Sermon From; The New Radio Church of God

Delivered By: John The Nazarite Prophet

On: January 11, 2024

Today is January 11, 2024. When I awoke around 3:00 A.M. I wondered if I was dying. If so, then the world would be deprived of my important knowledge. Does it matter? I turned on the news and drank my coffee. Netanyahu said Israel had no intention of staying in Gaza, and will return it to the Palestinians. However, this is a conflicting statement. Then there was mention that Hamas would release the hundred hostages – if the IDF pulls put…..and the bombing stops?

As a proclaimed Nazarite Judge, after John the Baptist, and James The Just – I hereby inform all the rabbis of Israel – that God wants His Children out of Gaza – and perhaps the Promised Land: For Joseph Flavivirus said it was the stoning of James that brought about the destruction of the temple and The Banishment.

I will be making Youtibe videos to go with the side of James The Christ, who I am certain never heard his alleged brother say this;

From that time on Jesus began to explain to his disciples that he must go to Jerusalem and suffer many things at the hands of the elders, the chief priests and the teachers of the law, and that he must be killed and on the third day be raised to life.

23 Jesus turned and said to Peter, “Get behind me, Satan! You are a stumbling block to me; you do not have in mind the concerns of God, but merely human concerns.”

I am convinced this is a interpolation delivered after the death of James the Christ, and before the death of Peter. According to Josephus ‘The Jewish Historian’ (who was not a Christians) James was the reason the Jews lost the temple.. James was the head of the church in Jerusalem, and had more authority then Peter. James is the First Bishop of Jerusalem. He is th alleged author of The Epistles of James that he wrote to …..THE JEWS OF THE DIASPORA – whose offspring were allowed to RETURN to the Promised Land by President Harry Truman – a Christian! Was Truman aware the Jews rejected Jesus – and the New Testament? Did Truman read The Antiquities of the Jews by Joseph Flavius? Did any Great Rabbi since the fall of the temple, read bout “James the Christ” in the rare history of the Jewish People? Did rabbis become alarmed, that Jews spread a teaching that incured the wrath of Orthodox Jews? Do learned Jews today know the truth about “The Christ” and are keeping The Truth from Gentiles and Christians?

South Africa has brought charges of Genocide against Israel, who has chosen a Holocaust Survivor to lead The Defense – that will include PROOF that Israel has “the right to exist”. What I will do here on my Newspaper For The Arts, is give evidence God banished His Children from the Promised Land, for what they did to “James The Christ”. I will demand Netanyahu withdraw his army and airforce, and allow Christian to celebrate a belated Christmas, and, celebrate The Life of James The Christ”

Let me begin my discourse with stating, it is my belief James The Christ was tempted by Satan atop the temple. and not his brother Jesus. Satan in truth – is God. God has offered James the Bishopry of His Church..

THE CHURCH OF GOD.

Again, the devil (God) took Him up on an exceedingly high mountain, and showed Him all the kingdoms (Synagogues) of the world and their glory. 9 And he said to Him, “All these things I will give You if You will fall down and worship me.”

When I read the Bible for the first time in 1987, I was forty years of age. I could not buy the idea that Satan was atop the temple. When I got to Acts and rad the lies of Paul, I surmised he put Satan atop the temple, and has Jesus DENY the teaching of the Jews in the synagogues in the Diasporas, that Paull is at odds with. James The Christ met his death – by being thrown from atop the temple – and after surviving this fall, he was stoned, then beat to death with fullers club. Consider the Stoning of Stephen – with the approval of Saul-Paul. I hereby put Paul on trial as the…Embodiment of The Christ!

John ‘The Nazarite Judge’

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Josephus_on_Jesus

Origen of Alexandria[edit]

In the 3rd century, Origen of Alexandria claimed in two works that Josephus had mentioned James, the brother of Jesus. In Origen’s commentary on Matthew, he writes:

And to so great a reputation among the people for righteousness did this James rise, that Flavius Josephus, who wrote the “Antiquities of the Jews” in twenty books, when wishing to exhibit the cause why the people suffered so great misfortunes that even the temple was razed to the ground, said, that these things happened to them in accordance with the wrath of God in consequence of the things which they had dared to do against James the brother of Jesus who is called Christ. And the wonderful thing is, that, though he did not accept Jesus as Christ, he yet gave testimony that the righteousness of James was so great; and he says that the people thought that they had suffered these things because of James.

— Commentary on Matthew, Book X, Chapter 17 (emphasis added)

According to Eusebius, the Jerusalem church escaped to Pella during the siege of Jerusalem by the future Emperor Titus in 70 AD and afterwards returned, having a further series of Jewish bishops until the Bar Kokhba revolt in 130 AD. Following the second destruction of Jerusalem and the rebuilding of the city as Aelia Capitolina, subsequent bishops were Greeks.[19]

The Epistle of James is a letter, and includes an epistolary prescript that identifies the sender (“James”) and the recipients (“to the twelve tribes in the diaspora”) and provides a greeting (Jas 1:1). The epistle resembles the form of a Diaspora letter,^[31] written to encourage Jewish-Christian communities living outside of Israel amid the hardships of diaspora life.^[32] James stands in the tradition of the Jewish genre of “Letters to the Diaspora”, including the letters of the members of the family of Gamaliel, the one preserved in 2 Maccabees 1:1-9, or some copied by Josephus, all of which are characterised by a double opening and an abrupt ending.^[33][34]

https://www.gotquestions.org/get-behind-me-Satan.html

Jesus Predicts His Death

²¹From that time on Jesus began to explain to his disciples that he must go to Jerusalem and suffer many things at the hands of the elders, the chief priests and the teachers of the law, and that he must be killed and on the third day be raised to life.

²²Peter took him aside and began to rebuke him. “Never, Lord!” he said. “This shall never happen to you!”

²³Jesus turned and said to Peter, “Get behind me, Satan! You are a stumbling block to me; you do not have in mind the concerns of God, but merely human concerns.”

Jesus had just revealed to His disciples for the first time the plan: He was to go to Jerusalem to suffer, die, and be raised to life (Matthew 16:21; Mark 8:31). Contrary to their expectations of Him, Jesus explained that He had not come to establish an earthly Messianic kingdom at that time. The disciples were not prepared for this new revelation of the Messiah’s purpose. Though Peter understood His words, he simply could not reconcile his view of the conquering Messiah with the suffering and death Jesus spoke of. So Peter “began to rebuke Him” for having such a fatalistic mindset.

Unwittingly, Peter was speaking for Satan. Like Jesus’ adversary, Peter was not setting his mind on the things of God—His ways, His plans, and His purposes (Colossians 3:2; Isaiah 55:8-9). Instead, his mind was set on the things of man, the things of the world and its earthly values. Jesus was saying that the way of the cross was God’s will, the plan of redemption for all mankind. Peter’s reaction was most likely shared by the other disciples although, as always, it was Peter who spoke first. Peter was inadvertently being used of Satan in thinking he was protecting Jesus. Satan had purposely tempted Jesus in the wilderness to divert Him from the cross, from fulfilling the grand design of the Father and the Son (Mark 1:12-13). Innocently, Peter was doing the same thing. He had not yet grasped Jesus’ true Messianic purpose.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Epistle_of_James

5 Then the devil took Him up into the holy city, set Him on the pinnacle of the temple, 6 and said to Him, “If You are the Son of God, throw Yourself down. For it is written:

‘He shall give His angels charge over you,’

and,

‘In their hands they shall bear you up,
Lest you dash your foot against a stone.’ ”

7 Jesus said to him, “It is written again, ‘You shall not [a]tempt the Lord your God.’ ”

8 Again, the devil took Him up on an exceedingly high mountain, and showed Him all the kingdoms of the world and their glory. 9 And he said to Him, “All these things I will give You if You will fall down and worship me.”

10 Then Jesus said to him, [b]“Away with you, Satan! For it is written, ‘You shall worship the Lord your God, and Him only you shall serve.’ ”

11 Then the devil left Him, and behold, angels came and ministered to Him.

The Epistle of James^[a] is a general epistle and one of the 21 epistles (didactic letters) in the New Testament.

James 1:1 identifies the author as “James, a servant of God and of the Lord Jesus Christ” who is writing to “the twelve tribes scattered abroad”. The epistle is traditionally attributed to James the brother of Jesus (James the Just),^[3]^[4] and the audience is generally considered to be Jewish Christians, who were dispersed outside Israel.^[5]^[6]

Framing his letter within an overall theme of patient perseverance during trials and temptations, James writes in order to encourage his readers to live consistently with what they have learned in Christ. He condemns various sins, including pride, hypocrisy, favouritism, and slander. He encourages and implores believers to humbly live by godly, rather than worldly, wisdom and to pray in all situations.

For the most part, until the late 20th century, the epistle of James was relegated to benign disregard – though it was shunned by many early theologians and scholars due to its advocacy of Torah observance and good works.^[7] Famously, Luther at one time considered the epistle to be among the disputed books, and sidelined it to an appendix,^[8] although in his Large Catechism he treated it as the authoritative word of God.^[9]

The epistle aims to reach a wide Jewish audience.^[10] During the last decades, the epistle of James has attracted increasing scholarly interest due to a surge in the quest for the historical James,^[11] his role within the Jesus movement, his beliefs, and his relationships and views. This James revival is also associated with an increasing level of awareness of the Jewish grounding of both the epistle and the early Jesus movement.^[12]

Authorship[edit]

The author is identified as “James, a servant of God and of the Lord Jesus Christ” (James 1:1). James (Jacob, Hebrew: יַעֲקֹב, romanized: Ya’aqov, Greek: Ιάκωβος, romanized: Iakobos) was an extremely common name in antiquity, and a number of early Christian figures are named James, including: James the son of Zebedee, James the son of Alphaeus, and James the brother of Jesus. Of these, James the brother of Jesus has the most prominent role in the early church, and is often understood as either the author of the epistle,^[13] or the implied author.

The earliest recorded references to the Epistle of James highlight the contentious nature of the epistle’s authorship. Origen may be the first person to link the epistle to “James the brother of Lord” (Comm. on Romans 4.8.2), though this is only preserved in Rufinus’s Latin translation of Origen.^[14] Eusebius writes that “James, who is said to be the author of the first of the so-called catholic epistles. But it is to be observed that it is disputed” (Historia ecclesiae 2.23.25). Jerome reported that the Epistle of James “is claimed by some to have been published by some one else under his name, and gradually, as time went on, to have gained authority” (De viris illustribus 2).

Traditional authorship[edit]

The link between James the brother of Jesus and the epistle continued to strengthen, and is now considered the traditional view on the authorship of the work. The traditional view can be divided into at least three further positions that relate also to the date of the epistle:^[15]

The historical James wrote the letter prior to the Galatians controversy (Gal 2:11–14), and prior to the Jerusalem council (Acts 15);
The historical James wrote the letter in response to Paulinism of some sort;
The historical James wrote his letter after the events recorded in Galatians and Acts, but is not in dialogue with Paul or Paulinism.

Many who affirm traditional authorship think James had a sufficient proficiency in Greek education to write the letter himself.^[16] Some argue that James the brother of Jesus made use of an amanuensis, which explains the quality of Greek in the letter. Dan McCartney notes this position has garnered little support.^[17] Others have advocated for a two-stage composition theory, in which many of the sayings of epistle originate with James the brother of Jesus. They were collected by James’ disciples and redacted into the current form of the letter.^[18]

John Calvin and others suggested that the author was the James, son of Alphaeus, who is referred to as James the Less. The Protestant reformer Martin Luther denied it was the work of an apostle and termed it an “epistle of straw”.^[19]

The Holy Tradition of the Eastern Orthodox Church teaches that the Book of James was “written not by either of the apostles, but by the ‘brother of the Lord’ who was the first bishop of the Church in Jerusalem.”^[6]

Pseudonymous authorship[edit]

Dating[edit]

According to Josephus (Jewish Antiquities 20.197–203), James the brother of Jesus was killed in 62 CE, during the high priesthood of Ananus.^[27] Those who hold to traditional authorship date the epistle to sometime before 62 CE, in the forties or fifties, making it one of the earliest writings of the New Testament.

Those who maintain that the epistle is pseudonymous generally date the epistle later, from the late first to mid-second century.^[28] This is based on a number of considerations, including the epistle’s potential dependence on 1 Peter, potential response to Paul’s writings or Paul’s later followers, late attestation in the historical record, and the 3rd and 4th century disputes concerning the epistle’s authorship.

The earliest extant manuscripts of James usually date to the mid-to-late 3rd century.^[29]

The historiographic debate currently seems to be leaning to the side of those in favor of early dating, although not through irrefutable evidence but through indications and probabilities.^[30]

Genre[edit]

Many consider James to have affinities to Jewish wisdom literature: “like Proverbs and Sirach, it consists largely of moral exhortations and precepts of a traditional and eclectic nature.”^[35] The epistle also has affinities with many of the sayings of Jesus which are found in the gospels of Luke and Matthew (i.e., those attributed to the hypothetical Q source, in the two-source hypothesis). Some scholars have argued that the author of James is familiar with a version of Q rather than Luke or Matthew.^[36]

Other scholars have noted the epistle’s affinities with Greco-Roman philosophical literature.^[37]^[38] The author’s use and transformation of Q materials resembles the Hellenistic practice of aemulatio, in which the author must “rival and vie [aemulatio] with the original in the expression of the same thoughts” (Quintilian, Inst. 10.5.5).^[39] Other studies have analysed sections of James in light of Greco-Roman rhetorical conventions.^[40]^[41]

Structure[edit]

Some view the epistle as having no overarching outline: “James may have simply grouped together small ‘thematic essays’ without having more linear, Greco-Roman structures in mind.”^[42] That view is generally supported by those who believe that the epistle may not be a true piece of correspondence between specific parties but an example of wisdom literature, formulated as a letter for circulation. The Catholic Encyclopedia says, “the subjects treated of in the Epistle are many and various; moreover, St. James not infrequently, whilst elucidating a certain point, passes abruptly to another, and presently resumes once more his former argument.”^[5]

Others view the letter as having only broad topical or thematic structure. They generally organize James under three (in the views of Ralph Martin)^[43] to seven (in the views of Luke Johnson)^[44] general key themes or segments.

A third group believes that James was more purposeful in structuring his letter, linking each paragraph theologically and thematically:

James, like the gospel writers, can be seen as a purposeful theologian, carefully weaving his smaller units together into larger fabrics of thought and using his overall structure to prioritize his key themes.

— Blomberg and Kamell^[42]

The third view of the structuring of James is a historical approach that is supported by scholars who are not content with leaving the book as “New Testament wisdom literature, like a small book of proverbs” or “like a loose collection of random pearls dropped in no particular order onto a piece of string.”^[45]

A fourth group uses modern discourse analysis or Greco-Roman rhetorical structures to describe the structure of James.^[46]

The United Bible Societies‘ Greek New Testament divides the letter into the following sections:

Salutation (1:1)Faith and Wisdom (1:2–8)Poverty and Riches (1:9-11)Trial and Temptation (1:12–18)Hearing and Doing the Word (1:19–27)Warning against Partiality (2:1–13)Faith and Works (2:14–26)

The Tongue (3:1–12)The Wisdom from Above (3:13–18)Friendship with the World (4:1–10)Judging a Brother (4:11–12)Warning against Boasting (4:13–17)Warning to the Rich (5:1–6)Patience and Prayer (5:7–20)

Historical context[edit]

The exact historical circumstances that occasioned the epistle are unknown. Those who understand James 2 as a polemic against Paul or Paul’s followers suggest an occasion for the letter aimed at opposing Pauline justification.^[47] Others have argued that James’ discussion on faith and works does not have Pauline categories in view.^[48]

Some scholars have suggested that the epistle was written to both Christian and non-Christian Jews, who continued to worship together before the parting of the ways between Christianity and Judaism.^[49]^[50] The warning against cursing people (Jas 3:9–10) has been read in light of this historical reconstruction, and Dale Allison has argued that “James reflects an environment in which some Jews, unhappy with Jewish Christians, were beginning to use the Birkat ha-minim or something very much like it” to curse Christians.^[51]

Poverty and wealth are key concerns throughout the epistle, and these issues are likely to reflect the epistle’s historical context.^[52] The author shows concern for vulnerable and marginalised groups, such as “orphans and widows” (Jas 1:27), believers who are “poorly clothed and lacking in daily food” (Jas 2:15), and the oppressed waged-worker (Jas 5:4). He writes strongly against the rich (Jas 1:10; 5:1–6) and those who show partiality towards them (Jas 2:1–7).^[53]

Doctrine[edit]

Justification[edit]

Main articles: Justification (theology), Joint Declaration on the Doctrine of Justification, and Sola fide

The epistle contains the following famous passage concerning salvation and justification:

14 What good is it, my brothers, if someone says he has faith but does not have works? Can that faith save him? 15 If a brother or sister is poorly clothed and lacking in daily food, 16 and one of you says to them, “Go in peace, be warmed and filled,” without giving them the things needed for the body, what good is that? 17 So also faith by itself, if it does not have works, is dead. 18 But someone will say, “You have faith and I have works.” Show me your faith apart from your works, and I will show you my faith by my works. 19 You believe that God is one; you do well. Even the demons believe—and shudder! 20 Do you want to be shown, you foolish person, that faith apart from works is useless? 21 Was not Abraham our father justified by works when he offered up his son Isaac on the altar? 22 You see that faith was active along with his works, and faith was completed by his works; 23 and the Scripture was fulfilled that says, “Abraham believed God, and it was counted to him as righteousness”—and he was called a friend of God. 24 You see that a person is justified by works and not by faith alone. 25 And in the same way was not also Rahab the prostitute justified by works when she received the messengers and sent them out by another way? 26 For as the body apart from the spirit is dead, so also faith apart from works is dead.^[54]

This passage has been contrasted with the teachings of Paul the Apostle on justification. Some scholars even believe that the passage is a response to Paul.^[55] One issue in the debate is the meaning of the Greek word δικαιόω (dikaiόō, ‘render righteous or such as he ought to be’),^[56] with some among the participants taking the view that James is responding to a misunderstanding of Paul.^[57]

Roman Catholicism and Eastern Orthodoxy have historically argued that the passage disproves the doctrine of justification by faith alone (sola fide).^[58]^[59] The early (and many modern) Protestants resolve the apparent conflict between James and Paul regarding faith and works in alternate ways from the Catholics and Orthodox:^[60]

Paul was dealing with one kind of error while James was dealing with a different error. The errorists Paul was dealing with were people who said that works of the law were needed to be added to faith in order to help earn God’s favor. Paul countered this error by pointing out that salvation was by faith alone apart from deeds of the law (Galatians 2:16; Romans 3:21–22). Paul also taught that saving faith is not dead but alive, showing thanks to God in deeds of love (Galatians 5:6 [‘…since in Christ Jesus it is not being circumcised or being uncircumcised that can effect anything – only faith working through love.’]). James was dealing with errorists who said that if they had faith they didn’t need to show love by a life of faith (James 2:14–17). James countered this error by teaching that faith is alive, showing itself to be so by deeds of love (James 2:18,26). James and Paul both teach that salvation is by faith alone and also that faith is never alone but shows itself to be alive by deeds of love that express a believer’s thanks to God for the free gift of salvation by faith in Jesus.^[61]

According to Ben Witherington III, differences exist between the Apostle Paul and James, but both used the law of Moses, the teachings of Jesus and other Jewish and non-Jewish sources, and “Paul was not anti-law any more than James was a legalist“.^[62]^{: 157–158} A more recent article suggests that the current confusion regarding the Epistle of James about faith and works resulted from Augustine of Hippo’s anti-Donatist polemic in the early fifth century.^[63] This approach reconciles the views of Paul and James on faith and works.

Anointing of the sick[edit]

The epistle is also the chief biblical text for the anointing of the sick. James wrote:

Is anyone among you sick? Let him call for the elders of the church, and let them pray over him, anointing him with oil in the name of the Lord. And the prayer of faith will save the one who is sick, and the Lord will raise him up. And if he has committed sins, he will be forgiven.^[64]

G. A. Wells suggested that the passage was evidence of late authorship of the epistle, on the grounds that the healing of the sick being done through an official body of presbyters (elders) indicated a considerable development of ecclesiastical organisation “whereas in Paul’s day to heal and work miracles pertained to believers indiscriminately (I Corinthians, XII:9).”^[65]

Works, deeds and care for the poor[edit]

James and the M Source material in Matthew are unique in the canon in their stand against the rejection of works and deeds.^[66] According to Sanders, traditional Christian theology wrongly divested the term “works” of its ethical grounding, part of the effort to characterize Judaism as legalistic.^[67] However, for James and for all Jews, faith is alive only through Torah observance. In other words, belief demonstrates itself through practice and manifestation. For James, claims about belief are empty, unless they are alive in action, works and deeds.^[68]

Do not merely listen to the word, and so deceive yourselves. Do what it says. Anyone who listens to the word but does not do what it says is like someone who looks at his face in a mirror and, after looking at himself, goes away and immediately forgets what he looks like. But whoever looks intently into the perfect law that gives freedom, and continues in it—not forgetting what they have heard, but doing it—they will be blessed in what they do.”

— James 1:22–25^[69]

Religion that God our Father accepts as pure and faultless is this: to look after orphans and widows in their distress and to keep oneself from being polluted by the world.

— James 1:27^[70]

Speak and act as those who are going to be judged by the law that gives freedom, because judgment without mercy will be shown to anyone who has not been merciful. Mercy triumphs over judgment.

— James 2:12–13^[71]

The epistle emphasizes the importance of acts of charity or works to go along with having the Christian faith by means the following three verses in Chapter 2 of his Epistle:

-2:14. What shall it profit, my brethren, if a man say he hath faith, but hath not works? Shall faith be able to save him?

-2:18. But some man will say: Thou hast faith, and I have works. Shew me thy faith without works; and I will shew thee, by works, my faith.

-2:20. But wilt thou know, O vain man, that faith without works is dead?^[72]

Torah observance[edit]

James is unique in the canon by its explicit and wholehearted support of Torah observance (the Law). According to Bibliowicz, not only is this text a unique view into the milieu of the Jewish founders – its inclusion in the canon signals that as canonization began (fourth century onward) Torah observance among believers in Jesus was still authoritative.^[73] According to modern scholarship James, Q, Matthew, the Didache, and the pseudo-Clementine literature reflect a similar ethos, ethical perspective, and stand on, or assume, Torah observance. James call to Torah observance (James 1:22-27) ensures salvation (James 2:12–13, 14–26).^[74] Hartin is supportive of the focus on Torah observance and concludes that these texts support faith through action and sees them as reflecting the milieu of the Jewish followers of Jesus.^[75] Hub van de Sandt sees Matthew’s and James’ Torah observance reflected in a similar use of the Jewish Two Ways theme which is detectable in the Didache too (Didache 3:1–6). McKnight thinks that Torah observance is at the heart of James’s ethics.^[76] A strong message against those advocating the rejection of Torah observance characterizes, and emanates from, this tradition: “Some have attempted while I am still alive, to transform my words by certain various interpretations, in order to teach the dissolution of the law; as though I myself were of such a mind, but did not freely proclaim it, which God forbid! For such a thing were to act in opposition to the law of God which was spoken by Moses, and was borne witness to by our Lord in respect of its eternal continuance; for thus he spoke: ‘The heavens and the earth shall pass away, but one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass away from the law.’”^[77]

James seem to propose a more radical and demanding interpretation of the law than mainstream Judaism. According to Painter, there is nothing in James to suggest any relaxation of the demands of the law.^[78] “No doubt James takes for granted his readers’ observance of the whole law, while focusing his attention on its moral demands.”^[79]

Canonicity[edit]

See also: Antilegomena and Biblical canon

The first explicit references to the Epistle of James are found in the writings of Origen of Alexandria (e.g. Comm. on John., 19.23) in the third century. Scholars have generally rejected the possible second-century allusions to James in the Apostolic Fathers^[80]^[81] and Irenaeus of Lyons Against Heresies.^[82] Neither is James mentioned by Tertullian (c. 155–220 CE) or Cyprian (c. 210–258 CE),^[83] and its authenticity of the epistle doubted by Theodore of Mopsuestia (c. 350–428 CE).^[84] In Historia ecclesiae 2.23.25, Eusebius classes James among the Antilegomena or disputed works, stating it is to be observed that it is disputed; at least, not many of the ancients have mentioned it, as is the case likewise with the epistle that bears the name of Jude, which is also one of the seven so-called catholic epistles. Nevertheless we know that these also, with the rest, have been read publicly in very many churches.^[85]

Its late recognition in the Church, especially in the West, was a consequence primarily of its sparse attestation by earlier Christian authors and its disputed authorship. Jerome reported that the Epistle of James “is claimed by some to have been published by some one else under his name, and gradually, as time went on, to have gained authority” (De viris illustribus 2).

The Epistle of James is missing from the Muratorian fragment (poss. 2nd to 4th century), the Cheltenham list (c. 360 CE), but was listed with the twenty-seven New Testament books by Athanasius of Alexandria in his Thirty-Ninth Festal Epistle (367 CE),^[86] and subsequently affirmed by the Councils of Laodicea (c. 363 CE), of Rome (382 CE) and of Carthage (397 and 419).^[87]

During the Reformation era, Martin Luther took issue with the epistle on theological grounds, finding James’ description of faith and works incompatible with his understanding of justification. Reportedly, he once went as far as to assert “I almost feel like throwing Jimmy^[b] into the stove”, an metaphor for his being tempted to remove the Epistle of James from the Bible.^[88]^[89]^[90] Luther nonetheless chose to include James from his German translation of the Bible, though he moved it (along with Hebrews, Jude, and Revelation) to the end of the Bible.^[91]

Eusebius, while quoting Josephus’ account, also records otherwise lost passages from Hegesippus (see links below) and Clement of Alexandria (Historia Ecclesiae, 2.23). Hegesippus’ account varies somewhat from what Josephus reports and may be an attempt to reconcile the various accounts by combining them. According to Hegesippus, the scribes and Pharisees came to James for help in putting down Christian beliefs. The record says:

They came, therefore, in a body to James, and said: “We entreat thee, restrain the people: for they have gone astray in their opinions about Jesus, as if he were the Christ. We entreat thee to persuade all who have come hither for the day of the passover, concerning Jesus. For we all listen to thy persuasion; since we, as well as all the people, bear thee testimony that thou art just, and showest partiality to none. Do thou, therefore, persuade the people not to entertain erroneous opinions concerning Jesus: for all the people, and we also, listen to thy persuasion. Take thy stand, then, upon the summit of the temple, that from that elevated spot thou mayest be clearly seen, and thy words may be plainly audible to all the people. For, in order to attend the passover, all the tribes have congregated hither, and some of the Gentiles also.”^[105]^[106]^[107] To the scribes’ and Pharisees’ dismay, James boldly testified that “Christ himself sitteth in heaven, at the right hand of the Great Power, and shall come on the clouds of heaven”. The scribes and pharisees then said to themselves, “We have not done well in procuring this testimony to Jesus. But let us go up and throw him down, that they may be afraid, and not believe him.”

Accordingly, the scribes and Pharisees

… threw down the just man… [and] began to stone him: for he was not killed by the fall; but he turned, and kneeled down, and said: “I beseech thee, Lord God our Father, forgive them; for they know not what they do.”

And, while they were there, stoning him to death, one of the priests, the sons of Rechab, the son of Rechabim, to whom testimony is borne by Jeremiah the prophet, began to cry aloud, saying: “Cease, what do ye? The just man is praying for us.” But one among them, one of the fullers, took the staff with which he was accustomed to wring out the garments he dyed, and hurled it at the head of the just man.

And so he suffered martyrdom; and they buried him on the spot, and the pillar erected to his memory still remains, close by the temple. This man was a true witness to both Jews and Greeks that Jesus is the Christ. And shortly after Vespasian besieged Judaea, taking them captive.

— Fragments from the Acts of the Church; Concerning the Martyrdom of James, the Brother of the Lord, from Book 5.^[105]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Josephus_on_Jesus

Christian interpolation

According to Robert E. Van Voorst the overwhelming majority of scholars consider both the reference to “the brother of Jesus called Christ” and the entire passage that includes it as authentic.[20][88] Van Voorst states that the James passage fits well in the context in the Antiquities and an indication for its authenticity is the lack of the laudatory language that a Christian interpolator would have used to refer to Jesus as “the Lord”, or a similar term.[120] Van Voorst also states that the use of a neutral term “called Christ” which neither denies nor affirms Jesus as the Messiah points to authenticity, and indicates that Josephus used it to distinguish Jesus from the many other people called Jesus at the time, in the same way that James is distinguished, given that it was also a common name.[120]

Josephus’s account places the date of the death of James as AD 62.[125] This date is supported by Jerome‘s ‘seventh year of the Emperor Nero’, although Jerome may simply be drawing this from Josephus.[126] However, James’s successor as leader of the Jerusalem church, Simeon, is not, in tradition, appointed till after the siege of Jerusalem in AD 70, and Eusebius’s notice of Simeon implies a date for the death of James immediately before the siege, i.e. about AD 69.[127] The method of death of James is not mentioned in the New Testament.[128] However, the account of Josephus differs from that of later works by Hegesippus, Clement of Alexandria, and Origen, and Eusebius of Caesarea in that it simply has James stoned while the others have other variations such as having James thrown from the top of the Temple, stoned, and finally beaten to death by a fuller [129] as well as his death occurring during the siege of Jerusalem in AD 69.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James,_brother_of_Jesus

According to Josephus, in his work Antiquities of the Jews (Book 20, Chapter 9, 1), refers to the stoning of “James the brother of Jesus” by order of Ananus ben Ananus, a Herodian-era High Priest.[29][30]

Ananus, who, as we have told you already, took the high priesthood, was a bold man in his temper, and very insolent; he was also of the sect of the Sadducees, who are very rigid in judging offenders, above all the rest of the Jews, as we have already observed; when, therefore, Ananus was of this disposition, he thought he had now a proper opportunity [to exercise his authority]. Festus was now dead, and Albinus was but upon the road; so he assembled the Sanhedrin of judges, and brought before them the brother of Jesus, who was called Christ, whose name was James, and some others, [or, some of his companions]; and when he had formed an accusation against them as breakers of the law, he delivered them to be stoned.

[31]

The Jerusalem Church was an early Christian community located in Jerusalem, of which James and Peter were leaders. According to a universal tradition the first bishop was the Apostle James the Less, the “brother of the Lord”. His predominant place and residence in the city are implied by Galatians 1:19. Eusebius says he was appointed bishop by Peter, James (the Greater), and John (II, i).[18]

According to a passage found in Josephus‘ Antiquities of the Jews (20.9.1), “the brother of Jesus, who was called Christ, whose name was James” met his death after the death of the procurator Porcius Festus but before Lucceius Albinus had assumed office – which has been dated to 62.[101] The High Priest Hanan ben Hanan (Ananus ben Ananus) took advantage of this lack of imperial oversight to assemble a Sanhedrin (literally a synhedrion kriton in Greek, a “Sanhedrin of judges”), which condemned James “on the charge of breaking the law,” then had him executed by stoning (Antiquities 20.9.1). Josephus reports that Hanan’s act was widely viewed as little more than judicial murder and offended a number of “those who were considered the most fair-minded people in the city, and strict in their observance of the Law”, who went so far as to arrange a meeting with Albinus as he entered the province in order to petition him successfully about the matter. In response, King Agrippa II replaced Ananus with Jesus son of Damneus.[102]

Origen related an account of the death of James which gave it as a cause of the Roman siege of Jerusalem, something not found in the existing manuscripts of Josephus.[103][104]

NAZARITE:

By: Executive Committee of the Editorial Board., George A. Barton, Ludwig Blau

Table of Contents

One who lives apart; one who has made a vow of abstinence; in the former sense used as early as Sifra, Emor, iv. 3; Sifre, Num. 23.Nazarite Laws.—Biblical Data:

Three restrictions are imposed upon the Nazarite, according to Num. vi.: he may not take wine, or anything made from grapes; he may not cut the hair of his head; he may not touch the dead, not even the body of his father or mother. If a Nazarite has become unclean by accident, he must offer a sacrifice and begin the period of his vow anew. He is “holy unto the Lord” (Num. vi. 8), and the regulations which apply to him actually agree with those for the high priest and for the priests during worship (Lev. x. 8 et seq., xxi.; Ezek. xliv. 21). In ancient times the priests were persons dedicated to God (Ezek. xliv. 20; I Sam. i. 11), and it follows from the juxtaposition of prophets and Nazarites (Amos ii. 11-12) that the latter must have been regarded as in a sense priests. Young men especially, who found it difficult to abstain from wine on account of youthful desire for pleasure, took the vow. The most prominent outward mark of the Nazarite was long, flowing hair, which was cut at the expiration of the vow and offered as a sacrifice (Num. l.c.; Jer. vii. 29).In Ancient Israel.

The history of Nazariteship in ancient Israel is obscure. Samson was a Nazarite, whose mother abstained from wine during her pregnancy. His superhuman strength lay in his long, unshorn locks (Judges xiii. et seq.). Samuel’s mother promised to dedicate him to God during his whole life, saying, “There shall no razor come upon his head” (I Sam. i. 11); the Septuagint concludes from the latter promise (to which it adds “he shall drink no wine”) that Samuel was a Nazarite. Neither the nomadic Rechabites nor their wives or children drank wine (Jer. xxxv.; II Kings x. 15 et seq.).Extent.—In Rabbinical Literature:

The Nazarite law was minutely developed in post-Biblical times and became authoritative, while the popularity of Nazariteship and the influence it exercised on men’s minds appear from its numerous regulations, which form a voluminous treatise of the Mishnah, and from the many expressions and phrases accompanying the taking of the vow. If one said, “May I be a Nazarite,” he became a Nazarite at once (Naz. i. 1). As a consequence of the universal custom, peculiar words and phrases, some of which are now unintelligible, were formulated for the taking of the vow (Naz. i. 1, ii. 1; p. 10a; Ned. 10a, b, et passim). “‘Let my hand, my foot be nazir,’ is not valid; ‘Let my liver [or some other vital part] be nazir,’ is valid” (Naz. 21b; Tos. to Naz. iii. 3). When the sanctuary was defiled at the time of the wars of the Maccabees the people assembled all the Nazarites before God as persons who could not be released from their vows (I Macc. iii. 49); yet when Nazarites returned from the Diaspora and found the sanctuary destroyed they were absolved from their vows (Naz. v. 4), although at the same time others took it (ib. v., end).

The expenses of the offerings of poor Nazarites were borne by the wealthy, this charitable obligation being expressed by the phrase “to have [his head] shorn”; and King Agrippa had many Nazarites “shorn” (Josephus, “Ant.” xix. 6, § 1; Naz. ii. 5, 6; Acts xviii. 18; xxi. 23, 24 [Nazariteship ofPaul]). “At the time of R. Simeon b. Sheṭaḥ 300 Nazarites came to Jerusalem. In the case of 150 he found a reason for annulling their vows, but in the case of the others he found none. He went to his brother-in-law King Jannai [103-76 B.C.] and said to him: ‘There are 300 Nazarites who need 900 sacrificial animals; you give one-half and I will give the other half’; so the king sent 450 animals” (Yer. Ber. 11b and parallels). Noble persons also, both men and women, took Nazarite vows. Queen Helena was a Nazarite for fourteen (or twenty-one) years (Naz. iii. 6; see Jew. Encyc. vi. 334, s.v. Helena), and Agrippa’s sister Berenice was at Jerusalem on account of a Nazarite vow taken before the outbreak of the great war against the Romans (Josephus, “B. J.” ii. 15, § 1).Reasons for the Vow.

There were different reasons for taking the Nazarite vow. “It is usual with those that had been afflicted either with a distemper, or with any other distress, to make vows; and for thirty days before they are to offer their sacrifices, to abstain from wine, and to shave the hair of their heads” (Josephus, l.c.). The vow was taken also for the fulfilment of a wish, such as for the birth of a child (Naz. i. 7; comp. 9 and 10). “The pious in ancient times took such a vow, that they might have an opportunity to make a sin-offering” (Ned. 10b). “If one sees a woman suspected of adultery and convicted by the water of jealousy [Num. v.] let him become a Nazarite, since the law of Nazariteship follows immediately in Num. vi.” (Ber. 63a). Some said: “I shall not die before I have become a Nazarite” (Ned. 3b), or, “Let me be a Nazarite on the day when the son of David [the Messiah] shall come.” Such a Nazarite was allowed to drink wine only on the Sabbath and on feast-days, since the Messiah will not appear on these days (‘Er. 43a). A shepherd who saw a lock of his own beautiful hair reflected in the water, and was tempted thereby to sin, took a Nazarite vow (Tosef., Naz. iv. 7; Ned. 9b). Although Nazariteship was marked by asceticism, many abstained from wine and meat even without taking the vow (B. B. 60b; Shab. 139a). Because of this some prominent rabbis who were opposed to asceticism regarded as sinners those who fasted or became Nazarites or took any vow whatsoever, and held that the person in question was an evil-doer, even if the vow was fulfilled (Ned. 9a, b, 20a, 77b; Naz. 4a; Ta’an. 11a).Persons and Duration.

Women and slaves, who did not have full rights before the religious law, could take the Nazarite vow, but only with the consent of their husbands or owners, while the vow was not valid among the heathen (Naz. iv. 1-5, ix. 1, et passim). Fathers were allowed to dedicate minors, but mothers were forbidden to do so (ib. iv. 29b). The proper name “Nazira” may be connected with some such custom (Gen. R. lxxxii. end, et passim). Jesus is said to have been dedicated while still in the womb (Luke i. 15). Tradition regards not only Samson and Samuel, but also Absalom, as Nazarites, the last on account of his long hair (Naz. 4b). The duration of Nazariteship was voluntary, and ranged from one hour to a lifetime. In the former case, however, it really lasted for thirty days, which was also the period when no definite time was set (ib. i. 3; Sifre, Deut. 357). While the usual time was thirty days, two or more additional vows were generally taken, in which case each period was regarded as a separate Nazariteship, to be immediately followed, when duly completed, by the succeeding one (Maimonides, “Yad,” Nezirut, iii. 6). The period was at times measured by the number of days of the solar or the lunar year (Naz. i., end; Yer. Naz. 54b); or one might say: “Let the number of my Nazariteships be as the hairs of my head, or as the dust-particles of the earth, or as the sands of the sea” (Naz. i. 4). A Nazarite for life might cut his too abundant hair once a year, but a Samson Nazarite might not cut his hair under any circumstances, although he might defile himself by touching a corpse (ib. 4a). While no comb was allowed to touch the hair, it might be cleansed and arranged by other means (ib. vi., end). A proverb says, “Let the Nazarite go around the vineyard, but let him not approach it” (Shab. 13a and parallels; Num. R. x.).Outside of Palestine and in the Middle Ages.

Nazarite vows were taken also outside of Palestine (Naz. v. 4; iii. 6). Besides Helena, Queen of Adiabene, Miriam of Palmyra is mentioned as a Nazarite (Tos. to Naz. iv. 10). While the Law stated that Nazariteship was equally valid in the country and outside it, in the time of the Temple and after its destruction there was a difference of opinion between the followers of Shammai and of Hillel: the former held that one who entered Palestine after the fulfilment of a prolonged period of Nazariteship must live there thirty days longer as a Nazarite, while the latter maintained that he must begin his vow anew (Naz. iii. 6; comp. Maimonides, “Yad,” Nezirut, ii. 20-21). The earlier and more universal custom agreed with the view of the school of Shammai, Josephus referring to the thirty days demanded, as above, in the passage already quoted—”B. J.” ii. 15, § 1. The observance of the Nazarite vow probably continued for many centuries, but was finally lost in asceticism and mysticism. No Nazarites are known in the Middle Ages.