James, son of Zebedee

[d.thomas]

Peter, James, and John are Jesus' favored disciples. Throughout the synoptic gospels these three are always together with Jesus, it is these three that witness Jesus' transfiguration on the mountain. James is Peter's partner, the brother of John, and the son of Zebedee. Paul refers to Peter, James, and John as "pillars".

The gospels and Acts tell us nothing of Jesus' brother, he's named once in Mark and then disappears from the narrative, yet many traditionally believe that the James Paul refers to is Jesus' brother simply because he refers to him once as the brother of the Lord, or the Lord's brother. Very odd because if this James is Jesus' brother, he simply pops out of nowhere and appears to take the place of James, son of Zebedee. Acts doesn't even introduce him. Can anyone explain this?

[McCulloch]

Luke and Acts were written by disciples of Paul, so one might expect that they would minimize the roles played by James and Peter, who were his theological opponents.

[Joshua Patrick]

Luke and Acts were written by disciples of Paul, so one might expect that they would minimize the roles played by James and Peter, who were his theological opponents.

The presentation, style and emphases of the Acts of the Apostles leave no doubt that both volumes (Gospel of Luke & Book of Acts) stem from the same hand. Some passages in the secnd volume present the author as sharing in Paul's missionary journeys; he is certainly very conversant with the cities of the eastern mediterranean and their constitutions. Paul's letter to Philemon (v.24) mentions a certain Luke as being with him, and Colossians 4.14 describes Luke as a doctor. The name was common in the Roman world, but traditionally the two volumes are ascribed to the authorship of this Luke, the doctor. In writing his gospel Luke certainly used that of Mark. For his extensive range of the teachings of Jesus scholars are devided whether he used the same collection of Sayings of Jesus (now lost) as Matthew, or whether he drew directly on Matthews own gospel. Such decisions could well affect the dating og the gospel, so that it is difficult to be more precise than to say that the gospel was written towards the end of the first century.


I would say it is more then a "he", one "disciple" then "disciples" and "they".

[JehovahsWitness]

Peter, James, and John are Jesus' favored disciples. Throughout the synoptic gospels these three are always together with Jesus, it is these three that witness Jesus' transfiguration on the mountain. James is Peter's partner, the brother of John, and the son of Zebedee. Paul refers to Peter, James, and John as "pillars".

The gospels and Acts tell us nothing of Jesus' brother, he's named once in Mark and then disappears from the narrative, yet many traditionally believe that the James Paul refers to is Jesus' brother simply because *he* refers to him once as the brother of the Lord, or the Lord's brother. Very odd because if this James is Jesus' brother, he simply pops out of nowhere and appears to take the place of James, son of Zebedee. Acts doesn't even introduce him. Can anyone explain this?

Your post is a little ambiguous and unclear

a)"he refers to him once as the brother of the Lord" "HE" who? he "Mark"? He (himself) "James Paul"?

b)Who are you talking about when you refer to "James Paul"? Can you provide references please for the "many" that hold this view. (where are you getting the surname "Paul"? (reference please).

c)"pops out of nowhere and appears to take the place of James, son of Zebedee." please substantiate what you mean by "takes the place of James Zebedee"? I suspect you're confusing your "James"



**Acts doesn't even introduce him. Can anyone explain this?**

When you clarify your post by answering the above questions I will do my best.

[JehovahsWitness]

James and Peter, who were [Paul's] theological opponents.

Please provide evidence for this conclusion.

[McCulloch]

James and Peter, who were [Paul's] theological opponents.

Please provide evidence for this conclusion.

But when Cephas came to Antioch, I opposed him to his face, because he stood condemned. For prior to the coming of certain men from James, he used to eat with the Gentiles; but when they came, he began to withdraw and hold himself aloof, fearing the party of the circumcision. The rest of the Jews joined him in hypocrisy, with the result that even Barnabas was carried away by their hypocrisy.

[JehovahsWitness]

James and Peter, who were [Paul's] theological opponents.

Please provide evidence for this conclusion.

But when Cephas came to Antioch, I opposed him to his face, because he stood condemned. For prior to the coming of certain men from James, he used to eat with the Gentiles; but when they came, he began to withdraw and hold himself aloof, fearing the party of the circumcision. The rest of the Jews joined him in hypocrisy, with the result that even Barnabas was carried away by their hypocrisy.

PETER & PAUL

#QUESTION: Does the disaccord that arouse in Antioch indicate that there were two seperate and rival church movements in the first century.

No, the Christian Greek scriptures notably the accounts in the book of Acts clearly indicate that Paul's ministry was in perfect harmony with the central body of Jerusalem of which Peter was a prominent member.

Paul stayed in Peters house in Jerusalem for about 2 weeks after his conversion and he and Barnabus later represented those in Anticho (his home base) in organising and administering the Judean relief fund (about 46CE) - Ac 11:22-30. Paul reported back his activities to the central body in Jerusalem and, when the issue of circumsission arose, deferred to Peter and the Jerusalem councel on the matter. That same councel sent Paul with their own letters of recommendation to the congregations of the region in 49CE. Further, in that same book of Galatians, Paul himself wrote that the territories he would cover was mutually agreed upon between himself Peter, James and John; with Paul recognising his them as "as outstanding men, pillars in the congregation."Ga 2:1, 2, 6-9.

There is no evidence that Paul ever "broke away" and became head of his own church since in Acts 21: 23, 24 at the end of that third missionary tour, we again find him in Jerusalem obeying the directive giving by the Judean brothers with regard to going to the temple in Jerusalem. Thus there is no evidence that there were two seperate rival church movements, one "under" Paul the other "under" Peter.

Paul Corrects Peter

#DOES THE VERY PUBLIC CORRECTION OF PETER'S CONDUCT ON THE PART OF PAUL INDICATE A SPLIT IN IDEOLOGY OR LEADERSHIP?

No, Pauls correction of Peter was just that, one Christian correcting an inappropriate action in another based on mutually agreed upon scriptural principles. Peter himself had clearly stated upon the conversion of Cornelius that all nations were acceptable to God, and his freely associating with the Gentiles, in Antioch before the visist of the Jewish Christians indicated that he indeed held true to this being a basic principle of the Christian belief. Further the Jerusalem councel (of which both Peter and James were a member had agreed that no particular constraints were to be placed on Gentile Christians (see Acts 15). The Jewish Christians dispatched by James therefore could not reasonably be said to have arrived to enforce a rival teaching. What Paul pointed out was not a doctrinal difference in church teaching or a rift in the first century"church" arrangement but an exposing of personal shortcoming on the part of Peter. There is no record that Peter held to his position or that the congregation was forced in anyway to chose between two seperate ideologies and part company.

What happened after this confrontation?

We don't know exactly when Paul confronted Peter's behaviour in Antioch although we can assume it was about 50-52CE, but we do know that Peter wrote to the same Christians around 62 to 64 C.E. and refered to Paul and his letters our beloved brother Paul Peter endorsed Pauls "letters" and acredited their content to a "wisdom given to him". So whatever the conflict it did not represent a permanent split between the two men much less a doctrinal or organisational one see 2 Peter 3:14-16; 1 Peter 1:1

[d.thomas]

JehovahsWitness, I see the problem, I hope this clarifies:


It's understood, at least traditionally, that Jame's, the brother of Jesus, became a leader of a Christian community, and so became known as James the Just. However, when we read the gospels and Acts, this James, the brother of Jesus, has no role to play.

When we read Paul's epistle to the Galatians, he refers to a Peter, James, and John and one would assume that these are the three apostles that are also portrayed in the gospels as Jesus' three favored disciples. But apparently not, according to tradition, the James that Paul refers to here is James, the brother of Jesus.

Is that clear so far?

[JehovahsWitness]

JehovahsWitness, I see the problem, I hope this clarifies:

It's understood, at least traditionally, that Jame's, the brother of Jesus, became a leader of a Christian community, and so became known as James the Just. However, when we read the gospels and Acts, this James, the brother of Jesus, has no role to play.

When we read Paul's epistle to the Galatians, he refers to a Peter, James, and John and one would assume that these are the three apostles that are also portrayed in the gospels as Jesus' three favored disciples. But apparently not, according to tradition, the James that Paul refers to here is James, the brother of Jesus.

Is that clear so far?

That is perfectly clear, thank you for the clarification.

Why does James (Jesus' brother) "pop out of nowhere"?

Well... all I can say is that James (Jesus (half) brother) was evidently not a believer during Jesus earthly life and ministry and this would account for his late "arrival" on the scene.

We know "a" James is mentioned as being Jesus brother and naming him right after Jesus when listing his [Jesus] other sibblings may have been an indication that James was closest in age to Jesus. In any case, Jesus' immediate family are mentioned several times but apart from Mary (his mother) not in the light of being believers in Jesus as the Messiah - in fact the Apostle John explicitly states Jesus brothers were not believers at the time (see John 7:5 also see Mark 3:21). It may also be considered significant that at his death, Jesus handed over care of his Mother over to the Apostle John, a responsibility which had Mary had any believing boys would normally have gone to them.

The turning point seems to be that the resurrected Jesus apparently appeared to his half brother James - See 1 Corinthians 15:7 - the wording indicates that the "James" Paul was referring to was NOT James Zebedee (brother of John) since he sets James apart from the group he identified as "the apostles". This event evidently lead to a swift conversion (as was the case for one Saul of Tarsus on the road to Damascus). Thereafter, yes, James did indeed play a prominent role in the first century congregation.

Acts doesn't even introduce him. Can anyone explain this?

Why do neither Luke or James himself (if he is indeed the writer of the book that bears his name), share his conversion story (as was the case of with the Apostle Paul)?

There are many bible characters we know very little about, including it should be pointed out, some that evidently played major roles in the first century such as a number of the 12 Apostles (including Mattias), Jude (writer of the book) and many others. Regarding James, it could be argued that Christians especially those in Jerusalem and Galilee, were already famililar with who James was given his famous brother or that James (as was the case of the Apostle John) deliberately refrained from seeking to capitalize on his fleshly relationship to the Jesus. In any case, multiple repetition of what was no doubt a commonly known fact of his James' relationship to Jesus was not deemed essential to the bible record.

Further, although apparently not previously a believer, there is no indication James was an active persecutor of the first century congregation (as was the case with Saul/Paul) so it seems that the details of his conversion was not deemed necessary for the faith and well being of the Christian populace. In fact it seems to be the exception rather than "the rule" TO give details about a particular conversion, even amongst prominent members.

[Many] believe that the "James" Paul refers to is Jesus' brother simply because he refers to him once as the brother of the Lord, or the Lord's brother.

What reason do we have NOT to believe Paul's accuracy in refering to James as Jesus brother? It hardly seems likely that Paul said this in error or was passing on an unfounded rumour. We know Jesus HAD a brother called James and we know Jesus appeared to a James (that was not one of the 12) after his ressurection. It's hardly logical that Paul would refer to James as being Jesus brother if he was not since there were many individuals that knew Jesus and his family personally - such as the Apostles Peter and John - who would have been in a position to expose this as a falsehood if this were indeed the case. Indeed since Paul is recorded as consulting personally with both Peter (who was familiar with Pauls writings and familiar with their content) and indeed James himself, if Paul had been misinformed about the relationship between James and Jesus, either one would have been in a position to address the matter.

Does James (brother of Jesus) "take the place" of James Zebedee?

We really don't know what place James Zebedee would have had in the establishment of the first century church system since he died so early. No doubt it would have been central to activities and the establishment of organisational procedure. However, the James that later became a "pillar" in the system was not however nominated at one of the 12 Apostle (a role filled by Mattias) and there is not indication that the 12 understood that 12 individuals had to permanently be in office - presenting the need to "replace members" when they died.

James (half brother of Jesus) was evidently viewed as an apostle in the wider sense, namely, as one sent forth by the Jerusalem congregation. This would allow for the Acts account to use the title in the plural in saying that Paul was led to the apostles (that is, Peter and James)."Compare 1Co 15:5-7; Ga 2:9. In any case, James (half brother of Jesus) did play a prominent role in the first century, whether it would have been LESS so if James Zebedee had lived, who's to say.

[Cathar1950]

James and Peter, who were [Paul's] theological opponents.

Please provide evidence for this conclusion.

But when Cephas came to Antioch, I opposed him to his face, because he stood condemned. For prior to the coming of certain men from James, he used to eat with the Gentiles; but when they came, he began to withdraw and hold himself aloof, fearing the party of the circumcision. The rest of the Jews joined him in hypocrisy, with the result that even Barnabas was carried away by their hypocrisy.

PETER & PAUL

#QUESTION: Does the disaccord that arouse in Antioch indicate that there were two seperate and rival church movements in the first century.

No, the Christian Greek scriptures notably the accounts in the book of Acts clearly indicate that Paul's ministry was in perfect harmony with the central body of Jerusalem of which Peter was a prominent member.

Paul stayed in Peters house in Jerusalem for about 2 weeks after his conversion and he and Barnabus later represented those in Anticho (his home base) in organising and administering the Judean relief fund (about 46CE) - Ac 11:22-30. Paul reported back his activities to the central body in Jerusalem and, when the issue of circumsission arose, deferred to Peter and the Jerusalem councel on the matter. That same councel sent Paul with their own letters of recommendation to the congregations of the region in 49CE. Further, in that same book of Galatians, Paul himself wrote that the territories he would cover was mutually agreed upon between himself Peter, James and John; with Paul recognising his them as "as outstanding men, pillars in the congregation."Ga 2:1, 2, 6-9.

There is no evidence that Paul ever "broke away" and became head of his own church since in Acts 21: 23, 24 at the end of that third missionary tour, we again find him in Jerusalem obeying the directive giving by the Judean brothers with regard to going to the temple in Jerusalem. Thus there is no evidence that there were two seperate rival church movements, one "under" Paul the other "under" Peter.

Paul Corrects Peter

#DOES THE VERY PUBLIC CORRECTION OF PETER'S CONDUCT ON THE PART OF PAUL INDICATE A SPLIT IN IDEOLOGY OR LEADERSHIP?

No, Pauls correction of Peter was just that, one Christian correcting an inappropriate action in another based on mutually agreed upon scriptural principles. Peter himself had clearly stated upon the conversion of Cornelius that all nations were acceptable to God, and his freely associating with the Gentiles, in Antioch before the visist of the Jewish Christians indicated that he indeed held true to this being a basic principle of the Christian belief. Further the Jerusalem councel (of which both Peter and James were a member had agreed that no particular constraints were to be placed on Gentile Christians (see Acts 15). The Jewish Christians dispatched by James therefore could not reasonably be said to have arrived to enforce a rival teaching. What Paul pointed out was not a doctrinal difference in church teaching or a rift in the first century"church" arrangement but an exposing of personal shortcoming on the part of Peter. There is no record that Peter held to his position or that the congregation was forced in anyway to chose between two seperate ideologies and part company.

What happened after this confrontation?

We don't know exactly when Paul confronted Peter's behaviour in Antioch although we can assume it was about 50-52CE, but we do know that Peter wrote to the same Christians around 62 to 64 C.E. and refered to Paul and his letters our beloved brother Paul Peter endorsed Pauls "letters" and acredited their content to a "wisdom given to him". So whatever the conflict it did not represent a permanent split between the two men much less a doctrinal or organisational one see 2 Peter 3:14-16; 1 Peter 1:1

Of course most scholars agree that first and second Peter were not written by Peter but after he had died and Paul was being rehabilitated back into the fold.