James, head of the early Church

[BrianH]

I am putting together a serious of verses and early writings that suggests that the Apostles and the early church viewed James, the Lord’s brother and others of his earthly family as his immediate successors. Biblical and otherwise.

BIBLE

Peter reports to James

**Acts 12:17 **
He motioned for them with his hand to be silent, and described for them how the Lord had brought him out of the prison. And he added, “Tell this to James and to the brothers.” And he left and went to another place.

Peter feared James

**Gal 2:11 **¶ But when Peter was come to Antioch, I withstood him to the face, because he was to be blamed.

Gal 2:12 For before that certain came from James, he did eat with the Gentiles: but when they were come, he withdrew and separated himself, fearing them which were of the circumcision.

Paul, writing 20 years before Mark and 30 or 40 before Matthew and Luke

Galatians 2:9
and when James and Cephas and John, who were acknowledged pillars…

Places James first

Presides at Jerusalem Council and declares the sentence after weighing what Peter, Paul, Barnabas and scripture says;

Act 15:19 Wherefore my sentence is, that we trouble not them, which from among the Gentiles are turned to God:

]Hegesippus

(c110-180)] “James, the brother of the Lord, succeeded to the government of the Church in conjunction with the apostles. He has been called the Just by all from the time of our Saviour to the present day; for there were many that bore the name of James.”

Eusebius reporting directly from Clement of Alexandria and then editoralizing a bit in the second.

History of the Church 2:1:3-4
(2:1:3) But Clement [c160-215] in the sixth book of his Hypotyposes writes thus: “For they say that Peter and James and John after the ascension of our Saviour, as if also preferred by our Lord, strove not after honor, but chose James the Just bishop of Jerusalem.”
(2:1:4) But the same writer, in the seventh book of the same work, relates also the following things concerning him: “The Lord after his resurrection imparted knowledge to James the Just and to John and Peter, and they imparted it to the rest of the apostles, and the rest of the apostles to the seventy, of whom Barnabas was one. But there were two Jameses: one called the Just, who was thrown from the pinnacle of the temple and was beaten to death with a club by a fuller, and another who was beheaded.”[15]

History of the Church 4:22:4-5

The same author * also describes the beginnings of the heresies which arose in his time, in the following words: “And after James the Just had suffered martyrdom, as the Lord had also on the same account, Symeon, the son of the Lord’s uncle, Clopas, was appointed the next bishop. All proposed him as second bishop because he was a cousin of the Lord. Therefore, they called the Church a virgin, for it was not yet corrupted by vain discourses.” *

Of course the Gospel of Thomas dates later in the second century although scholars debate that some parts are from as early as the mid first century

Thomas 12
The disciples said to Jesus, “We know that you are going to leave us. Who will be our leader?” Jesus said to them, “No matter where you are, you are to go to James the Just, for whose sake heaven and earth came into being.”

Anyone know of any others?

 

[Della]

IOW, anyone but Peter. Sigh!

Do you really think the Church is ignorant of any of these quotations? That the Church got it all wrong by teaching that Peter was given the keys of the kingdom? Hardly.

Do a little real historical research and then come back. PLEASE!

 

[BrianH]

Do you really think the Church is ignorant of any of these quotations? That the Church got it all wrong by teaching that Peter was given the keys of the kingdom? Hardly.

I do not doubt that the early church read Matthew’s account by the end of the first century.

Do a little real historical research and then come back. PLEASE!

I am open to quotes from the first two centuries that support that Peter was in charge of the whole church. Just quoting the ECF’s…

 

[Malcolm_McLean]

I am putting together a serious of verses and early writings that suggests that the Apostles and the early church viewed James, the Lord’s brother and others of his earthly family as his immediate successors. Biblical and otherwise.

Anyone know of any others?

James was a senior figure in the Early Church and took the title “The brother of the Lord”.

By trawling through the entire corpus of scripture you’ve managed to come up with one tiny sliver of evidence that he was senior to Peter; in one list, James’ name is mentioned first. Then you’ve got another quote from the gospel of Thomas, but that makes other strange and extravagant claims.

That’s it.

At some point in the middle of the first century Church HQ was moved from Jerusalem to Rome. Those were the two logical places to have a central administration. We can easily believe that there might have been some dispute about this decision at the time, but no record of it survives. The idea of a non-Trinitarian “Jerusalem” church existing in rivalry to the Roman church is pure speculation, and raises the question of how so severe a schism could have escaped documentation.

 

[LilyM]

I do not doubt that the early church read Matthew’s account by the end of the first century.

I am open to quotes from the first two centuries that support that Peter was in charge of the whole church. Just quoting the ECF’s…

So Brian, who is James’ successor today - how many people even know? Do you? And WHY don’t they know? You think Jesus wouldn’t preserve clearly the lineage of whichever Apostle he chose to succeed him in leadership?

And is anyone (including you) acknowledging that successor of James as head of today’s Christian church? Why not? If not, then why does it matter in the slightest to you which of the Apostles Jesus chose to succeed him, since you ignore all of them equally?

 

[Della]

I do not doubt that the early church read Matthew’s account by the end of the first century.

The Gospel of Matthew was never used as a proof text for petrine supremacy. It was a simple fact that no one seriously disputed for centuries. The Bible is not the proof of any of the teachings of the Church. It is the witness to them.

I am open to quotes from the first two centuries that support that Peter was in charge of the whole church. Just quoting the ECF’s…

The ECFs supported the papacy. Here is an article on it from the Catholic Encyclopedia: Primacy of the Roman See. Not every ECF talked about petrine supremacy, of course. People tend not to discuss the obvious in letters to each other or in papers on other topics. But the historical evidence is there for any reasonable person to see.

 

[BrianH]

James was a senior figure in the Early Church and took the title “The brother of the Lord”.

No.

By trawling through the entire corpus of scripture you’ve managed to come up with one tiny sliver of evidence that he was senior to Peter; in one list, James’ name is mentioned first. Then you’ve got another quote from the gospel of Thomas, but that makes other strange and extravagant claims

 

[BrianH]

So Brian, who is James’ successor today - how many people even know? Do you? And WHY don’t they know? You think Jesus wouldn’t preserve clearly the lineage of whichever Apostle he chose to succeed him in leadership?

Lily, that the earthly family of Jesus headed his early church is a rather common view. Successors eliminated. I am not looking for some kind of magical succession, unlike the conjecture of the Roman list, depending upon which list one reads.

 

[BrianH]

The Gospel of Matthew was never used as a proof text for petrine supremacy. It was a simple fact that no one seriously disputed for centuries. The Bible is not the proof of any of the teachings of the Church. It is the witness

to them.
The author of Matthew is an eyewitness?? Thats news to me. Writing 50 to 60 years after the fact?

 

[MrS]

The Gospel of Matthew was never used as a proof text for petrine supremacy. It was a simple fact that no one seriously disputed for centuries. The Bible is not the proof of any of the teachings of the Church. It is the witness to them.

.

How much more direct and precise can we be??

Perhaps watching some courtroom dramas will make the point… how the verbal declarations are made, and then the “witnesses” are called to verify the truth.

And Catholic witnesses are the strongest of all simply because they witness to the truth.

.

 

[MrS]

The author of Matthew is an eyewitness?? Thats news to me. Writing 50 to 60 years after the fact?

 

[BrianH]

I am not Sola Scriptura, obviously.

 

[Malcolm_McLean]

Originally Posted by Della
The Gospel of Matthew was never used as a proof text for petrine supremacy. It was a simple fact that no one seriously disputed for centuries. The Bible is not the proof of any of the teachings of the Church. It is the witness to them.

 

[BrianH]

But how come you believe the generally accepted dating of Matthew? If those scholars are so ignorant that they’ve missed this hugely important strand in Early Church history to do with James and Jesus’ earthly family, why trust them on the date of Matthew?

I am not sure of your line of questioning and it seems off topic.
I mostly agree with generally accepted dating of Matthew. For quite some time, I held Matthew’s priority, based upon the work of Farmer. Anyway, the whole issue is not to do with Matthew 16:18, well it is for many. One COULD just as easily interpret Matthew in light of the rest of the gospels and the NT.
Scholars do not dispute a role of James and his family in the early church, although I am sure there is some disagreement of the exact nature. For example, depending upon how many streams/schools of early Christians one would contend there were.
Matthew 16:18 is one verse, I will add a verse not recorded by Mark or Luke.

Matthew 16:13-20 *When Jesus came into the region of Caesarea Philippi, He asked His disciples, saying, “Who do men say that I, the Son of Man, am?”
14 So they said, “Some say John the Baptist, some Elijah, and others Jeremiah or one of the prophets.”
15 He said to them, “But who do you say that I am?”
16 Simon Peter answered and said, “You are the Christ, the Son of the living God.”*17 Jesus answered and said to him, “Blessed are you, Simon Bar-Jonah, for flesh and blood has not revealed this to you, but My Father who is in heaven. 18 And I also say to you that you are Peter, and on this rock I will build My church, and the gates of Hades shall not prevail against it. 19 And I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and whatever you bind on earth *will be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven.”[20 *Then He commanded His disciples that they should tell no one that He was Jesus the Christ

.

This is the exchange recored 20 years or so prior to Matthew

Mark 8:27-30
27 Now Jesus and His disciples went out to the towns of Caesarea Philippi; and on the road He asked His disciples, saying to them, “Who do men say that I am?”
28 So they answered, “John the Baptist; but some say, Elijah; and others, one of the prophets.”
29 He said to them, “But who do you say that I am?”
Peter answered and said to Him, "You are the Christ.

30 Then He strictly warned them that they should tell no one about Him.

Luke 9:18-21
18 And it happened, as He was alone praying, that His disciples joined Him, and He asked them, saying, “Who do the crowds say that I am?”
19 So they answered and said, “John the Baptist, but some say Elijah; and others say that one of the old prophets has risen again.”
20 He said to them, “But who do you say that I am?”
Peter answered and said, “The Christ of God.”

21 And He strictly warned and commanded them to tell this to no one, 22 saying, “The Son of Man must suffer many things, and be rejected by the elders and chief priests and scribes, and be killed, and be raised the third day.”

 

[Atreyu]

I am not sure of your line of questioning and it seems off topic.
I mostly agree with generally accepted dating of Matthew. For quite some time, I held Matthew’s priority, based upon the work of Farmer. Anyway, the whole issue is not to do with Matthew 16:18, well it is for many. One COULD just as easily interpret Matthew in light of the rest of the gospels and the NT.
Scholars do not dispute a role of James and his family in the early church, although I am sure there is some disagreement of the exact nature. For example, depending upon how many streams/schools of early Christians one would contend there were.
Matthew 16:18 is one verse, I will add a verse not recorded by Mark or Luke.

This is the exchange recored 20 years or so prior to Matthew

Regardless of the dating of the various gospels - of which we will never be able to definitively state - we know for sure that the gospel of Matthew was written to the Jews - that very church that you are claiming was led by James!

 

[BrianH]

Regardless of the dating of the various gospels - of which we will never be able to definitively state - we know for sure that the gospel of Matthew was written to the Jews - that very church that you are claiming was led by James!

James has been dead for at least 20 years, probably longer.
Jerusalem is destroyed.

The Temple was destroyed on Tisha B’Av, at the end of August, and as the flames spread into the residential sections of the city, along with the Roman legions, Jewish resistance crumbled quickly. Most of the remaining Jews escaped through hidden underground tunnels. Some Jews made a final stand in the Upper City. This defence halted the Roman advance as they had to construct siege towers just to assail the remaining Jews. The city was completely under Roman control by the September 7 and most of the remaining Jews that had fled Jerusalem, were hunted down and massacred.

The destruction of the Temple is still mourned annually as the Jewish fast Tisha B’Av, and the Arch of Titus, depicting and celebrating the sack of Jerusalem and the Temple, still stands in Rome.

 

[BrianH]

newadvent.org/cathen/08537a.htm
I do not see anything in this article so different from what I am saying, granted in never says James was the leader of the whole church, but watch what it does say

 

[Fidelis]

The author of Matthew is an eyewitness?? Thats news to me. Writing 50 to 60 years after the fact?

 

[Fidelis]

I am open to quotes from the first two centuries that support that Peter was in charge of the whole church. Just quoting the ECF’s…

If you can take a break from rolling your eyes long enough, here’s a quote from a liitle more than 200 years after the Church was founded, by reknowned bishop and martyr Cyprian of Carthage:

"The Lord says to Peter: ‘I say to you,’ he says, ‘that you are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my Church, and the gates of hell will not overcome it. And to you I will give the keys of the kingdom of heaven; and whatever things you bind on earth shall be bound also in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth, they shall be loosed also in heaven’ [Matt. 16:18–19]). … On him [Peter] he builds the Church, and to him he gives the command to feed the sheep [John 21:17], and although he assigns a like power to all the apostles, yet he founded a single chair cathedra], and he established by his own authority a source and an intrinsic reason for that unity. Indeed, the others were also what Peter was , but a primacy is given to Peter, whereby it is made clear that there is but one Church and one chair. So too, all [the apostles] are shepherds, and the flock is shown to be one, fed by all the apostles in single-minded accord. If someone does not hold fast to this unity of Peter, can he imagine that he still holds the faith? If he [should] desert the chair of Peter upon whom the Church was built, can he still be confident that he is in the Church?" (The Unity of the Catholic Church 4; 1st edition [A.D. 251]).
catholic.com/library/Authority_of_the_Pope_Part_1.asp
catholic-forum.com/saints/saintc07.htm

 

[guanophore]

So Brian, who is James’ successor today - how many people even know? Do you? And WHY don’t they know? You think Jesus wouldn’t preserve clearly the lineage of whichever Apostle he chose to succeed him in leadership?

And is anyone (including you) acknowledging that successor of James as head of today’s Christian church? Why not? If not, then why does it matter in the slightest to you which of the Apostles Jesus chose to succeed him, since you ignore all of them equally?

My inquiry into the EO history seems to indicate that they trace their patriarchies to James, and recognize him as the first Bishop of Jerusalem, as Acts seems to indicate. But they also recognize as patriarchies the lineage of all the apostles in the same way. The Latin pope also recognizes this, which is why he scheduled his visit to Turkey on the feast of St. James.