I received no less that three emails on related questions within the space of a week or two, so I wanted to ‘out of order’ this in hopes of surfacing some considerations on these topics.
The questions/issues raised were:
Here we go………………………………………..
-------------------------------------- ------------------------------------------------------------------
The first is on Paul’s references to James as “the brother of the Lord” and the other ‘brothers’ of the Lord
“My question is a historical
one. I'm sure it's pretty stupid, but I
need help with it. I'm sure you know,
that it is very popular on the net to deny Jesus lived in atheist circles.. They typically say thing like Paul didn't say
anything about Jesus' life, and so maybe didn't know anything. I point out these verses:
Galatians 1.19: I saw none of the other apostles—only James, the Lord's brother.
1 Corinthians 9.5: Don't we have the right to take a believing wife along with us, as do
the other apostles and the Lord's brothers and Cephas ?
I spoke with someone who alleged
that the idea that these verses speak of physical brothers is not at all
clear. But that they are speaking of a special
group called "brothers of the Lord".
Or that they mean "brothers in the Lord". As in, other Christians. I know that all 4 Gospels say Jesus had
brothers, and two of them mention James.
But is this just the skeptic taking the obvious meaning and twisting it
for their theories sake?”
My Response:
Well, I must say, it does seem a little odd to take it that way, but since ‘brethren’ and ‘brother’ are often used in a generic “Christians” sense, let’s check out the exegetical sense, Pauline usage and other non-Pauline data.
One quick way to test the “brother(s) of the Lord” = “Christian(s)” is to substitute the second term for the first in the passages and see if it still makes sense. So, we get:
At first glance, this really doesn’t fit the passages. To describe an apostle as a ‘Christian’ or ‘believer’—as a means ostensive identification—makes little sense. The Corinthians passage might be slightly less odd, if you took ‘Christians’ to mean ‘regular’ or ‘lay’(?) Christians. But since the passage is talking about traveling missionaries, this ‘laity’ meaning doesn’t make much sense either.
As for “Brothers of the Lord” being the name of some self-identified group, there is no evidence of such a designated sub-group in the early Church. In fact, the Corinthian letter actually shows evidence that such self-designated groups (e.g. “I (am) of Christ”, “I (am) of Apollos”, etc) existed, but the word ‘brother’ is not used. So, if this ‘of Christ’ group identified itself as ‘brothers of the Lord’, they have left no evidence behind to warrant us believing that.
But let’s also see how the substitution looks in the passages:
Again, there is not evidence that such a group existed, and I am not sure it really makes much sense in (or, contribution to) the understanding of these passages. Although it is not a strong point, the fact that James is identified as ‘the’ brother of the Lord, instead of something that sounds more like a group name (‘a Brother of the Lord’), would offer some evidence that the purpose of the definite article ‘the’ was ‘selective’. In other words, a ‘the’ in this phrase would more naturally be taken to ‘contrast’ this James with some other James (as below), as opposed to identify him by reference to some group. Circumstantial at best, but something that does need to be factored in.
The Galatians reference is generally taken to be an identification, and one necessary to identify which James Paul was talking about.
“James, “the Lord’s brother,” is in all probability the James named first among the four brothers of Jesus in Mark 6:3 (cf. Matt 13:55). He is not to be confused with Jesus’ two disciples of the same name, James the son of Zebedee and James the son of Alphaeus (cf. Mark 3:17–18, par.; Acts 1:13; 12:2). [WBC, in loc]
“Paul was anxious both then and throughout his
apostolic career to establish and maintain bonds of fellowship with the
But let’s go ahead and ask a few more questions:
1. Are Christians ever called ‘brothers of
the Lord’ by Paul (or would-be Pauls) elsewhere?
No.
2. Are Christians ever called ‘brothers of
the Lord’ in any of the other NT
epistles?
Well, almost. There’s a reference in Hebrews but it is Jesus (and not the author of the epistle) who does the ‘calling’ [Hebrew 2:9ff]:
But we do see Him who has been made for a little
while lower than the angels, namely, Jesus, because
of the suffering of death crowned with glory
and honor, that by the grace of God He might taste death
for everyone. 10 For it was fitting for Him, for
whom are all things, and through whom are all things, in bringing many sons to
glory, to perfect the author of their salvation through sufferings.
11 For both He who sanctifies and those who are sanctified are
all from one Father; for which reason He is not ashamed to call
them brethren, 12 saying,
“I will proclaim Thy name to My brethren,
In the midst of the congregation I will sing Thy
praise.”
13
And again,“I will put My trust in Him.”
And again, “Behold, I and the
children whom God has given Me.”
14
Since then the children share in
flesh and blood, He Himself likewise also
partook of the same, that through death
He might render powerless him who had the power of death, that is, the devil; 15
and might deliver those who through fear of death were subject to slavery all
their lives. 16 For assuredly He does not give help to angels,
but He gives help to the descendant of
Abraham. 17 Therefore, He had to be made like His brethren in all things, that He might become a
merciful and faithful high priest in things pertaining to God, to make
propitiation for the sins of the people. 18 For since He
Himself was tempted in that which He has suffered, He is able to come to the
aid of those who are tempted.
The passage emphasizes the human-nature connection of Jesus with his (especially Jewish) followers (i.e., flesh, blood, death, Abraham, high priest, suffering). The followers are called both ‘brethren’ and ‘children’ in the passage—simple family images, not sub-group designations. They are not called ‘Brethren of the Lord’—but since it’s the Lord speaking, that might be close enough(?). But again, there’s nothing here to suggest a ‘separate’ group of Christians (a la clique), nor that Christians were ever called “Brothers of the Lord” by anybody other that Jesus. [FWIW, in Romans 8:28-29, Paul refers to Christ being the ‘first-born among many brethren’, but this is even weaker than the Hebrews passage—we don’t have ‘of the Lord’ or ‘of Me (Jesus)’ in it.]
3. Are Christians ever called “brothers of
the Lord” in the Gospels/Acts?
Again, almost. We have the same pattern: they are only called ‘brethren’ by Jesus, never by others. Two passages are relevant here: Mark 3 and Matthew 25.
We have Jesus calling His followers ‘brothers and mother’ in Mark 3 (and parallels):
And His mother and His brothers arrived, and
standing outside they sent word to Him, and called Him. And a multitude was
sitting around Him, and they said to Him, “Behold, Your mother and Your
brothers are outside looking for You.” And answering them, He said, “Who are My
mother and My brothers?” And looking about on those who were sitting around
Him, He said, “Behold, My mother and My brothers!
But again, the usage is not specific enough: the believers are called
‘brothers’ AND ‘mother’! No suggestion of
either a subgroup or of a Christian identity designation (like ‘Nazarenes’ or
‘followers of the Way’ became). Christians are never called by others or by
themselves ‘the mother and brothers of the Lord’. In other words, when Mary is
called “the mother of Jesus” (as in Acts 1.14), ‘mother of Jesus’ doesn’t mean
she is a member of a clique called ‘the mothers of Jesus’ or that she is simply
a ‘believer’… [Generally, the ‘brothers’ are distinguished from the disciples: After this He went down to
The second passage is the Judgment scene in Matt 25. The Messianic King separates the sheep from the goats based on how they treated a third group:
“And the King will answer and say to them, ‘Truly I say to you, to the
extent that you did it to one of these brothers of Mine,
even the least of them, you did it to
Here the King is presumably talking about His followers, and He calls them “brethren of mine” (like the Hebrews’ reference: “my brethren”). And we have the same lack of specificity of the reference that we had in Hebrews and in the metaphorical reference in Mark 3. Obviously not a reference to a sub-group, and a generic usage that would include everyone. [In the Corinthian passage, btw, where ‘christians’ would be the least problematic, they are distinguished both from apostles and Peter, so the term would not be inclusive enough to denote ‘all Christians’—it would have to refer to ‘normal non-clergy Christians’.]
4. Are Christians ever called ‘brethren’ in
the NT?
Of course—tons of times. Believers are constantly addressed as ‘brethren’ by everyone (including one case of ‘brethren IN Christ’), but never is a ‘regular’ Christian called ‘brother of the Lord’. We have several cases of “brother of X”, but they are all just physical brothers of a physical person (Mark 1.16; 3.17; 5.37; 6.3; Acts 12.2; Jude 1).
The biblical usage data is solidly against it…
…………………………………………………..
Pushback: “But didn’t
devotees in the Mystery Religions call each other ‘brothers’ even if they were
not related? Except by religions?
Of course they did—every “fraternal” organization does the same ‘by charter’!
But so what?
But they didn’t call themselves “Brothers of
Our phrase is different: ‘brothers of the Lord” (not even ‘brothers of Jesus’, but of the exalted figure the Lord! No one calls himself the ‘brother of God’ in ancient Judaism (!), but the “Lord” was a respectful (and theologically sufficient, btw) way to refer to the risen and victorious Jesus. (cf. John 21.7, where John tells Peter that the physical figure on the shore is “the Lord”)
In some of the Mysteries, a ‘union with god” was achieved ritually, but
the vocabulary of identification did not include fraternity. We
do not see a human being called ‘brother
of Mithras’ or ‘brother of
So, this data is not really relevant to the discussion.
…………………………………………………………..
Pushback: “hey, dude, you
left one verse out—Acts 12.17 makes a reference that looks suspiciously like
the Galatians’ one… and your FF Bruce fellow argues that it’s a sub-group…you
gonna skirt over that one?”
Well, actually, I was saving the best for last…smile.
Here’s the FF Bruce reference (I am surprised you knew about this…smile):
“James was perhaps already the leader of one group in
the
And here’s the passage in Acts 12.17: Peter is recounting his miraculous escape from prison and says this: “and tell these things to James and the brethren”.
Huh? This is no different than a score of other references to ‘the brethren’. Still not the “brethren of the Lord”! Just because the word ‘James’ is there? If it had said “James and the (other) brethren of the Lord” then we MIGHT have had something to discuss… and its just a different group than the one that was with Peter at the time(!)—not a specially designated group. There’s just not enough evidence here to get that far… Otherwise, it’s just another case of “nothing here to see, folks, just move along…”
And I am not sure that Bruce’s cautioned-comment (“seem”) is strong enough to warrant much more discussion—nobody else sees a problem there…
“The brothers are probably, as at 1:15, the Christians in general. All (not leaders only) are to be informed. [Barrett, C. K. (2004). A critical and exegetical commentary on the Acts of the Apostles; The Acts of the Apostles (587). 2 v.: T&T Clark International]
(The Hermeneia commentary on Acts—which generally points out every little ‘bump’ in the text—doesn’t even comment on the term)
In fact, Bruce elsewhere says it just applies to the elders (without making any comment about “brethren” being some kind of technical term), and maintains quite a conservative view of the historicity of the account in Acts [including that James was the ‘brother of Jesus’:
“The description of Peter's anxious gesture, as he
beckoned to surprised and excited company to make less noise, is the authentic
touch of an eyewitness—whether Luke got the story from Mark (whom he later knew
in Rome) or from Rhoda, as Ramsay argued, or from someone else. … In addition
to the company
which met in Mary's house, there was evidently another
associated with James the brother of Jesus. They too must be told of
Peter's escape. The
"brothers" mentioned along with him probably include his
fellow-elders (cf. 11:30; 21:18). It appears that by this
time James had attained a position of undisputed leadership in the
So you cannot use Bruce to de-fratenize (smile) James and the other siblings of Jesus… Still nothing to see here…
…………………………………………………………..
So, the biblical usage gives no data to support such an ‘odd’ usage, and gives plenty of data against it.
Now let’s turn to non-biblical data.
……………..
Our major witness is Josephus—and
this really should put the burden for evidence back on the ‘odd asserter’ (
“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 Sanhedrin of 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”
There is nothing ‘religious’ here [nor is the text disputed], and the reference to ‘the brother of Jesus’ simply cannot mean (a) a regular Christian; or (b) a subgroup of Christians. This looks like an ostensive designation.
Now, let me make a general remark about the
blood-kin of Jesus.
Historians have a good deal of data to work with on this subject (even for this time period), even outside of the NT documents. Not all of it is good or ‘pure’ –most historical data isn’t (sigh)—but it has important force.
On my bookshelf, for example, are several full-length monographs and multi-author works (Jewish, Christian, and secular) which explore the rich vein of Palestinian traditions. Look at the titles (biblio is in the book abbreviations):
You see, the Palestinian church continued in existence long after the gentile population became dominant in the early church. Some of the Palestinian body remained in synch with the wider church, but some of the groups splintered off (e.g. Ebionites). The leadership of these various groups often were tied to the blood-line of Jesus’ family (or claimed to be tied to in, in polemical contexts).
“The Relatives as Early
Christian Leaders. There is good evidence that a considerable number of members of the family of
Jesus, from the earliest period of the church down to the early
second century, were prominent leaders in the Jewish Christian movement in
“After James’s death (whether immediately or after 70
is unclear) his cousin Simeon son of Clopas
succeeded him as leader of the
“While James occupied the position of central
authority in
“Paul’s reference
correlates with the later testimony of Julius Africanus, who lived at Emmaus in the early third century and derived his information from a
Palestinian Jewish Christian source. He says that the relatives of Jesus, who were known as the desposynoi,
“from the Jewish villages of
“Among those who were prominent in the leadership of
the Christian movement at the end of the first century were the two
grandsons of Jude. This at least must be a reliable inference from
the somewhat
legendary account that Hegesippus gives about them. He says that, like
Simeon son of Clopas, they came under suspicion, since they were descendants of
David, and were brought before the emperor Domitian himself. As evidence that
they were not politically dangerous, they pointed out that they were merely
hard-working peasant farmers, farming only 39 plethra of
land (quoted in Eusebius Hist. Eccl. 3.19.1—3.20.7; 3.32.5–6). The precise
figure suggests an accurate knowledge of the size of the family’s small holding
in
There are consistent threads of Jesus’ blood-ties that show up in the various histories (even those critical of the ‘Church’):
“Hegesippus had access to
certain traditions deriving from the early
Most of the arguments over the ‘brothers of the Lord’ were over the
issue of virginal conception (are they are today!). Origen can report that the Gospel of Peter (mid-second century) had a record of Jesus’
brothers. The phrase ‘Brothers of the Lord’ is always
taken by the early church to refer to physical brothers and not some
special group:
“According to Origen (Comm. Mt. 10.17), the Gospel of Peter supplied evidence that the brothers of the Lord were sons of Joseph by his first marriage. This may indicate that the Gospel began with a birth narrative.” [DictJG]
“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 thee, and the power of the Most High shall overshadow thee,” 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.” 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.” With regard to Joseph and Simon we have nothing to tell; but the saying, “And His sisters are they not all with us.” 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 knoweth this man letters having never learned? ” 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. [the passage from Origen, from the ANF collection]
In James’ case, a number of apocryphal works were written in his name and he appears in several narratives. Here are a couple:
In the “Gospel to the Hebrews” [EvHeb]:
“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 those who sleep. And shortly thereafter the Lord said: “Bring a table and bread!” ’ And immediately it is added: ‘He took the bread, blessed it and broke it and gave it to James the just and said to him: “My brother, eat your bread, for the Son of Man has risen from among those who sleep” ’. [Klauck, H. (2003). Apocryphal gospels : An introduction (42). London; New York: T&T Clark.; Note that this ‘my brother’ could mean something non-physical [as in 1st Apoc of James?], but the discussion in the book argues that this passage was an attempt to place James the brother of Jesus at the Last Supper and as the first witness to the resurrection—to authenticate him as head of the Jerusalem church, and the self-proclaimed continuators of that church—the Ebionites. The EvHeb wanted to claim the authority of this closest relative to Jesus.]
In the Protevangelium of James (Protev):
“The name ‘Protevangelium’ (i.e. ‘first gospel’) was
first given to this text in the sixteenth century when it was rediscovered and
made accessible to the West by the French humanist Guillaume Postel. The name
seems to have been suggested by the idea that this text served as an
introduction to Mark, whose gospel begins rather abruptly in 1:1–8 with the
appearance of John the Baptist. In the oldest manuscript, PBodmer V (early
fourth century), its main title is ‘The Birth of Mary’, with an additional
secondary title: ‘Revelation of James’. This is not the son of Zebedee, one of
the twelve (Mk 3:17), but James the brother of
the Lord (Mk 6:3), although some scholars have preferred to identify
him as ‘James the younger’ (Mk 15:40). At any rate, this transparent authorial
fiction is found in the text itself: ‘Now I, James, who wrote this history …’ [(25:1).
The Protevangelium was composed between 150 and 200 in an unknown place;
“In the closing chapter, the narrator speaks in the
first person singular, before ending his book with a doxology and a blessing:
‘Now I, James, who wrote this history, when a tumult arose in Jerusalem on the
death of Herod, withdrew into the wilderness …’ (25:1), where he found enough
time and peace to compose the Protevangelium. The literary fiction probably
identifies him with one of the sons of Joseph
mentioned at 17:1f.,
so that he would be an eyewitness of some of the events related; and the
reference to the death of Herod the Great suggests that he is writing at a date
when Jesus himself was still only a small child. [p71, Klauck, H. (2003).
Apocryphal gospels : An introduction.
In the Nag Hammadi writings:
“In 2 Apoc. Jas.,
James’ mother is said to have suckled the Lord and
James, and thus the Lord calls her “my mother” (50.18–21)”. [Franzmann,
M. (2004). Jesus in the Nag Hammadi writings. Originally published:
The passage itself:
“Once when I was sitting deliberating, [he] opened [the] door. That one whom you hated and persecuted came in to me. He said to me, ‘Hail, my brother; my brother, hail’. As I raised my [face] to stare at him, (my) mother said to me, ‘Do not be frightened, my son, because he said ‘My brother’ to you (sg.). For you (pl) were nourished with this same milk. Because of this he calls me ‘My mother’” [50:5-20; The Nag Hammadi Library in English]
So, where are we?
So, in summary: we have a fairly large body of data (of varying quality and import) that supports the understanding of James as being related to Jesus as a family member. [The historical dispute is not over this, but over what KIND of family member he was to Jesus: foster-brother, step-brother, cousin, full/younger brother. ]
………………………………………..
Okay, next up is Paul’s knowledge (or lack of it) of the historical Jesus
Here’s how the question was worded:
“How can we be sure the Apostle
Paul is even speaking of Jesus of
My Response:
Paul gives plenty of details about the historical—I don’t see why people still really question this. Somebody needs to read the NT a little more closely…
I have already given a list of the teachings of our Lord that Paul knew/used (in Section One of http://www.christian-thinktank.com/muslix.html), but let’s look at a couple of statements by scholars on this:
First, from O’Connor:
“It takes neither imagination nor intelligence to
recognize how Paul must have reacted in the presence of one who had lived with
Jesus from the time that both were disciples of John the Baptist. The
centrality of Christ in Paul's conversion experience and his theology, and the
natural curiosity engendered by the hints he picked up during his three years
in the Christian community at
“A number of features in his letters tend to confirm this conclusion. The historical Jesus is fundamental to Paul's theology. The disciple who wrote Ephesians caught the Apostle's approach perfectly when he presents Jesus as the truth of Christ (Eph. 4: 21)." When his converts attempted to separate the Christ of faith from the Jesus of history, Paul resisted by insisting that the Lord of Glory was the crucified Jesus (i Cor. 2: 6), and by stressing that Christ had been received 'as Jesus the Lord' (Col. 2: 6). The implication that Paul preached the historical Jesus is formally confirmed by his condemnation of anyone 'who preaches a Jesus other than the one we preached' (2 Cor. 11: 4).
“There are two references to sayings of Jesus in First Corinthians, the prohibition of divorce (7:10-11) and the directive concerning the livelihood of pastors (9: 14). It is emphasized by some that these are not direct quotations but rather allusions or reminiscences. This is done in order to bring them into line with the rest of Paul's correspondence, where the situation has been rather precisely described by F. Neirynck, 'Possible allusions to gospel sayings can be noted on the basis of similarity of form and context but a direct use of a gospel saying in the form in which it has been preserved in the synoptic gospels is hardly possible.' The negative thrust of such a judgment should not be exaggerated. Formally attributed direct quotations were the exception rather than the rule in the age and world in which Paul lived. Use acknowledged value; one borrowed only from the rich. One should expect, therefore, that if Paul knew the teaching of Jesus it would have informed the Apostle's thought to the point where any distinction of source and personal elaboration would be, not only impossible, but meaningless.
“Recent studies, moreover, suggest that Paul knew not just the dominical saying but the context in which it appears in the synoptic tradition. One example must suffice. The theme of the support of pastors appears in Luke 10 and it has been shown that this chapter is linked to i Corinthians 9 by a whole series of shared terms: an 'apostle' who is ('to sow' and) 'to reap' has the 'right' to a 'reward' for his 'preaching the good news' because a 'workman' has a right 'to eat' and 'to drink'. The contacts are too numerous to make coincidence a credible explanation, particul