Actually, the gospels indicated they did not believe in Jesus then: Mark 3:21 "But when His own people [mother & brothers according to 3:31] heard about this, they went out to lay hold of Him, for they said, “He is out of His mind.”"

If the perpetual virginity doctrine started in the 4th century then writings which support such teaching must be no earlier than that time.

The Protevangelium of James, also called Infancy gospel of James (likely written 140-170) alludes to the perpetual virginity of Mary.

Cordially, Bernard

[gryan]

to gryan,

Who was the mother of this "James" who was "holy from his mother’s womb"?

Of course James, the brother of the Lord:

4. “James, the brother of the Lord, succeeded to the government of the Church in conjunction with the apostles. He has been called the Just by all from the time of our Saviour to the present day; for there were many that bore the name of James.

5. He was holy from his mother’s womb; and he drank no wine nor strong drink, nor did he eat flesh. No razor came upon his head; he did not anoint himself with oil, and he did not use the bath."

And that James was called "the just" to distinguish him from the other "James". The text is clear on that matter.

Of particular interest: Hegesippus does call "Judas" brother of the Lord "according to the flesh". And he says that "Symeon the son of Clopas" was a descendant of "the Lord's uncle." So, he seems to allow for a uterine brother of Jesus "according to the flesh". He also seems to allow for a cousin who is not called "brother" of the Lord. Maybe he was comfortable assuming that Mary the mother of Jesus had multiple biological children. If so, that makes his testimony stand as evidence against my two Jameses hypothesis.

Am I reading Hegesippus right?

Yes, you are. And "Luke" (2:7 "she brought forth her firstborn son" and "Matthew" (1:25 "but knew [had sex with] her not until she had borne a son; and he called his name Jesus.") were not opposed to that. Nor Paul in 1 Co 9:5 (... the other apostles and the brothers of the Lord and Cephas?) Note: the Lord is Jesus according to 9:1.

But there were two Jameses: one called the Just, who was thrown from the pinnacle of the temple and was beaten to death with a club by a fuller, and another who was beheaded. Paul also makes mention of the same James the Just, where he writes, Other of the apostles saw I none, save James the Lord's brother. Galatians 1:19

Clement of Alexandria was obviously referring to Hegesippus' passage about James, the brother of Jesus. The other James who was beheaded (according to Acts) is the brother of John.

Then James, whom the ancients surnamed the Just on account of the excellence of his virtue, is recorded to have been the first to be made bishop of the church of Jerusalem. This James was called the brother of the Lord because he was known as a son of Joseph, and Joseph was supposed to be the father of Christ

It is clear: James who was called the brother of the Lord is the one who became bishop of the church of Jerusalem. He was known as the son of Joseph, but Joseph was only supposed to be the father of Christ because Mary was impregnated by God, not by Joseph, according to gLuke & gMatthew.

Thanks for your incisive comments on Hegesippus, Bernard! I think you get Hegesippus's point of view, and it is important that I understand that point of view if I'm going to depart from it.

The fact remains, I'm not convinced that seeing "James the brother of the Lord" as a "pillar" in alongside "Cephas and John" is a the best construal of Paul's narrative flow. It's complicated, but my re-imagining of the logic of the text continues.