JAMES (̓Ιάκωβος, G2610, Hellenized form of ̓Ιακώβ, G2609, a variant form of the name Jacob). Four or five persons in the NT are so named, unless the same persons are known by a variety of designations.
Outline
1. The son of Zebedee. The only Biblical accounts of this James are in the writings of the synoptists (Matt 4:21; 10:2; 17:1; Mark 1:19, 29; 3:17; 5:37; 9:2; 10:35, 41; 13:3; 14:33; Luke 5:10; 6:14; 8:51; 9:28, 54; Acts 1:13; 12:2). Modestly, John refrained from mentioning his brother by name, though he revealed his presence with the other apostles after the Resurrection (John 21:2). The only mention of James by name outside the first three gospels is in the listing of the apostles (Acts 1:13) and the reference to his death (12:2). This is a remarkable silence for so prominent an apostle.
a. Family. James was called the son of Zebedee and the brother of John. In the gospels, the common use of James’ name before that of John prob. indicates that James was older (Matt 10:2; 17:1; Mark 3:17; 5:37). In each of these passages John is identified as the “brother of James.” However, in Acts the identification is reversed. James is mentioned as the “brother of John” to those who were less familiar with the earlier unbroken circle of apostles (Acts 12:2). The father, Zebedee, was a fisherman who owned several boats on the Sea of Galilee and had hired servants (Mark 1:20; Luke 5:11). The establishment must have been considerable. Some infer additional evidence of affluence from the fact that John was “known to the high priest” (John 18:15). Perhaps the family owned property in Jerusalem and spent some of their time there. Fishermen with large boats and sufficient manpower were able to catch more and larger fish in the deep waters. When the local market of Bethsaida Julias and even of Capernaum had been satisfied, salted fish were delivered as far inland as Jerusalem. Not only James and John belonged to the firm (Matt 4:21); Simon was also a partner (Luke 5:10) and possibly Andrew (Mark 1:16). The mother of James and John was prob. Salome, thought by some to be the sister of the mother of Jesus (cf. Matt 27:56; Mark 15:40; John 19:25).
b. Call. James seems not to have been with Peter and Andrew in their pilgrimage to Judea, where they learned of the coming of the “Lamb of God” and received their first call to discipleship (John 1:35-51). Perhaps John was the other disciple of the Baptist who was with Andrew (v. 40). If so, James prob. stayed home to tend the business while three members of the company went to observe the great movement under John the Baptist and even attached themselves to him as his disciples. When, upon their return to Galilee, they recounted the events of Judea, James no doubt caught their faith and enthusiasm. At any rate, he was well prepared for the seemingly abrupt call later at the Sea of Galilee (Luke 5:2-11).
c. Discipleship. Once James became a disciple, he soon occupied a prominent place. He was chosen among the twelve disciples. In each list he stands second or third among the names mentioned, always in company with Peter, John, and Andrew (Matt 10:2; Mark 3:17; Luke 6:14; Acts 1:13). Along with Peter and John, he became a special confidant of Jesus. The three were together at the house of Peter’s mother-in-law with Andrew (Mark 1:29-31). At the house of Jairus, Jesus permitted only these three from the circle of the disciples to enter the room with Him to the child (Mark 5:37; Luke 8:51). At the Transfiguration, Jesus chose these three to climb the mountain with Him (Matt 17:1; Mark 9:2: Luke 9:28). They were not even allowed to tell what they had seen until after Jesus arose from the dead (Mark 9:9). Finally, at Gethsemane, they were again chosen to accompany Jesus (Matt 26:37; Mark 14:33).
James was involved in two less complimentary episodes. Soon after the Transfiguration, when Jesus was passing through Samaria with the obvious intention of going to Jerusalem (Luke 9:51), James and John were deeply offended at the poor reception accorded Jesus by the populace (9:53). So recently having seen the transcendent glory of their Lord, they could not bear the humiliations to which He was subjected. They asked Jesus, “Lord, do you want us to bid fire come down from heaven and consume them?” (v. 54). Jesus rebuked them (v. 55). Perhaps this tendency to impetuosity and even fanaticism was in the mind of Jesus when He called them Boanerges, Sons of Thunder (Mark 3:17).
The other outburst of impetuosity was more selfish. On the occasion of Jesus’ last journey to Jerusalem (10:32), presuming on their intimacy with Jesus and possibly on their kinship, the two brothers made the request, “Grant us to sit, one on your right hand and one at your left, in your glory” (Mark 10:37). The appeal was supported by their mother, a follower of Jesus and faithful supporter of the group (Matt 20:20-28). Jesus rebuked the request (Mark 10:40) and restored peace (vv. 42-45).
On two other occasions, James’ presence is mentioned. He was one of the four on the Mount of Olives who asked the questions about the last things (Mark 13:3, 4). He was also present at the Sea of Galilee when the risen Lord appeared a third time to the disciples and when the miraculous draught of fishes was made (John 21:1-14). Of course, the presence of James was also assumed among the disciples at other times when the names were not listed.
d. Death. James is the only one of the Twelve whose martyrdom is related in the NT. He was also the first martyr among the apostles. King Herod Agrippa I made James the first target in his attack upon the Church in a wider move of persecution which included the arrest of Peter (Acts 12:1-3). That James was prominent enough to be singled out for execution may indicate that Peter, James, and John still formed a special group among the leaders in the church at Jerusalem, as they had among the followers of Jesus, though the martyrdom is the only episode related of James in Acts. If James was not among the most prominent, he must certainly have been among the most feared and hated of the Christians. In his death James fulfilled the prophecy of Jesus that he too should drink of his Master’s cup (Mark 10:39).
e. Apocryphal accounts. Later legends expand the narrative of the NT. Clement of Alexandria (Hypotyposis) and Eusebius (Euseb. Hist. III. 25) refer to The Acts of St. John, a heretical work of the 2nd cent., which gives an account of the call of James and of his presence at the Transfiguration. Fantastic details of the body of Jesus are given. Other accounts are recorded of missionary journeys of James to India, to the “Twelve Tribes” scattered abroad, and to Spain. Based on late legend (6th or 7th cent.), James was made the patron saint of Spain. Marvelous stories are told of his evangelizing and of the return of his body by angels after his martyrdom in Pal. The angels are said to have guided a ship without sail or rudder to Spain with the holy cargo that was prepared by a series of miracles for veneration. Though the early death of James robs the legends of even a minimal historical base, the son of Zebedee is known in Christian tradition as James the Great to distinguish him from James the Less (son of Alphaeus).
2. James the son of Alphaeus. The only references to James the son of Alphaeus in the NT are mere inclusions of his name in the lists of the twelve apostles (Matt 10:3; Mark 3:18; Luke 6:15; Acts 1:13), unless, as many suppose, he is the same person (discussed in the next section) as James the Younger. He heads the third group of four disciples in each of the lists of the Twelve, being coupled with Thaddaeus in Matthew and Mark, and with Simon the Zealot in Luke and Acts. As Matthew, or Levi, is also called the son of Alphaeus (cf. Matt 9:9; Mark 2:14), he may possibly be a brother of James. If this is true, however, it is remarkable that these brothers were not associated in any way in the gospels, as were Simon and Andrew and the sons of Zebedee. Legend says that James was of the house of Gad, was stoned by the Jews for preaching Christ, and was buried by the sanctuary in Jerusalem (Budge, Contendings of the Apostles, II, 50, 264-266).
3. James the younger. Many believe that James the son of Alphaeus is designated by a number of names, including this one. If so, he is also James the Less, the son of Mary, and the brother of Joses or Joseph. In Mark, the Gr. word is simply the equivalent of “little” (Mark 15:40). It is rendered “less” or “younger.” It may refer to stature. Or, if he is compared with the son of Zebedee, he might be both younger (as RSV) and less renowned. His mother, Mary, is mentioned as present at the crucifixion (Matt 27:56; Mark 15:40) and at the discovery of the empty tomb (Mark 16:1; Luke 24:10). She is thought to be the same person as Mary the wife of Clopas (John 19:25). Most English VSS tr. this “wife of,” but the Arab. renders it “Mary the daughter of Clopas” (E. Bishop, “Mary [of] Clopas and Her Father,” ETh, 73/11 [1962], 339). On this basis, the common identification of James the son of Alphaeus with the son of Mary becomes more natural, though it is entirely possible that the same man bore both names, Alphaeus and Clopas. Literature refers to a Simon, son of Clopas (Budge, Contendings of the Apostles, II, 50) who has been identified with Simon the Zealot. If this were admissible, it would account for pairing James with Simon in Luke and Acts (as other brothers are listed among the Twelve). With so few explicit references in the NT, most of these identifications will likely continue to be conjectural, at best.
4. James, “the Lord’s brother.”James is listed first among the brothers of Jesus, indicating, no doubt, that he is the oldest (Matt 13:55; Mark 6:3). Paul names him as one of the two leaders he met in Jerusalem three years after his own conversion (Gal 1:19). This is apparently the one who is simply called James (Acts 12:17; 15:13; 21:18; 1 Cor 15:7; Gal 2:9, 12; James 1:1; Jude 1). He is mentioned by name only twice in the gospels and then only to reflect on Jesus’ humble origin (Matt 13:55; Mark 6:3). However, he is almost certainly included in the brothers who sought to interview Jesus and to dissuade Him from His strenuous ministry (Matt 12:46; Mark 3:20, 21, 31, 32). The brothers also accompanied Him to Capernaum (John 2:12). Later they attempted to persuade Jesus to leave Galilee and go to Judea at the time of the Feast of Tabernacles (7:3). At this time the brothers did not believe in Jesus (v. 5), but, as good Jews, they went to the feast (v. 10).
a. Family. The relationship between Jesus and His “brothers” has been much discussed. The most natural interpretation of the word “brother” at the time of the writing of the NT and of other early Christian lit. is the literal one—that James and the others were children of Joseph and Mary after the birth of Jesus, Mary’s “firstborn.” This is called the Helvidian view, named for Helvidius. On this view, it appears that James was of a fairly large family. Four brothers of Jesus are named—James, Joseph, Simon, and Judas. Reference is made also to “all his sisters” (Matt 13:56). If there had been only two, the word would have been “both.” Therefore, Jesus must have had at least seven brothers and sisters—perhaps nine, if there happened to be as many girls as boys in the family. In the presence of such specific references to brothers and sisters for the sake of identification, it would seem remarkable to deny the designation and to hold that the speaker or writer had only a general relationship in mind in the use of the terms. This impression is strengthened by the seemingly normal use of the words “son” and “mother” (Matt 13:55, 56; Mark 6:3).
An early alternate view, the Epiphanian (named for its chief advocate, Epiphanius) became popular along with the reverence for Mary and the beginnings of the belief in her perpetual virginity. This idea, supported by Origen, Eusebius, Gregory of Nyassa, and Ambrose, was that these “brothers” were children of Joseph by a previous marriage. Since the canonical gospels furnished no evidence for this position, the apocryphal gospels attempted to supply the lack. The affirmation that Joseph was over eighty years old at the time of his second marriage lent plausibility to his acceptance of Mary’s perpetual virginity and gave sufficient time for a family that was no real kin of Jesus or Mary. It did, of course, introduce other complications, not the least of which is putting the “brethren” in the wrong generation to match the data of the gospels, Acts, and the epistles.
The third major view, the Hieronymian, was suggested by the youthful Jerome to refute Helvidius. He argued that the word “brothers” is a broad and general term that could as well mean “kindred” or “cousins.” Jerome claimed no traditional authority for his theory, but depended entirely upon critical and theological arguments. Though, as Lightfoot says, Jerome did not hold to his theory staunchly or consistently (Galatians, pp. 259, 260), it has been widely held and is the officially recognized view of the Roman Catholic Church. Elaborate but uncertain identifications have been made of relatives, friends, and followers of Jesus to support the Epiphanian and Hieronymian views or at least to provide alternatives to the natural meaning of brother.
The vigorous objections that have been raised against the Helvidian view do not stem from the NT accounts themselves, but from an asceticism that is foreign to both Jewish theology and the teaching of Jesus, and from the emerging doctrine of the perpetual virginity of Mary. On the basis of the gospel records themselves, some degree of departure from the ordinary meaning of words is required if one is to build a case against the view that Joseph’s abstinence was only “until she [Mary] had borne a son” (Matt 1:25) and that the result of their marriage was that after the first-born son (Luke 2:7) there were other births, of both brothers and sisters. Judging not only from the place of leadership that James assumed later in the Church, but also from the fact that his name occurs first in the list of the brothers of the Lord, he must have been the oldest of these children of Joseph and Mary and but little younger than Jesus Himself.
b. Conversion. James and the other brothers were not in sympathy with the ministry and claims of Jesus. Though reared in a godly home and apparently responsive to the religion of the Jews, they did not believe in Jesus (John 7:5). At times they chided Him (vv. 2-4). Even the mother seems to have doubted His equilibrium on at least one occasion (Mark 3:21, 31ff.). When Jesus was rejected at Nazareth, he implied that opposition was even “among his own kin” and “in his own house” (Mark 6:4). Perhaps this same loneliness and sadness of personal experience is reflected in the warnings of Jesus that His followers must be prepared for the opposition of those nearest and dearest to them (Matt 10:34-37; Luke 14:26). However, the tension between James and Jesus seems not to have reflected longstanding dislike. It is likely that a warm friendship had existed, based on a real admiration for Jesus. Otherwise, would James have so quickly reacted from hostility to faith at the time of the Resurrection? There may have been some family resentment over the economic loss when Jesus left His employment to be a rabbi. Such claims as He made must have embarrassed and puzzled the brothers.
The conversion of James must have been a surprising and unexpected event to those who had known his attitude toward Jesus. However, as with Paul, the eruption of faith likely had antecedents that prepared for the crisis. The claims of Jesus may have caused earlier stirrings of conscience that James had ruthlessly suppressed. Even the hostility toward Jesus may have been a reflection of James’ own confusion and frustration. In any case, the matter was resolved by a special appearance of the risen Christ (1 Cor 15:7). Two results followed at once. James became a staunch believer, joined to the Jerusalem group. Secondly, having seen the risen Lord, he was recognized as a part of the select group of witnesses to the Resurrection, a fact without which he would likely never have risen to so great prominence in the Church (1 Cor 9:1; Acts 1:22). The place and circumstances of the appearance to James are unknown. The account in the gospel of the Hebrews is fanciful, late, and legendary (The Apocryphal New Testament, tr. by M. R. James, p. 3); but the crucial importance of the event is clear.
c. Prominence. Tradition makes James the bishop of Jerusalem (Euseb. Hist. II. 1). It is not likely that he was ever so elected. But the personal character and high spiritual gifts of James, together with his kinship to the Lord, most certainly exerted an influence that soon became a vigorous leadership. As the apostles became involved in broader ministries and missions, James, who stayed in Jerusalem, became the practical leader. At any rate, no one disputes his prominence and influence. Paul, three years after his conversion, met James in Jerusalem (Gal 1:19). Peter, having escaped from prison, sent word to James and the brethren (Acts 12:17). At the council at Jerusalem, James’ opinion bore the most weight (15:12-21). On Paul’s last return to Jerusalem, it was James and the elders who received him (21:18). It was “certain...from James” who influenced Peter in Antioch (Gal 2:12). The epistle of James makes evident the authority and wide influence of its writer. Jude found “brother of James” sufficient identification for himself (Jude 1). This prominence, however, does not indicate office in a separate formal organization called the church. The believers still considered themselves loyal to their Jewish heritage and sought to win their countrymen to the faith. Neither James nor the others in Jerusalem had any thought that he was a bishop.
If James achieved leadership in Jerusalem, it is only natural that his influence would spread to the rest of Pal., whose life centered in Jerusalem. Beyond Pal., the prestige would be observed mostly among the Jewish Christians of the Gentile lands. Note Antioch, for instance, where a visit of emissaries from James sent Peter scurrying from the informal fellowship of the Gospel to a strict Jewish ceremonialism (Gal 2:11ff.).
d. Character. Tradition supports the NT picture of James as a man of large influence, impressive character, and intense piety according to the finest Heb. ideals. Hegesippus says (Euseb. Hist. II. 23) that James was known as “The Just” and as “the bulwark of the people.” He lived a life of such holiness and piety that he was respected even by nonbelieving Jews. He never ceased to keep the Jewish law with rigor and care. In Hegesippus’ exaggerated account, James was both Nazarite and ascetic—“He was holy from his mother’s womb, wine and strong drink he drank not, nor did he eat flesh; no razor touched his head; he never anointed himself with oil; and he used not the bath.” His knees were said to be hard as a camel’s because he was so constant in prayer and entreaty to God for pardon for the people.
Though the extreme statements must be discounted, the basic picture agrees with what is known of James. He may have been stern and austere, but he was not narrow and mean. Note his insight and consideration during the council at Jerusalem (Acts 15:13-19). He may have been somewhat prosaic in temperament, but no one doubts his uprightness. The term, “The Just,” correctly reflects the consistency of his faithful conformity to the right way of life as he saw it. Along with his outstanding sincerity and zeal was also a costly fault. Though he admitted the legitimacy of Gentile Christianity, he was too steeped in tradition to follow the Spirit of God into the broad universal thrust of the Gospel in an adequate way. The nationalistic faith of James was outstripped by Paul’s more adequate grasp and proclamation. Worse than that, James found himself tied to a doomed and perishing sectionalism, though he had sniffed the air beyond.
e. Writing. See Epistle of James.
f. Death. Josephus (Jos. Antiq. XX. 9. 1) relates that between the death of Festus and the arrival of the new governor, the high priest, Ananius, seized the opportunity to call the judicial council together. He charged James and others with violating the law. Details are not known, but the charges prob. involved Christian doctrine. Because of this James was stoned to death. Josephus reports that the unjust act was protested by pious non-Christian Jews who respected James for his faithfulness to Jewish observances. The high priest was relieved of his office.
Hegesippus (Euseb. Hist. II. 23) gives a much more elaborate account of the martyrdom, presumably with legendary embellishments. Misled by James’ careful keeping of the law, the Jewish authorities supposedly did not realize all that James believed. Having caused him to stand on the wing of the Temple to dissuade people from becoming Christians, the Jews were grieved and enraged to hear him give powerful testimony for Jesus. They responded by throwing him down and stoning him. A priest tried to stop the murder, but a fuller ran up and beat James to death with the club he used to beat clothes.
This much is true—James died about a.d. 62 for his faith.
5. James, the father of Judas. All that is known of this James is that he is the father of the apostle Judas (not Iscariot), as recorded in Luke 6:16 and Acts 1:13.
Bibliography F. Josephus, Antiquities of the Jews (95), XX. 9, 1, 2; J. Lightfoot, The Epistle of Paul to the Galatians (1865), 252-291; A. Plummer, The General Epistles of St. James and St. Jude (1891), 25-41; C. Weizsäcker, The Apostolic Age of the Christian Church (1894), 196-198; G. Purves, Christianity in the Apostolic Age (1900), 130-150; J. Mayor, The Epistle of St. James (1913), i-lxv; M. James, The Apocryphal New Testament (1926), 3, 4; F. Filson, Pioneers of the Primitive Church (1940), 155-183; A. Ross, The Epistles of James and John (1954), 12-17; R. Tasker. The General Epistle of James (1957), 22-30; A. Smith, The Twelve Christ Chose (1958), 33-48, 109-118; W. Barclay, The Master’s Men (1959), 82-86, 100-104; E. Bishop, “Mary (of) Clopas and Her Father” ETh 73/11 (1962), 339.