The 3 James Theory

[JB_Brother_4446]

Jerome also says,“If James the Just is James the son of Alphaeus, he must be an apostle and a believer in Jesus. For even His brothers did not believe in him.” Sacred Scripture says Jesus’ relatives just didn’t get it. That is what I’m sticking with.

 

[Eliza10]

I’ll just go with the opinion of the East… James son of Alphaeus is not the same as James the Just.

Ah! Then we will agree to disagree! :tiphat:

 

[JB_Brother_4446]

Ah! Then we will agree to disagree! :tiphat:

Also Judas Thaddeus in Luke 6 and in Acts 1 is Judas the son of James, disqualifying him as Jude brother of Jesus.

 

[Eliza10]

Also Judas Thaddeus in Luke 6 and in Acts 1 is Judas the son of James, disqualifying him as Jude brother of Jesus.

This is a very misleading claim you make here.

So misleading, in fact, that it makes me not trust what you write.:dts:

Your abbreviated Bible references imply that whole chapters of the Bible are behind your theory. And who would disbelieve whole chapters of the Bible?

But instead what you refer to is ONE verse in each of those chapters. And I can NOT believe that when you tell us here that* these verses say that Judas is the SON of James*, you are UNAWARE that that is a controversial interpretation.:nope:

That’s why I say it makes me not trust what you write.

In those verses you are interpreting the phrase “Judas of James” BEYOND what the clear purpose of it is, which anyone can see there in its context - to distinguish Judas Thaddeus from Judas Iscariot. Not to explain family relationships!

You instead use that verse to say that it must be telling us how Judas Thaddeus is “of” James, even when in fact it is NOT clear in that verse.

And you are choosing to side with the common Protestant interpretation, to support your theory that you present in this thread, instead of our traditional Catholic interpretation of that verse, which is “Judas, brother of James”. Yes, you, like the Protestants, call it “Judas son of James”, and they assert their opinion by inserting the word “son” into many of their 66 book Bibles.

The fact that the two verses you cite to defend your theory have obvious conflicting interpretations can be seen clearly at these Biblehub links, where translations of these verses can be seen all on a same page in differing translations: Luke 6:16 and Acts 1:13. Biblehub is a Protestant site, so favorite Protestant Bible Translations are prominently featured. But scrolling down you can see that in the versions untampered by Protestant theologians, like the original King James and the Douay-Rheims, the traditional Catholic translation is plain to see.

The Protestant Weymouth version apparently did not want to go with new Protestant tradition, or, understandably, the Catholic tradition, but it seems they wanted to at least give an honest translation, so they went with "James’s relative Judas". I admire that!

But I’ll go with the main Catholic tradition, which says that the Apostle Judas is the brother of the Apostle James.

And here it is from a VERY early Church Father, and Saint, Papias of Hierapolis!

According to the surviving fragments of the work Exposition of the Sayings of the Lord of the Apostolic Father Papias of Hierapolis, who lived c. 70–163 AD, Mary the wife of Cleophas or Alphaeus would be the mother of Judas the brother of Jesus that Papias identifies with Thaddeus:

Mary the wife of Cleophas or Alphaeus, who was the mother of James the bishop and apostle, and of Simon and Thaddeus, and of one Joseph…(Fragment X)[17]

There you go. Mary, wife of Cleophas, who is also called Alphaeus, had FOUR SONS.

The Apostles James and Judas,

And their brothers Simon and Joseph.

And these are the brothers (cousins) of Jesus. .

That should clear up a lot.

I don’t see why anyone thinks that centuries later they have a better interpretation than St.Papias, early church father of the first century. .

 

[JB_Brother_4446]

(Continued)

Maria mater Domini.
Maria Cleophae, sive Alphei uxor, quae fuit mater Iacobi episcopi et apostoli et Symonis et Thadei et cuiusdam Ioseph: Maria Salome uxor Zebedei mater Ioannis evangelistae et Iacobi: Maria Magdalene: istae quatuor in Evangelio reperiuntur. Iacobus et Iudas et Ioseph filii erant materterae Domini; Iacobus quoque et Ioannes alterius matertrae Domini fuerunt filii. Maria Jacobi minoris et Joseph mater, uxor Alphei, soror fuit Mariae matris Domini, quam Cleophae Joannes nominat vel a patre vel a gentilitatis familia vel alia causa. Maria Salome a viro vel a vico dicitur: hanc eandem Cleophae quidam dicunt quod duos viros habuerit.
Maria dicitur illuminatrix sive stella maris, genuit enim lumen mundi; sermone autem Syro Domina nuncupatur, quia genuit Dominum.’

Mary the mother of the Lord; (2) Mary the wife of Cleophas or Alphaeus, who was the mother of James the bishop and apostle, and of Simon and Thaddeus, and of one Joseph; (3) Mary Salome, wife of Zebedee, mother of John the evangelist and James; (4) Mary Magdalene. These four are found in the Gospel. James and Judas and Joseph were sons of an aunt (2) of the Lord’s. James also and John were sons of another aunt (3) of the Lord’s. Mary (2), mother of James the Less and Joseph, wife of Alphaeus was the sister of Mary the mother of the Lord, whom John names of Cleophas, either from her father or from the family of the clan, or for some other reason. Mary Salome (3) is called Salome either from her husband or her village. Some affirm that she is the same as Mary of Cleophas, because she had two husbands.

As for this Papias quote: the ‘Papias’ who wrote the quote isn’t actually the early Church Father, but a medieval (11th century) Italian writer of the same name, who wrote a Latin dictionary/lexicon called Elementarium doctrinae rudimentum, of which this was one of the entries (actually three entries).. This quote was found in a 14th century manuscript attributed to a ‘Papias’ (the Italian Papias’ dictionary was quite popular in its heyday); people apparently confused the later Papias with the earlier Papias. (What really gave away the quote is how in the original Latin - yes, the quote was in Latin - the statement about Mary being Cl(e)ophas’ wife is word-for-word identical with what St. Jerome wrote.)

Eliza10 my friend Patrick has already cleared your claim. Also in Mark’s gospel, Jesus’ relatives go to restrain him, because they said,“He is mad.” If James the brother of Jesus was an apostle, he would not have been among those relatives. The only Church Fathers who say that James the brother of Jesus is James the less are John Chrysostom and Augustine. These two came way after Jesus.

 

[JB_Brother_4446]

This is a very misleading claim you make here.

So misleading, in fact, that it makes me not trust what you write.:dts:

Your abbreviated Bible references imply that whole chapters of the Bible are behind your theory. And who would disbelieve whole chapters of the Bible?

But instead what you refer to is ONE verse in each of those chapters. And I can NOT believe that when you tell us here that* these verses say that Judas is the SON of James*, you are UNAWARE that that is a controversial interpretation.:nope:

That’s why I say it makes me not trust what you write.

In those verses you are interpreting the phrase “Judas of James” BEYOND what the clear purpose of it is, which anyone can see there in its context - to distinguish Judas Thaddeus from Judas Iscariot. Not to explain family relationships!

You instead use that verse to say that it must be telling us how Judas Thaddeus is “of” James, even when in fact it is NOT clear in that verse.

And you are choosing to side with the common Protestant interpretation, to support your theory that you present in this thread, instead of our traditional Catholic interpretation of that verse, which is “Judas, brother of James”. Yes, you, like the Protestants, call it "Judas son of James", and they assert their opinion by inserting the word “son” into many of their 66 book Bibles.

The fact that the two verses you cite to defend your theory have obvious conflicting interpretations can be seen clearly at these Biblehub links, where translations of these verses can be seen all on a same page in differing translations: Luke 6:16 and Acts 1:13. Biblehub is a Protestant site, so favorite Protestant Bible Translations are prominently featured. But scrolling down you can see that in the versions untampered by Protestant theologians, like the original King James and the Douay-Rheims, the traditional Catholic translation is plain to see.

The Protestant Weymouth version apparently did not want to go with new Protestant tradition, or, understandably, the Catholic tradition, but it seems they wanted to at least give an honest translation, so they went with "James’s relative Judas". I admire that!

But I’ll go with the main Catholic tradition, which says that the Apostle Judas is the brother of the Apostle James.

And here it is from a VERY early Church Father, and Saint, Papias of Hierapolis!

There you go. Mary, wife of Cleophas, who is also called Alphaeus, had FOUR SONS.

The Apostles James and Judas,

And their brothers Simon and Joseph.

And these are the brothers (cousins) of Jesus. .

That should clear up a lot.

I don’t see why anyone thinks that centuries later they have a better interpretation than St.Papias, early church father of the first century. .

Also I got these from the NAB and the Aramaic Peshitta says “Yehudah bar Yakkov.”
That should clear up a lot.

 

[Eliza10]

Also I got these from the NAB and the Aramaic Peshitta says “Yehudah bar Yakkov.”
That should clear up a lot.

Well it does not clear up what I said about how I feel mistrust for how you post now, because, as I explained, your claims mislead.

Eliza10 my friend

We don’t know each other except by these couple of threads, and, I am sure you can can see how, particularly since I just said I find your way of posting purposefully misleading, I probably don’t feel like your friend now.

Patrick has already cleared your claim. Also in Mark’s gospel, Jesus’ relatives go to restrain him, because they said,“He is mad.” If James the brother of Jesus was an apostle, he would not have been among those relatives. The only Church Fathers who say that James the brother of Jesus is James the less are John Chrysostom and Augustine. These two came way after Jesus.

Well like most of the readers of this thread I am not a Biblical scholar, or a languages expert, so - NO, I am not likely to give up common sense and Catholic tradition because someone here may have studied languages. Why should what either of you say replace the wisdom of the great scholar St.Jerome for me? Are you claiming superior scholarly credentials to St. Jerome?

It happens my husband has these studied languages and has a good memory for all he has studied so I will seek his scholarly (not expert) opinion. But somehow we generally agree on such questions. Even though I don’t have his credentials. We do share a love of Catholic tradition, and neither of us has a desire to make any new exciting discoveries or author new theories. That probably has something to do with it.

 

[JB_Brother_4446]

Well it does not clear up what I said about how I feel mistrust for how you post now, because, as I explained, your claims mislead.

We don’t know each other except by these couple of threads, and, I am sure you can can see how, particularly since I just said I find your way of posting purposefully misleading, I probably don’t feel like your friend now.

I wasn’t calling you my friend. I was calling Patrick my friend.

Well like most of the readers of this thread I am not a Biblical scholar, or a languages expert, so - NO, I am not likely to give up common sense and Catholic tradition because someone here may have studied languages. Why should what either of you say replace the wisdom of the great scholar St.Jerome for me? Are you claiming superior scholarly credentials to St. Jerome?

What about Eusebius of Caesarea? Has he no scriptural authority? According to him James the Just ruled “in conjunction with the Apostles.”

 

[Eliza10]

I wasn’t calling you my friend. I was calling Patrick my friend.

Thanks for explaining, because it was a little weird the way I read it.
.
.

What about Eusebius of Caesarea? Has he no scriptural authority? According to him James the Just ruled “in conjunction with the Apostles.”

From what you imply here about the meaning of what you quoted, one would have to deduce that St. Jerome was either unaware of or in disagreement with these writings of this good bishop, who just preceded him. Do you have any evidence to support that idea?

What you present here as the conclusion of Eusebius is simply *your personal deduction *interpreting a further meaning of Eusebius’ statement, in order to support your theory. You give no evidence that Eusebius agrees with your deduction. The point of the statement you quoted is simple to see - James did not rule in divergence with the Apostles. It does not look at all like Eusebius was trying to explain that James was a separate entity from the Apostles.
.
.
.
.

 

[JB_Brother_4446]

Thanks for explaining, because it was a little weird the way I read it.
.
.

From what you imply here about the meaning of what you quoted, one would have to deduce that St. Jerome was either unaware of or in disagreement with these writings of this good bishop, who just preceded him. Do you have any evidence to support that idea?

What you present here as the conclusion of Eusebius is simply *your personal deduction *interpreting a further meaning of Eusebius’ statement, in order to support your theory. You give no evidence that Eusebius agrees with your deduction. The point of the statement you quoted is simple to see - James did not rule in divergence with the Apostles. It does not look at all like Eusebius was trying to explain that James was a separate entity from the Apostles.
.
.
.
.

Eusebius also called James the Righteous a son of Joseph.

 

[JB_Brother_4446]

Thanks for explaining, because it was a little weird the way I read it.
.
.

From what you imply here about the meaning of what you quoted, one would have to deduce that St. Jerome was either unaware of or in disagreement with these writings of this good bishop, who just preceded him. Do you have any evidence to support that idea?

What you present here as the conclusion of Eusebius is simply *your personal deduction *interpreting a further meaning of Eusebius’ statement, in order to support your theory. You give no evidence that Eusebius agrees with your deduction. The point of the statement you quoted is simple to see - James did not rule in divergence with the Apostles. It does not look at all like Eusebius was trying to explain that James was a separate entity from the Apostles.
.
.
.
.

Also Clement of Alexandria says that he was appointed by the Twelve to oversee Jerusalem.
Also Judas of James in the Aramaic Peshitta is translated as Yehudah bar Yaqob. The translation is Judas son of James. If he was the brother of James, it would have been Yehudah ab Yaqob, ab meaning brother in this case.

 

[patrick457]

I’m just going to butt in, drop some quotes, and then I’ll leave again.

Our first evidence of the idea of the ‘brothers’ of Jesus being sons of Joseph from a previous marriage comes from a couple of apocryphal works written in late 2nd century Syria: the Protoevangelium of James and the Infancy Gospel of Thomas (not to be confused with the other Gospel of Thomas).

Joseph cast aside his carpenter’s axe and went to their meeting. When they had gathered together they went to the priest, bringing their rods. When he had received the rods from them he went into the Temple and prayed. When he finished his prayer, he took the rods, went outside, and gave them back. And no sign appeared among them. But Joseph took the last rod, and behold! A dove came out of the rod and flew onto Joseph’s head. The priest said to Joseph, “You have been chosen to take the Lord’s virgin into your safekeeping.” But Joseph refused, saying, “I have sons and am an old man; she is but a child. I do not want to become a laughingstock to the sons of Israel.”

Protoevangelium of James 9.1-2

Now Joseph sent his son James to bundle some wood and bring it home. The child Jesus also followed him. While James was gathering the firewood, a snake bit his hand. When he was stretched out on the ground dying, Jesus came up to him and breathed on the bite. The pain immediately stopped, the animal burst, and straightaway James was returned to health.

Infancy Gospel of Thomas 16.1-2

The Protoevangelium was quite popular that the idea was recycled in some later apocryphal writings written in the East (for example, the so-called History of Joseph the Carpenter, written in 7th-century Egypt).

Origen in the 3rd century repeated this idea (Commentary on Matthew 10.17):

And they spoke, wondering, (not knowing that He was the son of a virgin, or not believing it even if it was told to them, but supposing that He was the son of Joseph the carpenter,) “is not this the carpenter’s son?” (Matthew 13:55) And depreciating the whole of what appeared to be His nearest kindred, they said, “Is not His mother called Mary? And His brethren, James and Joseph and Simon and Judas? And His sisters, are they not all with us?” (Matthew 13:55-56) They thought, then, that He was the son of Joseph and Mary. But some say, basing it on a tradition in the Gospel according to Peter, as it is entitled, or The Book of James, that the brethren of Jesus were sons of Joseph by a former wife, whom he married before Mary. Now those who say so wish to preserve the honour of Mary in virginity to the end, so that that body of hers which was appointed to minister to the Word which said, “The Holy Ghost shall come upon you, and the power of the Most High shall overshadow you,” (Luke 1:35) might not know intercourse with a man after that the Holy Ghost came into her and the power from on high overshadowed her. And I think it in harmony with reason that Jesus was the first-fruit among men of the purity which consists in chastity, and Mary among women; for it were not pious to ascribe to any other than to her the first-fruit of virginity.

And James is he whom Paul says in the Epistle to the Galatians that he saw, “But other of the Apostles saw I none, save James the Lord’s brother”. (Galatians 1:19) And to so great a reputation among the people for righteousness did this James rise, that Flavius Josephus, who wrote the Antiquities of the Jews in twenty books, when wishing to exhibit the cause why the people suffered so great misfortunes that even the temple was razed to the ground, said, that these things happened to them in accordance with the wrath of God in consequence of the things which they had dared to do against James the brother of Jesus who is called Christ. And the wonderful thing is, that, though he did not accept Jesus as Christ, he yet gave testimony that the righteousness of James was so great; and he says that the people thought that they had suffered these things because of James.

And Jude, who wrote a letter of few lines, it is true, but filled with the healthful words of heavenly grace, said in the preface, “Jude, the servant of Jesus Christ and the brother of James.” (Jude 1) With regard to Joseph and Simon we have nothing to tell; but the saying, “And His sisters are they not all with us,” (Matthew 13:56) seems to me to signify something of this nature— they mind our things, not those of Jesus, and have no unusual portion of surpassing wisdom as Jesus has. And perhaps by these things is indicated a new doubt concerning Him, that Jesus was not a man but something diviner, inasmuch as He was, as they supposed, the son of Joseph and Mary, and the brother of four, and of the others— the women— as well, and yet had nothing like to any one of His kindred, and had not from education and teaching come to such a height of wisdom and power. For they also say elsewhere, “How knows this man letters having never learned?” (John 7:15) which is similar to what is here said. Only, though they say these things and are so perplexed and astonished, they did not believe, but were offended in Him; as if they had been mastered in the eyes of their mind by the powers which, in the time of the passion, He was about to lead in triumph on the cross.

Another (earlier) Alexandrian, Clement, also took this idea for granted:

Jude, who wrote the Catholic Epistle, the brother of the sons of Joseph, and very religious, while knowing the near relationship of the Lord, yet did not say that he himself was His brother. But what said he? “Jude, a servant of Jesus Christ,”— of Him as Lord; but “the brother of James.” For this is true; he was His brother, (the son) of Joseph. ex Ioseph]

(Continuing in the next post)

 

[patrick457]

(Continued)

As probably mentioned earlier, Eusebius was also a proponent of the stepbrother theory (Church History 2.1.2-3).

Then James, whom the ancients surnamed the Just on account of the excellence of his virtue, is recorded to have been the first to be made bishop of the church of Jerusalem. This James was called the brother of the Lord because he was known as a son of Joseph, and Joseph was supposed to be the father of Christ, because the Virgin, being betrothed to him, “was found with child by the Holy Ghost before they came together,” (Matthew 1:18) as the account of the holy Gospels shows. But Clement 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.”

Eusebius claims that the successor of James to the leadership/bishopric of the Jerusalem church to Symeon, son of Clopas (here identified a a brother of Joseph). Eusebius follows the 2nd-century author Hegesippus in identifying Symeon as Jesus’ anepsios, ‘cousin’. Now while Symeon is presented as an anepsios of Jesus and the son of Clopas, James is different: he is mentioned to be the son of Joseph and Jesus’ adelphos ‘brother’ (cf. the quote above). Speaking of which, Hegesippus as quoted by Eusebius distinguished James the Just from the apostles (CH 2.23.1, 4):

But after Paul, in consequence of his appeal to Caesar, had been sent to Rome by Festus, the Jews, being frustrated in their hope of entrapping him by the snares which they had laid for him, turned against James, the brother of the Lord, to whom the episcopal seat at Jerusalem had been entrusted by the apostles. …]

The manner of James’ death has been already indicated by the above-quoted words of Clement, who records that he was thrown from the pinnacle of the temple, and was beaten to death with a club. But Hegesippus, who lived immediately after the apostles, gives the most accurate account in the fifth book of his Memoirs. He writes as follows:

“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. …] Because of his exceeding great justice he was called the Just, and Oblias, which signifies in Greek, ‘Bulwark of the people’ and ‘Justice,’ in accordance with what the prophets declare concerning him.”​

(Continued in the next post - again)

 

[patrick457]

(Continued)

It’s also found in the writings of St. Epiphanius of Salamis. St. Epiphanius is probably the most famous proponent of this idea, repeating it every now and then in his Panarion - hence the reason why the stepbrother idea is sometimes called the ‘Epiphanian’ theory:

The throne is established in God’s holy church forever, and has both the ranks of king and high-priest for two reasons. The rank of king from our Lord Jesus Christ, also in two ways: because he is descended from King David physically, and because, in Godhead, he is in fact a greater king from all eternity. But the rank of priest because Christ is high priest and chief of high priests - since Jame, called the brother and apostle of the Lord, was made the first bishop immediately. Actually he was Joseph’s son, but was said to be in the position of the Lord’s brother because they were reared together. For James was Joseph’s son by Joseph’s wife, not Mary, as I have said, and discussed with clarity, in many other place. And moreover I find that he was of Davidic decent because he was Joseph’s son, that he was born a nazirite - for he was Joseph’s first-born, and hence consecrated. (Panarion 29.3.8-4.2)

And it will be found that the fraud (= Mani) is falsely accusing Christ of failure to keep his word. For the apostles’ generation is gone - I mean the generation from Peter until Paul, and until John who even lived until the time of Trajan. And James is gone, the first to exercise the episcopate in Jerusalem. (James was called the Lord’s brother but he was Joseph’s son, born, like the rest of his brother, of Joseph’s real wife. Because the Lord Jesus Christ, who was born in the flesh of the ever-virgin Mary, was brought up with them, were in the position of brothers to him, and he was called their brother.) And all the saints who shared James’ throne are gone, and Symeon, the son of James’ uncle, with them - Symeon, the son of Cleopas the brother of Joseph. (66.19.7)

Where can I not find proof that the Virgin remained pure? For a starter, let them show me that Mary bore children after the Savior’s birth! Let these designers and reciters of deceit and mischief make the names up and give them! But they can’t show them because she was still a virgin and, perish the thought, had no sexual relations! If she had ever borne children even though she was always with the Savior himself, her children too would be said to be with .

But the text, “Lo, thy mother and thy brethren stand without, seeking thee,” misleads them. Besides, they do not know the wording of the earlier passage, “His brethren believed on him.” As I myself grow older and am surprised at the triviality of the thing in the sacred scripture - I can tell you, as I become fully acquainted with them I thank God for taking the precaution to prove the truth of every text in the sacred scripture by the seemingly trivial word. I always heard that James was called the Lord’s brother, and I said in wonderment, “What’s the use of this?” But now I understand why the sacred scripture said this beforehand. When we hear, “Lo, thy mother and thy brethren stand without, seeking thee,” let us by all means learn that it is speaking of James and the other sons of Joseph, and not of sons of Mary whom he never had.

For it was plain that, in comparison with the [years of] the Lord’s incarnation, James was the elder. The scripture calls them brothers to confound [our opponents], and names James, Joses, Simeon, Judah, Salome and Mary, so that they will learn whose son James is and by which mother, and understand who is the elder. (78.9.1-6)

Peter and Andrew, James and John, Philip and Bartholomew, Thoma, Thaddaeus, James the son of Alphaeus, Judas the son of James and Simon the Zealot, and Matthias who was chosen to make up the number of the Twelve - all these chosen to be apostles and “offer the Gospel” the world, together with Paul, Barnabas and the rest. And with James, the Lord’s brother and the bishop of Jerusalem, [they were chosen] to preside over mysteries. (79.3.3)

You might notice that Epiphanius continues the line of interpretation already found in Eusebius and Hegesippus: Simeon son of Clopas was the cousin of Jesus, while James was His ‘brother’: a son of Joseph but not a son of Mary.

I probably mentioned this earlier in the thread, but the Eastern Churches (Eastern Catholics included) still consider James the Just (aka Adelphotheos) to be a different person from James of Alphaeus - although the other ‘brother’, Jude, is apparently reckoned to be one of the Twelve.

In the Byzantine tradition, James the Just has three or four feasts assigned to him: October 23, December 26 and the next Sunday of the Nativity (where he is commemorated with King David and St. Joseph), and January 4 (as one of the Seventy Apostles). James of Alphaeus’ feastdays meanwhile are on October 9 and June 30 (as one of the Twelve).

 

[patrick457]

Minor trivia: the Jerusalem Church in the 4th-5th century commemorated both James the Just and King David - the founders of the old and new Jerusalem respectively - on December 25; at that time, the date for the Nativity for most of the Eastern Churches was still January 6 (our modern Epiphany/Theophany). When most of the East began to accept the Western date of December 25th for the Nativity starting from the 5th-6th century onwards, the commemorations began to be moved on the day after (so in the Byzantine tradition) or the day before. The Armenian Church still commemorates the Nativity on January 6th (making them the only Eastern Church to retain this date), but their commemoration of David and James were also displaced by one day, so that now it falls on either the 23rd or 24th.

 

[JB_Brother_4446]

(Continued)

It’s also found in the writings of St. Epiphanius of Salamis. St. Epiphanius is probably the most famous proponent of this idea, repeating it every now and then in his Panarion - hence the reason why the stepbrother idea is sometimes called the ‘Epiphanian’ theory:

The throne is established in God’s holy church forever, and has both the ranks of king and high-priest for two reasons. The rank of king from our Lord Jesus Christ, also in two ways: because he is descended from King David physically, and because, in Godhead, he is in fact a greater king from all eternity. But the rank of priest because Christ is high priest and chief of high priests - since Jame, called the brother and apostle of the Lord, was made the first bishop immediately. Actually he was Joseph’s son, but was said to be in the position of the Lord’s brother because they were reared together. For James was Joseph’s son by Joseph’s wife, not Mary, as I have said, and discussed with clarity, in many other place. And moreover I find that he was of Davidic decent because he was Joseph’s son, that he was born a nazirite - for he was Joseph’s first-born, and hence consecrated. (Panarion 29.3.8-4.2)

And it will be found that the fraud (= Mani) is falsely accusing Christ of failure to keep his word. For the apostles’ generation is gone - I mean the generation from Peter until Paul, and until John who even lived until the time of Trajan. And James is gone, the first to exercise the episcopate in Jerusalem. (James was called the Lord’s brother but he was Joseph’s son, born, like the rest of his brother, of Joseph’s real wife. Because the Lord Jesus Christ, who was born in the flesh of the ever-virgin Mary, was brought up with them, were in the position of brothers to him, and he was called their brother.) And all the saints who shared James’ throne are gone, and Symeon, the son of James’ uncle, with them - Symeon, the son of Cleopas the brother of Joseph. (66.19.7)

Where can I not find proof that the Virgin remained pure? For a starter, let them show me that Mary bore children after the Savior’s birth! Let these designers and reciters of deceit and mischief make the names up and give them! But they can’t show them because she was still a virgin and, perish the thought, had no sexual relations! If she had ever borne children even though she was always with the Savior himself, her children too would be said to be with .

But the text, “Lo, thy mother and thy brethren stand without, seeking thee,” misleads them. Besides, they do not know the wording of the earlier passage, “His brethren believed on him.” As I myself grow older and am surprised at the triviality of the thing in the sacred scripture - I can tell you, as I become fully acquainted with them I thank God for taking the precaution to prove the truth of every text in the sacred scripture by the seemingly trivial word. I always heard that James was called the Lord’s brother, and I said in wonderment, “What’s the use of this?” But now I understand why the sacred scripture said this beforehand. When we hear, “Lo, thy mother and thy brethren stand without, seeking thee,” let us by all means learn that it is speaking of James and the other sons of Joseph, and not of sons of Mary whom he never had.

For it was plain that, in comparison with the [years of] the Lord’s incarnation, James was the elder. The scripture calls them brothers to confound [our opponents], and names James, Joses, Simeon, Judah, Salome and Mary, so that they will learn whose son James is and by which mother, and understand who is the elder. (78.9.1-6)

Peter and Andrew, James and John, Philip and Bartholomew, Thoma, Thaddaeus, James the son of Alphaeus, Judas the son of James and Simon the Zealot, and Matthias who was chosen to make up the number of the Twelve - all these chosen to be apostles and “offer the Gospel” the world, together with Paul, Barnabas and the rest. And with James, the Lord’s brother and the bishop of Jerusalem, [they were chosen] to preside over mysteries. (79.3.3)

You might notice that Epiphanius continues the line of interpretation already found in Eusebius and Hegesippus: Simeon son of Clopas was the cousin of Jesus, while James was His ‘brother’: a son of Joseph but not a son of Mary.

I probably mentioned this earlier in the thread, but the Eastern Churches (Eastern Catholics included) still consider James the Just (aka Adelphotheos) to be a different person from James of Alphaeus - although the other ‘brother’, Jude, is apparently reckoned to be one of the Twelve.

In the Byzantine tradition, James the Just has three or four feasts assigned to him: October 23, December 26 and the next Sunday of the Nativity (where he is commemorated with King David and St. Joseph), and January 4 (as one of the Seventy Apostles). James of Alphaeus’ feastdays meanwhile are on October 9 and June 30 (as one of the Twelve).

Eliza, does this answer your question?

 

[Eliza10]

I’m just going to butt in, drop some quotes, and then I’ll leave again…

I would leave and NEVER come back if I left stuff like this behind!

What a disgraceful group of supposed-experts! They are each one of them either REALLY BAD or at least seriously FLAWED.

Your extra gospels!

Protoevangelium of James???

This one is disgusting. Anyone can read this online and see it is VASTLY different from anything you read in the gospel or the catechism. Its a whole 'nother kind of book!! It will tickle the ears of the inquiring minds, though! Wow, you can read a GRAPHIC DESCRIPTION of how the alleged Salome! A midwife! came to see the baby, heard he was born of a virgin, and this just got to her sensibility as a midwife! So she just HAD to invade a MOST private part of Our Lady’s body, after the birth of Jesus, because she just could not believe Mary could still be a virgin, and she needed to check! and make sure! to satisfy her curiosity! So she did! This was apparently fine with the Blessed Mother and just St. Joseph, who apparently had nothing else to do just after the birth of Our Lord except to satisfy vain curiosities. Really, sick. And, drat! Why is there no icon for throwing up?

My husband refers to this as “a prurient, unwholesome interest in the anatomy of Mary and gives no glory to God.”

Yes.

The idiotic drivel continues, when later, on the way to Egypt, Our Lady and Our Lord had many miracles to do! Including the 3 crying woman! Who had a MULE dressed in silk! In their living room! With an ebony collar! It was their brother! Who had met some giddy women who did this to him! Yes! They changed him into a MULE! Mary felt SO SORRY for the crying woman that she immediately put baby Jesus on the mule’s back! And she asked baby Jesus to change the mule back into their brother! And baby Jesus instantly did! [he must have then fell on the floor!]. And now their brother was a person again! And not a mule!

Okay, this is the drivel you are using to support the “3 James Theory!”, which seems to be about as much drivel as “Protoevangelium of James”.

** Infancy Gospel of Thomas**???

Here is what is said of that: “… the young Christ displays all the precociousness, cleverness, and even destructiveness of the child-gods in pagan mythology. In the early passages of the story, Jesus shows a disturbing tendency to kill off his playmates when they displease him. He eventually learns to channel his divine abilities in more constructive ways and realizes his calling before his coming of age at the Temple…” :hypno:

Do you want to read “The Infancy Gospel of Thomas, not to be confused the with Gospel of Thomas”, now??

I sure don’t!

Origen My husband explains that Origen missed sainthood because he interpreted a passage of the Bible LITERALLY that the Council of Nicea said was NOT to be taken literally, and that Monks were no longer to considered to become LITERAL Eunuchs. Yes, THAT scripture.

Aren’t we all glad for the wisdom of the Church!

My husband says he is sure he’s out of purgatory by now. I hope so.

Okay, then you have:

**Clement of Alexandria! **Also not a Saint, also for obvious reasons, like, he said:

- Eve was created from Adam’s sperm after he ejaculated during the night.
- Angels indulged in coitus with human women.
- Christ’s earthly body was an illusion
- matter and thought are eternal, and thus did not originate from God

This is Gnosticism. That’s a different religion. That’s not Christianity.

So I ran this by my husband, and he says he just does not understand why you two are quoting these things as some authority on a CATHOLIC FORUM. The Catholic Church and MOST CHRISTIANS east and west don’t accept this twaddle. One or two MINOR Protestant sects might accept it. That’s IT. This is NOT part of mainstream Christianity!

Patrick, why doesn’t anyone call you on this? How can you have so many posts here if this is what you write?? Because people think you know something since you know Latin and they don’t? Well, folks, people who know Latin can have pretty crazy extra-Biblical and way-beyond Catholic beliefs, just like anyone else can!

Patrick, my husband says that if you were teaching in a Catholic University and the local bishop found out about it you’d be out on your be-hind! :bigyikes:
.
.
.

 

[JB_Brother_4446]

I would leave and NEVER come back if I left stuff like this behind!

What a disgraceful group of supposed-experts! They are each one of them either REALLY BAD or at least seriously FLAWED.

Your extra gospels!

Protoevangelium of James???

This one is disgusting. Anyone can read this online and see it is VASTLY different from anything you read in the gospel or the catechism. Its a whole 'nother kind of book!! It will tickle the ears of the inquiring minds, though! Wow, you can read a GRAPHIC DESCRIPTION of how the alleged Salome! A midwife! came to see the baby, heard he was born of a virgin, and this just got to her sensibility as a midwife! So she just HAD to invade a MOST private part of Our Lady’s body, after the birth of Jesus, because she just could not believe Mary could still be a virgin, and she needed to check! and make sure! to satisfy her curiosity! So she did! This was apparently fine with the Blessed Mother and just St. Joseph, who apparently had nothing else to do just after the birth of Our Lord except to satisfy vain curiosities. Really, sick. And, drat! Why is there no icon for throwing up?

My husband refers to this as "a prurient, unwholesome interest in the anatomy of Mary and gives no glory to God."

Yes.

The idiotic drivel continues, when later, on the way to Egypt, Our Lady and Our Lord had many miracles to do! Including the 3 crying woman! Who had a MULE dressed in silk! In their living room! With an ebony collar! It was their brother! Who had met some giddy women who did this to him! Yes! They changed him into a MULE! Mary felt SO SORRY for the crying woman that she immediately put baby Jesus on the mule’s back! And she asked baby Jesus to change the mule back into their brother! And baby Jesus instantly did! [he must have then fell on the floor!]. And now their brother was a person again! And not a mule!

Okay, this is the drivel you are using to support the “3 James Theory!”, which seems to be about as much drivel as “Protoevangelium of James”.

** Infancy Gospel of Thomas**???

Here is what is said of that: “… the young Christ displays all the precociousness, cleverness, and even destructiveness of the child-gods in pagan mythology. In the early passages of the story, Jesus shows a disturbing tendency to kill off his playmates when they displease him. He eventually learns to channel his divine abilities in more constructive ways and realizes his calling before his coming of age at the Temple…” :hypno:

Do you want to read “The Infancy Gospel of Thomas, not to be confused the with Gospel of Thomas”, now??

I sure don’t!

Origen My husband explains that Origen missed sainthood because he interpreted a passage of the Bible LITERALLY that the Council of Nicea said was NOT to be taken literally, and that Monks were no longer to considered to become LITERAL Eunuchs. Yes, THAT scripture.

Aren’t we all glad for the wisdom of the Church!

My husband says he is sure he’s out of purgatory by now.

So I ran this by my husband, and he says he just does not understand why you two are quoting these things as some authority on a CATHOLIC FORUM. The Catholic Church and MOST CHRISTIANS east and west don’t accept this twaddle. One or two MINOR Protestant sects might accept it. That’s IT. This is NOT part of mainstream Christianity!

Patrick, why doesn’t anyone call you on this? How can you have so many posts here if this is what you write?? Because people think you know something since you know Latin and they don’t? Well, folks, people who know Latin can have pretty crazy extra-Biblical and way-beyond Catholic beliefs, just like anyone else can!

Patrick, my husband says that if you were teaching in a Catholic University and the local bishop found out about it you’d be out on your be-hind! :bigyikes:
.
.
.

Is Epiphanius bad according to your husband? It is also clear from the Church Fathers that James, Joses, Judas, and Simon were stepbrothers of Jesus. Also Papias is the one who says John bar Zebedee was killed by the Jews. That’s not Tradition is it? My friend Patrick was just trying to prove a point. Don’t judge him for that.

 

[patrick457]

Ma’am, please, in all charity, no throwing the baby with the bathwater, no attacking the messenger. And let’s cut back on the ‘idiotic drivel’.

Okay, fine, even if we discount the apocryphal literature and the two Alexandrians, that still leaves Epiphanius, Eusebius, and the Eastern Churches. Are Epiphanius and Eusebius somehow less ‘Catholic’ than Jerome? Is the Latin Church the only thing that matters now? No wonder there are some Eastern Catholics out there who feel marginalized.

 

[patrick457]

P.S. So that there’ll be no confusion, I’ll outline what I think here:

Personally, I don’t really care whether the ‘brothers’ of Jesus were His stepbrothers or some sort of cousin or whatever. As a Catholic I of course hold the virginity of Mary ante, in and post childbirth to be important, but I don’t lose sleep over much about the specifics.

Now I am drawn to the stepbrothers theory because it is the earlier one and because admittedly I just don’t find St. Jerome’s theory to be as very convincing as I thought it was (I mean just because it’s a commonly-repeated tradition nowadays doesn’t mean that I can’t question it; Jerome himself once questioned the idea of Golgotha being Adam’s burial place that was already current among many Christians in his day), but I wouldn’t go out of my way to condemn all ‘Hieronymians’ as being ‘less’ Catholic or whatever just because they don’t agree with me, and I certainly hope that ‘Epiphanians’ wouldn’t be condemned as being less Catholic just because we hold a different opinion from many (Latin) Catholics (especially considering that the stepbrothers theory, like Jerome’s, was also a way to explain how Jesus could have had ‘brothers’ if Mary was a perpetual virgin).

In my view: the perpetual virginity of our Lady? Important, no question about that. The exact relationship of James or Jude et al. to Jesus or whether the different Jameses are actually a single person or two? IMHO maybe nice to learn as a matter of historical curiosity, but maybe we can all agree on the same thing: these would not have been Jesus’ biological brothers, because the Church says so. Maybe Jerome and the later Western writers are right; maybe Epiphanius or Eusebius/Hegesippus and the earlier writers are right. I don’t really care. The exact mechanics could be either of those ideas or some third thing, but to waste words over which view is ‘right’ or ‘acceptable’ - which is ‘the’ Catholic interpretation - in this issue is essentially making a mountain out of a molehill. To each man his own.

There. I’ve said pretty much what I want to say. Good day and thank you.