In the lists of the Twelve, James and John always form a group of four with Peter and Andrew. Sometimes the sons of Zebedee are named after Peter and Andrew (Matt. 10:2; Luke 6:14); sometimes they come between them (Mark 3:16-18; Acts 1:13). The latter order reflects the priority of the new relationship to Jesus over the human relationship of Peter and Andrew.

James was probably the older brother, since he is usually mentioned first, and John is sometimes identified as the "brother of James" (Mark 3:17; 5:37; cf. Matt. 10:2; 17:1). However, Luke and Acts sometimes name John first or call James the brother of John (Luke 8:51; 9:28; Acts 1:13; 12:2), probably because John was a well-known "pillar" of the church after James's death (Gal. 2:9).

Mark alone records that Jesus gave James and John the special name BOANERGES, or "sons of thunder" (Mark 3:17).

Peter and James and John form a special group of disciples on three occasions recorded in the gospels, in addition to the occasion of their call as described by Luke. At the home of Jairus, Jesus permitted only these three from the circle of disciples to go with him to the child (Mark 5:37; Luke 8:51; Matthew omits this detail). Again, at the Transfiguration, Jesus chose these three to ascend the mountain with him (Matt. 17:1; Mark 9:2; Luke 9:28). Finally, in Gethsemane they were again chosen to accompany Jesus (Matt. 26:37; Mark 14:33; Luke omits this detail). Similarly, according to Mark, James and John went with Jesus to the home of Peter and Andrew (Mark 1:29); and it was Peter, James, John, and Andrew who asked about the signs of the coming Judgment (Mark 13:3).

James and John appear together in two other places. In Luke 9:51-56 they ask Jesus whether he wants them to call down fire from heaven on the Samaritan village that would not receive Jesus and his disciples. In this story James and John, with their allusion to Elijah II Kings 1:10-12), represent the old way in contrast to the way of Jesus. Later copyists have expanded the text to explain the conclusion. "He ... rebuked them" (Luke 9:55) is interpreted in some MSS by the addition of: "You do not know what manner of spirit you are of"; many others also add the saying: "For the son of man came not to destroy men's lives but to save them" (cf. Luke 19:10).

The other episode in which the two brothers appear together is when they requested places at Jesus' right and left hand in his coming glory (Matt. 20:20-28; Mark 10:35-45). In Matthew it is their mother who makes the ambitious request, though Jesus replies directly to James and John; in Mark the two brothers speak for themselves. The answer of Jesus is a double one: to the brothers, a prediction that they will drink the cup that he drinks, and to the rest of the Twelve, in response to their grumbling at James and John, words on true greatness—to be great means to be slave or servant of all. The section on greatness (Matt. 20:24-28; Mark 10:41-45) is used in a different setting in Luke 22:24-27, and may not be originally part of the story of James and John. Both in this story and in the story of the Samaritan village, the focus falls on Jesus rather than on James and John, except as their human desires, perhaps emphasized by their human relationship to each other, make their words a foil for the words and purpose of Jesus.

With the rest of the Eleven, James was a witness of the Resurrection. But the narratives of the Resurrection do not make any special mention of him, except that the sons of Zebedee are listed as present on the shore of the Sea of Galilee when Jesus appeared to the disciples there (John 21:1-8)—this story shows striking parallels to the original call of Peter, James, and John, as told in Luke 5:1-11.

James is the only one of the Twelve whose martyrdom is related in the NT, and probably he was the first of them to be put to death. According to Acts, Herod Agrippa I, king of Palestine A.D. 42-44, executed James as part of a wider move of persecution which included the arrest of Peter (Acts 12:1-3). That James was prominent enough to be singled out for execution may indicate that Peter, James, and John formed a special group among the leaders of the church in Jerusalem, as they had among the followers of Jesus. However, though Peter and John are mentioned together in Acts (3:1, etc.), the martyrdom is the only episode related of James.

Later, legendary stories expand the narrative of Acts. Clement of Alexandria (ca. 200) writes that James forgave his accuser (quoted by Euseb. Hist. II.9.2-3). The apocryphal Apostolic History of Abdias (see ABDIAS, APOSTOLIC HISTORY OF) describes James's miracles and controversies, which culminate in his execution by Herod. But his known early death led to James's receiving little attention in the growth of legendary stories about the apostles. A later legend (sixth or seventh century) told that he preached in Spain, and it was also believed that he was buried there. In Christian tradition James the son of Zebedee is known as James the Great, in contrast to James the son of Alphaeus, who is known as James the Less.

Some interpreters think that James was a cousin of Jesus, on the basis of a comparison of the lists of women present at the Crucifixion. In Matt. 27:56 the mother of the sons of Zebedee is one of these; she is often identified with the Salome listed in Mark 15:40 (see SALOME 2). If a further identification can be made, of the mother of the sons of Zebedee (Matt. 27:56) with "[Jesus'] mother's sister" (John 19:25), then James's mother was the sister of Mary the mother of Jesus. This theory assumes, probably rightly, that in John 19:25 "his mother's sister" is a different person from "Mary the wife of Clopas" (see 5 below). But it is very improbable that James was a cousin of Jesus. In view of the interest of the early church in relatives of Jesus, it is very likely that if he had been, this fact would have been prominent in early tradition, but it is not. Furthermore, it is doubtful that the various lists of women present at the Crucifixion can be harmonized, since they represent various traditions. Matthew and Mark state that they name only a few women of many, and it is not necessarily the case that the individuals mentioned in the various gospels are the same persons.

2. The son of Alphaeus; one of the twelve disciples of Jesus (Matt. 10:3; Mark 3:18; Luke 6:15; Acts 1:13). He heads the third group of four disciples in each list of the Twelve, but is not mentioned by name in any episode recorded in the gospels or Acts.

Since the disciple Levi is also called a son of Alphaeus (Mark 2:14), it has been suggested that James and Levi were brothers. But this is not likely, since they are not associated in any way in the gospels. Even on the assumption that Levi is an alternative name for Matthew (who is never called a son of Alphaeus), Matthew is never paired with James the son of Alphaeus in the lists of the Twelve, though Peter and Andrew, and James and John, are paired as brothers (see ALPHAEUS; LEVI 4; MATTHEW, APOSTLE). It is quite possible that James the son of Alphaeus is the same person as James the son of Mary. See 3 below.

A number of early forms of the text substitute the name "James the son of Alphaeus" for "Levi the son of Alphaeus" in Mark's story of the call of the tax collector. This alteration is not found in Luke's narrative of the call of Levi (Luke 5:27), while Matthew reads the name "Matthew" in the parallel (Matt. 9:9). Though the sources offering the reading "James" in Mark 2:14 represent a variety of early traditions, this variant reading is not original and does not give the clue to another James, nor to information that James the son of Alphaeus was a tax collector; but rather it represents an attempt, different from the tradition of Matthew, to identify Levi as one of the Twelve.

3. One of the sons of Mary (see MARY 4). The mother is mentioned as present at the Crucifixion (Matt. 27:56; Mark 15:40), and at the discovery of the empty tomb (Mark 16:1; Luke 24:10). This James had a brother Joses (see JOSES 1) or Joseph, and was known as James the "less" (Mark 15:40 KJV) or "younger" (RSV), perhaps because of his small stature. It is often thought that James the son of Mary was a cousin of Jesus, but this theory is extremely improbable (see 5 below). It is possible that James the son of Mary is to be identified with the son of Alphaeus. See 2 above.

4. The father of Judas (Luke 6:16; Acts 1:13). In the lists of Luke and Acts, Judas the son of James is one of the Twelve. The Greek reads "Judas of James." The KJV translates "Judas the brother of James"; and on the assumption that these two were brothers, this James has often been identified with James the brother of Jesus, who had a brother named Judas (Matt. 13:55; Mark 6:3; cf. JUDE 1), and often as well with James the son of Alphaeus and James the son of Mary. It is exceedingly unlikely that these persons are all the same (see 5 below). In any case, it is probable that this James was the father, not the brother, of the disciple Judas, and as such it is doubtful that he is otherwise known in the NT. See JUDAS 8.

5. A brother of the Lord. He is listed first among the brothers of Jesus, presumably as the oldest of them (Matt. 13:55; Mark 6:3). Paul met James the Lord's brother in Jerusalem on his first visit, three years after his conversion (Gal. 1:19). There can be little doubt that the same person is referred to simply as James in Acts 12:17; 15:13; 21:18; I Cor. 15:7; Gal. 2:9, 12; and is probably intended in Jas. 1:1; Jude 1:1.

The relationship between James and Jesus has been much discussed (see BROTHERS OF THE LORD). NT and early Christian writers refer to James as a "brother" of Jesus, and the natural interpretation of the language of that period is the literal one, that James was a son of Joseph and Mary, younger than Jesus. Though this view was rejected by most of the ancient church, it is probably correct.

Belief in the perpetual virginity of Mary led to the development of the view that Jesus and James were foster brothers. The legend of Mary's betrothal to Joseph, an elderly widower with children, developed early. It may be read in the Protevangelium of James (see JAMES, PROTEVANGELIUM OF). Thus, it was believed, Joseph's sons were known as the brothers of the Lord. This theory was widely accepted during the early centuries of Christian history, and is still the prevailing view of the Eastern churches. The principal difficulty with it is that it is based on accounts of the lives of Joseph and Mary which are essentially legendary and nonhistorical.

Another, later view is that James and Jesus were cousins. By identifying James with James the son of Alphaeus (see 2 above), it was believed that he was one of the Twelve. By identifying him also with James the son of Mary (see 3 above), it was held that he was a cousin of Jesus. As in the theory that James the son of Zebedee was a cousin of Jesus, this conclusion was reached through a study of the lists of women present at the Crucifixion. By comparing Matt. 27:56 with John 19:25, and punctuating the latter verse to read: "his mother, and his mother's sister Mary the wife of Clopas, and Mary Magdalene," students have concluded that Mary the mother of James was Mary of Clopas, and that she, rather than the wife of Zebedee, was the sister of Jesus' mother. If James the brother of the Lord is James the son of Mary, and if the identification of the Mary of Matthew and the Mary of John is correct, then James was a cousin, not a brother, of Jesus. Another theory established the relationship through a tradition that CLOPAS, identified with Alphaeus, was a brother of Joseph. Either of these chains of identification is very improbable. Nonetheless, the view that James and Jesus were cousins became current in the Western church and is current in the Roman Catholic Church. By his identification with James the son of Alphaeus, James is known in Christian tradition as "James the Less" (from Mark 15:40 KJV), in contrast to James the Great, the son of Zebedee.

James apparently was not a disciple during the ministry of Jesus (Matt. 12:46-50; Mark 3:31-35; Luke 8:19-21; John 7:5). Yet he was a witness of the Resurrection I Cor. 15:7), and he appeared very early as an important leader in Jerusalem. Though he was not one of the Twelve, James was apparently regarded as an apostle. This is the most natural meaning of Gal. 1:19: "I saw none of the other apostles except James the Lord's brother." It has been suggested that James became an apostle as a replacement for James the son of Zebedee, since Acts first mentions him after the death of the latter. It is more probable, however, that in the early church there were more than twelve apostles from the beginning, since I Cor. 15:5-7 mentions the Twelve separately from "all the apostles." James, like the Eleven and Paul, became an apostle by the appearance of the risen Christ to him, commissioning him to be a specially authorized witness to the Resurrection. Though he apparently stayed in Jerusalem, in contrast to other apostles and other brothers of the Lord who traveled I Cor. 9:5), his vocation is apparent when Paul refers to the agreement that James, Peter, and John should go to the Jews, while Paul should go to the Gentiles (Gal. 2:9). Thus the beginning and basis of James's position in the church was not his human relationship to Jesus, but his special relationship by faith to the risen Christ. See APOSTLE.

From James's presence in Paul's list of those to whom the risen Christ had appeared, it is clear that James shared the eschatological faith of the first Christians, that God would establish a new age through Christ. James was at one with Paul in believing that the new faith in Christ was for Gentiles as well as for Jews, and they agreed as well that Gentiles did not have to follow the Jewish law (Gal. 2:6-10; cf. Acts 15:12-21). James's own special vocation, however, was to the Jews (Gal. 2:9). Perhaps James and many other Jewish Christians believed that the mission to the Jews would pave the way for the salvation of the Gentiles, as is suggested by Acts 15:16-18, quoting Amos 9:11-12 (LXX). Paul, on the other hand, believed that the salvation of the Gentiles would unexpectedly precede the conversion of the Jews (Rom. 10:1-11). It is difficult, however, to know James's thought in detail, especially since the speeches in Acts are not literal records of the words of the speakers.

Ancient tradition presents James as combining the new faith in the Resurrection with a strong loyalty to the Jewish law. Most scholars find that this tradition reflects his real sympathy with the law, though the later traditions greatly exaggerate his legalism. In Galatians and Acts, James is not presented as a rigid follower of the law. Probably James the brother of the Lord is the James of the Letter of James (Jas. 1:1; cf. Jude 1:1). Whether the letter was written by him, or whether, as is more likely, it is a collection of Christian teaching presented in his name at a later time, its emphasis on common-sense morality rather than legalism shows that James was not remembered as a strict follower of the Mosaic law. See JAMES, LETTER OF.

In Gal. 2:1-10, Paul says that in a private conference at Jerusalem the "pillars," James, Peter, and John, accepted him without qualification, except that he should remember the "poor" (perhaps the saints of Jerusalem). The context shows that the discussion centered on circumcision, and that Paul was not required to ask circumcision of his Gentile converts, since they did not have to follow the law.

Acts 15:1-29 presents an account of a public conference about Paul's work, which cannot be completely harmonized with Galatians, though most scholars think that Acts and Galatians are reporting the same conference. In Acts the issue of circumcision drops into the background, and James proposes certain minimum requirements to be followed by non-Jewish believers; these proposals are then adopted as the so-called "apostolic decree." In the usual text Gentiles are required to "abstain from the pollution of idols and from unchastity and from what is strangled and from blood" (Acts 15:20). This is a series of predominantly ceremonial requirements apparently designed to make easier the table fellowship within the church, between Jews and those who did not follow Jewish dietary practices. Some "Western" forms of the text omit "what is strangled"; their shorter list, which some scholars consider the original form, can be seen as involving primarily moral rather than ceremonial requirements, though either list can be interpreted with either emphasis. In either case, Acts shows James playing a mediating position between a group of Jewish Christians who wished all believers to follow the law, and Gentile Christians on whom the obligation of the law as such was not laid. Whether the details of the decree can be attributed to James is a difficult question, since Paul says nothing about it in Galatians. If the decree was adopted before Paul wrote Galatians, he may have ignored it because he thought that it was temporary or local. But many scholars think that the differences between Acts and Galatians are most easily resolved by supposing that the decree comes from a somewhat later period, and has been inserted at this point by the author of Acts because it deals with the relations between Jewish and Gentile Christians. If this theory is correct, then it is problematical to what extent the rules of the decree present the point of view of James. In any case these rules attributed to James did not become regular requirements laid on Gentile Christians. See COUNCIL OF JERUSALEM.

When Paul resisted Peter's refusal to eat with Gentile Christians at Antioch, apparently after his Conference with the leaders at Jerusalem, the turning point in Peter's refusal was the coming of "certain men ... from James" (Gal. 2:12). They claimed James's support for requiring the full observance of Jewish dietary laws among Jewish Christians, but it is not possible to be sure that they represented him accurately in the matter of Jewish and Gentile Christians' eating together, or even that he was as anxious to follow the old traditions as they asserted. Similarly James is shown in Acts as joining with the elders of the church in Jerusalem in advising Paul to share in a temple ceremony (Acts 21:17-26). Here again, the story indicates James's reverence for the old pattern of piety, but does not clearly show how he related it to his new faith. Perhaps James represented a group of Christians who continued to celebrate the temple worship, while Stephen (Acts 7:1) represented a group which rejected the temple.

Thus the NT references to James show that he was devoted to the old Jewish tradition, yet willing to modify it in the light of the newness of God's action in Christ. A background for this combination of concern for both law and eschatology is found in some Jewish apocalyptic writings (see APOCALYPTICISM) and in the DEAD SEA SCROLLS. Later tradition among Jewish Christians remembered and exaggerated James's devotion to the law, almost to the neglect of his faith in the new action of God in Christ. According to Hegesippus, writing ca. 180 (quoted by Euseb. Hist. II.23.4-18), James was a NAZIRITE and spent so much time on his knees in intercession for the people that his knees grew horny like a camel's. He was thought to have been so pious that he was revered by all as "the Just" (a title perhaps transferred from Christ; cf. Acts 3:14; 7:52; 22:14). This picture of devotion to the law is full of legendary traits; in it James almost becomes himself a mediator between God and man. E.g., Hegesippus portrays James as a priest in his intercession for the people, though he could not have belonged to the priestly group, and he makes his faith in Christ so secret that the "Jews and scribes and Pharisees" ask him to restrain the people from believing in Christ. Though James was not so offensive to the Jewish leaders as was Paul, it is very improbable that he was honored by them for his piety; eventually they put him to death (see below). The exaggerated picture of James's Jewish piety reflects a later period, when Jewish and Gentile Christians had separated. It does not represent the conditions of the first Christian generation, though some scholars have wrongly used this picture of James to reconstruct an early Christianity which fell apart almost from the beginning in a conflict over the law.

By tradition James was the first "bishop" of Jerusalem (Clement of Alexandria, quoted by Euseb. Hist. II. 1.3). Jewish Christianity exalted James to a position above Peter and Paul. The Gospel According to the Hebrews (see HEBREWS, GOSPEL ACCORDING TO THE) presents the resurrected Christ as appearing first to James, and apparently presupposes that James, unlike the others, never doubted the Resurrection. The Clementine Homilies and Clementine Recognitions, which are romances about the life of CLEMENT dating from the fourth century but partly based on Jewish Christian sources of an earlier time, call James "bishop of bishops." In these writings Peter and the other apostles are accredited by James (Clementine Recognitions IV.35). James is presented as sending out the apostles in the Coptic Gnostic "Letter of James" of the Jung Codex. As in Hegesippus' tradition about his piety, this honoring of James is a Jewish Christian attempt to exalt the one remembered as their leader to the position of true guide of the first Christians. James was not a "bishop" in the later sense of the term. But both Galatians and Acts confirm the conclusion, exaggerated in these later writings, that James was the most respected and authoritative leader in Jerusalem for most of the first Christian generation. Though Paul's independence of Jerusalem was acknowledged (Gal. 2:6-10), the fact that his position had to be discussed with James and the other "pillars" shows that authority in Jerusalem also meant, in the first generation, recognition in other churches.

The basis of James's position in the church was his relation to the Risen Christ, but the fact that he was of the family of Jesus no doubt strengthened his authority. Jesus himself repudiated the ties of family as a basis for importance among his followers (Matt. 12:48-50; Mark 3:33-35; Luke 8:21). Nonetheless, the role of the family in leadership in the ancient Near East makes it probable that many Christians honored James as a brother of Jesus, especially since they were keenly aware that Jesus and his brothers were of the family of David, the promised messianic line. That there was some recognition of James's human relationship to Jesus is made more probable by the fact that after the death of James and the destruction of Jerusalem, another relative of Jesus, named Simeon, came into a position of leadership (Hegesippus, in Euseb. Hist. IV.22.4; cf. III.11-12). The succession Jesus-James-Simeon has led some students to find in early Jewish Christianity an approach to a dynastic pattern of leadership, a Christian "caliphate." It is probable that this way of ensuring continuity in the church did commend itself to some Christians, but it proved to be only a temporary experiment.

Two separate traditions tell that James was put to death shortly before the destruction of Jerusalem in 70. According to the Jewish historian Josephus, writing ca. 94, James with "certain others" was stoned in 62 at the instigation of the Sadducee high priest Ananus, as one of his first acts as high priest. Ananus was able to carry out the execution because the newly appointed Roman procurator, Albinus, had not yet arrived in Palestine (Jos. Antiq. XX.ix. 197-203). It is possible that the others who were put to death were also Christians, but this is not stated. This passage has been suspected of being a Christian interpolation in the text of Josephus, but it shows no obvious Christian bias and fits Josephus' usual interpretation of the Sadducee party. Thus there is little doubt that James was put to death by the priestly authorities in the early sixties, perhaps as part of a wider move of opposition to Christianity.

Another account of the death of James comes from Hegesippus, in the passage cited above to describe his piety. According to Hegesippus, James met his death after being presented to the people at Passover to give his impartial judgment about Jesus. When he proclaimed Jesus as the Son of man, seated at God's right hand, he was cast down from the temple, stoned, and clubbed to death. Hegesippus agrees with Josephus that James was put to death by priestly authorities in the sixties, though he puts the episode shortly before the siege of 66. But the details of his story are legendary.

Bibliography. T. Zahn, "Brüder und Vettern Jesu," Forschungen zur Geschichte des neutestamentlichen Kanons und der altchristlichen Literatur, vol. VI, pt. II (1900), pp. 225-364; J. B. Mayor, The Epistle of St. James (3rd ed., 1913), pp. i-lxv; H. J. Schoeps, Theologie und Geschichte des Judenchristentums (1949), pp. 122-26, 256-70; H. von Campenhausen, "Die Nachfolge des Jakobus," Zeitschrift für Kirchengeschichte, LXIII (1950-51), 133-44; E. Stauffer, "Zum Kalifat des Jakobus," Zeitschrift für Religious- und Geistesgeschichte, IV (1952), 193214; J. Munck, Paulus und die Heilsgeschichte (1954), pp. 10311, 233-37; G. Quispel, Neue Funde zur valentinianischen Gnosis," Zeitschrift f?r Religions- und Geistesgeschichte, VI (1954), 291-92; L. E. Elliott-Binns, Galilean Christianity (1956); E. J. Goodspeed, The Twelve (1957); S. E. Johnson, "The Dead Sea Manual of Discipline and the Jerusalem Church of Acts," in K. Stendahl, ed., The Scrolls and the NT (1957), pp. 129-42.

W. A. BEARDSLEE