Talk:James, brother of Jesus/Archive 1

message: The article may be improved by following the WikiProject Biography 11 easy steps to producing at least a B article. —KGV 09:13, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Wikipedia:WikiProject_Biography/Assessment#Class_parameter|Biography assessment rating]] comment 

message: Objecting to the authenticity of the ossiary, The Catholic Church on the authority of various church historians has always identified him as James the Just, otherwise not much is known about his later ministry. Protestants have traditionally opposed this identification for reasons unknown causing much controversey. I have removed this inaccurate text here. Wetman 01:08, 6 Jun 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Older

message: I move this passage over here, as I don't see the point of it and because the style is quite horrid:
:To many dispassionate outsiders, the number of the James-es in the immediate circle of Jesus seems to have been multiplied, and Jerome's perhaps inadvertent remark, "Many indeed are called James" has a disarming frankness. The Catholic Encyclopedia (1910) divides the New Testament references to "James" among five separate personages , separating apart even a "James, the brother of Jude", by testimony of the Epistle of Jude 1:1, and remarking "Most Catholic commentators identify Jude with the 'Judas Jacobi', the 'brother of James' (Luke 6:16; Acts 1:13), called thus because his brother James was better known than himself in the primitive Church." 
Str1977 (smile back) 18:28, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thoroughly sourced text. So, we must look to the content of this section to see what needs to be suppressed. Perhaps it is the information that is disliked here, rather than the style. --Wetman 06:49, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

text: Thanks, Wetman, for assuming good faith. Whether it is thoroughly sourced is irrelevant if it serves no function in the article. So I am asking again: What is this supposed to say in the context? Str1977 (smile back) 08:19, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Many are called James

message: Let's examine this critically, shall we?
The sole source for the identification of James the Just in Josephus comes from the phrase, "who was called Christ." Leave that aside for the moment, and let's consider the facts that we can agree upon:
    Ananus called a kangaroo court to justify executing a man named "James."
    James had a brother named "Jesus."
    In reaction to Ananus's legal murder of James, King Agrippa removed Ananus as high priest and made Jesus bar Damneus high priest in his place.
    It's extremely unusual to introduce a man without identifying his father, yet this is exactly what the passage in question does with regard to James.
    It's all but unheard of to introduce a man as somebody's brother, yet this is exactly what the passage in question does with regard to James.
    Josephus's identification of "Jesus the Messiah" is astonishing for a Jew of the period. ("Christ" is Greek for "Messiah.")
        
            Josephus could have been reporting what others called him, but didn't believe that Jesus really was the Messiah. But we can fairly safely rule that out because Josephus would have made clear the profound heresy that would have represented.
            Or, Josephus could have believed that this particular Jesus really was the Messiah. But that's so asinine it doesn't deserve further comment.
        
    
    The point in the text where "who was called Christ" appears is exactly the same place where one would normally expect Jesus's father to be named. Additionally, this would be a bog-standard way for Josephus to identify James and Jesus as brothers, both sons of the same man.
    The identification of Ananus's replacement at the end follows the exact same formula one would have expected to appear in the identification of James.
    We know, with absolute certainty, that Christians have mucked around with Josephus's writings to "prove" that Jesus existed (e.g., the Testamonium Flavanium).
Now, with all that in mind, are you still going to insist that it's a "fringe view" that "the Messiah" originally read "Damneus's Son"?
TrumpetPower! 17:55, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I just got here to help with the problem, but it appears to have already been solved. Is that correct? Jayjg (talk) 21:23, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Josephus and James

message: The praenomen Lucceius has been substituted for Clodius? Is this right? Are either documented? Does Josephus ever mention any name other than "Albinus"? --Wetman 23:26, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It clearly could not have been this Clodius Albinus who was born well after Josephus died. List of Kings of Judea and Gessius Florus both give Lucceius, as do , , ,   --Henrygb 15:35, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: A dead tree reference that Lucceius Albinus was procurator is: F. F. Bruce (1969). New Testament History. Doubleday, p 347. . --Allen3 talk 00:12, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Procurator Albinus

message: Given the lack of citations, and the quote from Jerome making quite explicit that "[James] alone had the privilege of entering the Holy of Holies", I propose that:
:Jerome adds, "He says also many other things, too numerous to mention." His conception that James went into the Holy of Holies, whether in linen or wool, shows how unaware Jerome was of the most basic Jewish practice, though some have used the quotation to support the argument that James was considered a high priest - the high priest of the temple alone was allowed to enter the Holy of Holies once a year, on Yom Kippur.
would be better written as:
:Jerome adds, "He says also many other things, too numerous to mention." His conception that James went into the Holy of Holies shows either that Jerome was unaware that the high priest of the temple alone was allowed to enter the Holy of Holies once a year on Yom Kippur, or that James was considered a high priest, as the Pseudo-Clementine Recognitions suggest. [] 
Trishm 02:22, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  jerome unaware?  POV I think. 

message: This page is almost entirely written from a catholic point of view, including a prayer to James that I removed, other content that would be insulting to Christians, and nearly every reference coming from the "Catholic Encyclopedia". It needs almost a complete rewrite.
Braves27 00:15, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Neutrality

message: The following is an except from the Gospel of Thomas. 
"The Disciples say to Yeshu: We know that thou shall go away from us. Who is it that shall be Rabbiºover us?  Yeshu says to them: In the place that you have come, you shall go to James the Righteousº, for whose sake the sky (heaven) and earth come to be. " Gospel of Thomas, 12
Is Jesus really saying that God made heaven/the sky and earth for James' the Righteous/Just's benefit? I have a suspicion that something more is meant by that innocious description? 
86.4.59.203 02:08, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Who knows what the writer of the Gospel of Thomas intended.  Given it was found at Nag Hammadi, it was presumably a Gnostic production. --Henrygb 00:45, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

text: Excuse my ignorance. What is the litmus test? Rjgodoy 19:35, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Does anyone have an idea of what Jesus meant when he said...

message: Given that these two also believe in the Perpetual Virginity of Mary, there should be some mention of what they consider (if anything, if there is no current clear believe we should also mention this) the relationship between Jesus and James to be. Currently it only mentions the Eastern Orthodox believe Nil Einne 18:41, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Roman Catholics apologists tend to say that the Aramaic/Hebrew for "brother" included "cousin" and sometimes quote Jerome, ending up saying he was James the Less(er).  Whether there is dogma, I wouldn't know.--Henrygb 19:44, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Roman Catholic and Oriental Orthodox church beliefs 

message: http://spanish.about.com/od/historyofspanish/a/diego.htm
The above link corrects a growing trend of mistaken identity. James does not translate into Jaime, which is of strictly Iberian origin, not Hebrew. Diego or Santiago is the only Spanish equivalent of James, though it is not fully understood how it came from Hebrew, if at all. But since we are speaking of Biblical names here, Jaime has never been used, only Santiago or Diego. Jcchat66 04:20, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  San Jaime??? 

message: This is lengthy, but bear with me...  -->You are quite right, the Spanish name Jaime has nothing to do with the biblical source of James, Hebrew יעקב, Greek Ἰάκωβος, which is as you have correctly noted reflected in "Saint"-prefixed names, Santiago and Diego (and cf. Shakespeare's character Iago).
BUT I have another theory to offer you (this being only a Talk page...) which *should* logically, according to the known sequence of language changes and sound-laws between Latin and the Romance Languages, derive something that still *looks* a lot like a *French* Jaime from יעקב, Gk. Ἰάκωβος, Lat. Iacobus -- while still having *nothing* to do with the Spanish name of this spelling, which association is indeed a total modern-day popular mix-up.  Stick with me here (and note that many forms presented are inferences based on unattested, yet fairly well-predictable "missing link" forms in the historical chain of development.  Hence there is more *right* with this exercise than wrong with it, since it follows the fairly rigorous logic required of even a decent speculation in Historical Linguistics.  And yet it constitutes, in part, a certain limited amount of personal research that wouldn't belong in a wikipedia Article, but reviewing the rules, I believe squeaks by on a Talk Page):
:(1) It is very well-established, though perhaps not very widely known outside of Romance Linguistics, that in the later stages of spoken Latin, the Latin Case System collapsed (and other changes occurred) such that Nominative-case names like Latin Iacobus came to be rendered in all positions in their Accusative-case forms, such as Iacobum/Iacobom.  The final -m then elided (went away), leaving as its only trace a nasalized vowel (where the resulting word would have been pronounced ['jakobõ], where õ is a nasal o; also where [j] represents in the International Phonetic Alphabet (IPA) what many American linguists prefer to represent with a [y], i.e. the sound beginning Yale ['jejl]).
:(2) This happened throughout the Romance-speaking world, and e.g. early Italian shows us the influence of this nasal vowel õ by sometimes turning the immediately-preceding b into its nasal counterpart, which is to say m, thus yielding *two* forms of the basic name Jacob side by side, Giacobo and Giacomo (with the nasal õ present, but simply not marked as such in the spelling).  (Italian is "Central Romance", but this effect also occurred in Western Romance, the group of dialects spoken in Hispania and Gaul.)
:(3) In Western Romance, a voiceless stop such as a /k/ sound regularly became *voiced* betweem vowels -- i.e. the [k] sound written c in Iacobo/Iacomo became a [g]:  Iagobo/Iagomo (Cf. Iago, Santiago, and with a few more contortions Diego -- note that all three Spanish forms have dropped the varying final syllable, -bo/-mo.
:(4) Additionally in some parts of the Western Romance area, as for example in Northern Gallo-Romance in northern France, the hard stop sound, /g/, further softened to a fricative [ɣ], the sound in German Tage or Spanish sinagoga, when situated between two vowels.  Together with other changes, such as the weakening of not-strongly-stressed vowels -- and to complicate matters, the "restoration" of the original Greco-Latin final -s of the lost Nominative Case, under literary influence -- forms such as Iagemes ['jæɣəˌməs] ([j] = Y in Yale, [æ] = a in cat) and Jagemes ['ʤæɣəˌməs] began to appear.  (Another "literary throw-back" form, taking certain limited steps away from the shorter Iago-type form of the name, in the direction of Latin Iacobus, was the French recoinage Jacques ['ʤækˌkəs], with not only the final -s but the medial -c- restored; the -s was at this time still pronounced in French.)  (Incidentally, your spanish.about.com article's reference to parallel forms "Iacobus, then Iacomus" is probably the product of the same Spoken Latin case system collapse, worked backwards into the written language:  At the time these variants appeared in writing, probably the spoken language had already eliminated all forms in Nominative -us in favor of Accusative -um.)
:(5) Additionally in Western Romance, vowels in "weak" positions (such as the completely-unstressed vowel in the middle syllable of Jageme ['ʤæɣəˌmə]) dropped out, and the high, back voiced fricative sound /ɣ/ softened further into a semivowel:  Jaymes ['ʤæɣˌməs], --> ['ʤæjˌməs] (where, once again, [j] is the IPA representation for what English-speakers think of as the "y-sound", Yale = ['jejl]).  This last form, Jaymes ['ʤæjˌməs] is essentially the form in which "James" entered the English language.  Jacques ['ʤækˌk(ə)], having lost the final -s in pronunciation, somewhat later also entered English to yield Jack. DThrax 04:15, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Very interesting, thank you, for that is to date the best idea for the evolution from Jacob to James I have read. Jcchat66 23:39, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

text: You said this "constitutes, in part, a certain limited amount of (your) personal research". I think that all parts which could be attributable to a published reliable source are worthy to be included in the article. I encourage you to separate them. Rjgodoy 03:09, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  San Jaime??? Cont. 

message: This article needs serious revision.  Tomorrow evening I am planning to remove all original research, POV and any material from the article that is unreferenced and also uncredible. I will check here first to see if anyone has any comments about my intention.--Markisgreen 02:36, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  full of junk and POV