www.byzcath.org Forums Faith & Christian Life Scripture and Patristic Writings the Epistle of St. James

Which James wrote the Epistle? I have heard many different opinions. The question is a pressing one because my Godson and Nephew was baptized with the name James. He was named for whichever James wrote the Epistle and the identity of his patron saint is at stake!

the Lord's brother, the Bishop of Jerusalem is the most likely author according to traditional teachings.

This has been cause for confusion for centuries.

There are three possible "James" in the New Testament:

1) James the Greater - an apostle and the brother of John. He was the first apostle martyred, around the year 42 (Acts 12:2).
2) James the Lesser - also an apostle
3) James the first bishop of Jerusalem and the "brother of the Lord"

Traditionally, James #3 is the author of the Epistle of James. However, some believe that #2 and #3 are the same person, but others have posited that they are different people.

Dear Friends,

Yes, St James the Brother of God, the Bishop of Jerusalem was the author of the Epistle of St James.

What is also remarkable about him is that he observed the so-called "Hebraic Rite" of Jerusalem, following the observances of the Jews so closely that the Temple leaders considered him to be a most pious Jew (which he certainly believed himself to be!).

The Liturgy of St James is one of the recognized liturgies of the Eastern Byzantine Church as well - and it can be served three times a year, as I understand.

The Epistle of St James was always honoured as the "epistle on the Christian life" in the Eastern Churches and there was a tradition to read that epistle out loud from beginning to end as a separate service.

John, you should get an Eastern icon of St James for that fellow, if you haven't already!

I'd love to have a patron saint with the title "Brother of God!"

Alex

Actually, it was in the search for just such an icon that my question first arose. I came to the same conclusion - that the Epistle's author was the Brother of God - but wasn't entirely sure. The only icon I could find at the time wasn't to my liking (a rather badly faded print). However, the search goes on. James is not yet one year old, so his appreciation of the icon will not yet be what it will one day be.

A great book on James is:

Eisenman, Robert. James the brother of Jesus: The key to unlocking the secrets of early Chrisitianity and the Dead Sea Scrolls. New York: Penquin, 1996.
Primarily an historical study on James and his influence in the early Christian community. There is scattered references to the various literature ascribed to James.

James is an important figure in the early church and the source for most of our feasts about the Mother of God.

Steve Puluka

If I'm not mistaken, this is the book about which a fellow parishioner said, "That's a great book, if you need something heavy to throw at the cat" -his words, not mine. Haven't read it myself. Maybe I should check it out.

Interesting.

And according to the little I have read on him... as you say ... his appearance was .. well... seldom bathed, long scraggily hair, unkempt beard... very much like John the Baptist. And his food was spartan. The perfect image of an old testament, Jewish, wandering, holy man and prophet out in the wild. No doubt his Nazarene vow had no end.

It is said that he had more influence than Peter, because he fit the image of a Jewish holy man so perfectly. He could have taken over the entire church, the early Jewish converts would have bum-rushed him to the throne of the church - but he gave place of honor to Peter.

It seems that at the Jerusalem Council (which he presided over as bishop of Jerusalem) when Peter got up and spoke in favor of Paul � this was a minority position � the greater majority there would have had the gentiles follow Jewish customs � the room grew hushed and all eyes were on James because whatever James said � they would do� and James got up and immediately spoke of how he would implement Peter�s decision. Right there � James could have had the church if he had wanted it � but instead � he laid his authority and power down at the feet of Peter.

Most amazing. Both Paul (who really had no need to come and argue with Peter � but instead saw Peter�s approval as absolutely necessary and so he would come an argue with Peter until he had Peter�s approval), and James � each � could have split the church and walked off with the greater following and portion � but instead � each decided to take the harder path and honor Peter.

Obviously � this is a trust that James and Paul placed in Providence � by honoring Peter � even if they thought with all their logic and human brains that it would be better for the church to go another way.

And all that is why I place no importance in such a thought as the human reunion of the church depending upon a redefining of the role of Peter that both Latin and Orthodox can agree on. Such an agreement would not be worth the paper and ink.

The split of the church came when honor of Peter was withdrawn. Honor is not earned is freely given. �Honor your father and mother� does not mean � only if your father and mother earn that honor.
Does peter � deserve to be honored?? Perhaps not � some have and some have not � but that � is not � the definition of � honor � which is given freely and not dependent upon earning it.

The world honors according to it being earned in some way � but that type of honor is always � eventually � self serving. The honorary awards presented by some community to someone outside of the community � has the purpose of associating that great person with the community and by that � make the community all that more impressive in peoples minds.

Honor among family � is love � and love � is never earned. It is freely given � or it is not honor.

The world has seldom known much about honor. Especially today � it is forgotten that honor to a soldier is to freely chose to risk ones life (and even lay it down) for the good of others � for the life of others. Soldiers in Afghanistan and Iraq � speak about honor and fight with honor � but back here � we do not honor them � we weigh them in a balance of if such a thing befits our current life style or not. We ask �has their death purchased for us anything greater??� which is the wrong question to ask. Have we made a - good treade?? We treat them like money that must be spent well. And that is because we have forgotten what honor really is � while the soldiers who fight know full well what honor is. Right war � wrong war � it makes no difference once it has begun. They fight with honor because there are who they are � and we should honor their honor � and do all we can so that they may win and return honor to a people who have had none for too long. The mother who camps out at Bush's house - dishonoros all including here own son who volunteered. She wieghts the life of her son asking "was that a good investment?" and she thinks not. To her - her son was a wasted investment. How dare a mother think of her children in that way - better to ask "Did he fight with honor? Did he die with honor? Did he give his life for the life of another?"

Honor - these are old ideas of virtures - there is no place for them in the modern world of investment - loss - and gain. Honor today means - larger profits. We honor the Pro-fits.

Be all that as it may� the point being� we as a people have forgotten what honor is � and replaced it with �what do I get out of it� which is just what such an agreement that a redefining of the Papal roll � would be. A contract by which both parties expect to benefit some type of gain.

The healing of the church will come when the honoring of Peter is done again. It is a voluntary thing. Not a thing of legal agreements. It does not depend upon hammering out a legal document that all agree to abide by � because at some point one side of the other will have a different interpretation of some portion of that agreement � and that is not honor � or honoring � that is a contract. There is no honor in keeping a � contract. Honor is an ethic.. a moral choice � and at all times a choice of freewill bound by � nothing except trust in Providence.

OK.. that is my �blog� to today.


The choice of the name James - is an outstanding choice! It is a name of great honor.

-ray

Thanks brother Ray , I need a little attention once in a while.

james

ps - good post as usual

Dear RayK,

Well, I think "Alexander" is "great" too!

It was because of James' adherence to the rituals of Judaism that he was asked by the Pharisees to speak to the Christians or Followers of the Way to get them to "quit!"

And what a surprise they must have experienced when they heard James speak loudly about the Lordship of Jesus!!

His strict adherence to the Rite of his people also, I believe, should remind us about how we are to "incarnate" the message of Christ in our local cultures and via the Particular Churches.

I remember a Ukrainian EC Metropolitan in Kyiv way back when who followed his Orthodox traditions so closely that he won the respect of his Orthodox brothers . . .

He, as an EC, even opposed the public processions in honour of St Josaphat as "an unnecessary provocation of the Orthodox."

Both East and West already agree on the role of St Peter and the Petrine Primacy.

It is just that the interpretation in the West of this original role is something that needs to be revisited.

It is taken seriously by the Orthodox East as a roadblock to unity and so we too must take it seriously.

The Orthodox have never ceased honouring St Peter.

They honour him in the saintly Popes of the first millennium, in the person of their own Hierarchs and Patriarchs who are descendants of Peter and the Apostles and also, as I've read, whenever we pray, with Peter: "Lord Jesus Christ, Son of God, have mercy on me a sinner" we too become "like Peter."

Orthodoxy is where I learned to deepen my veneration for St Peter.

Alex

Well, I obviously disagree. While the book is not perfect this was a great convenience in research for me. Eisenman was one of my sources for a graduate class presentation on the Protevangelium of James. The Protevangelium is the book where we get the story of most of our feasts about the Mother of God. The handout [puluka.com] with fuller bibliography is posted on my website.

What Eisenman collects into one convenient place is all the historical evidence we have about James. He also provides a bibliography for further research. This is the perfect situation for any topic about an early church figure. Have someone else to all the legwork for you. Now you only have to worry about what has been found or published since 1996.

I don�t necessarily agree with all the conclusions he draws from the evidence, but I don�t find that unusual. Who do we agree with all the time? And with James there is just too little left to reach solid conclusions about everything and Eisenman does make a call even in the absence of solid evidence.

I still think this was worth the read for anyone seriously interested in James. If nothing else read the intro, conclusion to get the lay of the land and find the works in the bibliography for the areas of your interest.

Steve Puluka

PS-I'll always have an innate distrust of the opinion of anyone who would abuse animals anyway. Assuming he was serious.

I'm sure he wasn't serious. That notwithstanding, I will give the book a look.

-John Russell

"The bishop of the Church of Rome, in whom resides the office (munus) given in a special way by the Lord to Peter, first of the Apostles and to be transmitted to his successors, is head of the college of bishops, the Vicar of Christ and Pastor of the entire Church on earth; therefore in virtue of his office (munus) he enjoys SUPREME, full, immediate and universal ordinary power in the Church which he can always freely exercise" (Canon 43 of the Code of Canons of the Eastern Churches, emphasis mine).

Alex, is the Catholic interpretation you referred to as in need of revisiting?

I, of course, disagree. Papal supremacy, as opposed to Papal primacy is the primary issue of division between Orthodox and Catholic. Personally, I believe the Orthodox should accept the supremacy "for the sake of unity," rather than the Catholics renouncing the supremacy "for the sake of unity" - which is exactly what the Eastern Catholic Churches have done.

Dear John,

Yes, it is in need of revisiting.

How, you ask?

To add on that such jurisdiction can only apply to the Eastern Churches ONLY and ONLY IF: a) they ask the Holy Father to exercise it in certain cases; b) it does not prejudice the right of all Particular Churches to govern themselves immediately and without reference to Rome's approval or that of any Congregation; c)any attempt on Rome's part to exercise that jurisdiction over the East must be in response to a crisis of faith there or when universal church canons are broken unilaterally by any Eastern Church.

Also, to show its good will toward all, Rome should cancel immediately that blight on East-West church relations, the Congregation for the Eastern Catholic Churches.

It is offensive, out of date and has gone completely beyond its "past due" date.

Also, what kind of "papal supremacy" is there now in Rome, when Rome allows Orthodox Churches not in communion with it to decide internal matters of the Churches that ARE in communion with it?

You haven't answered my earlier query on this.

So let me be more forceful, if Rome is deferring to Moscow on the question of the UGCC Patriarchate, why shouldn't we Ukrainian Catholics seek full unity with Ukrainian Orthodox since it is clear Rome's authority is already "Orthodox" or dependent on Orthodoxy?

What kind of "papacy" is that? What is such papal authority worth?

Alex

I especially appreciate the words of St. James in his epistle. Although addressed to mainly Jewish Christians (or Followers of the Way) they resonate today.

What good is it, my brothers and sisters, if you say you have faith but do not have works? Can faith save you? If a brother or sister is naked and lacks daily food, and one of you says to them. "Go in peace; keep warm and eat your fill." and yet you do not supply their bodily needs, what is the good of that? So faith by itself, if it has no works, is dead.

But someone will say, "You have faith and I have works." Show me your faith apart from your works, and I by my works will show you my faith. James 2:14-18.


Porter