Didn't James the Less believe in Jesus?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Miguel2
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
I thought it was not definitively settled that “James the son of Alphaeus” who was the apostle known as “James the Less” was a relative (actually cousin) of Jesus.

I believe St. Jerome was one who put forth this theory that they were cousins, but many others disagree and claim that “James, son of Alphaeus” who was the Apostle known as James the Less was a different James, unrelated to Jesus. In some interpretations, “James, son of Alphaeus” was even a brother of Matthew. Under this theory, Jesus’ cousin James, aka “James the Just”, was a different James.

Nevertheless, if “James, son of Alphaeus” who became the apostle was indeed Jesus’ cousin (aka “brother”), then it’s quite possible he didn’t believe in Jesus right away but came to believe later and joined the Apostles.
 
Last edited:
OddBird said:
A translation is just that – a translation. It is made with the intent of getting the message across, as precisely as possible, but nuances are inevitably lost in the process
Click to expand...
God Himself helps us re: Understanding most translations…
A few… are purposely translated poorly -
 
Tis_Bearself said:
I thought it was not definitively settled that “James the son of Alphaeus” who was the apostle known as “James the Less” was a relative (actually cousin) of Jesus
Click to expand...
exactly… which is why questions related to the knowing of that question become moot… .
 
twf said:
I too find it difficult to reconcile some of these verses with the idea that St James the brother of Jesus is St James the Less. The fact that we are told that Jesus appeared first to Peter and the apostles, and THEN to James makes it pretty clear he is not one of the 12. How is that reconciled by those who believe James the Less and James the brother of Jesus are the same person?
Click to expand...
“And that he was seen by Cephas; and after that by the eleven. Then he was seen by more than five hundred brethren at once: of whom many remain until this present, and some are fallen asleep. After that, he was seen by James, then by all the apostles” (1 Cor. 15:5-7)

It said Jesus was seen by Peter, then all the apostles, then James, then all the apostles. So, if this James isn’t the apostle James the Just/Less because he was approached apart from the others at one point, then this Peter isn’t the apostle Peter.

James the brother of the Lord and James the Just/Less are one in the same. And, James was called “brother of the Lord” not because he and Jesus were biological brothers, rather because of his resemblance to Him.
 
Last edited:
OddBird said:
nothing prevents you from disagreeing with one, some or even most translations and making a different choice.
Click to expand...
if you are obedient in following the direction of your apostolic superiors in the Catholic church, you will consider their interpretation or translation as revelation but private interpretations to be opinions of men rather than inspired, even though grammatically plausible.
 
Lunam_Meam said:
And, James was called “brother of the Lord” not because he and Jesus were biological brothers, rather because of his resemblance to Him.
Click to expand...
Do you mean a physical resemblance? James looked like Jesus? That’s something I never heard until now. Can you give a source, please?
 
Last edited:
Maria Valtorta’s book has been repeatedly condemned by the Church.
 
The Church has declared this fiction. They asked the publishers to make this known. They have ignored the Church’s request.
 
Last edited:
hope said:
The Church has declared this fiction. They asked the publishers to make this known. They have ignored the Church’s request.
Click to expand...
That is not only overly simplified, but also incorrect.
 
Maybe someone didn’t get the Meme…

On 16 December 1959, the Congregation of the Holy Office ordered the 4-volume work entitled “The Poem of the Man-God” placed on the Index of Forbidden Books.[16] Pope John XXIII approved the decree and directed that the condemnation be published. The decree was then promulgated by the Holy Office on 5 January 1960.[17] The decree was published also in L’Osservatore Romano of 6 January 1960, accompanied by a front-page article under the heading “A Badly Fictionalized Life of Jesus”.[2] After publication of a second edition by the same publisher, the Vatican newspaper republished the content of the decree on 1 December 1961, together with an explanatory note.
 
Ok, that makes it more plausible. And it may be the case. But it isn’t definitive. The Eastern tradition is as venerable as the Latin tradition, and both traditions are respected by the Church. In the Eastern tradition, James, the Brother of God, was not one of the 12 but rather the son of St Joseph from his first marriage… and later was the first bishop of Jerusalem.
 
Bardstown has consistently misrepresented the Church’s position.

As I already pointed out, the publishing house was asked to make sure that it was considered fiction.
EWTN
More recently (April 17, 1993, Prot. N. 144/58i), he wrote: “The ‘visions’ and ‘dictations’ referred to in the work, “The Poem of the Man-God,” are simply the literary forms used by the author to narrate in her own way the life of Jesus. They cannot be considered supernatural in origin.”

Again I will say that this is a banned subject. Any further discussion I will report.
 
John_Martin said:
if you are obedient in following the direction of your apostolic superiors in the Catholic church, you will consider their interpretation or translation as revelation but private interpretations to be opinions of men rather than inspired, even though grammatically plausible.
Click to expand...
Well, yes - mostly.

These private interpretations can end up being backed by the Magisterium, under certain conditions.

An example was the latest ecumenical Bible translation in French, which obtained the imprimatur for a version of the Gospel of John which systematically substituted “the Jews” with “the Judeans”, out of concern about antisemitism. Catholic authorities were surprisingly more ok with it than Protestant churches. It was quite interesting to see Bishops’ conferences and pontifical commissions react with “there’s nothing here that fundamentally contradicts the deposit of faith”, while Protestant exegetes were getting all worked up and saying “but you’re betraying the text !”

For the Catholic exegetes I worked with, Tradition and Magisterium do provide an authoritative hermeneutical framework, particularly when verses bear on doctrinal matters. But that framework also allows for more or less leeway, even if that “less” sometimes means “none”, and not all verses have decisive consequences on how you understand the deposit of faith.

Then there is the question of the aim of a particular translation. The rules are not quite the same if, say, you are writing a specialised article or book trying to shed light on a particular point of the history of the text, or of a given early Christian community, or of early doctrinal controversies, and if you are part of a translation team which is putting together an official liturgical translation or a Catholic study Bible for the general public.
 
twf said:
40.png
Lunam_Meam:
40.png
twf:
I too find it difficult to reconcile some of these verses with the idea that St James the brother of Jesus is St James the Less. The fact that we are told that Jesus appeared first to Peter and the apostles, and THEN to James makes it pretty clear he is not one of the 12. How is that reconciled by those who believe James the Less and James the brother of Jesus are the same person?
Click to expand...
“And that he was seen by Cephas; and after that by the eleven. Then he was seen by more than five hundred brethren at once: of whom many remain until this present, and some are fallen asleep. After that, he was seen by James, then by all the apostles” (1 Cor. 15:5-7)

It said Jesus was seen by Peter, then all the apostles, then James, then all the apostles. So, if this James isn’t the apostle James the Just/Less because he was approached apart from the others at one point, then this Peter isn’t the apostle Peter.

James the brother of the Lord and James the Just/Less are one in the same. And, James was called “brother of the Lord” not because he and Jesus were biological brothers, rather because of his resemblance to Him.
Click to expand...
Ok, that makes it more plausible. And it may be the case. But it isn’t definitive. The Eastern tradition is as venerable as the Latin tradition, and both traditions are respected by the Church. In the Eastern tradition, James, the Brother of God, was not one of the 12 but rather the son of St Joseph from his first marriage… and later was the first bishop of Jerusalem.
Click to expand...
In my research, I’ve only found support for “James the Less/Just” and “James the brother of Jesus” as being one in the same, and that he was the son of Alphaeus (Clopas), brother to Jesus’s father, Joseph, making James and Jesus “cousins”. And, that James was later appointed first leader (bishop) of the Church in Jerusalem.
 
The tradition that St James the Brother of God is distinct from the 12 and was a son of St Joseph is, I believe, found in the 2nd century Protoevangelium of St James. Like I said, it’s the tradition accepted in the Eastern Churches.
 
EndTimes said:
OK - and how would they view the OP
Didn’t James the Less believe in Jesus?
Click to expand...
That’s easy. The answer is in two parts:
  1. Yes, James the Less did believe in Jesus.
  2. The James who didn’t believe in Jesus was a different James. He was James, Jesus’ “brother,” named in Matt 13:55, Mark 6:3, and Gal 1:19.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top