2013

Today is the Feast of Philip and James.
Everyone is clear who Philip was, but the name James causes confusion for many people. Two of Jesus' apostles were called James. One was the brother of the apostle John. This James is "James the greater", Big Jim, and his feast day is July 25. The other apostle is know as "James the Less", Little Jim, and it's his feast day today

But there's another important James in the New Testament, "James the brother of the Lord" - Brother James - who wrote the Letter of James. Some people say Brother James and Little Jim are one and same. Today's first reading, chosen maybe by Fr Con Fusion, gives the impression that Little Jim is Brother James

Many commentaries and articles, including the Daily Roman Missal, follow this theory. But few Bible scholars accept it

To clarify: the James of today's first reading is not the apostle James (the Less), but James "the brother of the Lord"

The James confusion goes back to St Jerome, who baulked at the title "brother of the Lord" (implying Jesus had physical brothers and sisters). So he identified "the brother of the Lord" with James the Less

Another Jerome, Fr J. Neyrey SJ, here succinctly explains that "brother of the Lord" means just that

Wikipedia has a good summary of all this
and says how James the brother of the Lord was martyred in AD 62 or 69

Which means that two of Mary's sons were killed: Jesus and James "the brother of the Lord". I wonder if Mary was still alive in AD62/69? A last bit of suffering before she left this world?

Comment below from Stephen makes point I forgot to mention: the reason why Jerusalem James was so important.....because he was Jesus' brother!

Stephen K permalink

Re: Which James is Which?

Very good links. The wikipedia gives a concise summary of the issue and history (and confusion)! Tradition is a weighty thing, but it is itself shackled heavily by the desire to emphasise certain things rather than another: Jesus the only child stems from an insistence that Mary was an ever-virgin which stems from an insistence that Jesus was the son of God not Joseph. Thus one thing was thought to necessitate another.

In actual fact, since God is mystery, and the idea of Incarnation certainly is too, it is not necessary that anything, any process be just so for faith.
Even using the same thread of logic that I have described here, Jesus’ divine Sonship is in no way undermined – mechanically – by Mary having more children.

I think there has been a lot of wishful thinking involved here: Mary’s act of faith is in no way impugned by her having conjugal relations with her Jewish husband(s) and bearing children; Jesus’ salvific existence is in no way qualified by having brothers and sisters.

The way James is described (i.e. James the brother of the Lord), that is, James the just, as being the leader in Jerusalem, it makes most sense to me that his position followed on from his being Jesus’ brother. Family was important. Otherwise, he just comes out of nowhere, and if anything James makes Jesus more comprehensible.