James, Son of Joseph, Brother of Jesus
Randy Ingermanson
Who was this man James? We know about him from a number of different sources -- the gospels, the letters of Paul, the book of Acts, the book of James, and the works of Josephus. Not to mention some second-century sources of rather more dubious value.
The gospels tell us that Jesus had four brothers, "James, Joses, Simon, and Judas." (Matthew 13:55, Mark 6:3) These are the English versions of four very common Hebrew names -- Yaakov, Yosi, Shimon, and Yehudah. Likewise, Jesus is the English form of a very common Hebrew name -- Yeshua. Apparently, Mary and Joseph didn't have a very big book of baby names.
We know that none of the brothers of Jesus became a follower of his before he died. Then, after the Resurrection, Jesus appeared to Peter, the Twelve, some 500 others, and to James. (1 Corinthians 15:7) Only then did James become a follower of Jesus. It seems clear that he rapidly rose to become a leader in the growing Jesus Movement, but there was never any question of him replacing Jesus, of becoming an alternative messiah. No, James was happy to spend the rest of his life telling people that his dead brother was the messiah, the conquering hero who would overthrow the order of things and sit on David's throne. Makes you think he saw something fairly convincing after Jesus died, don't you think?
The apostle Paul tells us in the book of Galatians about his return to Jerusalem, three years after his own extraordinary experience with the Risen Jesus on the road to Damascus. He met with Peter and with "James, the Lord's brother." (Gal. 1:19) Fourteen years after the experience, he went to Jerusalem again, meeting with "James, Peter and John, those reputed to be pillars." (Gal. 2:9) The order here is significant. James is now, and will be for the rest of his life, the head of the Jesus Movement in Jerusalem. Later, Peter came to Antioch to meet with Paul and some of the believers, including Gentiles. But when "certain men came from James" (Gal. 2:12), Peter backed off on his friendliness with Gentiles, and Paul had to confront him.
The book of Acts mentions James on a number of occasions. When Peter escaped from prison in the early 40s, (Acts 12) he told his comrades to notify James that he was leaving the city. At the Jerusalem Council in about A.D. 50, (Acts 15) it was James (not Peter or Paul, although both were at the council) who made the final decision on how Gentiles would be treated within the movement. A few years later, about the year A.D. 57, (Acts 21) it was James who confronted Paul about certain rumors of Paul's behavior in the Diaspora.
The book of James, according to church tradition, was authored by this James. There is some question about this, however, because the book of James is written in Greek in the classical style of a Cynic-Stoic diatribe. Would a Galilean from a poor family have written in this sort of Hellenized rhetorical style? Maybe, maybe not. Some scholars have suggested that the book was originally written in Aramaic and then rendered into Greek by someone else, possibly years later. Whatever the case, the argument of the book seems very thoroughly Jewish and very much in line with the outrage with which a prophetic Jew of Jerusalem would have spoken shortly before the Jewish revolt. I can see no reason to believe that it could not have originated with James. But there's no way to prove it did, either.
The Jewish historian Josephus tells us that James, the brother of Jesus, was tried and executed in the year A.D. 62 in Jerusalem. You can read all about it if you have a copy of Josephus. It's in Antiquities of the Jews, Book XX, Chapter IX, Section 1. If you have the usual hideous orange-striped copy of Josephus translated by William Whiston, look on page 423, the right column. If you don't have a copy handy, I'll quote it for you. Since Josephus can be a mite tricky to understand, I'll insert my own explanatory comments in red text and parentheses directly in the text. William Whiston has his own notes in square brackets. This episode is dated to A.D. 62:
And now Caesar (that is, Nero), upon hearing of the death of Festus (that is, governor Porcius Festus, who served from about A.D. 59 to 62 and died in office), sent Albinus into Judea as procurator (that is, the new governor Lucceius Albinus, who was hastily appointed by Nero and dispatched to Judea as soon as news of the death of Festus reached Rome); but the king (that is, king Agrippa II, who had the right to appoint and depose high priests at will) deprived Joseph of the high priesthood (that is, Joseph Kabi, who was high priest for a short time, roughly A.D. 61-62), and bestowed the succession to that dignity on the son of Ananus, who was also himself called Ananus (this "Ananus" is identical to the "Annas" of the New Testament. Both spellings are Greek transliterations of the Hebrew name "Hanan"). Now the report goes, that this elder Ananus proved a most fortunate man; for he had five sons, who had all performed the office of a high priest to God, and he had himself enjoyed that dignity a long time formerly, which had never happened to any other of our high priests; but this younger Ananus, who, as we have told you already, took the high priesthood, was a bold man in his temper, and very insolent; he was also of the sect of the Sadducees, who were very rigid in judging offenders, above all the rest of the Jews, as we have already observed; when, therefore, Ananus was of this disposition, he thought he had now a proper opportunity [to exercise his authority.] Festus was now dead, and Albinus was but upon the road; so he assembled the sanhedrim of the judges, and brought before them the brother of Jesus, who was called Christ, whose name was James, and some others, [or some of his companions;] and when he had formed an accusation against them as breakers of the law, he delivered them to be stoned; (note that this death sentence on James, the brother of Jesus, was illegal, since only the Roman governor had the right to pass a death sentence) but as for those who seemed the most equitable of the citizens, and such as were the most uneasy at the breach of the laws, (Josephus probably means the Pharisees here) they disliked what was done; they also sent to the king [Agrippa,] desiring him to send to Ananus that he should act so no more, for that what he had already done was not to be justified: nay, some of them went also to meet Albinus, as he was upon his journey from Alexandria (Albinus was probably already a Roman official in Egypt when he received his appointment to the governorship of Judea), and informed him that it was not lawful for Ananus to assemble a sanhedrim without his consent: whereupon Albinus complied with what they had said, and wrote in anger to Ananus, and threatened that he would bring him to punishment for what he had done; on which king Agrippa took the high priesthood from him, when he had ruled but three months, and made Jesus, the son of Damneus, high priest. (Note that "Jesus" was a very common name, held by two high priests of this time period, not to mention the man Josephus refers to as "Jesus, who was called Christ.")
Josephus was a Jewish aristocrat, about 25 years old at this time, and living in Jerusalem, so he was very well-informed of the events. Josephus was a family friend of another high priest of the era, "Jesus, son of Gamaliel", who was a protege of the "Ananus son of Ananus" who did the dirty deed. So the incident recorded above is probably very close to the truth.
And what was the charge against this man James and his comrades? It's not clear. Josephus says merely that Ananus accused James and his men of being "breakers of the law". This is pretty broad. Apparently, they didn't observe the Torah in the same way Ananus did. Of course, neither did the Pharisees; the Talmud tells of many disputes between the Sadducees and their upstart opponents, the Pharisees. So it is very plausible that the Pharisees were the folks who got up in arms after the murder of James. James was quite friendly with Pharisees, and many of the followers of Jesus during this time period were Pharisees. This is clear from several references in the book of Acts. So the general charge was "law-breaking."
A further note: Ananus came from a family with a long tradition of pursuing the followers of Jesus. His father, Ananus the Elder, had once served as high priest years earlier and was the power behind the throne in the gospel stories of the trial of Jesus. Caiaphas was the son-in-law of Ananus the Elder, and he was high priest when Jesus was executed. Another son of Ananus, Jonathan, is the "John" mentioned in Acts 4:6, who was present at the trial of the apostles Peter and John. This Jonathan son of Ananus was in fact the captain of the Temple, the officer in charge of Temple security, and he became high priest a few years later. Another member of the clan, Matthias son of Ananus, was high priest in the early 40s when James the son of Zebedee was beheaded by king Agrippa I. In view of all this, it looks very much like there was a family vendetta against the followers of Jesus which culminated with Ananus the Younger executing James, brother of Jesus.
, and :biglaugh: and it soon became evident that the posters were not engaging me in the context of the historical James that is revealed in the 2002 article, but wanted to carry on a debate about the authenticity of the icon which was the subject of the article I linked to, and made the observation concerning the results of the court case.