Talk:James, son of Alphaeus

message: I removed a sentence from the tradition section. It had the usual doubts about whether Jews could execute people and whether they could get the Romans to do this for them. It did not really belong there for several reason. 1: That question revolves around religious authorities. This execution was done by Herod, who was competent to execute anyone he wished (as is well recorded). He did not hesitate to execute John the Baptist with no legal reason whatsoever. Only a Roman citizen would have had rights against him. 2: This tradition is not really contested. It is just that it refers to James the Just, bishop of Jerusalem, who may have been James the Less who may have been James, son of Alphaeus. In some sense, the whole section should be deleted, since it turns entirely on the identification of this James as James the Just, which question is dealt with elsewhere. 3: Even if the sentence were applicable to this section, it was just sort of stuck in the middle rather than being properly integrated.
So, I support deleting the whole tradition section and replacing it was a link to James the Just and a comment like this: "If James, son of Alphaeus, is James the Just, much more is known about his life. See the article on James the Just for further information." Qowieury (talk) 04:53, 15 April 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Removed Sentence 

message: 1. "He is often identified with James the Less and commonly known by that name in church tradition." It should probably say orthodox Christian tradition because I don't recall the gnostics and other ear;u Christian groups identifying him as James the less. This also requires a reference.
2."Since there was already another James (James, son of Zebedee) among the twelve apostles, equating James son of Alphaeus with James the Less made sense. (James son of Zebedee was sometimes called "James the Greater")." Is this quoted from research? From a Markan point of this this interpretation didn't make sense. First that James the younger is mentioned in terms of the Mother Mary. Therefore we can't automatically conclude that just because this Mary was at the crucifiction doesn't mean that she was the Mother of an apostle. James son of Alphaeus isn't mentioned as having any brothers and even the possible brothers include Matthew and Levi. This Mary is the mother of James the Less and Joseph. Mark has already told us that James brother of Jesus has a brother called Joseph. The logic is flawed because Mark wanted the reader to identify James the younger with James brother of Jesus. I know that some people come to a different conclusion but it isn't self evident and it should be made clear that this statement is that of a researcher.
3.  "while Eastern Catholics, Eastern Orthodox and Protestants tend to distinguish between the two." I don't doubt that it is correct but it would be great to get a resource for this.
4. "Another Alphaeus is also the name of the father of the publican Levi mentioned in Mark 2:14. The publican appears as Matthew in Matthew 9:9, which has led some to conclude that James and Matthew might have been brothers." This feels like synthesis and own research. We have two facts that are stated correctly but the argument isn't supported by a reference. I take a different view on the same two facts. Some peopel (ie me) believe that Matthew was confused as to why Levi son of Alphaeus wasn't listed as one of the 12 Apostles and subsequently changed the name of Levi to Matthew. On putting an argument like this on this page I was told that I must take it off because it is regarded as own research which I acknowledge. Unless a reference can be found for this statement I am inclined to change it or take it off all together.
5. "He was arrested along with an unspecified number of Christians and was subsequently beheaded by Herod in persecution of the church. Acts 12:1,2" I have deleted this line because the James referred to in Act 12:1-2 is a James that has a brother called John. It sounds like James son of Zebedee to me. This seems like a mistake to me.
6. Qowieury raised this in April this year that the whole tradition section is unreferenced. It simply needs to be deleted or backed up if wikipedia is going to have integrity. 
Bunofsteel (talk) 07:57, 20 October 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Problems with James son of Alphaeus article.

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to  on James, son of Alphaeus. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add  after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add  to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20070625100404/http://www.catholic-forum.com:80/saints/saintj10.htm to http://www.catholic-forum.com/saints/saintj10.htm
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 12:23, 22 February 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Any objections to rewriting the opening sentence of that section to get rid of the triple negative? Instead of "Matthew doesn’t mention any James in his Gospel that isn’t identified without association to his family.", how about "Matthew's mentions of each James identifies him by associating him with his family." Schazjmd (talk) 18:35, 20 July 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Matthew: ambigious Jameses 

message: I thought it was James the lesser not James the less. Orson12345 (talk) 02:28, 6 February 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Name