Persona Non Grata: James the Brother of Jesus - Part 2

[Guest guest]

Dear All,

 

To recap, in chapter 1 the author is examining the nature of Jesus' family and

giving an overview of the evidence for James's relationship to Jesus and his

role in the early Christian community.

 

We concluded Part 1 with the following:

 

(p.10) " It is surprising that such widespread ignorance of Jesus' siblings

exists, for, besides the New Testament itself, there exist quite a number of

non-canonical writings from the earliest days of the church that provide

absolutely reliable evidence that Jesus not only had siblings, but that some (if

not all) of his brothers played significant roles in the leadership of the early

church. In fact, James was considered by many early Christians to be the first

" bishop " of the church, the successor to Jesus following the crucifixion, making

James in essence the first " pope, " not Peter as Catholic tradition has

maintained. The church father Clement of Alexandria in his work 'Hypostases'

(Outlines), written at the beginning of the third century, makes the following

rather startling statement: " After the ascension of the savior, Peter, James

[the Son of Zebedee], and John did not claim pre-eminence because the savior had

specifically honored them, but chose James the Just as Bishop of Jerusalem. " [2]

While Clement's use of the title " bishop " is certainly an anachronism, it is a

term that, as we shall see, does accord well with James's role in the church as

it is described in both the book of Acts, Luke's history of the early church

from the ascension of Jesus to Paul's imprisonment in Rome, and in Paul's letter

to the Galatians, where Paul describes two meetings he had with James and the

other apostles in Jerusalem. "

 

The Brother of Jesus (And the Lost Teachings of Christianity), p.10.

 

Note:

 

[2] Clement of Alexandria, 'Hypostases' book six, cited by Eusebius, 'The

History of the Church', trans. and ed. G.A. Williamson (Hammondsworth: Penguin,

1965), 72.

 

Here now is Part 2.

 

Enjoy!

 

violet

 

 

 

Persona Non Grata: James the Brother of Jesus - Part 2

 

(p.10) James the Just, as Clement calls him, is the appellation by which Jesus'

brother has most commonly been known in the church's writings. It is a title

originally bestowed upon James by early Jewish-Christian groups such as the

Nazoreans, the Ebionites, and the Elkesaites, who revered James for his

outstanding righteousness under the Law and considered him to be the leader of

the apostles after the death of Jesus. These Jewish-Christian sects claimed to

be the remnants of the original Jerusalem church which had been scattered and

dispersed after the siege of Jerusalem by the Romans in 70 C.E., a claim that,

if true, would make them direct successors to the apostles. (p.11) These groups

and their startling claims will be discussed in part 4.

 

In light of the widespread esteem for James in many quarters of the early

church, we are compelled to ask why it is that he is almost completely unknown

among modern-day Christians. It can justifiably be said that of all the figures

in the New Testament, he is the most mysterious. If one reads through the New

Testament from the beginning, the first major reference to James comes at Acts

12:17, where Peter goes to the house of Mary, the mother of Mark, after

miraculously escaping from prison, and urges her to " Tell this to James and the

brethren. " What is curious here is that the reader is given no explanation of

who James is, an omission that is especially striking because he has not been

mentioned before in Acts. The only logical conclusion one can come to is that

James was of such stature in the early Christian community that Luke (the author

of Acts) simply assumed his readers were well aware of who James was. He was

obviously important enough that Peter wanted the news of his escape from prison

to reach James first. It would also seem from Peter's statement that James was

the leader of " the brethren, " since he is singled out by name. Note well that

this would mean James was the leader of the Jerusalem church by at least the

early 40's C.E., when this incident most likely occurred (Jesus' crucifixion is

generally dated between 30 and 33).

 

Just as puzzling as this reference in Acts is Paul's mention of James in his

first letter to the Christian community in Corinth - his famous list of those to

whom Jesus appeared after his resurrection:

 

[H]e appeared to Cephas [Peter], then to the twelve. Then he appeared to more

than five hundred brothers and sisters at one time, most of whom are still

alive, though some have died. Then he appeared to James, then to all the

apostles. (1 Cor. 15:5-7)

 

Here, as in Acts, Paul apparently assumes his audience is well acquainted with

James, for again no identification is given. It is significant that of all of

those to whom Jesus appeared only Cephas (Cephas is Aramaic for Peter) and James

are important enough to be singled out by name. So while James is almost

completely unknown to modern readers, it would seem that the early readers of

the New Testament writings were well acquainted with him and that in the

earliest days of Christianity he was a major figure, equal in stature to Peter,

well known to the earliest Christians, and not easily confused with any other

James (of whom there were many).

 

Bishop of the Church

 

(p.12) As one reads further in Acts, the significance of James's role in the

affairs of the earliest Christian community in Jerusalem--commonly referred to

as the " Jerusalem church " --becomes clear. At some point early on, James becomes

the head of the Jerusalem church (if he hadn't always been so, a question we

shall examine shortly), apparently having authority even over Peter, who has

traditionally been considered the leader of the disciples following Jesus'

death. In Acts 15, James is clearly the central figure in the great debate about

how Jewish law applied to Gentile converts and is even portrayed as the final

arbiter at the so-called Jerusalem Conference, convened to decide this question,

and as the author of the " Apostolic Decree " that was issued there.

 

James's leadership of the Jerusalem church is surprising for a number of

reasons. First, the impression one gets from the gospels is that Jesus' brothers

did not believe in him and were opposed to his mission. For example, the gospel

of John shows Jesus' brothers apparently challenging him:

 

Now the Jewish festival of booths was near. So his brothers said to him, " Leave

here and go to Judea so that your disciples also may see the works you are

doing; for no one who wants to be widely known acts in secret. If you do these

things show yourself to the world. " (For not even his brothers believed in him.)

(John 7:2-5)

 

John's parenthetical comment makes clear why 'he' believed Jesus' brothers

challenged him.

 

A second reason that the evidence for James's leadership of the Jerusalem church

comes as such a surprise is that Peter is traditionally thought of as the leader

of the apostles, the " rock " on which Jesus built his church, in Roman Catholic

tradition the first pope, or spiritual leader. It is therefore astounding to

discover such clear evidence in the New Testament, as well as in later history

and tradition, that James was actually the leader of the Jerusalem church. As we

shall see, even Peter bows to his authority.

 

The Brother of Jesus (And the Lost Teachings of Christianity)

Chapter 1, Pg. 10-12

Jeffrey J. Butz

Inner Traditions - Rochester, Vermont

ISBN 1-59477-043-3