JAMAICA. See WEST INDIES.
JAMBLICHUS. See NEO-PLATONISM.
JAMES. See also JACOB.
Brother, Step-brother, or Cousin of Jesus (§ 1).
New-Testament Idea, Brother (§ 2).
His Life and Work (§ 3).
The Readers (§ 1).
Aim, Contents, and Style (§ 2).
Date, Canonicity, and Reception (§ 3).
In the New Testament two, or better three, notable men bear the name of James.
1. James the Son of Zebedee: In the Synoptic Gospels this James appears only in close connection with his brother John. Their father pursued the calling of a fisherman on the Lake of Galilee (Mark i. 19; Matt. iv. 21-22), perhaps near Capernaum (cf. Luke v. 10 with iv. 31, 38), with his sons and with the help of hired servants (Mark i. 20). His wife, Salome, was one of those companions of Jesus who cared for the needs of his daily life (Mark xv. 41; Luke viii. 3). It is uncertain whether Salome was in any way related to Jesus, for it is doubtful if the sister of Jesus' mother (John xix. 25) can be identified with Salome (Mark xv. 40). Certain only is her pious devotion to Jesus, whom she faithfully followed in his wanderings through Galilee, on his last journey to Jerusalem, and also on his way to crucifixion (Matt. xxvii. 56; Mark xv. 40). Her firm faith in the Messianic destiny of Jesus and her impetuous nature are shown in her somewhat rash prayer to the Lord that, in his kingdom, he should seat her sons on his right hand and on his left (Matt. xx. 20 sqq.). These characteristics she transmitted to her sons; of these, James seems to have been the elder, since in the lists of the Apostles and usually elsewhere he is named before John (Matt. x. 2; Mark ii. 17; cf. Luke vi. 14). It can not be determined from John i. 40 whether James had already come into contact with Jesus in the following of the Baptist at the Jordan;
2. James, the Son of Alphĉus: This James is mentioned with this name in the four lists of the apostles (Matt. x. 3; Mark iii. 18; Luke vi. 15; Acts i. 13), but no other passage of the New Testament can be brought into connection with him or his family. Especially groundless is everything that has been asserted regarding a relationship of James Alphĉus (see ALPHĈUS) and his house to Jesus, based on the identity of the names Alphĉus and Cleophas. The statement of Hegesippus (in Eusebius, Hist. eccl., III., xi.) that Cleophas was a brother of Joseph, the foster-father of Jesus, can not be accepted, and the identification of the names Alphĉus and Cleophas can not be established. Possibly James Alphĉus is alluded to in Matt. xxvii. 56; Mark xvi. 1, xv. 40; Luke xxiv. 10; if so, it may be inferred from these passages that James's mother was called Mary and belonged to the followers of Jesus, and that he had a brother called Joses, and that the epithet of "the little" was applied to him. Possibly this passage refers to another James of whom nothing further is known. It is altogether improbable, however, that in Luke vi. 16 and Acts i. 13 the designation "Judas of James" [R. V. "Judas the son of James" marg. or, "brother," as in A. V.] signifies that Judas was the brother of James Alphĉus, since this designation can only mean "Judas the son of James," and a combination of these passages with those in which a Mary is named as the mother of James and Joses is quite impossible. But neither the apostle Judas Lebbĉus (see JUDAS) nor Simon Zelotes is to be regarded as a brother of James Alphĉus. Nothing further is heard of James Alphteus, except the legend that he was active in the southwest of Palestine and in Egypt, and was crucified in Ostrakine, in Lower Egypt (Nicephorus, ii. 40).
3. James the Just: A James who was the Lord's brother, head of the community of Jerusalem, is mentioned as a different person from both the apostles in Matt. xiii. 55; Mark vi. 3; Acts xii. 17, xxi. 18; I Cor. xv. 7; Gal. i. 19, ii. 9-12, as well as James i. 1; Jude 1. Also, outside of the New Testament, by Josephus (Ant. XX., ix. 1), Hegesippus (in Eusebius, Hist. eccl., II. 23), and other Church Fathers. The view of the early Church was that Jesus and this James were brothers, and James was distinguished from the two apostles of the same name. Clement of Alexandria expressly states that this view, which he himself rejected, was general in his time (Strom. vii. 93 sqq.). Tertullian refers to the marriage of Mary after the birth of Jesus and to the mention of his brothers in connection with her, as a proof of the reality of the humanity of Jesus (De monogamia, viii.; De carne Christi, vii.; "Against Marcion," 19). In the Apostolic Constitutions (ii. 55, vi. 12, 13), besides the twelve apostles and Paul, James, the Lord's brother, is mentioned as one of the advocates of catholic doctrine, and he is reckoned among the seventy disciples. Eusebius counts fourteen apostles; the twelve, Paul and James (on Isa. xvii. 5; Hist. eccl., I., xii., II., i., VII., xix.), and when he once writes of James as the "so-called" brother of the Lord, the context shows that he is not suggesting a more distant relationship. When, however, the idea of the perpetual virginity of Mary gained ground in the Church, the brotherly relationship between Jesus and James was transformed into the more distant one of stepbrother, this view appearing in several popular writings such as the Proto-Gospel of James (ix. 2), the Gospel of Peter, the Gospel of pseudo-Matthew (viii. 4), the Gospel of Thomas (xvi.). and the History of Joseph (ii.). In the period after Epiphanius, the recognition of James as a son of Joseph and Mary is seldom met. On the other hand, the view of Origen, that James was a stepbrother of Jesus, was followed in the East by Ephraem, Basil, Gregory of Nyssa, Chrysostom, Cyril of Alexandria, Epiphanius, and later by Euthymius; in the West by Hilary, Ambrose, and Ambrosiaster. Alongside of this, however, arose the other opinion that the brothers of Jesus were cousins and were identical with the men of the same name among the apostles. It is possible that Clement of Alexandria entertained this view as well as the hypothesis that James was a stepbrother of Jesus (in Eusebius, Hist. eccl., II., 1). The first assured defender is Jerome, who, in his writings against Helvidius, expounds it, but practically abandons it in his Commentary on Isaiah (xvii. 6), in that he counts fourteen apostles: the twelve, Paul, and the Lord's brother, James. Ambrose and Augustine express themselves even more doubtfully. Gradually, however, the hypothesis of identification was more and more widely accepted in the West. In the Middle Ages it was the predominant theory. On the other hand, it found so little favor in the East that two different festival days, one for James the Just and the other for James Alphĉus, remained traditional.
The statements of the New Testament favor the view that James was a full brother of Jesus and the son of Mary. Matt. i. 25 and Luke ii. 7 imply that, after the birth of Jesus, a conjugal relation existed between Joseph and Mary and that they had children. Whenever in the Gospels brothers of Jesus are mentioned, they appear in such a
The story of the material and spiritual life of James, the brother of the Lord, is quite clearly defined in its outlines. During the public ministry of Jesus, his brothers adopted a skeptical attitude, probably because they could not reconcile his lofty claims with the commonplace conditions in which they had lived together in their home. Jesus complains of a lack of recognition on the part of his own relatives (Mark vi. 4), and he could not count them as his spiritual kindred (Mark iii. 31-34) After the miracle of the loaves and fishes in the desert it seems that then the idea of his Messianic task may have dawned upon them, but the humility of his attitude prevented them from confidently believing in him. Even at the time of his Passion, the brothers seem to have separated themselves from his mother, who now believed in him (John xix. 27). Nevertheless, the superhuman patience with which Jesus went to his death may have won their hearts, especially that of James; for to him was vouchsafed an appearance of the risen Christ (I Cor. xv. 7), which affirmed his faith. He therefore appears after the ascension of the Lord as a member of the Christian community, wherein he won a leading position after the death of James, the son of Zebedee, and the flight of Peter. In general, his activity was confined to Jerusalem (Gal. i. 17). He took part in the council of the apostles with Peter and John as one of the three pillars of the Jewish-Christian Church (Gal. ii. 1 sqq.; Acts xv. 1 sqq.). There he showed himself free from the pharisaical and strictly legal views of the Judaizing opponents of Paul who desired to impose upon Gentile Christians the full observance of the Mosaic laws. At the same time he gave the hand of fellowship to Paul in proof of their thorough agreement on the basis of the Gospel. Nevertheless he considered it important that Jewish Christians should strictly observe the laws of their fathers and should require for these laws a certain respect on the part of the Gentile Christians. The standpoint of James also appears in the influence exerted by his friends in Antioch (Gal. ii. 11 sqq.) upon Peter. The Ebionite party in the post-apostolic age endeavored to cover itself with the authority of James and to envelop him with a legendary atmosphere of glory. According to Epiphanius (Haer. XXX., xvi.), there were legends even of his ascension to heaven. Concerning the death of James there are two contradictory accounts. Hegesippus relates (Eusebius, Hist. eccl., II. 23) that he was thrown from the tower by the Pharisees, not long before the beginning of the Roman-Jewish war (cf. Zahn, Forschungen, vi. 235, Leipsic, 1900), therefore, about 66 A.D. According to Josephus (Ant. XX., ix. 1), however, the party of the Sadducees made use of the change in the proconsulship in 62 or 63 A.D. to have James stoned to death, against the will of the Pharisees. It is, however, strongly suspected that this passage of Josephus is an interpolation (Zahn, ut sup. vi. 301 sqq.). On the other hand, the date given by Hegesippus is supported by the pseudo-Clementine literature, according to which James survived Peter, and also by the Chronicon Paschale (p. 592), and therefore is to be preferred.
What, however, the author recognizes as fundamental
in the spiritual condition of his readers is
the worldliness and superficiality of
their Christianity. With the multifarious
sufferings (i. 2)
and the delay in
the second coming of Christ
These results show that the epistle should be
placed in a relatively late period of the Apostolic
Age when the Church had attained a
considerable extent and Christian life
had lost something of its first fresh
vigor. It is not the earliest or even
one of the earliest of the New-Testament
writings. The synagogue [so the Am. R.V.,
is not a Jewish one, as though a common use
of the synagogue still existed with Jews and Christians;
it is a meeting-place for Christians, which
they control (ii. 3).
The conception of the imminence
of the Parousia (v. 8)
appears even beyond
the Apostolic Age. That the Epistle of James only
addresses Jewish Christians does not prove that
there were not also Gentile Christians, and if it contains
more passages recalling the sayings of Jesus
than any other of the Apostolic epistles, that is
to be attributed to its theological character, and
perhaps to the employment of written sources. Its
use in the Church begins at an early period. It is
probably cited in I Peter, in I Clement, in the
Shepherd of Hernias, and by Justin Martyr. It
was certainly used by Irenĉus, Clement of Alexandria,
Dionysius of Alexandria, Cyril of Jerusalem,
Didymus, and Ephraem, and it was also included in
the Peshito version. Origen, who is the first to cite it
expressly as a writing of James, the Lord's brother,
looks upon it as uncanonical; Eusebius counts it
among the antilegomena, and Theodore of Mopsuestia
rejected it. Jerome says it was regarded as
pseudonymous in the Latin Church, but he includes
it among the canonical books, and his influence
and Augustine's assured i ts acceptance as
canonical. This view was not disputed until Erasmus
expressed certain doubts. Luther thought it a
"right strawy epistle" (recht stroherne Epistel),
written by a certain pious man, and Cajetan
expressed doubts as to its authenticity. Calvin
defended it, but Luther's views were accepted by
the Magdeburg Centuriators and by some Lutheran
dogmatists, as well as by the Calvinist Wetstein.
In modern times the opposition to its authenticity
was begun by De Wette and Schleiermacher. Naturally
no use could be made of the title in the debate
as to the origin of the epistle on the assumption
that it was added at a later period in order to gain
for the epistle (really the work of an unknown
author) acceptance in the canon through a title
bearing the name of an apostle. Still less tenable
is the hypothesis that the epistle, apart from the
two (assumed as interpolated) mentions of Christ
On the general topic consult: DB, ii. 540-548;
EB, ii. 2317-26. On the three Jameses consult the
histories of the Apostolic Age, e.g., Schaff, Christian
Church, i. 199 sqq., 265 sqq., 272 sqq., et passim; A.
C. McGiffert, Apostolic Age, Passim, New York, 1897.
The question of the relationship of the third James to
Jesus is discussed in DB, i. 320-326; by J. B. Lightfoot
in his Commentary on Galatians, in a special section;
in the Introduction to Mayor's Commentary on James
(see below); in F. W. Farrar, Early Days of Christianity,
chap. xix., London, 1884; in Schegg's commentary (see
below); and often in the other commentaries. Consult
also W. Patrick, James the Lord's Brother, Edinburgh,
1906. For the questions concerning the authenticity,
date, contents, etc., of the epistle consult in general the
works on Introduction to the New Testament--especially
those of Jülicher, 1894 Eng, transl., Edinburgh, 1904;
T. Zahn, 1900; and B. W. Bacon, 1900--and those on New Testament theology, especially that of Beyschlag, Eng.
transl., Edinburgh, 1896. Works on special topics are:
W. G. Schmidt, Léhregehalt des Jakobusbriefes, Leipsic,
1869; P. J. Gloag, Introduction to the Catholic Epistles,
Edinburgh, 1887 W. C. van Manen, in ThT, xxviii (1894),
478-496; A. H. Cullen, Teaching of James; Studies in the
Ethics of the Epistle of James, London, 1904; M. Meinertz,
Der Jakobusbrief und sein Verfasser, Freiburg, 1905. 94
Of commentaries on the epistle the best for English readers is by J. B. Mayor, London, 1897. Others which may be mentioned are: W. Augusti, Lemgo, 1801; J. W, Greshof, Essen, 1830; M. Schneckenburger, Stuttgart, 1832; G. W, Theile, Leipaic, 1833; C. R. Jachmann, ib. 1838; F. H. Kern, Tübingen, 1838; C. A. Scharling, Copenhagen, 1841; C. E. Cellérier Geneva, 1850; A. Neander, Eng. transl., New York, 1852; A. Wiesinger, Königsberg, 1854; De Wette, Leipsic, 1865; F. Graupp, Breslau, 1861; R. Wardlaw, Edinburgh, 1862; H. Boumann, Utrecht, 1865; A. H. Blom, Dort, 1869; H. Ewald, Göttingen, 1870; J. C. C. Hoffmann, Nördlingen, 1875; H. Alford, Greek Testament, vol. iv., London, 1877; E. H.
Plumptre, in Cambridge Bible, Cambridge, 1878; J. T.
Demarest, New York, 1879; D. Erdmann, Berlin, 1888;
K. F. Keil, Leipsic, 1883; P. Schegg, Munich, 1883; W.
Beyschlag, Göttingen, 1888; A. F, Manoury, Bar-le-Duc,
1888; C. F. Deems, New York, 1889; E. T. Winkler,
Philadelphia, 1889; A. Plummer, in Expositor's Bible,
London, 1891; B. Weiss, in TU, viii. 2 (1892); P. Feine,
Eisenach, 1893; J. Adderley, London, 1900; W. H. Bennett,
in Century Bible, ib. 1901; C. A. Bigg, ib. 1902; C.
Brown, ib. 1906; F. J. Taylor, Fourteen Addresses, ib.
Calvin College. Last modified on 10/03/03. Contact the CCEL.