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?
James, son of Zebedee
Moderator: Moderators
Post #11
We could say the same for Peter and no one is suggesting that this is a different Peter because he is identified apart from the twelve.JehovahsWitness wrote:
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.
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.
5 He was seen by Peter and then by the Twelve.
7 Then he was seen by James and later by all the apostles.
James and later by all the apostles is consistent with all the epistle writings. No where in the epistles do we read of disciples. What is inconsistent here is the 'Twelve'. This is the only time we read the 'Twelve' and so we don't know what Paul means by that. Paul is writing in the 50's and the first we read of the twelve disciples is when reading Mark which wasn't written until 70CE, after Paul is dead.
We know from reading the gospels that Jesus had a brother named James but Paul refers to James as the brother of the Lord or the Lord's brother. The same word for brother/s (adelphos) is used about 80 times or so in the epistles and in all cases to identify a fellow believer so it becomes unnecessary to assume that in this one particular instance he is referring to a literal blood sibling rather than that of a spiritual brother, as in a fellow believer of the Lord.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.
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.
James, son of Zebedee, is not killed until Acts 12:2, and the next thing we read of after an angel of the Lord rescues Peter from prison is the death of King Herod Agrippa, which according to Josephus took place in 44CE, and according to Acts, Paul was in Jerusalem at this time for his second visit. Paul states that his second visit to Jerusalem was 14 years after his first visit, so James, son of Zebedee was very much alive during Paul's first visit to Jerusalem and it was this first visit when he refers to James as the brother of the Lord.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.
Acts was not written until the 90's CE, about 30 years after James the Just's supposed ministry came to an end after he was supposedly killed. Acts does not introduce us to this James, nor does Acts tell us of his death as a martyr.
-
JehovahsWitness
- Savant
- Posts: 23423
- Joined: Wed Sep 29, 2010 6:03 am
- Has thanked: 930 times
- Been thanked: 1349 times
- Contact:
Post #12
Thank you for a thoughtful and well expressed reply.
If Paul is making a distiction between "the twelve" and "all the apostles" he is doing so for a reason. Since the context shows he is listing events in chronological order, listing himself last and Peter and "the twelve" first, it seems reasonable to conclude that the distinction is related to the timeline and/or the use of the term "apostle" (otherwise he would no doubt have simply said "and again" or "a further time" to "the twelve"). If Paul is refering to the 'original group of 12' he is therefore reasonably refering to a later group in which he includes himself (v9) "the least of the apostles". Paul himself was not one of the original 12 and therein seems to be the distinction: "the twelve" refers to the original group chosen personally by Jesus when he wa son earth and and "the apostles" the group as it developed with "apostles" in a wider sense, a sense that could include Paul; this would be in line with "James the brother of Jesus" NOT being one of the original 12. Still I concede that the verse is indeed somewhat ambiguous and would be intersted in your rationale in concluding that this "James" COULD NOT be "brother of Jesus" Paul spoke of?
ADELPHOS
Obviously the Christian Greek Scripture are not about Jesus' fleshly brothers but his spiritual ones so it is hardly suprising this word which (as is the case in English) CAN refer to both children of the same parents and individuals with whom we hold an affinity, is overwhelminly used to refer to the latter. However, when refering to the children of Mary and Joseph (ie Jesus' fleshly reletives) it is not assumed that because "adelphos is used 80 times to refer to "spiritual brothers"" that we must assume that this is also. In short the need to consider meaning from context is not cancelled out by number of occurances in a particular group.
To illustrate: If I was writing about my church and mentioned my spiritual brothers 20 times and then in closing mentioned my unbelieving brother once, that one mention is not assumed to be spiritual especially if I say something like "my brother is still threatenin to kill me because of my beliefs". Context and meaning always trumps numbers.
TIMELINE
>conversion 33 CE > + three years in Damascus = 36 > ?Arabia? > Damascus > Jerusalem 36CE > +14 years .... >49/50 CE (Jerusalem 2nd Trip) "Acts 9:23-25; Gal. 1:15-21; Gal. 2:1; Acts 15:2-29; Gal. 2:3-9.
By which time of course Agrippa I was dead so so was James Zebedee.
Had the account been written that late, it is reasonable to expect that Luke would have provided more information about Paul and not stopped at the endo fthe second year of Paul's Roman imprisonment in 61; if written after the year 64 C.E., mention surely would have been made of Neros violent persecution that began then; and if written after 70 C.E., as some contend, we would expect to find Jerusalems destruction recorded.
Possibly someone WOULD if it was debatable whether the Apostle Peter was actually alive a the time of events and "another" Peter was identified within scripture as being active during the same period.d.thomas wrote:[...] 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". ...We could say the same for Peter and no one is suggesting that this is a different Peter
That is a valid point and I am not saying the passage is not somewhat ambiguous. However...d.thomas wrote:We could say the same for Peter and no one is suggesting that this is a different Peter because he is identified apart from the twelve.
5 He was seen by Peter and then by the Twelve.
7 Then he was seen by James and later by all the apostles.
James and later by all the apostles is consistent with all the epistle writings.
And that is exactly my point and the I believe the key to understandin the passage, Paul is listing who Jesus appeared to (chronologically) and lists "the 12" differently from "the apostles" (the 12 he lists with Cephus(Peter) and "all the apostles" he list with James.d.thomas wrote: What is inconsistent here is the 'Twelve'. This is the only time we read the 'Twelve' and so we don't know what Paul means by that.
If Paul is making a distiction between "the twelve" and "all the apostles" he is doing so for a reason. Since the context shows he is listing events in chronological order, listing himself last and Peter and "the twelve" first, it seems reasonable to conclude that the distinction is related to the timeline and/or the use of the term "apostle" (otherwise he would no doubt have simply said "and again" or "a further time" to "the twelve"). If Paul is refering to the 'original group of 12' he is therefore reasonably refering to a later group in which he includes himself (v9) "the least of the apostles". Paul himself was not one of the original 12 and therein seems to be the distinction: "the twelve" refers to the original group chosen personally by Jesus when he wa son earth and and "the apostles" the group as it developed with "apostles" in a wider sense, a sense that could include Paul; this would be in line with "James the brother of Jesus" NOT being one of the original 12. Still I concede that the verse is indeed somewhat ambiguous and would be intersted in your rationale in concluding that this "James" COULD NOT be "brother of Jesus" Paul spoke of?
No it doesn't!d.thomas wrote:Paul refers to James as the brother of the Lord or the Lord's brother. The same word for brother/s (adelphos) is used about 80 times or so in the epistles and in all cases to identify a fellow believer so it becomes unnecessary to assume that in this one particular instance he is referring to a literal blood sibling ....
ADELPHOS
Obviously the Christian Greek Scripture are not about Jesus' fleshly brothers but his spiritual ones so it is hardly suprising this word which (as is the case in English) CAN refer to both children of the same parents and individuals with whom we hold an affinity, is overwhelminly used to refer to the latter. However, when refering to the children of Mary and Joseph (ie Jesus' fleshly reletives) it is not assumed that because "adelphos is used 80 times to refer to "spiritual brothers"" that we must assume that this is also. In short the need to consider meaning from context is not cancelled out by number of occurances in a particular group.
To illustrate: If I was writing about my church and mentioned my spiritual brothers 20 times and then in closing mentioned my unbelieving brother once, that one mention is not assumed to be spiritual especially if I say something like "my brother is still threatenin to kill me because of my beliefs". Context and meaning always trumps numbers.
Nobody is "killed in a verse" they are killed in an event that is recorded in a verses. The order of events is clearly explained by Luke as the following:d.thomas wrote:James, son of Zebedee, is not killed until Acts 12:2
- "About that particular time Herod the king applied his hands to mistreating some of those of the congregation. 2 He did away with James the brother of John by the sword. 3 As he saw it was pleasing to the Jews, he went on to arrest Peter also."
I'm not sure what timeline you are following, perhaps you can outline it for me. Paul's second visit (are you counting the Judean relief fund trip?)d.thomas wrote: ... 44CE, and according to Acts, Paul was in Jerusalem at this time for his second visit.
TIMELINE
>conversion 33 CE > + three years in Damascus = 36 > ?Arabia? > Damascus > Jerusalem 36CE > +14 years .... >49/50 CE (Jerusalem 2nd Trip) "Acts 9:23-25; Gal. 1:15-21; Gal. 2:1; Acts 15:2-29; Gal. 2:3-9.
By which time of course Agrippa I was dead so so was James Zebedee.
What is your rationale for this? It is very unlikely that Acts was written so late.d.thomas wrote:Acts was not written until the 90's CE.
Had the account been written that late, it is reasonable to expect that Luke would have provided more information about Paul and not stopped at the endo fthe second year of Paul's Roman imprisonment in 61; if written after the year 64 C.E., mention surely would have been made of Neros violent persecution that began then; and if written after 70 C.E., as some contend, we would expect to find Jerusalems destruction recorded.
Post #13
JehovahsWitness, thank you, you make some good points all of which I can't respond to in one post so I will cover what I can right now and will eventually get to them all.
Regarding the meaning of "brothers"
I meant that "brothers" could be taken either way, as a literal brother or cousin, or a spiritual brother as in a fellow believer of the Lord. Had only he said, brother of Jesus.
James, son of Zebedee is traditionally thought to have died in 44CE, so he was very much alive when Paul first went to Jerusalem and referred to James as the brother of the Lord, and very much alive when Paul speaks of the revelations, visions, they all had of a risen Christ.
Regarding Acts 12:2
Throughout the gospels, Peter, James, and John are referred to, they are portrayed as the favored disciples and are with him in all the scenes. Paul refers to a Peter, James, and John, and so it can only be reasonably assumed that these three are the same, in spite of the fact that Paul refers to James as the brother of the Lord.
After James is killed in Acts 12:2 it would stand to reason that a different James is being referred to in later scenes, but it seems odd that there is no explanation as in no introduction as to whom this James is. Remove Acts 12:2 and Acts makes perfect sense. That leaves us with Acts 12:2 as being an interpolation in order to make sense of it all, or if not an interpolation we are left scratching our heads trying to make sense of which James the author is referring to after he is supposedly killed.
Also, Acts12:1It was about this time refers to the time that Paul and Barnabas were going to Jerusalem. Paul never mentions in his letters that James was killed.
I'm out of time for now but would like to discuss the dating of the gospels and Acts, as well as Paul's referral to the Twelve and whatever else we are discussing.
Regarding the meaning of "brothers"
I meant that "brothers" could be taken either way, as a literal brother or cousin, or a spiritual brother as in a fellow believer of the Lord. Had only he said, brother of Jesus.
James, son of Zebedee is traditionally thought to have died in 44CE, so he was very much alive when Paul first went to Jerusalem and referred to James as the brother of the Lord, and very much alive when Paul speaks of the revelations, visions, they all had of a risen Christ.
Regarding Acts 12:2
Throughout the gospels, Peter, James, and John are referred to, they are portrayed as the favored disciples and are with him in all the scenes. Paul refers to a Peter, James, and John, and so it can only be reasonably assumed that these three are the same, in spite of the fact that Paul refers to James as the brother of the Lord.
After James is killed in Acts 12:2 it would stand to reason that a different James is being referred to in later scenes, but it seems odd that there is no explanation as in no introduction as to whom this James is. Remove Acts 12:2 and Acts makes perfect sense. That leaves us with Acts 12:2 as being an interpolation in order to make sense of it all, or if not an interpolation we are left scratching our heads trying to make sense of which James the author is referring to after he is supposedly killed.
Also, Acts12:1It was about this time refers to the time that Paul and Barnabas were going to Jerusalem. Paul never mentions in his letters that James was killed.
I'm out of time for now but would like to discuss the dating of the gospels and Acts, as well as Paul's referral to the Twelve and whatever else we are discussing.
