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)

1
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."

2
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

3
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.

4
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.

5
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

6
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

7
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

8
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

9
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.

10
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

11
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.

12
(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.

13
(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.

14
(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.

15
(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.

16
(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.

17