The 3 James Theory

[Eliza10]

I’ll admit: I really don’t subscribe anymore to the ‘cousin’ theory, which was popularized by St. Jerome. … I personally side with the earlier tradition (the one you find in the Protoevangelium of James…) that the ‘siblings’ of Jesus were Joseph’s children from a previous marriage.

Ah, I see. You’re allowed. But I don’t subscribe to the ‘Big Step-Brothers’ theory. That Joseph, the “Just Man” would have been like Our Blessed Mother, and also have chosen to love God so much that he chose not to marry, and live chastely for the love of the Lord alone, makes sense.

This tradition says that Our Lady, who had vowed herself chastely to God alone, was asked by the rabbi’s of the Temple where she lived from a young age, to marry, and so the Handmaid of the Lord obeyed the servants of God. The rabbi’s chose Joseph after calling the unmarried men of the House of David to the Temple (and St. Joseph obeyed, trusting to God his vow) and they all brought branches, and after prayer, it was Josephs branch that sprouted lilies, and that is how he was chosen and that is why we see over the centuries in the Holy Catholic Church, guided by the Holy Spirit, statues and icons of St.Joseph with the lilies.

It would make sense that Joseph would be a vowed virgin, too - rather than previously married. Because if Joseph’s marriage to the Virgin Mary was a “second-time-around” marriage for him, Joseph, in this completely new and different kind of marriage would have to completely change his orientation and life-habit of what is marriage. While its true, that with God, all things are possible, I just cannot think of any good reason why God would give Joseph TWO different vocations, one lesser, one greater. And what a shame to call a traditional marriage a lesser vocation - that is a HIGH vocation, but, you have to admit, being the father of Our Lord on earth - that has to be considered to be a step up…

Instead, it makes more SENSE that Joseph’s new life, betrothed to Mary, was a more pure continuation of the old - still chaste, as he had practiced, but now, chaste together. So, onward and upward - an enrichment of his one, chosen vocation. Still continuing in living for love of the Lord, but now in His flesh! The same for Mary, so that union of same life vocations would make for a strong bond.

And since it is God that gives us our vocations, and God knew Joseph’s vocation was to be Our Lord’s earthy father, than why would God have Joseph “fill-in time” before then, living out a traditional marriage vocation, and being a traditional father, only to change his vocation completely, later, and add to traditional father, untraditional father??? Why would He not instead have Joseph be alone (and in an alone-type career,.like carpentry) so Joseph would have a lot of alone time to hear Gods voice, so that God could teach him, helping Joseph’s heart grow, to prepare him for his BIG vocation?

So that latter makes much more sense to me - Joseph’s betrothal to Mary as a continuation and enrichment of the same vocation for Joseph, rather than a second, completely different “marraige” vocation from the first marraige vocation. It was a simple, quiet, Holy Family of three. Not grand-central with a huge revolving-door household full big full-grown step-brothers and step-sisters who would be coming to see St. Joseph and naturally wanting to reminisce about their old days as family before Mary and Jesus. Also there would be St.Josephs grandchildren from the supposed previous marraige (so, Baby Jesus as “Uncle Jesus”), who also would deserve to hear stories about their beloved grandma and the childhood life of their parents. They would ALL deserve St. Joseph’s time and attention. So the Holy family would not be the three, but one big blended-family!

No, I think it was much simpler than that for the Holy Family. I know often times a long quiet period of contemplation happens before a big work, and Jesus had a BIG WORK to do. I think it was quiet and peaceful and hard working in the simple, poor, rich-in-spirit home of the Holy Family in Nazareth.

I think the things of God do make sense for the simplest of us as well as the most complicated. And the theory I go with makes more plain and simple sense to me.

I want to add, I have never seen any evidence that St. Jerome “popularized” his ideas - he just had his worthy very scholarly and history and tradition-based opinions. He had a monastery to run. And a lion to take care of. So I don’t think he was selling his ideas; I think he was just having them.

Apocryphal works are intriguing to some. Not to me. More intriguing and worthy to me are the traditions handed down by the Apostles in the One, Holy, Catholic Church guided by the Holy Spirit.

Also is a leap to say your ‘Big Step Brothers’ theory is the “earlier” idea, too. If you could prove that, then there would be no need for other theories… But you can’t. Whatever the TRUTH is, that’s is what in fact predates all the later ideas…

 

[JB_Brother_4446]

I am not sure what you are referring to about Jesus appearing to James - can you explain further? At any rate, I don’t think this is a good theory because there is nothing in scripture to support that James as an apostle was any less of a believer before the Resurrection than after, at least any more so than any of the other apostles). In fact, the very opposite. Since he is writer of some Epistles, and the one left to evangelize/witness to Jerusalem (no easy task) its more natural one would assume he was one of the stronger Apostles. Oh, and further, Jesus took James and Peter and John to the mountain for his Transfiguration. Peter, head of the Apostles, and John, the disciple whom Jesus loved, and James. In that, we see James is grouped with the strong apostles, - not one who was struggling with faith.

“He appeared to James and to all the apostles.” 1 Corinthians 15:7
Note how Paul says “all the apostles” as if the term was used in a broad sense.
Neither Sacred Tradition nor Sacred Scripture say that Joseph was a perpetual virgin. Joseph was just Mary’s “most chaste spuse.”

As far as brothers of Jesus, James and Jude (Thaddeus) were cousins of Jesus (as you probably know already: no Aramaic word for “cousins”) and also brothers of each other. If you go to the most worthy, most eminent theologians (like St. Jerome!) of that age you find that their mother was Mary of Alphaeus (Cleophas). Or, as also says Papias of Hierapolis, who lived circa 70-163 AD, (Yet, Wikipedia says “modern Bible Scholars” question this! Of course! 2000 years later we have new ideas!).

But, since nothing in scripture or tradition says that James and Jude were the “only” sons of Mary of Alphaeus, then it could well have been she had other sons [Joseph (Joses) and Simon have been named], who would also be “brothers” (cousins) of Jesus, that did not believe Him enough to be Apostles, but were moved to believe Him after the Resurrection.

James, Joses, Simon and Judas were all common names back then. Judas Thaddeus is mentioned as the son of James in Luke 6. If you read Eusebius, then you will read that James the Just came “after the Apostles” (meaning the Twelve.) James the Just was actually a step-brother of Jesus, a tradition attested by early Church scholars like Ephananius.

 

[JB_Brother_4446]

“He appeared to James and to all the apostles.” 1 Corinthians 15:7
Note how Paul says “all the apostles” as if the term was used in a broad sense.
Neither Sacred Tradition nor Sacred Scripture say that Joseph was a perpetual virgin. Joseph was just Mary’s “most chaste spouse.”
James, Joses, Simon and Judas were all common names back then. Judas Thaddeus is mentioned as the son of James in Luke 6. If you read Eusebius, then you will read that James the Just came “in conjunction the Apostles” (meaning the Twelve.) James the Just was actually a step-brother of Jesus, a tradition attested by early Church scholars like Ephananius.

 

[Eliza10]

…Neither Sacred Tradition nor Sacred Scripture say that Joseph was a perpetual virgin. Joseph was just Mary’s “most chaste spouse.”

Nor does it say he was not. And why ever would scripture or tradition say that he Joseph was? A humble man of God would not wear a banner about it. As to God joining Mary to a holy, like-minded man who had ALSO completely given ALL of himself to God, while it makes *perfect sense *for Mary and for the Holy Family, it is not part of the prophecy of the Messiah, and is completely unnecessary as a part of prophecy. But Mary’s virginity was a part of prophecy and it is necessary to establish the true Father of Our Lord. That is why it is in scripture, tradition, and now Dogma. Its all about Jesus.

 

[JB_Brother_4446]

Nor does it say he was not. And why ever would scripture or tradition say that he Joseph was? A humble man of God would not wear a banner about it. As to God joining Mary to a holy, like-minded man who had ALSO completely given ALL of himself to God, while it makes *perfect sense *for Mary and for the Holy Family, it is not part of the prophecy of the Messiah, and is completely unnecessary as a part of prophecy. But Mary’s virginity was a part of prophecy and it is necessary to establish the true Father of Our Lord. That is why it is in scripture, tradition, and now Dogma. Its all about Jesus.

I think you should reread my post. Joseph didn’t have to be a virgin to fulfill his vocation. The cousin theory came much later.

 

[Eliza10]

I think you should reread my post. Joseph didn’t have to be a virgin to fulfill his vocation.

I am confused why you are saying this. I never said Joseph “needed to be a virgin to fulfill his vocation”. God either gave him two completely different kinds of marraige vocations in his life, a traditional one and a highly unique one, or he gave him ONE.

The “Big Step-Brother/Blended Family” theory also means that Joseph’s two vocations would not have been consecutive separate vocations, but overlapping, combined vocations. Of course, his supposed first, completely separate marraige and family vocation with a first wife would not just end when his first wife died, but, still being father to his previous wife’s children, and still being grandfather their children together, he would have been combining the two vocations while he also headed up and protected the most Holy family*. A very different kind of Holy Family than we tend to think of. A “big blended family”.

Or, he had one holy vocation, like no other. *If *God considered that *one *highly favored vocation was enough for Joseph for a lifetime, then, of course he was a virgin.

As to the “cousin” theory being* earlier *than the “Big Step Brothers/Blended Family” theory, that’s not accurate.

---

*Which begs the question - did he keep it a secret from all his other children? They must have kept the great mystery shrouded until it was time that all should know. That’s hard to do with a lot of people around. Not all people can keep secrets. The more that know, the more gossip and rumors, which would have put the Holy Family in danger.

 

[JB_Brother_4446]

I am confused why you are saying this. I never said Joseph “needed to be a virgin to fulfill his vocation”. God either gave him two completely different kinds of marraige vocations in his life, a traditional one and a highly unique one, or he gave him ONE.

The “Big Step-Brother/Blended Family” theory also means that Joseph’s two vocations would not have been consecutive separate vocations, but overlapping, combined vocations. Of course, his supposed first, completely separate marraige and family vocation with a first wife would not just end when his first wife died, but, still being father to his previous wife’s children, and still being grandfather their children together, he would have been combining the two vocations while he also headed

up and protected the most Holy family*. A very different kind of Holy Family than we tend to think of. A “big blended family”.

Or, he had one holy vocation, like no other. *If *God considered that *one *highly favored vocation was enough for Joseph for a lifetime, then, of course he was a virgin.

God has His own plan of doing things, what humans think is pious speculation.

Which begs the question - did he keep it a secret from all his other children? They must have kept the great mystery shrouded until it was time that all should know. That’s hard to do with a lot of people around. Not all people can keep secrets. The more that know, the more gossip and rumors, which would have put the Holy Family in danger.

What if they were married and already had kids? Maybe it was jealousy that hindered them from belief. My point: We don’t know! As I pointed out earlier, James(Yaakov), Joses(Yosef),
Judas(Yehudah), and Simon(Shimon), were all common names back then. It is highly probable that there were 3 Jameses, maybe even 4.

P.S.: Jesus’ “brothers” might even have been adopted. We don’t know.

 

[Eliza10]

What if they were married and already had kids? Maybe it was jealousy that hindered them from belief…
P.S.: Jesus’ “brothers” might even have been adopted. We don’t know.

That would be a* some* cause for jealously!

“But its so *unfair! *Mom and Dad treat Jesus like he’s King of the Universe!”

 

[Eliza10]

If you have kids, you know, they NOTICE if someone is treated as extra-special. All kids want to be special.

My husband adds: “And if they found out that Joseph was not his father, they would start thinking he was the milkman’s kid.”

And, of course, there would be, “Tell us about when Jesus was born”. I guess you cannot tell about the angels, the shepherds, the wise men, right? Because the other kids don’t have such an amazing birth story…

And if you withhold truth from kids, they sense it; the curiosity remains with no satisfactory answer. They would want to know WHY Jesus is treated differently from any other child.

If Mary had other children, they would wonder why they were treated with love, but Jesus with love and worship.… If they were Joseph’s grown children, they would see he was treating Jesus differently than he treated them…

Also imagine doing homework with your Ominicient sibling.

Besides these unfathomable jealousies, how to you keep a lid on that, and keep the shroud of privacy needed for the God-Child, whose time had not yet come? The questions raised in the siblings minds would come out to others in talk, and more talk…

 

[JB_Brother_4446]

If you have kids, you know, they NOTICE if someone is treated as extra-special. All kids want to be special.

My husband adds: “And if they found out that Joseph was not his father, they would start thinking he was the milkman’s kid.”

And, of course, there would be, “Tell us about when Jesus was born”. I guess you cannot tell about the angels, the shepherds, the wise men, right? Because the other kids don’t have such an amazing birth story…

And if you withhold truth from kids, they sense it; the curiosity remains with no satisfactory answer. They would want to know WHY Jesus is treated differently from any other child.

If Mary had other children, they would wonder why they were treated with love, but Jesus with love and worship.… If they were Joseph’s grown children, they would see he was treating Jesus differently than he treated them…

Also imagine doing homework with your Ominicient sibling.

Besides these unfathomable jealousies, how to you keep a lid on that, and keep the shroud of privacy needed for the God-Child, whose time had not yet come? The questions raised in the siblings minds would come out to others in talk, and more talk…

I’m pretty sure you can ask Eastern Catholics these questions. They will be happy to help you.

 

[JB_Brother_4446]

In the Eastern tradition, James the Just was with the Holy Family at the Flight Into Egypt. When Joseph was about to die, he wanted to give some of the inheritance to Jesus. However, the children of Joseph (Jesus’ stepbrothers and sisters) didn’t want to share any of it, all except for James the Just.

 

[JB_Brother_4446]

Is there is a possibility that Epistle of James is written by James the Less? Because Epistle of Jude says his brother is James and we know the foursome of Mary Clopas has James and Jude and that Simon was later made the 2nd Bishop of Jerusalem after the death of James the Just.

James the Less is actually reputed to have become the bishop of Syria. He died a martyr’s death in Lower Egypt by crucifixion.
The dude you’re talking about is James the Just, son of Joseph from a previous marriage.

 

[JB_Brother_4446]

Here is the lineage of Jesus that I came up with.

 

[Eliza10]

I’m pretty sure you can ask Eastern Catholics these questions. They will be happy to help you.

Why didn’t Josephs grandchildren become disciples, and why weren’t any at the cross? All that giant family and NONE of them there? And when Joseph abandoned his alleged first family to leave with his “second” family and live in Nazareth, how, upon returning, did he explain the long absence if it wasn’t for the sake of their lives - without giving away that the true identity of their half-brother which had to be a HUGE secret?

See, the questions could go on and on. But to seek out answers from those who adhere to this theory, as you suggest, is pointless to me. The theory would have to seem plausible enough to me to hold my interest. Tidbits like the one you share in #31 just seem pointless. It seems to me that EVERYTHING about the life of Christ had a point, and everything about Mary, and Joseph too - whom I am more willing to believe had a single vocation in life, because it just makes more sense. The entire Holy family, all three of them, living for God alone and to do God’s will and carry out ONE vocation, one IMPORTANT vocation, which ALL of their lives aimed for - not just a little part of their life - *all *of their life. And not two with a single single-minded vocation (Mary and Jesus), but one with at least two differing ones (Joseph)…

Just saying my opinion of why the “Step-Brothers/Blended Family” theory does not seem believable, since you are sharing your theory here, and saying that I believe the “Cousins” theory is the believable one because it makes sense on every level.

…its just not broken, so, why fix it?..]

.
.
.

 

[ericc]

James the Less is actually reputed to have become the bishop of Syria. He died a martyr’s death in Lower Egypt by crucifixion.
The dude you’re talking about is James the Just, son of Joseph from a previous marriage.

I was asking whether the epistle of James could be written by James the Less. Just simply because Jude identified himself as brother of James in his epistle. There is no mention of James the Just having a brother with the name of Jude.

I know Eusebius claimed James the Just to be a son of Joseph. But he didn’t say why James the Just can enter the Holy Place (which is reserved for Levite priests only) when his father Joseph clearly is not a Levite. And if James is a Levite , Joseph being from the house of David can not be his biological father then. Which then mean the “adelphon” in Gal 1:19 must then refer to other type of kinship then since the data does not support step-brother theory.

Unless James the Just is an adopted son from a Levite family, or step-son of Joseph’s first wife from another marriage of a Levite father, Eusebius would be contradicting himself.

Step brother seems to be eliminated as a contender by this reasoning.

 

[BartholomewB]

Why didn’t Josephs grandchildren become disciples, and why weren’t any at the cross? All that giant family and NONE of them there?

Those questions are answered in the last few verses of Matt 13 and the first few verses of Mark 6. Whatever the degree of kinship was – whether they were stepbrothers, half-brothers, first cousins, second cousins, or anything else – they didn’t believe what Jesus was telling them about himself.

James evidently changed his mind after the risen Jesus appeared to him (1 Cor 15:7).

 

[JB_Brother_4446]

Why didn’t Josephs grandchildren become disciples, and why weren’t any at the cross? All that giant family and NONE of them there? And when Joseph abandoned his alleged first family to leave with his “second” family and live in Nazareth, how, upon returning, did he explain the long absence if it wasn’t for the sake of their lives - without giving away that the true identity of their half-brother which had to be a HUGE secret?

See, the questions could go on and on. But to seek out answers from those who adhere to this theory, as you suggest, is pointless to me. The theory would have to seem plausible enough to me to hold my interest. Tidbits like the one you share in #31 just seem pointless. It seems to me that EVERYTHING about the life of Christ had a point, and everything about Mary, and Joseph too - whom I am more willing to believe had a single vocation in life, because it just makes more sense. The entire Holy family, all three of them, living for God alone and to do God’s will and carry out ONE vocation, one IMPORTANT vocation, which ALL of their lives aimed for - not just a little part of their life - *all *of their life. And not two with a single single-minded vocation (Mary and Jesus), but one with at least two differing ones (Joseph)…

Just saying my opinion of why the “Step-Brothers/Blended Family” theory does not seem believable, since you are sharing your theory here, and saying that I believe the “Cousins” theory is the believable one because it makes sense on every level.

…its just not broken, so, why fix it?..]

.
.
.

It’s your opinion, not what really happened. I think either theory will be confirmed when either of us meets James the Just in heaven.

 

[JB_Brother_4446]

I was asking whether the epistle of James could be written by James the Less. Just simply because Jude identified himself as brother of James in his epistle. There is no mention of James the Just having a brother with the name of Jude.

I know Eusebius claimed James the Just to be a son of Joseph. But he didn’t say why James the Just can enter the Holy Place (which is reserved for Levite priests only) when his father Joseph clearly is not a Levite. And if James is a Levite , Joseph being from the house of David can not be his biological father then. Which then mean the “adelphon” in Gal 1:19 must then refer to other type of kinship then since the data does not support step-brother theory.

Unless James the Just is an adopted son from a Levite family, or step-son of Joseph’s first wife from another marriage of a Levite father, Eusebius would be contradicting himself.

Step brother seems to be eliminated as a contender by this reasoning.

James the Just could have had a double parentage.

 

[Eliza10]

It’s your opinion, not what really happened. I think either theory will be confirmed when either of us meets James the Just in heaven.

Yes, we will meet James the Less, and James the Just. And,* they will be one and the same*.

Because I am going with the reputable authority of St. Jerome:knight1::

James the Less could also be identified as being the brother of Jesus, James the Just. Jerome also concluded that James “the brother of the Lord” is the same as James the Less.

To explain this, Jerome first tells that James the Less must be identified with James, the son Alphaeus. After that, James the Less being the same as James, the son of Alphaeus, Jerome describes in his work called* De Viris Illustribus* that James “the brother of the Lord” is the same as James, son of Alphaeus:

“James, who is called the brother of the Lord, surnamed the Just, the son of Joseph by another wife, as some think, but, as appears to me, the son of Mary sister of the mother our Lord of whom John makes mention in his book.(John 19:25)”

Thus, Jerome concludes that:

** James the Less,
James, son of Alphaeus and
James the Just
are one and the same person**.

One person. Not to be divided into two persons. That’s confusing. And doesn’t make sense.

:yup:

:egyptian:

 

[JB_Brother_4446]

Yes, we will meet James the Less, and James the Just. And,* they will be one and the same*.

Because I am going with the reputable authority of St. Jerome:knight1::

Thus, Jerome concludes that:

** James the Less,
James, son of Alphaeus and
James the Just
are one and the same person**.

One person. Not to be divided into two persons. That’s confusing. And doesn’t make sense.

:yup:

:egyptian:

I’ll just go with the opinion of the East, which has closer ties to what really happened. James son of Alphaeus is not the same as James the Just.