Talk:James the Just/Archive 1

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Archive This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Contents

Elder Brother

I fail to see why the theory of one man, Dominic Crossan, that Joseph was Jesus' elder brother, a theory which on the surface seems to contradict the tradition that Mary was a virgin, is given as it is relevant and has authority, without any discussion of the basis of this theory. I vote that Crossan's idea Joseph was Jesus' elder brother be scrapped from the article, or otherwise included in a separate section under alternate series.

At the very least a discussion of the merits of his theory should be made available online. A.J.Chesswas 04:25, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

According to WP:NPOV, the article should fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by a reliable source. The article about John Dominic Crossan clearly states he is a a major figure in the fields of biblical archaeology, anthropology and New Testament textual criticism. There is a list of about 25 books written by him (half of them even with ISBN), then I think his theory should have a place in this article.
This is not about the merits of the theory, but its popularity and whether it can be attributable to a reliable published source (which is the case). Please see WP:NPOV (particularly, WP:UNDUE) for further details).
On the other hand, if you think any point of view is not sufficiently covered in the article (for instance, "vague" or "unrelated"), you may add further information in these sections. Please note it's fine to write about your point of view, as long as you can provide adequate references.

Rjgodoy 07:59, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Biography assessment rating comment

The article may be improved by following the WikiProject Biography 11 easy steps to producing at least a B article. —KGV 09:13, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

Older

Objecting to the authenticity of the ossiary, The Catholic Church on the authority of various church historians has always identified him as James the Just, otherwise not much is known about his later ministry. Protestants have traditionally opposed this identification for reasons unknown causing much controversey. I have removed this inaccurate text here. Wetman 01:08, 6 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Why is there a paragraph about "James the Son of Alpheaus" here? AFAIK, they are considered 2 distinctly separate individuals by Bible scholars. Admittedly, in some later accounts the two people are considered the same or otherwise confused, but Saint James the Less ought not to have been made into a redirect, & its contents dumped here. -- llywrch 02:04, 11 Jun 2004 (UTC)

"James Adelphos": Brother, half-brother, step-brother or cousin of Jesus?

User:Phiddipus, remarking "Many ancient Christian traditions call him James Adelphos the Brother of Christ," added the following text: He is called Adelphos because of the belief he was one of Joseph's other children and thus "half" brother to Jesus. Since the relationship of James and Jesus is a matter of controversy, with those who declare that Mary's virginity was perpetual asserting that James, therefore, just couldn't have been Jesus' brother, etc. an insertion like this has to be linked to its documents, please. --Wetman 21:36, 22 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Following are references in which St James, First Bishop of Jerusalem is referred to as the Brother (Adelphos) of Christ Jesus. Many of the same assert that St James was one of St. Joseph’s children from a previous marriage, that Joseph was related to Mary and therefore served as her Protectorate but was unable to have relations with her because they were related (of the House of David). Mary is believed to have remained a Virgin. St James was not Her child.
Josephus (Ant 20:9:1 [197-203])
Hegesippus-Eusebius (EH 2:23)
Clementines (Recog 4:35)
The Apostolic Constitutions (8:35)
The Protoevangelium of James
the Gospel of the Nativity of Mary
The fourth century "Liturgy of St. James"
Whether or not you accept these references, they are ancient.

The Eastern Orthodox as a whole believe it; and they are the Oldest Christian denomination. Most Catholics also believe it. Phiddipus 23:58, 23 Nov 2004 (UTC)

These passages above need to be quoted, with their dates, because a recent editor attempted again to substitute the party line of his preferred denomination on this subject. A neutral Wikipedia article gives the quotes, sets them in context and tells how these distinctions and blurrings developed. Wikipedia is not an organ of any sect. --Wetman 17:39, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)
In John 7:3,4,5 says 7:3 "Jesus' brothers said to him, "You ought to leave here and go to Judea, so that your disciples may see the miracles you do. 7:4 No one who wants to become a public figure acts in secret. Since you are doing these things, show yourself to the world." 7:5 For even his own brothers did not believe in him.' [1]
That can show you that James was his brother and that he didnt believe in him. That is what the bible says !!!

Alcirzinho 16:03, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

James as "bishop and Apostle"

Orthodox Christianity is represented by the writings of the church fathers, these clearly call James the first Bishop of Jerusalem and first of the 70.

Pauline Christianity is represented by the Letters of Paul, none of which call James a bishop though they do imply he is an Apostle.

Sunborn claims "there is no difference between orthodox christianity and pauline christianity" This is a point of conjecture that may or may not be true, however, it certainly isn't a neutral point of view

"Bishop of Jerusalem" is an intentionally misleading anachronism. Some distinction must be made between James' group in Jerusalem and the Pauline or Petrine groups that were soon in a position to rewrite eveything from the ground up. This article needs massive revision with cited sources. --Wetman 05:11, 24 May 2005 (UTC)
If someone wants they can probably dig around and figure out who first called James the Bishop of Jerusalem. My guess is it was Hegesippus. Ignatius might be the first to write about bishops but I don't think he named names. You can find these guys' writings in the Apostolic Fathers collection or the Ante-Nicene Fathers collection. I just did some quick research, I suspect you could make a strong argument that it was Ignatius who invented the term Bishop as it is used today in the Christian sense (its root is the Greek word episkopos which meant overseer prior to the second century ce), he also quite likely invented the cult of the Bishop, just look at some of the things he said about bishops in his letters. It is interesting that many of the Greek words changed meanings or took on technical meanings in the second century, quite likely the result of the gnostics but perhaps because of the Jewish Wars.
(Some of this material might be worked into Bishop. --Wetman 17:34, 24 May 2005 (UTC))
Found a cite for James the bishop: Fragments of Papias X "James the bishop and apostle" http://earlychristianwritings.com/text/papias.html
Excellent! Work Papias' identification of James as bishop and apostle (a title often withheld from James) into the article! --Wetman 07:18, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)
James may have been called episkopos or the Aramaic equivalent which meant overseer and was only later turned into the Christian bishop.

Its a mystery how such myths as James the Bishop of the Jerusalem Church ever got started. In Scripture, James is never the leader of the Jerusalem church. In Acts 15 Peter is the Divinly appointed cheif apostle, who has his authority eusurped by James. In Acts 21 James is just one voice of many in a tumultuous crowd, all demanding Paul bow to popular opinion. rem486

James the Just ADELPHOTHEOS = "Brother of God" according to extra-Biblical tradition;

"James the Brother" dosn't make sense.

"Iakoobon ton adelfon tou Kuriou" James the brother of the Lord (Galatians 1:19).

Iakovos Adelphotheos is the Greek rendering of this word. The English language has changed Jacob to James in the NT in order to avoid confusion with Jacob in OT. Nowhere is James known to be called simply Adelphos he is known as brother to the Lord in the bible and brother of God by the Orthodox and Caltholics.
There is no "brother of God' in Orthodox, Catholic or Protestant. There are "children of God", (Matt 5:9, John 1:12 ...) i.e. Christians. There are "sons of God" in Genesis 6:4, the Nephilim.

St. James "Adelphos" is simply a contraction of Adelphotheos. You can find him listed both ways in numerous references. Also, the last entry above is incorrect, both Catholic and Orthodox do refer to St James as Brother of God, the logic being, if Christ Jesus is God (Which Catholic and Orthodox believe) then it is correct to refer to St James as Brother of God in the same way we refer to the Virgin Mary and the Mother of God. If one were to attempt to somehow refer to St James and the Virgin Mary as related to the Human Jesus and not God, then it denies Christ's divinity and the referrer becomes an Arian or a Nestorian, both of which were condemned by the early church for heresy. Phiddipus 14:11, 23 August 2005 (UTC)

Adelphos is no more a contraction of Adelphotheos than Brother is a contraction of Brother of God. Catholic and Orthodox, those who believe in the perpetual virginity of Mary (i.e. most), don't believe James is a son of Mary, they believe he is a son of Joseph or some other relative which is a possible understanding of the Greek Adelphos. I'm sure this is all in a wikipedia article somewhere, if not see newadvent.com for the Catholic viewpoint.

Mary was called "theotokos" at the Council of Ephesus. When was James, if ever, called "Adelphotheos"? Without a specific reference it is just original research which is prohibited on wikipedia. It's not even listed in Liddel and Scott's Oxford Greek-English Lexicon, the standard for classical Greek: Theoi adelphoi (divine brothers) was used by the Ptolemies. In the Greek Bible, huioi tou theou (Gen 6.4) is sons of God.

After googling "adelphotheos" I found this:

http://essenes.net/jamessources.html

Which claims:

The fourth century "Liturgy of St. James" calls James "the brother of God." Ref: adelphotheos, according to Philip Schaff, History of the Christian Church (New York: 1910; Reprinted, Grand Rapids: Eerdmans: 1955) I, 268.

http://www.ccel.org/s/schaff/history/1_ch04.htm

"And in the Liturgy of St. James, the brother of Jesus is raised to the dignity of "the brother of the very God" (ajdelfovqeo")."

ajdelfovqeo is equivalent to adelphotheos (two different ways to transliterate Greek to Latin)

This should probably be added to the article.

The debate has very little to do with whether St. James was Mary's Child; you are correct that both the Orthodox and Catholics believe that James was Josephs son by a previous marriage. In this case you are taking the term Brother (Adelphoi) too literally. For the period, Brother referred to any kinsman. Mary was Josephs spouse and therefore his sons were Christ's kinsmen or Brothers. James' actual realtionship to Christ is complicated and perhaps unique, James is Joseph's son, Christ is Mary's son, Mary is Joseph's wife, but Joseph is not really Christ's father, and Mary is probably Joseph's niece or cousin. Yet it appears to the outside and casual observer that James was raised together with Christ in the same house, so Brother seems a convienient title. The Liturgy of St James, is used still today in the Orthodox Church, It is used on his feastday by many Orthodox jurisdictions and it is used almost every Sunday by the Patriarch of Jerusalem (St James See)Phiddipus 19:55, 24 August 2005 (UTC)

PS. please sign your entries

Additional Early Referrences:
Josephus (Ant 20:9:1 [197-203])
Hegesippus-Eusebius (EH 2:23)
Clementines (Recog 4:35)
The Apostolic Constitutions (8:35)
The Protoevangelium of James
The Gospel of the Nativity of Mary
The fourth century "Liturgy of St. James"

Phiddipus 19:56, 24 August 2005 (UTC)

Also, shortening or contracting the name from Adelphotheos to just Adelphos is not unusual over a period of time, such contractions seem to be a very human proclivity; I live near Los Angeles (The Angels, a contraction of its official name: El Pueblo de la Reina de Los Angeles (The Town of the Queen of the Angels), which itself is a contraction of: El Pueblo de Nuestra Señora la Reina de los Angeles de Porciúncula (the Town of Our Lady the Queen of the Angels of the Little Portion). So when we simply say St James the Brother it is assumed we are speaking of "that James". Perhaps my example above is too exagerated for you; in Greek, when we meet a priest or bishop we say "Evlogite" (Bless) and he responds "O Kyrios" (the Lord), but what we are meaning is "Please, may I have your blessing" and "The Lord Bless You" Phiddipus 14:27, 25 August 2005 (UTC)

Would not have accorded him what title?

The line in the introduction that his followers in Jerusalem "would not have accorded him such a title" is confusing. What title: "James the Just?" Would they have considered him unjust? This seems out of place. I went ahead and deleted it.

Confusing article? Stilted language?

This article delves pretty deeply into some rather obscure and confusing theological controversies about the number of Jameses in early Christianity, the lineage of the James the Just, and his relationship to Jesus.

These are important points, but I think the basic, factual information one wants from an encyclopedia article gets lost in the discussion. . .especially for an average reader. This is exacerbated by the passages from the 1910 Catholic encyclopedia, which sounds stilted to modern ears.

I'm going to try to edit and reorganize a bit to bring the key points out more clearly, and earlier in the article, without losing the information that's here.

"Saint"?

Why do the ignorant have such confidence? James the Just is not a saint (though he perhaps should be). Can we have a little self-justification (the other strong suit)? --Wetman 20:10, 9 September 2005 (UTC)

It's a major flaw in wikipedia because editors are encouraged to "be bold".
But sometimes the ignorant are ignorant of their ignorancy and even bite others for their alleged ignorancy.

I hesitate to get into this controversy, but what authoritative source can we use to determine whether a prominent early Christian is considered a "saint"? (I don't believe, for example, that the Roman Catholic Church had a formal process of to canonize saints until several centuries later.) What qualifies as being "venerated" as a saint? I think the hagiographic icon shown in the article suggests that James the Just is "venerated." XXX

I have no part in previous edits on this (hence Wet's personal attacks don't aim at me, but he should still clean up his behaviour. There's a wiki policy). Now:

In the Western/Roman Catholic Church James, brother of the Lord, was identified with the Apostle James the Lesser (son of Alphaeus), who is though to be a cousin of Jesus (Hence no enty in the 1911 Catholic Encyclopedia). This is also in Papias. The Eastern/Orthodox Church distinguished the two and venerated them as two saints.

Note that the process of beatification and canonisation has no bearing on this. In the RCC this was first done by the Pope around the year 1000 and was regulated later on. Before that, every local church venerated saints, both local and those renowned more widely (the process wasn't regulated, and it still is like this in the Eastern Churches). And those mentioned in the NT certainly belong to the latter group. The origin of the concept of saints is the veneration of martyrs. Hence any martyr is automatically a saint. James was martyred, hence he is undisputably a saint.

How to word this is another issue. Str1977 22:50, 9 September 2005 (UTC)

Cite sources No original research
209 forgot to sign
Just follow the Catholic encyclopedia link to James the Less (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/08280a.htm) and scroll down. Voilà.
General knowledge is not original research. Str1977 09:34, 11 September 2005 (UTC)
The Catholic Encyclopedia is fairly specific: "On the whole, although there is no full evidence for the identity of James (2), the son of Alpheus, and James (3), the brother of the Lord, and James (4), the son of Mary of Clopas, the view that one and the same person is described in the New Testament in these three different ways, is by far the most probable. ... Had we not identified James, the son of Alpheus with the brother of the Lord, we should only know his name and his Apostleship. But the identity once admitted, we must consequently apply to him all the particulars supplied by the books of the New Testament." Wikipedia is a neutral encyclopedia, thus there is no need to "admit" the identity of these different James's. They all have their own pages, see James#Characters_from_the_Bible
User:64.169.7.174
Dear 64...
You misread my point. I don't say that the two are identical. Indeed, I believe they are not, since I cannot overcome the difference in names between Alphaeus (father of the Apostle) and Clopas (father of James the Less).
I only wanted to include that in Western hagiography the two are identified (the CathEn is ample evidence for that) and that hence there is no need to argue that about James the Just not being a Saint.
Of course, Wiki should have distinct pages for the different Jameses.
PS. Could you please sign your posts using four tildes. Even if you're anonymous, it makes it easier to see were a post starts and finishes. Str1977 21:29, 11 September 2005 (UTC)

Calling anyone a saint is POV - article should be moved to James the Just {{POV-title}} --JimWae 10:13, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

Calling anyone a saint is NOT POV! It is simply a statement of historical fact: if someone is venerated by the church as a saint, he is a saint (regardless of anyone's opinion). If one has been issued a license to practice medicine, calling him a doctor would not be POV (regardless of anyone's opinion). There is no need for the {{POV}} tag on this article. If you look at the top of this talk page, you will notice that the article is a part of WikiProject Saints. If you go around puting a {{POV}} tag on every article in the project simply because the subjects are referred to as saints, you will be accomplishing nothing more than blatant anti-Christian harrasment. MishaPan 19:08, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
In fact, the article was at James the Just for years, and was arbitrarily moved to Saint James the Just in September by a novice editor, in contravention of Wikipedia naming conventions. Does anyone have a good reason not to restore the article to its original name? Jayjg (talk) 15:49, 12 December 2005 (UTC)
Dear Jay, though I don't agree with Jim's assertion that Saint as a name is POV, I have no objection of dropping it as long as the identity is clear. And though "the Just" might be not ideal, it still avoids loads of POV issues coming up under every alternative. Str1977 20:30, 12 December 2005 (UTC)
Is the identity clear enough under James the Just? Jayjg(talk) 17:44, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
Dear Jayjq, yes, the identity is clear.
My only concern was that the name "James the Just" has become common only fairly recently. "James, brother of the Lord" is actually more traditional, but if we use this, some will complain that this implies the Lordship of Jesus Christ. The same with "brother of Christ". "brother of Jesus" would avoid this, but raises the question of the exact nature of this "brotherhood" (full brother, half brother, cousin). We cannot use a patronym (which is uncommon with him anyway), as this raises the question Joseph or Clopas. In western tradition he has been identified with "James the Less (son of Clopas)" and also with the Apostle James, son of Alphaeus, but since that identification is uncertain (and the latter IMHO quite questionable), it doesn't work as well.
So in the end I think I'd stick with James the Just. Does anyone have the first coining of this at hand. I don't think church fathers used it, though they reported on James' reputation as a Zaddik, though not with the words "the Just". But I'm not sure and I don't want to skim all patristic references to James.
Str1977 15:48, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

According to the maunal of style, the only time that the article name should include the word "saint" is when it would be confusing to not have it. I am moving the article back in accordance to the MOS.--metta, The Sunborn 21:03, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

Many are called James

I move this passage over here, as I don't see the point of it and because the style is quite horrid:

To many dispassionate outsiders, the number of the James-es in the immediate circle of Jesus seems to have been multiplied, and Jerome's perhaps inadvertent remark, "Many indeed are called James" has a disarming frankness. The Catholic Encyclopedia (1910) divides the New Testament references to "James" among five separate personages [2], separating apart even a "James, the brother of Jude", by testimony of the Epistle of Jude 1:1, and remarking "Most Catholic commentators identify Jude with the 'Judas Jacobi', the 'brother of James' (Luke 6:16; Acts 1:13), called thus because his brother James was better known than himself in the primitive Church."

Str1977 (smile back) 18:28, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

Thoroughly sourced text. So, we must look to the content of this section to see what needs to be suppressed. Perhaps it is the information that is disliked here, rather than the style. --Wetman 06:49, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
Thanks, Wetman, for assuming good faith. Whether it is thoroughly sourced is irrelevant if it serves no function in the article. So I am asking again: What is this supposed to say in the context? Str1977 (smile back) 08:19, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

Josephus and James

Let's examine this critically, shall we?

The sole source for the identification of James the Just in Josephus comes from the phrase, "who was called Christ." Leave that aside for the moment, and let's consider the facts that we can agree upon:

  • Ananus called a kangaroo court to justify executing a man named "James."
  • James had a brother named "Jesus."
  • In reaction to Ananus's legal murder of James, King Agrippa removed Ananus as high priest and made Jesus bar Damneus high priest in his place.
  • It's extremely unusual to introduce a man without identifying his father, yet this is exactly what the passage in question does with regard to James.
  • It's all but unheard of to introduce a man as somebody's brother, yet this is exactly what the passage in question does with regard to James.
  • Josephus's identification of "Jesus the Messiah" is astonishing for a Jew of the period. ("Christ" is Greek for "Messiah.")
    • Josephus could have been reporting what others called him, but didn't believe that Jesus really was the Messiah. But we can fairly safely rule that out because Josephus would have made clear the profound heresy that would have represented.
    • Or, Josephus could have believed that this particular Jesus really was the Messiah. But that's so asinine it doesn't deserve further comment.
  • The point in the text where "who was called Christ" appears is exactly the same place where one would normally expect Jesus's father to be named. Additionally, this would be a bog-standard way for Josephus to identify James and Jesus as brothers, both sons of the same man.
  • The identification of Ananus's replacement at the end follows the exact same formula one would have expected to appear in the identification of James.
  • We know, with absolute certainty, that Christians have mucked around with Josephus's writings to "prove" that Jesus existed (e.g., the Testamonium Flavanium).

Now, with all that in mind, are you still going to insist that it's a "fringe view" that "the Messiah" originally read "Damneus's Son"?

TrumpetPower! 17:55, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

Hi, TrumpetPower. I said in my edit summary that it hadn't been moved to talk, since it was quite some time since you had put in your edit summary that you were moving to talk. You've just reverted me, saying in your most recent edit summary that it takes more than 37 seconds to make changes. Sure, but I waited nearly twenty-five minutes. Also, I don't much care for this edit summary, which seems to be a clear breach of WP:CIVIL. Your edits do seem rather POV to me, but I'm going to read a little more of this talk page and the history of the article. In the meantime, please review WP:3RR. I don't normally report, especially when people are fairly new, but still. . . Thanks. AnnH ♫ 18:19, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

Let's examine your reasoning, Mr Power:

  • You base yourself on the assumption that the passage is interpolated and that the interpolation is "who was called Christ"
  • an interpolation is possible, but your sole argument is that FJ couldn't have written this: however, he might have written "who was CALLED Christ" (which doesn't say that he was the Christ).
  • you also leave out the possibility that the interpolation included the name Jesus and that this was referring to someone completely different.
  • assuming for a moment that there is an interpolation, the question is what FJ wrote originally: either nothing (which is unlikely, given that there was no cut-and-paste in antiquity), or the patronym or something else - you chose the patronym, but we cannot know what this was - you assume Damnaeus, but have no real evidence for this.
  • the way FJ approaches this event is peculiar: he doesn't say James, son of X, was killed and James' brother Jesus was made high priest in the killer's stead. No, he starts off by mentioning a Jesus - making it likely that this was a man not unknown to his readers, a man so well known that he takes precedence to the actual protagonist of the passage. This already makes it unlikely that he is talking about an obscure figure as Jesus, son of Damnaeus, of which we know nothing else. Also, this man is the brother of the aforementioned James, why does FJ not just call him that, "his brother", or why did he again use the full name of that Jesus.

All these are good arguments against jumping to the conclusion that James is the brother of Jesus, son of Damnaeus. Now what are the arguments for the consensus of historians, the traditional identification of James as the Lord's brother:

  • the text identifies James as the brother of Jesus (assuming that there was either no interpolation or one only inserting the Christian title)
  • James was killed by the High Priest Ananus shortly before the outbreak of the war (according to FJ) and James, brother of Jesus, was killed by the Hight Priest Ananaus shortly before the outbreak of the war (according to Hegesippus via Eusebius) - so we have two reports about a guy named James killed by a High Priest named Ananus at about the same period of time - it's most plausible to identify the two. If we leave out the possible interpolation, there is nothing in FJ's text that contradicts this identification, if we include the passage it does confirm the identification.

Anyway, my (and your) argument is beside the point on this page: the issue is included at Josephus on Jesus and this article mentions it briefly and links to it. That's enough. Anything else is "pet issue pushing". Str1977 (smile back) 19:16, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

First, I'll see all your arguments and raise you two I really doubt you can possibly match: Origen, in Cels, i 47 and in Comm. Matt., x 17. That is, repeatedly, Origen explicitly states that Josephus never called Jesus the Messiah.

Now, let's consider the differences in our versions of the text, shall we?

Me:

A passage in Josephus's Jewish Antiquities records the death of "the brother of Jesus, who was called Christ, whose name was James"....

You:

According to a passage in Josephus's Jewish Antiquities James met his death....

Your version asserts that the james Josephus describes is the same as the one of the article, which is a decidedly Christian interpretation. I merely quote Josephus's exact words as recorded in the most extant version available in order to identify Josephus.

Me:

Though the passage in general is widely accepted as original to Josephus, some challenge the identificaton of the James whom Ananus had executed with James the Just, considering the words "who was called Christ" a later interpolation.

You:

Though the passage in general is widely accepted as original to Josephus, some challenge the identificaton of the James executed with James, the brother of Jesus, considering the words "the brother of Jesus, who was called Christ, whose name was James" a later interpolation.

Here, you outright misrepresent the position of those who consider the passage inauthentic. There is little, if any, disagreement that Josephus wrote "the brother of Jesus" and "whose name was James." The only objection is to "who was called Christ." Your version falsely portrays my position as absurd, when all I'm doing is, at essence, agreeing with Origen that Josephus never wrote "who was called Christ" (and elsewhere offering up a suggestion for two words that nicely fit the place of the two obviously-fabricated words).

So, I submit that quotations of Josephus's actual words are better suited for the article than Christian interpretations, and that misrepresentation of non-religious positions (that just happen to agree with that of one of the most respected early Christian fathers) are most inappropriate for the article. If you don't agree, I'm afraid we'll need some sort of mediation.

Cheers, TrumpetPower! 19:47, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

It is you who is misrepresenting my arguments:

  • I never stated that there could be no interpolation. Maybe there is, maybe not. Origen (who btw is not "one of the most respected early Christian fathers") points to the view that there was an interpolation, but that only goes as far as it goes. It does not support your speculations about identifying James' brother as someone else than Jesus Christ, and it certainly does not support identifying him with someone specific, let alon Jesus, son of Damnaeus.
  • Assuming the interpolation, I agree that we cannot know for certain that this James is the brother of Jesus Christ. However, we have other sources for this (Hegesippus). we have nothing in our undisputed text contradicting the identification. Even the interpolation of this passage by "who was called Christ" indicates that the identification is accurate - Christians did not interpolate (asuming they did) all the other 25 Jesuses in Josephus' work, but only the Jesus in the Testimonium Flavianum and the Jesus here, who has brother called James (just like Christ's brother), who gets killed by Ananus (just like Christ's brother), shortly before the war (just like Christ's brother).
  • If those who doubt the identification only see this and that as an interpolation that should be correctly stated. I will look to it.
  • Regardless of our views in the matter, this all does merit a long treatment on this page as long as it is only a fringe view (and it is only a fringe view). We have a quick note about it and a link.
  • I will not participate in your name calling.

Str1977 (smile back) 20:19, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

However, I am content with the current wording. Str1977 (smile back) 20:27, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

I just got here to help with the problem, but it appears to have already been solved. Is that correct? Jayjg (talk) 21:23, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

I think we're okay now--thanks. TrumpetPower! 22:08, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

Procurator Albinus

The praenomen Lucceius has been substituted for Clodius? Is this right? Are either documented? Does Josephus ever mention any name other than "Albinus"? --Wetman 23:26, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

It clearly could not have been this Clodius Albinus who was born well after Josephus died. List of Kings of Judea and Gessius Florus both give Lucceius, as do [3], [4], [5], [6] --Henrygb 15:35, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
A dead tree reference that Lucceius Albinus was procurator is: F. F. Bruce (1969). New Testament History. Doubleday, p 347. ISBN 0-385-02533-5. --Allen3 talk 00:12, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

jerome unaware? POV I think.

Given the lack of citations, and the quote from Jerome making quite explicit that "[James] alone had the privilege of entering the Holy of Holies", I propose that:

Jerome adds, "He says also many other things, too numerous to mention." His conception that James went into the Holy of Holies, whether in linen or wool, shows how unaware Jerome was of the most basic Jewish practice, though some have used the quotation to support the argument that James was considered a high priest - the high priest of the temple alone was allowed to enter the Holy of Holies once a year, on Yom Kippur.

would be better written as:

Jerome adds, "He says also many other things, too numerous to mention." His conception that James went into the Holy of Holies shows either that Jerome was unaware that the high priest of the temple alone was allowed to enter the Holy of Holies once a year on Yom Kippur, or that James was considered a high priest, as the Pseudo-Clementine Recognitions suggest. [[7]]


Trishm 02:22, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Hi wetman,

You reverted my change without leaving any comment here, stating only that you were "restoring apt comment", and I would like to understand your thinking a little better. What bothers me about the original paragraph is that Jerome is quoted, and then his view dismissed without explanation or citation. If Jerome's quote is not informative, than it should not be there at all. If the quote it is so important that it needs to be mentioned, then any refutation needs to be supported.

If James was indeed considered High Priest, then Jerome was not "unaware", and the comment is not apt.

I am sure that you have reason to feel that the comment is apt, but as it stands it is unsupported, and therefore POV.

Trishm 07:23, 15 December 2006 (UTC)


Assuming Jerome quoted Hegesippus correctly (we have no other reasonable stance), then the situation is very clear. Any misconception rests with Hegesippus, not Jerome. In any case, see citation supplied above.

Holy of Holies

"Since it was unlawful for any but the high priest of the temple to enter the Holy of Holies once a year on Yom Kippur, Jerome's quotation from Hegesippus indicates that James was considered a high priest. "

How can one be considered a Zaddokite-Kohen (High-Priest) if one is also considered to be one of the Desposyni? The Desposyni were from the tribe of Judah (and the house of Jesse) not the tribe of Levi.

Neutrality

This page is almost entirely written from a catholic point of view, including a prayer to James that I removed, other content that would be insulting to Christians, and nearly every reference coming from the "Catholic Encyclopedia". It needs almost a complete rewrite. Braves27 00:15, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Does anyone have an idea of what Jesus meant when he said...

The following is an except from the Gospel of Thomas.

"The Disciples say to Yeshu: We know that thou shall go away from us. Who is it that shall be Rabbiºover us? Yeshu says to them: In the place that you have come, you shall go to James the Righteousº, for whose sake the sky (heaven) and earth come to be. " Gospel of Thomas, 12

Is Jesus really saying that God made heaven/the sky and earth for James' the Righteous/Just's benefit? I have a suspicion that something more is meant by that innocious description? 86.4.59.203 02:08, 21 February 2007 (UTC)DD

Who knows what the writer of the Gospel of Thomas intended. Given it was found at Nag Hammadi, it was presumably a Gnostic production. --Henrygb 00:45, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Heaven knows why I am stepping into a minefield of a page like this, especially without a full arsenal of citations. But I would like to say a couple things about this: (1) that the older, monolithically-viewed, dismissive and disparaging denotation & connotation of "Gnostic" is these days under serious review (See for starters the works of Harvard religious historian Elaine Pagels), and that just because the list of sayings known as "Thomas" was found among the Nag Hammadi Codices is no longer much reason to categorize and dismiss it as "Gnostic" anyway. (2) I am still searching for the exact reference, but it is my understanding that Jerome attributes to the once-extant apocryphal Jewish-Christian work, the "Gospel of the Hebrews", the very same statement regarding James. (3) HERE (IF ANYBODY CARES...) I WOULD BE GRATEFUL FOR THE IMPARTIAL & FRIENDLY INPUT OF A TALMUD EXPERT OR OTHER THOROUGHLY-TRAINED JEWISH HISTORIAN OR HISTORIAN OF HEBREW & ARAMAIC: But is it not *possible* that to suggest that for some person's "sake heaven and earth have come to exist", may have deep Jewish roots as a hyperbolic means of paying respect to one who is viewed as a worthy teacher, venerable and favored by G-d"? (As indeed may have been the case at such an early time as 62 C.E., when traditional Jews and their fellow native-Jewish Torah-keepers, followers of one they oddly considered the Crucified Messiah [And everybody should agree, there's no crime in holding someone to be the Messiah, all by itself, i.e. without all the other baggage that has accumulated over time...] ) -- As I forewarned, I am short on citations at this moment; but I wanted to offer this as an imho sensible interpretation, in response to 86.4.59.203's honest query. It just "feels" like a devout Jewish compliment to me. NICE, CIVIL COMMENTS ARE MORE THAN MERELY WELCOME HERE: THEY ARE GREATLY SOUGHT-AFTER. DThrax 00:44, 4 June 2007 (UTC) ,שלום אל-כלכם

You seem to be arguing tha the Gospel of Thomas is not a Gnostic text. However, it most certainly is. It is one of the oldest and therefore most credible (if any can be called such). I, personally, as a scholar and as a Christian do not believe it accurately records the sayings of Jesus. Mainly, because I find Gnosticism fails severely when he held up to the litmus test offered in the Old Testament for whether a prophet is true or false. 70.156.11.235 18:34, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Excuse my ignorance. What is the litmus test? Rjgodoy 19:35, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

'To the Law and to the Testimony: if they speak not according to this Word, it is because there is no Light in them' (Isaiah 8:19-20).

Further backed by the New Testament '3 And hereby we do know that we know Him, if we keep His Commandments. 4 He that saith, I know Him, and keepeth not His Commandments, is a liar, and the Truth is not in Him' (1John 2:3-4).

"A further consequence of the Gnostic devaluation of the created order was the depreciation of the Old Testament. This was greatly accentuated by a thorough exploitation of the Pauline antithesis of law and gospel." -Henry Chadwick, 'The Early Church'

A cursory examination of key Gnostic beliefs is enough for anyone grounded in Judaism to quickly realize that Gnosticism is not in keeping with Judaic laws. Primarily, the belief that the God of Israel who created the world and Adam is an evil, blundering god.

(I can't get the first quote to behave normally I don't know why) 70.156.11.235 20:14, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

To answer your question from a Christian POV: 1. The idea of a man or rabbi to take authority after Jesus is contrary to the authority of the Holy Spirit given to the apostles seen in the book of Acts. 2. The concept of Jesus claiming the earth and sky came into existence for James is odd. First, if we accept the Gospel of John everything came to being by the Word (Jesus Christ). So Jesus is the creator. Also, the Old Testament makes it clear that the acts of creation were undertaken for man (i.e. mankind) not any one particular man. Now hypothetically for the sake of argument let us say the earth and sky were in fact created for one specific man. Then it would have been either the first man Adam or the second Adam Jesus Christ.

In my mind this all simply lends further credence that the Gospel of Thomas is unauthoritative. 70.156.11.235 21:06, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Roman Catholic and Oriental Orthodox church beliefs

Given that these two also believe in the Perpetual Virginity of Mary, there should be some mention of what they consider (if anything, if there is no current clear believe we should also mention this) the relationship between Jesus and James to be. Currently it only mentions the Eastern Orthodox believe Nil Einne 18:41, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Roman Catholics apologists tend to say that the Aramaic/Hebrew for "brother" included "cousin" and sometimes quote Jerome, ending up saying he was James the Less(er). Whether there is dogma, I wouldn't know.--Henrygb 19:44, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

In general, Roman Catholic and Oriental Orthodox tradition is in agreement with the Eastern Orthodox: That James was one of Joseph's sons from a previous marriage and therefore technically a step-brother. That "Brother" (adelphos) in Greek, while it often does mean literally ones brother, is still often used to mean "brethern" or anyone even vaguely related to you. And that Mary remained a Virgin.--Phiddipus 23:11, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

San Jaime???

http://spanish.about.com/od/historyofspanish/a/diego.htm

The above link corrects a growing trend of mistaken identity. James does not translate into Jaime, which is of strictly Iberian origin, not Hebrew. Diego or Santiago is the only Spanish equivalent of James, though it is not fully understood how it came from Hebrew, if at all. But since we are speaking of Biblical names here, Jaime has never been used, only Santiago or Diego. Jcchat66 04:20, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

San Jaime??? Cont.

This is lengthy, but bear with me... -->You are quite right, the Spanish name Jaime has nothing to do with the biblical source of James, Hebrew יעקב, Greek Ἰάκωβος, which is as you have correctly noted reflected in "Saint"-prefixed names, Santiago and Diego (and cf. Shakespeare's character Iago).

BUT I have another theory to offer you (this being only a Talk page...) which *should* logically, according to the known sequence of language changes and sound-laws between Latin and the Romance Languages, derive something that still *looks* a lot like a *French* Jaime from יעקב, Gk. Ἰάκωβος, Lat. Iacobus -- while still having *nothing* to do with the Spanish name of this spelling, which association is indeed a total modern-day popular mix-up. Stick with me here (and note that many forms presented are inferences based on unattested, yet fairly well-predictable "missing link" forms in the historical chain of development. Hence there is more *right* with this exercise than wrong with it, since it follows the fairly rigorous logic required of even a decent speculation in Historical Linguistics. And yet it constitutes, in part, a certain limited amount of personal research that wouldn't belong in a wikipedia Article, but reviewing the rules, I believe squeaks by on a Talk Page):

(1) It is very well-established, though perhaps not very widely known outside of Romance Linguistics, that in the later stages of spoken Latin, the Latin Case System collapsed (and other changes occurred) such that Nominative-case names like Latin Iacobus came to be rendered in all positions in their Accusative-case forms, such as Iacobum/Iacobom. The final -m then elided (went away), leaving as its only trace a nasalized vowel (where the resulting word would have been pronounced ['jakobõ], where õ is a nasal o; also where [j] represents in the International Phonetic Alphabet (IPA) what many American linguists prefer to represent with a [y], i.e. the sound beginning Yale ['jejl]).
(2) This happened throughout the Romance-speaking world, and e.g. early Italian shows us the influence of this nasal vowel õ by sometimes turning the immediately-preceding b into its nasal counterpart, which is to say m, thus yielding *two* forms of the basic name Jacob side by side, Giacobo and Giacomo (with the nasal õ present, but simply not marked as such in the spelling). (Italian is "Central Romance", but this effect also occurred in Western Romance, the group of dialects spoken in Hispania and Gaul.)
(3) In Western Romance, a voiceless stop such as a /k/ sound regularly became *voiced* betweem vowels -- i.e. the [k] sound written c in Iacobo/Iacomo became a [g]: Iagobo/Iagomo (Cf. Iago, Santiago, and with a few more contortions Diego -- note that all three Spanish forms have dropped the varying final syllable, -bo/-mo.
(4) Additionally in some parts of the Western Romance area, as for example in Northern Gallo-Romance in northern France, the hard stop sound, /g/, further softened to a fricative [ɣ], the sound in German Tage or Spanish sinagoga, when situated between two vowels. Together with other changes, such as the weakening of not-strongly-stressed vowels -- and to complicate matters, the "restoration" of the original Greco-Latin final -s of the lost Nominative Case, under literary influence -- forms such as Iagemes ['jæɣəˌməs] ([j] = Y in Yale, [æ] = a in cat) and Jagemes ['ʤæɣəˌməs] began to appear. (Another "literary throw-back" form, taking certain limited steps away from the shorter Iago-type form of the name, in the direction of Latin Iacobus, was the French recoinage Jacques ['ʤækˌkəs], with not only the final -s but the medial -c- restored; the -s was at this time still pronounced in French.) (Incidentally, your spanish.about.com article's reference to parallel forms "Iacobus, then Iacomus" is probably the product of the same Spoken Latin case system collapse, worked backwards into the written language: At the time these variants appeared in writing, probably the spoken language had already eliminated all forms in Nominative -us in favor of Accusative -um.)
(5) Additionally in Western Romance, vowels in "weak" positions (such as the completely-unstressed vowel in the middle syllable of Jageme ['ʤæɣəˌmə]) dropped out, and the high, back voiced fricative sound /ɣ/ softened further into a semivowel: Jaymes ['ʤæɣˌməs], --> ['ʤæjˌməs] (where, once again, [j] is the IPA representation for what English-speakers think of as the "y-sound", Yale = ['jejl]). This last form, Jaymes ['ʤæjˌməs] is essentially the form in which "James" entered the English language. Jacques ['ʤækˌk(ə)], having lost the final -s in pronunciation, somewhat later also entered English to yield Jack. DThrax 04:15, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
Very interesting, thank you, for that is to date the best idea for the evolution from Jacob to James I have read. Jcchat66 23:39, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
You said this "constitutes, in part, a certain limited amount of (your) personal research". I think that all parts which could be attributable to a published reliable source are worthy to be included in the article. I encourage you to separate them. Rjgodoy 03:09, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

about the word "Alleged"

2007-07-08T03:39:33 User:Phiddipus (26,964 bytes) (→Name - alleged is a superfluous word - you could put "alleged" in front of just about everything).

Indeed you can put ANY word just in front of anything (you should write it first, of course)... the point is what does that word means. In this situation "alleged" is an adjective, that is a word whose role is to modify a noun called the adjective's subject.

Since the only proof of brotherhood is currently disputed (see James the Just#The ossuary), the adjective "alleged" is properly used (for instance, it conforms definitions from Merrian-Webster Online.)

Instead of deletion, if you or any other editor think it is provocative, they can provide another word.

Rjgodoy 04:19, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Wherever the basis for a statement is a text, the encyclopedia follows the text. If a noteworthy interpretation strays from a text, this historical development needs to be explained in a dispassionate manner. No one inserts text regarding the Alleged Virgin Mary, do they? "Alleged" inserted here is intended to foist a particular POV. Wikipedia is not the official organ of any church. --Wetman 08:43, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
Wherever the bases for a statement are interpretations about a text, the encyclopedia follows all of them, NPOVly.
You are right nobody qualified Virgin Mary as "alleged" (at least in the actual version of Virgin Mary's article). However, that article includes some wording intended to relax the assertion of virginity (even the assertion of her existence), for instance:
According to the New Testament, Mary ... was the mother of Jesus of Nazareth; ...
...The child was purportedly conceived by the agency of the Holy Spirit,
Her biography is further elaborated in later Christian and Islamic traditions.
I understand there may be other ways of communicating this message, rather than simply say "alleged".

Rjgodoy 22:10, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

full of junk and POV

This article needs serious revision. Tomorrow evening I am planning to remove all original research, POV and any material from the article that is unreferenced and also uncredible. I will check here first to see if anyone has any comments about my intention.--Markisgreen 02:36, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Be careful what you edit

Markisgreen has intentions of removing much information from this article. I would caution him on doing so and deciding what he thinks is fact or not. James the Just is a figure for which there are many theories as to who he is. Though he feels it may be opinion or speculation, as long as there are credible historical reasons to make such claims, then this information should be made available for the reader to look and and decide for themselves.

Reg48744 03:19, 18 July 2007 (UTC)Reg48744

Please note I am very pleased by your contribution, since I think the main cause for the disputed neutrality of this article was the lack of this kind of reasoning .
However, the section you wrote may contain an unpublished synthesis of published material that conveys ideas not attributable to the original sources. I have placed the appropriate tags {{Synthesis|section|date=July 2007}} and {{unreferencedsect}}. If this is not original research, please provide references, otherwise it is likely to be removed as per WP:NOR.
In addition, there are no clues about James as cousin of Jesus in the text you inserted. Rather, your "proof" seems to endorse the hypothesis of James somehow related to Jesus, although there is some evidence (Matthew 13:55) for brotherhood. I have moved it under the "vague but relative" subsection.
Rjgodoy 04:35, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

I see that other editor removed the whole section (diff). I think it was too soon, but I will not undo it. Biblical reference were OK, but the other text (i.e the interpretation) should be properly referenced, avoiding vague attributions such as "some authors". I vote for restoring this section, as long as these requirements be fulfilled. Rjgodoy 19:46, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Spamming Tabor

Tabor, though a fringe writer, should be included with his take on the brothers issue. ONCE that is. His views should not spammed all over the article whenever he is used a reference, especially if it is hardly his original thought. So even if we use Tabor as a reference for the thought that James is the oldest of the brothers of Jesus - a view held practically universally - because he is mentioned first we NEED NOT and SHOULD NOT automatically push Tabor's view that James is younger than Jesus - a view not held automatically. At least one very ancient view considers the brothers to be son from Joseph's first marriage, making them all older than Jesus. It doesn't matter what we think about any of these views - in the introduction to the various views we should NOT NOT NOT allow such POV pushing. I therefore place the POV tag. Str1977 (smile back) 18:11, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

What are you raving about? There are a multitude of views reported in the various sections of this article, which is as it should be. To say that Tabor is "spammed all over the article" is a wild exaggeration considering that he has two references in total. I'm not even going to ask by what authority you pronouce Tabor to be "fringe".--Michael C. Price talk 19:52, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
Spamming Tabor is what you are doing, Michael. If the article is not filled up with Tabor-here, Tabor-there it is because your edits did not go "uncontested.
Sure there is a multitude of views reported including Tabor. That's no problem, that's how it should be. But YOU insist on including his particular view in the intro to that multitude, giving his views precedence. Tabor's views should be discussed in one place and only there, even if he is used as a reference elsewhere.
Well, his views are not rejected by practically everyone. Which makes him fringe. Str1977 (smile back) 20:01, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
His views is mentioned in the section intro, along a host of others. What the heck is your problem with that? As for being fringe, well his views are rejected by most religious bigots, I have no doubt -- but not by "practically everyone" to judge by the air time others give him in the mainstream media. And his academic credentials are kosher. --Michael C. Price talk 20:07, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
Are you really not getting it? Well, I will AGF and explain once more:
His views ARE mentioned and I am completely okay with that. Get it?
What I am not okay with is the bold part in the sentence Since James' name always appears first in lists, this suggests he was the eldest', after Jesus.
Now, why?
Practically everyone agrees that James is the eldest among the four brothers of Jesus because he is always mentioned first. Right?
Now, Tabor obviously has the sequence Jesus, James and all the rest. Fair enough.
Other scholars that do not agree with his fringy views still would agree with the sequence.
Still others, e.g. those adhering to the "brothers were sons of Joseph from a first marriage" do not agree with it, as they have James, the rest and Jesus last. Allright?
Now, the sentence is placed in the intro section which introduces the whole range of views. But in placing that sentence there, we are endorsing one particular view, that of Tabor. And that is what I am up in arms about.
The fact that we use Tabor as a reference is of no consequence. We may use him or someone else for this. But we cannot endorse his particular view by placing it in the intro section.
I hope you now understand. Str1977 (smile back) 20:58, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
Ah, and maybe you should watch your tongue labelling others bigots. Labelling anyone who disagrees with your position (which is what you have done above) could be construed as that itself. Str1977 (smile back) 21:01, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
By reporting Tabor we are not endorsing him. All I ask is that his views be reported truthfully. --Michael C. Price talk 21:06, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
His views don't belong in the intro section. And yes, currently this is not an attributed statement. Why? Because it was intended to say nothing controversial. It was made controversial only by your addition of "after Jesus".
Just because Tabor is used as a reference doesn't mean that this is his view ... just that he is one of those who report it. (that he happens to agree with it is of no consequence).
Not everything written on a referenced page must be included in the article.
However, if you can't get your mind through that door, maybe it is best that you take the entire sentence and move to the spot where Tabor's view is reported and say "Tabor argues that since James' name always appears first in lists, this suggests he was the eldest, after Jesus."
There, and only there should his view be reported. Elsewhere it is endorsement. Str1977 (smile back) 21:15, 7 August 2007 (UTC)