|
NON-CANONICAL REFERENCES TO JAMES, THE RELATIVE OF JESUS
AS SOURCES FOR A STUDY OF
JEWISH CHRISTIANITY
J.
Julius Scott, Jr.
Wheaton College Graduate School
Wheaton, IL 60187
I. The Non-Canonical
References to James(1)
The patristic and
NT apocryphal writings, when desiring to distinguish the subject of this
study from James, the son of Zebedee, one of the Twelve, customarily refer
to him as James the Lord's brother (adeloV, adelphos), "the bishop"
(episkopoV, episkopos), or "the Just" (o dikioV, o dikaios)."
These titles reflect the five general headings under which references
to James in non-canonical sources can be classified--James as: (A) a member
of Jesus' boyhood home, (B) a witness to the resurrected Jesus, (C) a
leader in the mid-first century Church of Jerusalem, (D) an important
link in the transmission of apostolic tradition and succession, and (E)
those which describe his priestly piety and death. Although the NT also
contains references generally parallel to the first three categories,
the whole ethos of the Biblical picture of James is markedly different
from that found in the non-canonical sources.
A. James, a Member
of Jesus' Boyhood Home
The identification
of James as "the brother of Jesus"(2) occurs in sources as diverse
as Josephus (Ant 20:9:1 [197-203]), Hegesippus-Eusebius (EH
2:23), the Ps Clementines (Recog 4:35) and the Apostolic Constitutions
(8:35). The traditions assumed and expanded in some of the apocryphal
gospels. The Protoevangelium of James, which claims James as its
author,(3) says Joseph was an elderly widower to whom Mary, as a child
of twelve, was committed for safe-keeping. It further says that the sons
of Joseph, by implication including James, were present at the birth of
Jesus (18:1). Similar representations regarding the family of Mary and
Joseph are made in Pseudo Matthew, the Gospel of the Birth of Mary, the
History of Joseph the Carpenter, and both the Arabic and Armenian Gospels
of Infancy.(4)
The Infancy Gospel
of Thomas relates a number of miracles and wonders performed by the child
Jesus while he was a member of Joseph's home. In one of these James is
said to have been bitten by a viper, was about to die but "Jesus
came near and breathed upon the bite, and immediately the pain ceased,
the creature burst, and at once James became well."(5)
The fourth century
"Liturgy of St. James" calls James "the brother of God."(6)
He is also mentioned in a fragment ascribed to Papias as one of the children
of "Mary, the wife of Cleophas or Alphaeus. . . , an aunt of the
Lord."(7) This document may, however, be of late date.(8)
B. James, A Witness
to the Resurrected Jesus
Jerome, quoting from
the Gospel of the Hebrews, says
And when
the Lord had given the linen cloth to the servant of the priest, he went
to James and appeared to him. For James had sworn that he would not eat
bread from that hour in which he had drunk the cup of the Lord until he
should see him risen from among them that sleep. And shortly thereafter
the Lord said: Bring a table and bread! And immediately it is added: he
took bread, blessed it and brake it and gave to James the Just and said
to him: My brother, eat thy bread, for the Son of man is risen from among
them that sleep.(9)
The ascription to
James, not only of a place at the Last Super, but also confidence that
Jesus would rise again probably represents an attempt to elevate James
and the Jerusalem Church at the expense of the Twelve(10) and the Gentile
Church.(11) The references to James taking a vow and fasting is in keeping
with the representation of him as a Jewish ascetic found in other documents.
The title "Son of man," here placed on the lips of Jesus, is
ascribed to James in the account of his death related by Hegesippus-Eusebius
and may reflect a particular Christological bias of at least some of the
groups which preserved the James traditions.
C. James: A Leader
in the Mid-first Century Church of Jerusalem
Most of the non-canonical
accounts mention James' unique position of leadership in the Church of
Jerusalem. Yet both the source and the exact nature of his authority is
uncertain. Nothing the leadership position held by others from Jesus'
family desponsynoi(12), as Julius Africanus calls them),(13) Harnack and
others(14) assumed James to be the first in a line of Christian Caliphates
similar to that which later developed in Islam. I believe the evidence
for this is slight. The Ps Clementine Recognitions (1:43) and Eusebius
(EH 7:19) state that James received his position from Jesus himself.(15)
Clement of Alexandria, as reported by Eusebius, says, "Peter and
James and John, after the Savior's ascension, though preeminently honored
by the Lord, did not contend for glory, but made James the Just bishop
of Jerusalem."(16) In introducing Hegesippus' account of James' death,
Eusebius (EH 7:19) and the Ethiopic Didascalia (ch. XLIII) say
James received his office from "the Apostles."
The term most often
used to describe the position occupied by James is "bishop,"(17)
or one similar to it. It is frequently employed by Eusebius, his sources,
and many other writings. By the time of the composition of the spurious
additions to the Ignatian correspondence,(18) it was assumed that James
held this rank from the beginning of the corporate life of the Jerusalem
community. Hero, 3 and the longer Epistle to the Trallians
7 enjoin deacons to be faithful to their ministering bishop "as the
holy Stephen did at Jerusalem to James." In the Ps Clementine Recognitions
James is called "the chief of the bishops" )1:68) and "archbishop."(19)
In the epistles attached to the Homilies, which need not be considered
an integral part of those writings,(20) Peter calls James "the Lord
and bishop of the Holy Church"(21) and Clement addresses him as "the
lord, and bishop of bishops,(22) who rules Jerusalem, the holy Church
of the Hebrews and Churches everywhere excellently founded by the provinces
of God, with elders and deacons, and the rest of the brethren."
There is a concentration
of James' material in the first book of the Ps Clementine Recognitions.(23)
Here he is described as carrying on activities characteristic of an administrative
head--including receiving reports (I:66; cf. II:73), engaging in disputations
(I:66-69), and detailing even Peter to specific tasks (I:72). In Recognitions
IV:35, James sends testimonial letters of authorization with official
representatives of the Church. The wording of a dispute scene in I:68
may betray something of the way James was viewed by the groups which developed
and transmitted this tradition. James, as "chief of the bishops"
is portrayed as the Christian counterpart to "Caiaphas . . . the
chief of the priests."
D. James, a Link
in the Transmission of the Apostolic Tradition and the Apostolic Succession
Eusebius (EH
2:1, 4) says, "To James the Just, and John and Peter, the Lord after
his resurrection imparted knowledge.(24) These imparted it to the rest
of the Apostles, and the rest of the Apostles to the seventy, of whom
Barnabas was one." In the Ps Clementine Recognitions (IV:35)
and Homilies (XI:35) Peter insists that no teacher or prophet is
to be believed unless he has been certified by James. In the epistles
attached to the Homilies Peter transmits the books of his preaching
(Kerygmata Petrou)(25) to James for safekeeping. Hippolytus (Refutation
of All Heresies V:7), in describing the (Gnostic) Naassenes, speaks
of "the heads of the very many discourses which they say James the
brother of the Lord handed down to Mariamme."(26) Such statements
as these play an important part in the preservation and transmission of
the traditions of Christendom.
Closely associated
with this role is the place in the apostolic succession ascribed to James
by ancient writers. Arnold A. T. Ehrhardt(27) has shown that although
the various succession lists of bishops from such centers as Jerusalem,
Alexandria, Antioch, and Rome are beset with problems,(28) the place given
James in them is significant. The earliest references to apostolic succession
within the church come from Jewish Christian sources such as1Clement,
the Ps Clementines, and Hegesippus. These and similar writings exhibit
a competition between James and Peter for first place in the succession.
However, Ehrhardt believes, at least in the Canon of Eusebius-Jerome,
that this competition is settled in favor of James who heads the episcopal
lists of all the main centers and that the succession in all these churches
is traced back to him.(29) Although in the interests of Roman supremacy
the primacy of James was dropped in the West from the time of Irenaeus
onward,(30) it has continued in the East.
The line of development
taken by early advocates of apostolic succession, as traced by Ehrhardt,(31)
contains two OT elements: (1) vicarius Christi(32) in which the bishop
represented Christ in his sacerdotal ministry and thus stood in a similar
relation t the Jewish priests and (2) the continuation of the sacerdotal
succession of the old covenant by the episcopal succession under the new,
as expressed in the close resemblance of the lists of the succession of
Christian bishops with Jewish High Priestly succession lists. So popular
was this parallel that during the second century the title "High
Priest" was used frequently within the Church.(33) Hence, says Ehrhardt,
to many early Christians, James, as the first among the bishops stood
at the head of an order of Christian priests.
Ehrhardt's conclusions
are strengthened by noting again the apparent parallel drawn between James
and the Jewish High Priest in Recognitions I:68 and the title "archbishop"
ascribed in I:73. Also, The Syriac "Teaching of the Apostles"(34)
specifically draws a parallel between Jewish and Christian ordination:
The apostles further
appointed: Let there be elders and deacons, like the Levites; and subdeacons,
like those who carried the vessels of the court of the sanctuary of the
Lord; and an overseer, who shall likewise be the Guide of all the people,
like Aaron, the head and chief of all the priest and Levites in the city.
Further on the same
document traces priestly ordination within the Church to James:
Jerusalem received
the ordination to the priesthood, as did all the country of Palestine,
and the parts occupied by the Samaritans, and the parts occupied by the
Philistines, and the country of the Arabians, and of Phoenicia, and the
people of Caesarea, from James, who was ruler and guide in the Church
of the apostles which was built in Zion.
E. James, His Priestly
Piety and Death
The best known description
of James is by Hegesippus, recorded by Eusebius (EH 2:24). James,
he says, was a holy man from birth. He drank no strong drink, ate no flesh,
did not shave his head, anoint himself with oil, nor bathe, and wore only
linen. He was allowed to enter the sanctuary (ta agia), where he continually
knelt and prayed for "the forgiveness of the people, so that his
knees grew hard like a camel's." Because of his "excessive righteousness
he was called 'the Just' and 'Oblias,'(35) that is in Greek, 'Rampart
of the people and Righteousness,' as the prophets declare concerning him."
He had a strong influence upon the people in convincing them of the "Gate
of Jesus,(36) that He was the Messiah." During Passover the Scribes
and Pharisees attempted to persuade James to dissuade the people from
following Jesus. He was set upon the battlement of the temple where he
was asked of "the Gate of Jesus." He answered, "Why do
you ask me concerning the Son of Man? He is sitting in heaven on the right
hand of the great power and will come in the clouds of heaven." Because
of this testimony he was thrown on the ground, stoned, and finally killed
by a blow to the head from the club of a laundryman. His dying prayer
was, "I Beseech thee, O Lord, God and Father, forgive them, for they
do not know what they are doing." He was buried on the spot and,
Hegesippus adds, "At once(37) Vespasian began to beseige them."
Other writers describe
the martyrdom of James with both similar and variant details. Recognitions
I:66-70 relates that a debate on the temple stairs between Caiphas and
James culminated in a tumult among the people. "In the midst of which
that enemy attacked James, and threw him headlong from the top of the
steps; and supposing him to be dead, he cared not to inflict further violence
upon him."(38) This account, like that of Hegesippus, describes events
in which James testifies to Jesus coming within the temple precincts,
in a setting of conflict with Jewish leaders, and precipitating mob action,
and James being thrown from an elevated place. Nevertheless the Recognitions
state specifically that although he was injured, James did not die from
the attack.(39) Consequently, it is uncertain whether this should be classed
with the death accounts.
Preceding the Hegesippian
account, Eusebius mentions a description of James' death by Clement. This,
he says, is shorter but in agreement with that of Hegesippus.
In the same context,
but following Hegesippus' narrative Eusebius relates yet another version
of James' martyrdom, this time from the pen of Josephus. The extant text
of the Antiquities report the death in a fairly straightforward
manner and without significant difference from that of Hegesippus.(40)
Josephus does imply that James died after a formal trial whereas Eusebius-Hegesippus
seems to blame the rage of the people or at least hastily conceived maneuvers
by Jewish leaders. Eusebius' report of Josephus' description adds few
significant details. It does, however, claim that the destruction of Jerusalem
"happened to the Jews to avenge James the Just, who was the brother
of the so-called Christ, for the Jews killed him in spite of his great
righteousness" (EH 2:23, 20).
The claim that Josephus
spoke of a causal relationship between the death of James and the fall
of Jerusalem is thirdly mentioned by Origen.(41) It is, therefore, almost
certain that this statement was in some editions of Josephus and that
it, along with some elements in the present Greek text of the Antiquities,
was the work of a Christian hand. Historically James' martyrdom, which
probably occurred ca. A. D. 62,(42) cannot be connected with Vespatian's
attack on Jerusalem (the Jewish revolt did not begin until A.D. 66). Nevertheless
in these additions to Josephus as in Hegesippus' account we find the remains
of a group within Christendom who did see a connection between the death
of James and the destruction of Jerusalem.(43)
In the description
of James, Epiphanius (Haereses 29:4) appears to quote a similar,
if not identical tradition as that found in Eusebius. However, while our
Greek texts of Eusebius record only that James entered into the sanctuary
(ta agia, ta hagia = the Temple), Epiphanius and others(44) testify that
he actually went into the Holy of Holies (ta agia twn agiwn, ta hagia
ton hagion). Furthermore, in another place (Haereses 79) Epiphanius
state that James wore the high priestly petalon on his forehead.
II. Non-Canonical
References to James and Jewish Christianity
A. The Setting of
the James Accounts
Some of the non-canonical
references to James represent little more than pious speculation. They
are the type that might be expected to be associated with the name of
one who both occupied a position of leadership in the primitive church
and was also a part of Jesus' boyhood home. This is particularly true
of most of those found in the apocryphal gospels. In other contexts, as
suggested above in comments about Jerome's quotation from the Gospel of
the Hebrews, traditions seem to have been deliberately shaped to further
the interests or to reflect the distinctive emphases of one or more groups
within early Christianity.
It is safe to assume
that virtually all of the significant non-canonical James material comes
from Jewish Christianity. Even so the student must keep in mind the complex
nature of this group. Those early Christians who were Jewish by birth
and who retained religio-nationalistic customs, practices, and mind-sets(45)
were far from a monolithic whole.(46) The James traditions may reflect
different concerns of Jewish Christianity groups and provide partial documentation
of their several interests and concerns.
The reliability of
the accounts as witnesses to the actual character of the historical James
must be severely questioned. Statements within even that of Hegesippus,
probably the most important of all non-canonical James material, are contradictory.
confused, and historically improbable.(47) Yet the James references still
stand as credible sources of information for the nature and interests
of the Jewish Christian groups which preserved, developed, and transmitted
them.
The exact identity
of the groups represented by the various James documents frequently cannot
be established. Introductory questions are largely unsettled. The Hegesippian
accounts date from at least the first half of the second century and the
Gospel of the Hebrews from generally the same time-frame. Most of the
other documents could have arisen at virtually any point before the middle
of the third or into the fourth century. The original provenance and circumstances
within Jewish Christianity from which the writings come are largely matters
of conjecture. Rather than attempt identification in such a preliminary
study as this, it seems best to me to call attention to a number of emphases
to be found in one or more documents.
B. Some Emphases
within the Non-Canonical James Material
In general it may
be observed that the James traditions from Hegesippus, Eusebius, and Epiphanius
show much stronger cultic, nationalistic, and pietistic interests than
do those of the Ps Clementines where the emphasis more on church structure
and moral-ethical matters. The claim of preeminence of James above the
Twelve in the Gospel of Hebrews is closer to the emphasis of the Ps Clementines,
but its use of the "son of man" title seems to align it with
Hegesippus and possibly puts it at variance with "The True Prophet"
Christology of the Clementines.
Four more specific
features of the James references should also be noted. Although it is
not always clear just how they should be understood, they do, I believe,
provide some insights into the character of at least some Jewish Christians.
1. Legalism, Piety,
and Asceticism
Most of the James
records portray an interest in some form of Jewish legalism and piety.
The death accounts of Hegesippus-Eusebius and Epiphanius show great concern
for ascetic, possibly Nazarite, piety within a priestly setting. The mention
of fasting in the Gospel of the Hebrews also suggests this element (although
not necessarily beyond that of early Christian practice). These statements
may reflect the view of those who regarded Law keeping to be a requirement
for becoming a Christian (CF. Acts 15:1). But there are other possible
reasons for a Jewish Christian to observe ascetic rites and rituals.
For all their emphasis
on legal and ritual purity the death accounts contain not the slightest
hint that they were looked upon as a means of obtaining salvation. In
fact, they record that when called upon to bear testimony, James did so
in a distinctively Christian form. He affirmed Jesus to be "savior,"
the "Messiah," and mentions "the door of Jesus."(48)
Thus, upon examination, the death accounts claim only that James personally
engaged in acts of piety of this sort. Such a life-style would have been
highly regarded in many Jewish circles, especially within Palestine. It
could have earned some acceptance from non-Christian Jews for its Jewish
Christian practitioners.
F. C. Burkett suggests
the possibility of another motivation for some Jewish Christians who took
up ascetic practices. They could have been a practical procedure evoked
in light of the expectation of an early return of Christ and the dilemma
arising, on the one hand, for the conviction that Torah was permanent
at least until the final kingdom of God should come and, on the other
hand, objections to sacrifice, passover, and tithes in light of Jesus'
teaching and work. Burkett says,
The abstinence of
St. James was not exclusively directed to the mortification of the flesh...He
who abstains from meat altogether would not be called upon to eat the
Paschal Lamb: he who had no land or possessions was not concerned with
the laws of Tithe...Like Jesus the Temple was to him a House of Prayer:
he was Righteousness, he kept the Law, so far as it applied to him, but
sacrifices were a matter for flesh-eaters and tithes for the rich.(49)
2. Jewish Christian
Nationalism
A second feature of
the James stories is that of nationalism. Actually there may be a plurality
of nationalistic attitudes reflected in the accounts but they are not
necessarily mutually exclusive. Some Jewish groups attached a special
nationalistic importance to certain individuals such as the family of
Lot (Gen 18:22 ff), Moses (Ex 17:10 ff; 32:10-14, 31-34), David (2 Kings
19:34; 20:6), Noah, Daniel and Job (Ezek 14:14), Ezekiel (Ezek 22:30),
and "the Just Ones" of every age.(50) In this form of nationalism
the welfare of the nation was dependent upon the presence and religious
fidelity of individuals or groups whose personal piety and prayers provided
its only genuine defense. The linking of James' death with the attack
of Vespasian and the overthrow of the Jewish state suggests that such
a position was ascribed to James and/or to his memory by some Jewish Christians.
The ascription of such a role to James may help explain the puzzling title
mentioned by Hegesippus, "the Rampart of the People and Righteousness"--possibly
a loose parallel of the words of Elisha about Elijah and of King Josiah
about Elisha, "You are the chariots of Israel and its horsemen"
(2 Kings 2:21; 13:14).
Hegesippus also reports
that James declared that Jesus "will come again in clouds of heaven"
(Eusebius, EH 2:23, 13). Zealots could have employed such a statement
as a call to militancy to be answered by the Messiah's appearing. Some
interpreters have suggested that this was the intent behind Hegesippus'
account and that James' death was an attempt by Jewish leaders who, from
fear of the Romans, sought to suppress such talk.(51) Even if this is
what James meant there is little to indicate that Jewish officials, especially
the high priest, ever took such action in the face of Zealot sentiments.
Certainly the common people would not have allowed James to be killed
for advocating a policy. It is more consistent with the mood of the times,
the character and thought of James as portrayed in the death accounts,
and those events which it is said followed his testimony to understand
his statement as a nationalism which expected the fulfillment of Jewish
hopes to come as a result of divine intervention rather than through Zealot
violence.
Another indication
of a quietistic nationalism with the James stories is probably found in
the way he uses the term "Son of man." Any attempt to understand
the precise meaning of the term is, of course, fraught with difficulty
and controversy. Nevertheless, it seems to me that the way it is used
by the Jewish Christians reflected by Hegesippus certainly (1) identifies
Jesus as the Messianic Son of man, (2) pictures him as a transcendent,
heavenly figure, (3) claims that at that moment he was exercising dominion,
and (4) predicts his return to earth in apocalyptic-Danielitic terms.
This, it seems, points toward belief in a spiritual rather than a political-military
Messiah and the associated belief of a spiritual rather than nationalistic
character of the kingdom of God. Such sentiments would have carried an
implied denunciation of Jewish leaders who rejected and killed Jesus and
who identified the kingdom with the fortunes of the nation of Israel.
The Hegesippian reference
to the Son of man title may contain the implication of yet another Jewish
Christian view to which many first century Palestinian Jews objected.
Daniel 7:14 says the Son of man received a kingdom which included "all
peoples, nations, and languages." Such universalistic sentiments
were intolerable to those with particularisitic, nationalistic hopes.
Earlier, the affirmation of the universal scope of God's concern had,
according to Luke, turned the Jerusalem mob at the castle steps against
Paul (Acts 22:21 ff). Hegesippus says that James' testimony was answered
favorably by the shout of the nationalistic slogan, "Hosanna to the
Son of David." However, Hegesippus may be in error in recording it
as a positive response. The shout may actually have been a denunciation
of a concept of Jesus as a more-than-Jewish, more-than-Davidic (in the
political sense) Messiah which the crowd knew to be implicit in the Son
of man title as understood by some Jewish Christians.
The tenor of the nationalism
of the death accounts, especially that of Hegesippus-Eusebius, seems generally
parallel to sentiments found among some non-Christian Jews. It is similar,
on the one hand , to the views of those who understood that the nation
was destroyed because of the murder of the high priest Ananas,(52) and
, on the other hand, to the position of those Pharisees who, rejecting
violence, sought to bring in the kingdom by spiritual means.(53) In short,
the nationalism implicit in the accounts of James' death was no unlike
that ascribed to the grandsons of Judas (members of the family of Jesus)
who, when brought before Domition
were asked concerning
the Christ and his kingdom, its origin, and the time of appearing, and
explained that it was neither of the world nor earthly, but heavenly and
angelic, and it would be at the end of the world, when he would come in
glory to judge the living and the dead and to reward every man according
to his deeds.(54)
3. Church Authority
Most of the non-canonical
accounts of James in some way raise the issue of leadership and authority
in the early church. They claim for James the position of supreme authority
and headship within all of Christendom. This claim is undoubtedly linked
to the dominant role James played in the pre-A.D. 70 Church of Jerusalem.
Nevertheless, the way this fact is handled probably reflects the desire
of some Jewish Christian groups to assert the organizational supremacy
of the Jerusalem (or Jewish) Church.
The ecclesiology and
outlook on polity behind such documents as the Ps Clementines acknowledges
the existence and possibly the legitimacy of Christian communities beyond
their own. However, many of these were believed to be infected with wrong
practices and belief. Jerusalem authority wa the rightful and necessary
corrective for error. All opponents of the organizational dominance of
Jerusalem were considered evil. James' chief rival is consistently called
"the enemy" or "Simon Magus" in the Clementines. These
and other documents also extend James above the Twelve in order to assert
the rightful leadership of the Church over which he presided.
Within the non-canonical
documents James becomes but a symbol of the leadership position and authority
some Jewish Christians thought they must have. They believed that only
as Gentile Christianity accepted their control could the church remain
pure. Theirs was the true apostolic succession and the responsibility
to guarantee the reliability of the traditions of the faith.
4. Jewish Christian
Doctrine
The non-canonical
records of James reveal relatively little about the theology of Jewish
Christianity. This primary concern with law and piety, nationalism, and
organizational structures is in keeping with a general Jewish emphasis
upon orthopraxy over orthodoxy. The Gospel of the Hebrews and the Ps Clementines
show belief in the resurrection of Jesus and observance of the Eucharist.
The latter documents also confirm the practice of baptism.
Most of the non-canonical
sources ascribe the title "Lord (kurioV, kurios)" to Jesus when
referring to James as "the Lord's brother." However, when "Lord"
is employed in this way it probably reflects a general use and should
not be interpreted specifically without reference to other Christological
data in a given context. "Messiah" (cristoV, Christos) is another
term broadly employed for Jesus in these contexts. It occurs in each of
the separate death accounts recorded by Eusebius in EH 2:23 --
in his own account (sec 2), thrice in that of Hegesippus (sects 9-10),
Clement (sect 20), and in Eusebius' quotation from Josephus (sect 22).
I have already noted the way "Messiah" is probably used by Hegesippus;
there is insufficient evidence to permit speculation on the way Eusebius'
other sources may have understood the term.
Eusebius says that
James confessed that "Jesus our Savior and Lord is the Son of God"(55)
(EH 2:23, 2). Hegesippus also says James called Jesus "savior"
(EH 2:23, 8) and then goes on to speak of him as "Son of man"
and made reference to the session at the right hand by the ascended Jesus
and of the parousia (EH 2:23:13). The Christology of the Ps Clementines
is centered around the "True Prophet" concept and is a study
in itself.(56)
Conclusion
Contemporary scholarship
has identified a number of divergent tendencies (or trajectories)(57)
within the canonical and non-canonical accounts of James, the relative
of Jesus. In the interest of ascertaining the character of the historical
James, different studies have sometimes emphasized a single tendency (e.g.,
legal, ascetic, priestly, or gnostic) at the expense of others.(58) Scholarly
reconstructions of the early church have identified James as an "orthodox"
Christian,(59) a moderate between Paul and the Judaizers,(60) or as a
radical-Judaizing Christian.(61)
Other investigations
have been more concerned to isolate the characteristics and concerns of
the group within which the various trajectories developed.(62) This, I
believe to be more realistic. The non-canonical records display development
along a number of lines, all of which represent some emphasis within the
Jewish Christianity which arose after the close of the NT period. It is
usually impossible to identify precisely just which Jewish Christian group
is represented by a particular trajectory or emphasis within the non-canonical
accounts. Nevertheless, when taken together they testify to both a unity
of concerns and emphases as well as to diversity within this important,
complex, but little known or understood branch of primitive Christianity.
(1) References to
James in the Nag Hammadi documents have been excluded from this paper.
See James A. Braschler and Marvin W. Meyer, "James in the Nag Hammadi
Library."
(2)There are three
major theories about the exact nature of the relationship between Jesus
and those called his "brothers" or "brethren," Mk.
6:3, etc.: (a) the Helvidian theory says that they were latter children
of Mary and Joseph, (b) the Herony theory that they were Jesus' cousins,
and (c) the suggestion of Epiphanius and some of the apocryphal gospels
that they were children of Joseph by an earlier marriage.
(3)"Now I, James,
who wrote this history in Jerusalem. . . ," Prot Evang 25:1;
cf. Origen, Com on Matt 10:17 quoted from The Apocryphal New
Testament, trans by M. R. James (Corrected ed., Oxford: Clarendon,
1953), 49; cf., E. Hennecke, New Testament Apocrypha, ed. by W.
Schneemelcher, trans by R. McLane Wilson (London: Lutterworth, 1963),
I, 388.
(4) See James, Apocryphal
NT, 70-86.
(5)Infancy Story of
Thomas, 16, as given by Hennecke, NT Apocrypha I , 398; cf., James, Apocryphal
NT, 54, 65.
(6) adelfoqeoV adelphotheos,
according to Philip Schaff, History of the Christian Church (New
York: 1910; Reprinted, Grand Rapids: Eerdmans: 1955) I, 268.
(7)Fragments of Papias,
X, The Ante-Nicene Fathers (=ANF) ed by Alexander Roberts and James Donaldson
(American reprint; Grand Rapids; Eerdmans, 1973) I, 155.
(8)An editor's note
states that the fragment is contained in a manuscript of the Bodleian
Library with the inscription "Papia" in the margin. Westcott,
they report, believed it ot be the work of "a medieval Papias."
ANF I, 155, n. 6.
(9)On Illustrious
Men, 2, as quoted by Hennecke, NT Apocrypha I, 165.
(10)It probably implies
that the faith of the Twelve, who did not expect the resurrection of Jesus,
was inferior to that of James. O. Cullmann (Peter: Disciple, Apostle ,
Martyr, trans by Floyd Filson [Philadelphia: Westminster, 1953], 63) stresses
the importance of "the dignity of being the first (italics his) witness"
in the traditions which assert the supremacy of Peter.
(11)Lightfoot thinks
this "characteristic of a Judaic writer whose aim it was to glorify
his own Church," "The Brethren of the Lord," The Epistle
of St. Paul to the Galatians (London: Macmillan, 1965), 274.
(12) desposunoi.
(13)"Letter to
Aristides, " Eusebius, EH. 1:7, 14.
(14)Kirchenverfassung
(1910), 26 as cited by Arnold A. T. Erhardt, The Apostolic Succession
in the First Two Centuries of the Church (London: Lutterworth, 1953),
28; cf. E. Meyer, Ursprung und Aufange (Stuttgart: 1923), II, 224; B.
Weiss, Earliest Christianity (Torchbook ed. of The History of Primitive
Christianity [1937]), trans by F. C. Grant (New York: Harper, 1959), 716;
B. H. Streeter, The Primitive Christian Church (London: Macmillian, 1929),
40; E. Stauffer, "Zum Kalifat des Jacobus," ZRG
V (1952), 193 ff.
(15)Cf. Apostolic
Constitutions VIII:35; Epiphanius, Haeresies [ck. spelling] XXXVII:7;
Chrystom, Homilies on Cor XXXVIII:4.
(16) EH 2:2,
quoting from Clement's Hypotyposeis.
(17) episkopoV, episkopos.
(18)I.e. fourth century,
according to Johannes Quasten, Patrology (Westminster, MD: Newman, 1950)
I, 74.
(19) 1:73, the Latin
is archiepiscopus,.
(20)The Homilies do
not contain the highly idealized picture of James found in the Recognitions.
Homilies X:35 is the only mention of him. Here it is stated simply that
he was "the brother of the Lord, to whom was entrusted to administer
the Church of the Hebrews in Jerusalem." Such a statement could have
come from NT statements alone.
(21) tw kuriw kai
episkopw thV agiaV ekklhsiaV, to kurio kai episkopo ths agias eklhsias.
(22) domino et episcopo
episcoporum.
(23)This section of
the Recognitions may contain fragments from the "Ascent of James,"
described by Epiphanius, Haer. XXX [part of footnote is cut off] where
James is said to have spoken "against the Temple and the sacrifices,
and the fire on the altar; and many other things full of empty sound"
(quoted from James, Apocryphal NT, 20).
(24) thn gnwsin, ten
gnosin.
(25)"The Preaching
of Peter" is mentioned by Clement of Alexandria, Origen, and Gregory
of Nazianzus; for quotations see James, Apocryphal NT, 16-19. G. Strecker
attempts a reconstruction of the Kerygmata Petrou from the Ps Clementines
in "The Kerygmata Petrou," Hennecke, NT Apocrypha, 102-127.
(26)Quoted here from
philosophumena or The Refutation of All Heresies trans by F. Legge (Translations
of Christian Literature; London: SPCK, 1921) I, 121. The ANF (V, 24) numbers
this passage as Ref V:2.
(27)The Apostolic
Succession in the First Two Centuries of the Church.
(28)For a discussion
of these problems see Ehrhardt, Succession, 35 ff. and C. H. Turner, "The
Early Episcopal Lists," JTS I (1900), 181 ff and 529 ff.
(29)Succession, 67-68.
(30)Ibid., 107 f.
(31)Ibid. 81 ff.,
107 f., 158; cf. Preface.
(32) Cf. E. von Dobschultz,
Christian Life in the Primitive Church, trans by G. Bremner (London:
Williams and Norgate, 1904), 393; E. Mollard, "Irenaeus of Lugnumum
and the Apostolic Succession,"JEH 1 (1950) 12ff.
(33)Ehrhardt, Succession,
107, n. 4 cites Tertullian, Bapt 17, Pud 1; Origen (cf. Hatch-Preuschen,
Gesellschaft verf. 1883, 142 n. 60) Hippol. Ap Trad 3:4; Didasc Syr 2.25.7;
26.2;4. I would add Did 13:3; I Clem 40-41; Apoc. of Peter, Akhimin or
II Frag. 20.
(34)Quoting here from
"Ancient Syriac Documents," ANF VIII, 667 ff. Our document seems
to be from the third book of the Syriac Clementine Octateuch; cf. P.A.
DeLagarde, Reliquiae iuris ecclesiasticae antiquissimae graece (Leipzig:
1856), 74 ff.
(35) ekaleito o dikaioV
kai wbliaV, ekaleito o dikaios kai oblias.
(36) h qura tou 'Ihsou,
he thura tou Iesou.
(37) kai euquV, kai
euthus.
(38)Lightfoot (Galatians,
330, 367 nl) suggests this section of the Recognitions may contain portions
from the "Ascents of James," an Ebionite book described by Epiphanius
(Haeresies XXX:16) and that the Ascents may have concluded with this account
of James' being cast down.
(39)An additional
difficulty in identifying this as a death account is found in the following
chapter of the Recognitions (chap 71) where the trip of "the enemy"
(Paul) to Damascus is said to have resulted from the incident in which
James was injured. It is impossible to locate Paul's trip to Damascus
within the same time-frame as James' death.
(40)Ant XX:9, 1 [=199-201]
reads, "The younger Aranus, who, as we have said, had been appointed
to the high priesthood, was rash in his temper and unusually daring .
. . He thought he had a favorable opportunity because Festus was dead
and Albinus was still on the way. And so he convened the judges of the
Sanhedrin and brought before them a named James, the brother of Jesus
who was called the Christ, and certain others. He accused them of having
transgressed the Law and delivered them up to be stoned. Those of the
inhabitants of the city who were considered to be most fair-minded and
who were strict in observance ot the law were offended at this."
(41) C Cel
I:47; II:13; Com Matt 17.
(42)The present texts
of both Josephus and Eusebius place James' death in the interregnum between
the death of Festus and the arrival of his successor Albinus. However,
W. Patrick, (James The Lord's Brother [Edinburgh: Clark, 1906], 240) thinks
that James died ca. 66 or 67 and that the "immediately" of Hegesippus
means "a few months."
(43)H. J. Schonfield
(The Secrets of the Dead Sea Scrolls [London: Vallentine & Mitchell,
1956], 73ff) says that when the death of James is connected with the fall
of Jerusalem, the writers may imply a connection with the Legend of ben
Berechiah which appears from time to time in Jewish sources and on the
lips of Jesus, Matt 23:34ff; cf. Lu 11:49ff.
(44)Syriac and Latin
Versions of Eusebius; Jerome. Of Illustrious Men, 2; Andrew of Crete,
The Life of James (ed. Papadopulous-Keremeus; Anal. Hierosol. Stachyolog)
as cited by Robert Eisler, The Messiah Jesus and John the Baptist. Eng
trans (London: Methuen, 1913), 541.
(45)On the problem
of a definition for "Jewish Christianity" see A. F. F. Klijn,
"The Study of Jewish Christianity," NTS 20 (1973-74), 419-431;
R. Murray, "Defining Judaeo-Christianity," HibJ 15 (1974), 303-310;
G. Quispel, "The Discussion of Judaic Christianity," VC 22 (1968),
81-93; and S. K. Riegel, "Jewish Christianity: Definition and Terminology,"
NTS 24 (1977-78), 410-415.
(46)See my "The
Church of Jerusalem, A.D. 30-100: And Investigation of the Growth of Internal
Factions and the Extension of its Influence in the Larger Church"
(Unpublished Ph.D. Dissertation; Manchester, England: The University of
Manchester, 1969) and "Parties in the Church of Jerusalem as seen
in the Book of Acts," Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society
18 (1975), 217-227.
(47)E.g., the attempt
to make James into a priest must stumble over his non-Levitical descent.
Nowhere can we find confirmation that the prophets spoke about James (although
the writer may have the LXX of Isa. 3:10 in mind). The mention of the
sects (Hegesippus probably means the seven sects listed in EH 4:22,7),
who did not believe in the resurrection of future rewards, shows the writer
did not have a clear idea of Jewish society for he includes the Pharisees
among the antagonists of James. The similarity of James' dying prayer
to those of Jesus and Stephen, while not making it historically impossible,
does, in light of other inconsistencies, help cast doubt upon the narrative.
(48)R. Eisler (The
Messiah Jesus, 518 ff) took "the Gate (or door) of Jesus" to
mean a literal gate in the Jerusalem Temple through which Jesus had entered.
Guy Schofield (In the Year Sixty Two [London: Harrap, 1960], 16) attempts
to find a connection between "the door of Jesus" and "the
judge standing before the doors" in Jas 5:9. He suggests that both
were an eschatological reference to the resurrection to which the Sadducees
took offense. I believe the statement in Hegesippus--Eusebius is probably
the relic of some primitive terminology which thought of entering the
Kingdom of salvation as "the door of Jesus," as suggested in
John 10:7, 9; cf. Ps 118:18-19.
(49)Christian Beginnings
(London: University of London Press, 1924), 82.
(50)A Jewish tradition
affirms that there are in every generation thirty-six (frequently unrecognized)
men with whom the Shekinah rests and because of whose presence the community
or nation is preserved. They are sometimes called "The Lamed-vavniks"
(since the Hebrew letters lamed and vav stand for the number thirty-six)
or "the Just Ones;" see "Lamed-vav," Jew Ency VII,
596 and Gershom Scholem, "The Tradition of the Thirty-six Hidden
Just Men," The Messianic Idea in Judaism and Other Essays on Jewish
Spirituality (New York: 1971), 251 ff.
(51)Cf. S. G. F. ,
Brandon, The Fall of Jerusalem and the Christian Church (2nd ed; London:
SPCK, 1957).
(52)Cf, Josephus,
Wars IV:5,2. [314-334]
(53)Josephus, Ant
XVIII:11, 2; cf, W.O.E. Oesterley and Theodore H. Robinson, The History
of Israel (Oxford: Clarendon, 1932) II, 383.
(54) Eusebius, EH
3:20, 4.
(55) uioc qeou ton
swthr kai kurion hmwn 'Ihsoun, huios theou tov soter kai kurion hemov
Iesoun.
(56)Cf, H-J Schoeps,
Theologie und Geschichte des Judenchristentums (Tubingen: Mohr, 1949),
87 ff; Oscar Cullmann, The Christology of the New Testament, Eng trans
Shirley G. Guthrie and Charles A. M. Hall (London: SCM, 1957), 37 ff;
Georg Strecker, Das Judenchristentum in den Pseudoklementinen (TU; Berlin:
Akademie, 1958), 145-153.
(57)As they are called
by Roy B. Ward, "James of Jerusalem," Restoration Quarterly
16 (1973), 174-190.
(58)Eg, F. W. Farrar
(The Life and Work of St. Paul [London: 1897], 131) calls James "a
Legalist, a Nazarite, almost an Essene" and W. L. Knox (St. Paul
and the Church of Jerusalem [Cambridge: University Press, 1925], 226)
calls him a "Christian Pharisee."
(59)Most traditional
reconstructions place James at the conservative wing of "orthodox"
Christianity: eg, George T. Purves, Christianity in the Apostolic Age
(New York: Scribners, 1900), 139-142.
(60)Walter Schmithals,
Paul and James, trans by Dorothea M. Barton (SBT; London: SCM, 1963 and
my "The Church of Jerusalem," and "Parties in the Church
of Jerusalem," JETS 18 (1975).
(61)S. G. F. Brandon
(The Fall of Jerusalem) and Kenneth L. Carroll ("The Place of James
in the Early Church," Bulletin of The John Rylands Library 55 1961.,
49ff) attempt to reconstruct the Tubingen theory of early Church history
by making James, not Peter, the leader of the extreme Jewish faction and
the great adversary of Paul.
(62)Nb the implication
of the remark by Theo. Zahn (quoted by H. J. Schoeps) (Paul: The Theology
of the Apostle in the Light of Jewish Religious History, trans by Harold
Knight London: Lutterworth, 1961, 67; cf. Streeter, The Primitive Church,
38-39) that the latter traditions represent James as the "Pope of
Ebionite Fancy." H-J Schoeps (Theologie und Geschichte) also traces
the development of the James traditions to the Ebionites. W. Ward ("James
of Jerusalem," Rest Quart 16 1973 traces a number of lines of development.
Elsewhere I suggest that some of the James traditions may have been influenced
by some Jewish Christians who associated with James the characteristic
which, in their pre-Christian background, they had expected to be found
in an eschatological priest or priestly Messiah ("James, the Relative
of Jesus, and the Expectation of an Eschatological Priest," JETS
25/3 (September 1982), 323-331.
Back
to
[Dr. Scott's Home] [Graduate
School Home]
|
|
