Persona Non Grata: James the Brother of Jesus - Part 3

[Guest guest]

Dear All,

 

First of all, here is a 'List of Abbreviations Of Sources' which you might like

to refer to in this & future posts:

 

(p.194) List of Abbreviations of Sources

 

AH 'Against Heresies'

AJ 'The Apocryphon of James'

AV Authorized Version (better known as the King James Bible)

CEV Contemporary English Version

FAJ 'The First Apocalypse of James'

GT 'The Gospel of Thomas'

HE 'Ecclesiastical History'

KJV King James Version

NAB New American Bible

NEB New English Bible

NIV New International Version

NRSV New Revised Standard Version

RSV Revised Standard Version

SAJ 'The Second Apocalypse of James'

SV Scholar's Version

 

The Brother of Jesus (And the Lost Teachings of Christianity), p.194.

 

 

To recap, the author is examining the nature of Jesus' family and giving an

overview of the evidence for James's relationship to Jesus and James's role in

the early Christian community.

 

We concluded Part 2 with:

 

(p.12) " 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), p.12.

 

Here now is Part 3.

 

Enjoy,

 

violet

 

 

 

Persona Non Grata: James the Brother of Jesus - Part 3

 

(p.13) A number of scholars have pointed out that if anyone deserves the title

of first pope, by virtue of being the first leader of the Christian church, it

is James, not Peter. So how do we account for James's rapid rise to such

prominence (especially if James had been a nonbeliever, as is traditionally

assumed), and why has James's prominent role become so obscured? As we

investigate these questions, we shall see that a real revolution is under way in

our understanding of the history and development of the early church. James

turns out to be the key that unlocks a dusty old vault containing a treasure

trove of information that the ecclesiastical powers-that-be have attempted to

conceal for close to two millennia.

 

 

Brother of Jesus

 

Connected to these questions about James's role in the church is the more

imposing question of his relationship with his brother Jesus, as well as the

question of Jesus' relationship to the rest of his family. As we have already

seen, certain statements in the gospels seem to imply that the members of Jesus'

family did not believe in Jesus' work and ministry during his lifetime.

Traditionally, both scholars and clergy have considered Jesus' family highly

skeptical of--and even opposed to--Jesus' mission, a conclusion based mainly on

the following passage from the gospel of Mark:

 

Jesus went back home, and once again such a large crowd gathered that there was

no chance even to eat. When Jesus' family heard what he was doing, they thought

he was crazy and went to get him under control. (Mark 3:20-21, CEV)

 

Given that portrayal of the family, it is puzzling to note how quickly they must

have converted from nonbelievers to believers after the crucifixion; for opposed

to the picture that Mark paints, the first chapter of Acts clearly demonstrates

a close bond between Jesus' family and the disciples not long after the

crucifixion:

 

Then they returned to Jerusalem from the mount called Olivet...When they had

entered the city, they went to the room upstairs where they were staying, Peter,

and John, and James, and Andrew, Philip and Thomas, Bartholomew and Matthew,

James son of Alphaeus, and Simon the Zealot, and Judas son of James. All these

were constantly devoting themselves to prayer, together with certain women,

'including Mary the mother of Jesus, as well as his brothers'. (Acts 1:12-14;

italics mine)

 

(p.14) Here we have evidence that Jesus' mother and brothers were not only all

present in Jerusalem within weeks of the crucifixion, but that they also spent

intimate time in prayer with Jesus' disciples, which is unlikely if they had

been opposed to Jesus and the apostles' mission. We also have evidence here that

Jesus' brothers are 'not' to be identified with the apostles, refuting the

commonly heard argument from some quarters that references to Jesus' brothers in

the Bible are to be understood as meaning his " spiritual " brothers, that is, his

disciples.

 

While biblical evidence states clearly that Jesus had brothers, the exact

relationship of Jesus to those whom the New Testament calls his " brothers and

sisters " has been hotly debated by scholars and theologians, many contending

that these are not actually 'blood' brothers and sisters. By the end of the

fourth century, three positions on this question had been established. According

to the so-called Epiphanian view, named after its main proponent, the

fourth-century bishop Epiphanius, and championed by the third-century theologian

Origen and fourth-century bishop Eusebius, the " brothers " and " sisters "

mentioned in the New Testament are all older than Jesus - sons of Joseph from a

previous marriage, and hence only stepbrothers of Jesus. This view is still the

official position of the Eastern Orthodox churches. Another viewpoint, the

Hieronymian theory, was first proposed by the church father Jerome and argues

that those whom the New Testament calls brothers and sisters were actually

Jesus' 'cousins'--children of Mary's sister. This remains the official Roman

Catholic position. How these ideas arose will be examined later, but for now, it

is sufficient to point out that these positions were developed early on to

uphold the emerging dogma of the perpetual virginity of Mary. An ever-virgin

Mary obviously could not have had children other than Jesus unless they had also

been miraculously conceived.

 

The stance taken in this book is the position traditionally known as the

Helvidian view, after the Roman theologian Helvidius, which understands the

brothers and sisters of Jesus cited in the New Testament to be full siblings of

Jesus, born to Mary and Joseph after the firstborn Jesus. (p.15) This

understanding is able to retain the doctrine of the virgin birth, but does not

claim an ever-virgin Mary. This has been the traditional Protestant position. It

is the most natural reading of all the New Testament citations that we shall

examine, and requires no bending or stretching of the plain reading of the

original Greek text. Also in support of this view we have Luke's famous words in

the Nativity story: " And she gave birth to her 'first-born' son and wrapped him

in bands of cloth, and laid him in a manger, because there was no place for them

in the inn " (Luke 2:7). If Jesus was an only child, why would Luke use the term

" first-born " ? Another piece of evidence for Mary and Joseph, but 'before they

came together', she was found to be with child through the Holy Spirit "

(Matt.1:18, NIV). " Before they came together " is a classic biblical euphemism

along the lines of " Adam knew Eve. "

 

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

Chapter 1, Pg. 13-15

Jeffrey J. Butz

Inner Traditions - Rochester, Vermont

ISBN 1-59477-043-3