Biblical Criticism & History Forum - earlywritings.com

gryan wrote: ↑Wed Jul 17, 2024 8:02 amThe implied context is controversy over the identity of "James the Just", a post-NT title for the unidentified "James" of Acts 15. Was he James son of Zebedee, James son of Alphaeus or James the Lord's blood brother? Hegesippas argues for the latter. Any son of the same womb as Jesus must be holy!

Not sure if anyone else has proposed this or if it is my own original idea, but follows is my speculation:

In the Gospels and the letters of Paul, we see a group of three constantly mentioned together: Peter/Cephas, James and John, where John is the brother of James:


In gJohn, the unnamed 'beloved disciple' takes Jesus' mother into his own house:


If the unnamed beloved disciple in gJohn is John, brother of James, then both James and John are in effect adopted brothers of Jesus. Thus James the brother of the Lord!

The "James" of Acts 15--"the son of Alphaeus"--was "James the Just"!'

According to a 2016 PhD dissertation by L.S. Ojala (supervised by Martinus C. de Boer, author of Galatians: A Commentary, John Knox, 2011), the "James" of Acts, "the son of Alphaeus", was "James the Just"!

I will quote from the conclusion of his dissertation at length:

We have extensively argued in this dissertation that James of Alphaeus is clearly the James meant by the narrator in Acts 12:17; 15:13; and 21:18. James the brother of the Lord is nowhere in Acts identified as such. The brother of the Lord is identified in Gal 1:19; however, there is no necessity intrinsic to Galatians to identify the James of Gal 2:9, 12 also as the brother of the Lord. In fact, the dissimilarities of description suggest that another James may be meant. On the basis of a comparison with Acts, this esteemed “pillar” James of Galatians 2:9, 12 can be identified as James of Alphaeus—like Peter and John, a member of the Twelve.

What Happened to James of Alphaeus?

In this concluding section of the dissertation, we will indicate that the now common way of identifying “James” in Acts 12:17; 15:13; 21:18; Gal 2:9; and 12 as the brother of the Lord rather than as James of Alphaeus is a relatively new development of the last two centuries. We will sketch some steps of the historical “evolution” of the ways in which the Jameses have been identified after the first century.

First, James of Alphaeus comes to be known as “the Just.” This is indicated most clearly in Clement of Alexandria, where he identifies James “the Just” with the second member of the Twelve with that name (sect. 8.1.2.2). This epithet “the Just” accords well with what is known of James in Acts 15:13–21 and 21:18–25 as a continuing advocate of the Law (sect. 5.3.3) and therefore it is conceivable that James of Alphaeus came to be known as “the Just” already during his lifetime; however, this cannot be proved on the basis of NT literature.

Second, “James the Just” becomes a more common way to identify James of Alphaeus than the name itself. In second and early third-century traditions regarding the Jameses (ch. 8), the most common identification alongside the name “James” is “the Just” (Clement of Alexandria, Hegesippus, Gos. Thom., 1 and 2 Apoc. Jas., Gos. Heb.). Even sources that apparently have James of Alphaeus in view (sects. 8.1.2.2; 8.6.2.2) refer to him simply as “the Just.”

Third, in some second and third-century sources, the identity of “James the Just” is combined with that of “the brother of the Lord.” However, this equating of “James the Just” with “the brother of the Lord” is not as common as perhaps previously thought (sect. 8.7). Clement of Alexandria and Gos. Thom. refer to “James the Just,” but do not describe him as the brother of the Lord (sect. 8.7.1). Ap. Jas. refers simply to “James” who is numbered among the Twelve, but does not refer to him either as “the Just” or as “the brother of the Lord” (sect. 8.7.1). Hegesippus and Gos. Heb. do refer to James as Jesus’s brother, but Hegesippus apparently considers James a cousin of Jesus, as does Jerome (sect. 8.7.1). 1 and 2 Apoc. Jas. refer to James as a so-called, or spiritual brother of the Lord, but not as an actual brother (sect. 8.7.1).

Fourth, Jerome solidifies the viewpoint that James of Alphaeus (a.k.a “James the Just”) is also James the brother of the Lord (sect. 8.1.3). For Jerome, “brother” actually means “cousin” or “kinsman” (sect. 8.1.3). It is worth noting that this conclusion was not reached on the basis of a strictly historical inquiry, but rather for the purpose of protecting the doctrine of the perpetual virginity of Mary (sect. 8.1.3). However, unlike many of the second and third-century sources that refer to the Jameses without recourse to NT texts, Jerome maintains that his viewpoint is the correct interpretation of the NT evidence.

Fifth, this interpretation of the NT survives for about 1,500 years until the early 19th century. With reference to Acts 15:13, the Geneva Study Bible (1560 C.E.) adds a comment identifying James as the son of Alphaeus, who is called the Lord’s brother. Also, the 18th-century commentaries of John Wesley (1703–1791 C.E.) and Joseph Benson (1748–1821 C.E.) maintain this view without any suggestion that other views were common. However, Adam Clarke (c. 1760–1832), in his comments on Gal 1:19, mentions that “some” suggest that there were three Jameses (son of Zebedee, son of Alphaeus, brother of the Lord). However, Clarke himself still maintains the view that the son of Alphaeus is the brother of the Lord.We wish to emphasize again that the viewpoint that James of Alphaeus (who is also the brother of the Lord) is meant in both Acts 12:17 ff. and Galatians 2:9, 12 appears to have been the “normal” viewpoint among Christian scholars from at least c. 400 (and perhaps earlier) to c. 1800 C.E. We would speculate that the reason for its long-standing among Protestants also (i.e., for reasons other than its reflection on Mary) was that it provided an apparent harmonization of Galatians and Acts.

Sixth, at the beginning of the 19th century, the equation that the son of Alphaeus was also the “brother” of the Lord is re-examined. We have not been able to determine who originated this development, but find, for example, that Hermann Olshausen, commenting on Gal 1:19 in the early 19th century, rejects the notion that the brothers of the Lord might also be members of the Twelve on the basis of John 7:5. Therefore, for Olshausen, the “James” of Gal 1:19 is the brother of the Lord, but not James of Alphaeus. Olshausen then applies this same identification to the references to “James” in Gal 2:9, 12, as well as in Acts. Henry Alford (1857) and others follow suit.Whereas it was correct for Olshausen to distinguish James the brother of the Lord from James of Alphaeus, it is curious that the idea that only one “James” is meant in all of these passages of Galatians and Acts remained intact; in this regard, he remained faithful to the Hieronymian system of identification. In any case, the import for exegesis is that James is thus identified as the brother of the Lord in all of the references in Galatians and Acts (and consequently at every instance where the name occurred without further explanation, both in the NT as well as later Christian literature). In our view, one incorrect way of identifying the Jameses is thus “solved” by the introduction of another.

Throughout the 19th century, this view becomes more widespread. The Philip Schaff Religious Encyclopaedia, published in 1891, lists various scholars in favor of each view of the identities of James. At that time, the view that James the brother of the Lord is meant in Acts 12:17 ff. and all of the verses of Galatians has the largest collection of names in its support. However, a minority of scholars continue to hold the Hieronymian theory. The Encyclopaedia also notes, however, that two scholars, Stier and Wieseler, refer “Acts xii. 17, xv. 13, xxi. 18, Gal. ii. 9–12 to James the son of Alphaeus.” In any case, the identification of James as the brother of the Lord in Acts 12:17 ff. becomes the prevalent theory, and James of Alphaeus consequently becomes an almost forgotten figure of early Christianity.

gryan wrote: ↑Wed Jul 17, 2024 8:02 am Many Jameses were being called ["the Just"]...

The Greek text from Hegesippus, Commentary (ὑπομνήματι), book 5 (all books are lost), (ca. 165-175 CE) via Eusebius, History of the Church 2.23.3-19 (written ca. 325 CE):

Διαδέχεται δὲ τὴν ἐκκλησίαν μετὰ τῶν ἀποστόλων, ὁ ἀδελφὸς τοῦ κυρίου Ἰάκωβος,ὁ ὀνομασθεὶς ὑπὸ πάντων δίκαιος ἀπὸ τῶν τοῦ κυρίου χρόνων μέχρι καὶ ἡμῶν.

ἐπεὶ πολλοὶ Ἰάκωβοι ἐκαλοῦντο,

οὗτος δὲ ἐκ κοιλίας μητρὸς αὐτοῦ ἅγιος ἦν.

viewtopic.php?t=1550

English Translation:

"James, the brother of the Lord, succeeded to the government of the church in conjunction with the apostles. From the times of the Lord until us, he has been named by all 'the Just.'

So far so good, though I would note that the words 'the governance of' do not directly represent any Greek words in the original but probably gets what is meant: 'James ... succeeded to the church' would sound funny in English but 'government of' is implied in context as it may be inferred from the verb 'succeeded'.

For many Jameses (πολλοὶ Ἰάκωβοι) were being called ["the Just"],

but this one was holy from his mother's womb."

Explanation:

"πολλοὶ Ἰάκωβοι" (many Jameses) uses the plural form of James.

"ἐκαλοῦντο" (were being so called) suggests that these individuals were given a specific title or description.
[snip]
In this context, "the Just" is the implied title.

Thus, the text does NOT say many individuals were named "James", as standard translations render it, but rather, that "many Jameses" were being called "the Just." The last line argues for the superiority of this "James the Just":

"...this one (this 'James the Just' as distinguished from the others) was holy from his mother's womb."

I don't think this argument works - I can't see that your suggested reading of the passage is better than the standard translations in any way and it is worse in some ways.

The crux of your argument is that the phrase ἐπεὶ πολλοὶ Ἰάκωβοι ἐκαλοῦντο has the plural form of James rather than the singular, so it is not simply saying 'many were called James'.

However, if you are going to supply what the many Jameses were called, I don't see how 'the Just' is a better option than 'James'. In fact, one could render it: 'for many Jameses were so called', that is, they all had the name James, this being necessarily entailed by the verb (i.e., all Jameses are called James) and did not need to be stated (as with 'succeeded' and 'the government of' above).

Further, as you note, the passage is distinguishing this person from other persons who might be similar in some ways. But here I think your suggested reading does not take adequate account of the causal chain implied in the text 'he has been named righteous by all' 'for many Jameses were called [X]', '*but* this one was holy from his mother's womb'. That is, his being holy from his mother's womb is presented as the reason he was named righteous by all. Reading the text as implying there were multiple Jameses called the Just muddies the text's explanation for why this particular James was called righteous by all.

As a supporting point, I'm not aware of any other James called the Just in early Christian literature. Do you know of any supporting references for the existence of plural James the Justs which you claim to find in this passage?

So I think the standard reading is a preferable to your suggested alternative reading in several ways.

Best,

Ken

Ken Olson wrote: ↑Fri Jul 19, 2024 7:33 am
...I'm not aware of any other James called the Just in early Christian literature. Do you know of any supporting references for the existence of plural James the Justs which you claim to find in this passage?

Hi Ken,

Thanks for this critique of my reading of Hegesippus' Greek!

For the record, it was after doing the above exegesis that I Googled and found Lasse Sakari Ojala's 2016 PhD Dissertation. Ojala argues on narrative critical grounds that the author of Luke-Acts thought of the James of Acts 12, 15, and 21 as James, son of Alphaeus. Since this was already my view, I agreed with everything he said about the narrative world of Acts.

However, Ojala's exegesis of Hegesippus’ Greek aligns with the mainstream view as follows:

"8.2.2 Hegesippus’ Identification of James

In the long quotation from Hegesippus as found in Hist. eccl. 2.23, James is identified as follows:

‘Διαδέχεται τὴν ἐκκλησίαν μετὰ τῶν ἀποστόλων ὁ ἀδελφὸς τοῦ κυρίου Ἰάκωβος, ὁ ὀνομασθεὶς ὑπὸ πάντων δίκαιος ἀπὸ τῶν τοῦ κυρίου χρόνων μέχρι καὶ ἡμῶν, ἐπεὶ πολλοὶ Ἰάκωβοι ἐκαλοῦντο, οὗτος δὲ ἐκ κοιλίας μητρὸς αὐτοῦ ἅγιος ἦν.

The charge of the Church passed to James, the brother of the Lord, together with the Apostles. He was called the 'Just' by all men from the Lord’s time to ours, since many are called James, but he was holy from his mother’s womb.

The two primary ways by which Hegesippus identifies James are: first, as the brother of the Lord (ὁ ἀδελφὸς τοῦ κυρίου Ἰάκωβος); and second, labeling him as the one known to everyone since the apostles’ time as "the Just" (ὁ ὀνομασθεὶς ὑπὸ πάντων δίκαιος ἀπὸ τῶν τοῦ κυρίου χρόνων μέχρι καὶ ἡμῶν). There were many Jameses, but this one is distinguished from the others as having been holy from his mother’s womb. That Hegesippus refers to James without qualification as ὁ ἀδελφὸς τοῦ κυρίου, "the Lord’s brother," gives the initial impression that Hegesippus meant this in the most natural sense—James and Jesus shared parents, or at least one parent." (p. 170)
https://research.vu.nl/ws/portalfiles/p ... tation.pdf

I'm curious, Ken, had you heard of this dissertation before? Do you find it persuasive in its main thesis that in the narrative world of the author of Acts, the James of Acts 12 and following was the son of Alphaeus?

Thanks for this good question: "Do you know of any supporting references for the existence of plural James the Justs which you claim to find in this passage?" As your question implies, the meaning of the Greek is contextual, and if there were indeed a record of many James the Justs, then my reading would carry more weight.

The quick answer is no: I do not have supporting references to plural James the Justs. Nevertheless, I'm of the opinion that, long before the time of Hegesippus, in Mark's Gospel, the Lord's blood brother was called "the small" and that, as in the Gospel of Thomas, "James the Just" was a title, in contradistinction to "James the small" for the son of "Mary of James (of Alphaeus)" in the empty tomb scenes of Mark and Luke (an exegetical possibility overlooked by Ojala, who protects his exegesis of "James" in Acts by arguing that, as Jerome mistakenly assumed, Hegesippus likewise mistakenly regarded the son of Alphaeus as the Lord's brother).

So, in my unique contextualization of the Greek of Hegesippus' eulogy for James, the Lord's brother, Hegesippus was arguing that this James deserved the title 'the Just' at least as much, or more, than at least one other claimant. In this context, is possible that he meant that there are 'many Jameses called X (meaning Just or righteous). Thus, 'many' might be hyperbolic, or else he may have simply been saying that in many eulogies, 'many Jameses' were regarded as righteous. Either way, its function is to undermine the original usage of the title "James the Just" exclusively for the son of Alphaeus, a title invented for the purpose of seting up a contrast with the Lord's blood brother—"James the Small."

re: "ἐπεὶ" Strongs says: epeí (a conjunction composed of 1909, "on, fitting" and 1487 /ei, "if, which assumes the premise is factual") – properly, aptly if, introducing something assumed to be factual and fitting, i.e. as appropriate to what is assumed. Its sense is, "Assume what precedes is true, and understand what follows to be appropriate and applicable" (i.e. true as well).

ὁ ὀνομασθεὶς ὑπὸ πάντων δίκαιος
ἀπὸ τῶν τοῦ κυρίου χρόνων μέχρι καὶ ἡμῶν,
ἐπεὶ πολλοὶ Ἰάκωβοι ἐκαλοῦντο,
οὗτος δὲ ἐκ κοιλίας μητρὸς αὐτοῦ ἅγιος ἦν.

The one having been named 'just' by all
from the Lord’s time to ours--
Aptly if many Jameses were being called ['the Just' or righteous],
but he [as the Lord's same-womb brother] was holy from his mother’s womb.


Best,

Greg

gryan wrote: ↑Sat Jul 20, 2024 4:26 am

Ken Olson wrote: ↑Fri Jul 19, 2024 7:33 am
...I'm not aware of any other James called the Just in early Christian literature. Do you know of any supporting references for the existence of plural James the Justs which you claim to find in this passage?

However, Ojala's exegesis of Hegesippus’ Greek aligns with the mainstream view as follows:

"8.2.2 Hegesippus’ Identification of James

In the long quotation from Hegesippus as found in Hist. eccl. 2.23, James is identified as follows:

‘Διαδέχεται τὴν ἐκκλησίαν μετὰ τῶν ἀποστόλων ὁ ἀδελφὸς τοῦ κυρίου Ἰάκωβος, ὁ ὀνομασθεὶς ὑπὸ πάντων δίκαιος ἀπὸ τῶν τοῦ κυρίου χρόνων μέχρι καὶ ἡμῶν, ἐπεὶ πολλοὶ Ἰάκωβοι ἐκαλοῦντο, οὗτος δὲ ἐκ κοιλίας μητρὸς αὐτοῦ ἅγιος ἦν.

The charge of the Church passed to James, the brother of the Lord, together with the Apostles. He was called the 'Just' by all men from the Lord’s time to ours, since many are called James, but he was holy from his mother’s womb.

The two primary ways by which Hegesippus identifies James are: first, as the brother of the Lord (ὁ ἀδελφὸς τοῦ κυρίου Ἰάκωβος); and second, labeling him as the one known to everyone since the apostles’ time as "the Just" (ὁ ὀνομασθεὶς ὑπὸ πάντων δίκαιος ἀπὸ τῶν τοῦ κυρίου χρόνων μέχρι καὶ ἡμῶν). There were many Jameses, but this one is distinguished from the others as having been holy from his mother’s womb. That Hegesippus refers to James without qualification as ὁ ἀδελφὸς τοῦ κυρίου, "the Lord’s brother," gives the initial impression that Hegesippus meant this in the most natural sense—James and Jesus shared parents, or at least one parent." (p. 170)
https://research.vu.nl/ws/portalfiles/p ... tation.pdf

I'm curious, Ken, had you heard of this dissertation before? Do you find it persuasive in its main thesis that in the narrative world of the author of Acts, the James of Acts 12 and following was the son of Alphaeus?

No, I don't recall having heard of Ojala's dissertation before you brought it up.

I haven't yet read the whole thing, but I see from the conclusion that his main argument is that the James in Acts 12.17 and later refers to James the son of Alphaeus who was introduced in 1.13. Only one other James was mentioned earlier in the text, James son of Zebedee, and his death was reported in 12.2. Therefore we should probably take the James mentioned in 12.17 as the son of Alphaeus rather than think the author of Luke-Acts dropped a new James into his text without introduction. I think the theory that the James mentioned in Acts 12.17 and later is intended to be James, son of Alphaeus is credible (though not necessarily conclusive).

However, I take this to apply to the narrative world of Luke-Acts (as you put it) and do not think it is determinative for identifying Jameses in other texts (such as Galatians or Hegesippus).

Thanks for this good question: "Do you know of any supporting references for the existence of plural James the Justs which you claim to find in this passage?" As your question implies, the meaning of the Greek is contextual, and if there were indeed a record of many James the Justs, then my reading would carry more weight.

The quick answer is no: I do not have supporting references to plural James the Justs. Nevertheless, I'm of the opinion that, long before the time of Hegesippus, in Mark's Gospel, the Lord's blood brother was called "the small" and that, as in the Gospel of Thomas, "James the Just" was a title, in contradistinction to "James the small" for the son of "Mary of James (of Alphaeus)" in the empty tomb scenes of Mark and Luke (an exegetical possibility overlooked by Ojala, who protects his exegesis of "James" in Acts by arguing that, as Jerome mistakenly assumed, Hegesippus likewise mistakenly regarded the son of Alphaeus as the Lord's brother).

I am familiar with what your opinion regarding the different Jameses in the early church is. I am looking for evidence that would support it. I think your suggested reading that the particular James who succeeded to the church is being compared to multiple other James the Justs really needs evidence (other than your conjecture on how to read that particular sentence) for other James the Justs in order to be credible.

So, in my unique contextualization of the Greek of Hegesippus' eulogy for James, the Lord's brother, Hegesippus was arguing that this James deserved the title 'the Just' at least as much, or more, than at least one other claimant. In this context, is possible that he meant that there are 'many Jameses called X (meaning Just or righteous). Thus, 'many' might be hyperbolic, or else he may have simply been saying that in many eulogies, 'many Jameses' were regarded as righteous. Either way, its function is to undermine the original usage of the title "James the Just" exclusively for the son of Alphaeus, a title invented for the purpose of seting up a contrast with the Lord's blood brother—"James the Small."

This is my problem with many of the arguments you have made in favor of your theory. You offer two options and say that either way 'its function is to undermine the original usage of the title James the Just exclusively for the son of Alphaeus'. But we don't actually need either of your unique contextualizations or the hypothesis that there were multiple James the Justs in order to understand the passage. You are multiplying hypotheticals unnecessarily.

re: "ἐπεὶ" Strongs says: epeí (a conjunction composed of 1909, "on, fitting" and 1487 /ei, "if, which assumes the premise is factual") – properly, aptly if, introducing something assumed to be factual and fitting, i.e. as appropriate to what is assumed. Its sense is, "Assume what precedes is true, and understand what follows to be appropriate and applicable" (i.e. true as well).

ὁ ὀνομασθεὶς ὑπὸ πάντων δίκαιος
ἀπὸ τῶν τοῦ κυρίου χρόνων μέχρι καὶ ἡμῶν,
ἐπεὶ πολλοὶ Ἰάκωβοι ἐκαλοῦντο,
οὗτος δὲ ἐκ κοιλίας μητρὸς αὐτοῦ ἅγιος ἦν.

The one having been named 'just' by all
from the Lord’s time to ours--
Aptly if many Jameses were being called ['the Just' or righteous],
but he [as the Lord's same-womb brother] was holy from his mother’s womb.

Using the etymology instead of the definition for ἐπεὶ muddies the issue. Strong's (or, rather, Thayer's) gives two possible definitions: the first is a temporal sense, 'after', and the second is a causal sense, 'since', 'seeing that', 'because'. I think it's clear the causal sense is intended:

he was named righteous by all,
from the Lord's times even up to ours,
because many Jameses were called [James],
but he was holy even from his mother's womb.

I think the assumption of multiple Jameses called the Just is both unnecessary and unevidenced.

https://biblehub.com/greek/1893.htm

Best,

Ken

Ken Olson wrote: ↑Sun Jul 21, 2024 6:06 pm
No, I don't recall having heard of Ojala's dissertation before you brought it up.

I haven't yet read the whole thing, but I see from the conclusion that his main argument is that the James in Acts 12.17 and later refers to James the son of Alphaeus who was introduced in 1.13. Only one other James was mentioned earlier in the text, James son of Zebedee, and his death was reported in 12. Therefore we should probably take the James mentioned in 12.17 as the son of Alphaeus rather than think the author of Luke-Acts dropped a new James into his text without introduction. I think the theory that the James mentioned in Acts 12.17 and later is intended to be James, son of Alphaeus is credible (though not necessarily conclusive).

However, I take this to apply to the narrative world of Luke-Acts (as you put it) and do not think it is determinative for identifying Jameses in other texts (such as Galatians or Hegesippus)

Ken,

Thanks for your well considered reply to my particular argument, which I'm pondering.

Above, I quoted your helpful review of Ojala's dissertation because I think his thesis should be more widely read.

The Identity and Role of James in Acts - A Historical and Literary Analysis,
by L.S. Ojala, 2016 (supervised by Martinus C. de Boer, author of a leading commentary on Gal)
https://research.vu.nl/ws/portalfiles/p ... tation.pdf

I hope Ojala's groundbreaking work of scholarship on distinguishing "the many Jameses" becomes common knowledge on this forum!
viewtopic.php?t=12347

Best,

Greg

GakuseiDon wrote: ↑Thu Jul 18, 2024 3:31 am
In the Gospels and the letters of Paul, we see a group of three constantly mentioned together: Peter/Cephas, James and John, where John is the brother of James:

Gal 2:9 And when James, Cephas, and John, who seemed to be pillars...

Mar 1:19 And when he had gone a little further thence, he saw James the son of Zebedee, and John his brother, who also were in the ship mending their nets.

Mar 5:37 And he suffered no man to follow him, save Peter, and James, and John the brother of James.

Luk 9:28 And it came to pass about an eight days after these sayings, he took Peter and John and James, and went up into a mountain to pray.

In gJohn, the unnamed 'beloved disciple' takes Jesus' mother into his own house:

John 19:26 When Jesus therefore saw his mother, and the disciple standing by, whom he loved, he saith unto his mother, Woman, behold thy son!
27 Then saith he to the disciple, Behold thy mother! And from that hour that disciple took her unto his own home.

If the unnamed beloved disciple in gJohn is John, brother of James, then both James and John are in effect adopted brothers of Jesus. Thus James the brother of the Lord!

The Lament of the Virgin documents: 'She asked for James, the brother of the Lord, and she was informed that he had fled and left Him on the mount where He was seized' and so before she goes with John to see Yeshua on the cross and Yeshua names John as her son, James (son of Zebedee) was already (as milk-kin¹) 'the brother of the Lord'.

¹James' Apocalypse.

Trees of Life wrote: ↑Mon Jul 22, 2024 9:03 am The Lament of the Virgin documents: 'She asked for James, the brother of the Lord, and she was informed that he had fled and left Him on the mount where He was seized' and so before she goes with John to see Yeshua on the cross and Yeshua names John as her son, James (son of Zebedee) was already (as milk-kin¹) 'the brother of the Lord'.

¹James' Apocalypse.

But that James (the brother of the Lord) in the Lament of the Virgin is not the son of Zebedee. That's clear from the later passage:

AdamKvanta wrote: ↑Mon Jul 22, 2024 10:01 am

Trees of Life wrote: ↑Mon Jul 22, 2024 9:03 am The Lament of the Virgin documents: 'She asked for James, the brother of the Lord, and she was informed that he had fled and left Him on the mount where He was seized' and so before she goes with John to see Yeshua on the cross and Yeshua names John as her son, James (son of Zebedee) was already (as milk-kin¹) 'the brother of the Lord'.

¹James' Apocalypse.

But that James (the brother of the Lord) in the Lament of the Virgin is not the son of Zebedee. That's clear from the later passage:

She asked for James, the brother of John, and she was informed that he never even looked at Him.
https://archive.org/details/woodbrookes ... 4/mode/2up

James, (son of Alphaeus ) as milk-kin, was brother of John, (son of Zebedee).

Trees of Life wrote: ↑Mon Jul 22, 2024 10:12 am

AdamKvanta wrote: ↑Mon Jul 22, 2024 10:01 am

Trees of Life wrote: ↑Mon Jul 22, 2024 9:03 am The Lament of the Virgin documents: 'She asked for James, the brother of the Lord, and she was informed that he had fled and left Him on the mount where He was seized' and so before she goes with John to see Yeshua on the cross and Yeshua names John as her son, James (son of Zebedee) was already (as milk-kin¹) 'the brother of the Lord'.

¹James' Apocalypse.

But that James (the brother of the Lord) in the Lament of the Virgin is not the son of Zebedee. That's clear from the later passage:

She asked for James, the brother of John, and she was informed that he never even looked at Him.
https://archive.org/details/woodbrookes ... 4/mode/2up

James, (son of Alphaeus ) as milk-kin, was brother of John, (son of Zebedee).

So John (son of Zebedee) has a biological brother James (son of Zebedee) and a milk brother James (son of Alphaeus)? Don't you think it would be then confusing to identify James son of Alphaeus as "the brother of John"? That's very unlikely for me.

IMO, it's the opposite. James (son of Alphaeus) is the milk brother of Jesus, that's why he is called the brother of the Lord. And the sons of Zebedee are in no relationship with Jesus. No biological, no milk, no adoption relationship. John son of Zebedee wasn't under the cross, it was John Mark, IMO.