Jack Kilmon wrote:
> What evidence do you have that Ya'aqob Bar Yahosef was among the
> Talmidda prior to the crucifixion? Although my opinion from collective
> circumstantial evidence is that Jesus' ministry was a family supported
> enterprise (at least half his disciples were relatives), all I have to hang
> my hat on for Ya'aqob is Thomas #12.
Well it's not based on GTh, for I take this to have originated in the second
Firstly the introduction of James the brother of Jesus in Acts is very odd.
In Acts, even the apparently obscure Matthias is carefully introduced (Ac
1:21-26), yet James the brother of Jesus and leader of the Jesus movement in
Paul's time appears suddenly in Ac 12:17 with not a word of introduction in
Acts. Another oddity is the demise of "James the brother of John" in Ac 12:2
conveniently in time for the other James to appear in the narrative as
"James" without qualification.
Secondly there's the fact that in both Paul and Mark the three leading
apostles were named James, Peter and John. If the James mentioned by Mark
had been replaced by the James mentioned by Paul, this would be a strange
coincidence of names. We know that Paul was critical of Peter (Gal 2:11-12),
and we can be reasonably sure that he would have been even more critical of
James the brother of Jesus. We also know that Mark portrayed Peter in a
rather unflattering manner, and that he was also indirectly critical of
James (Mk 3:21). Did Mark deliberately omit this James from his stories of
Thirdly, in the lists of apostles in both Luke and Acts, James and John
appear without being identified as the sons of Zebedee, and indeed in the
Greek, they are not identified as a pair, let alone as brothers. Was Luke
correcting the information he had got from Mark's list?
Suppose that Mark knew that James the brother of Jesus was the leading
apostle from the beginning, but disliked him and what he stood for so much
that he left him out of the Markan stories of Jesus. Suppose further that
Mark substituted the 'sons of Zebedee' for the leading apostles James and
John. In this way he could criticize them indirectly (e.g. Mk 10:35-40).
This would explain why the author of Luke-Acts appeared embarrassed in Acts
12 by having two leading apostles called James. If we further suppose that
the 'sons of Zebedee' were fictional, there would then be no coincidence of
names, for Mark would simply have put James and John the sons of Zebedee in
his stories as a direct replacement for James the brother of Jesus and the
John of Gal 2:9 respectively.
Painter, "Just James", pp.269-72, makes the case with no mention of the sons
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]