Talk:James, son of Alphaeus

Was "James of Alpaeus" the same as "James the Less"

In this edit, Peter Ballard changed "Modern Biblical scholars" to "Some modern Biblical scholars" dispute the identification. The trouble is, I can't find any modern Biblical scholars who posit that they were the same person. I can find lots that state that they are not the same person, and there's already a reference to this in the text. But I don't think it should be changed to "some" unless there's a reference to a reliable source that says it's disputed. All the best, – Quadell ^{(talk) (random)} 13:33, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Does 1982 count as modern? The New Bible Dictionary 2nd Edition (IVP 1982), "James" entry (by one P.H.Davids) says he is "usually identified with 'James the younger', the son of Mary".

OTOH "The Expositor's Bible Commentary CDROM, commentary on Matthew (by Don Carson), says on Matthew 10:2-4, "Some have argued that Alphaeus is an alternative form of Cleophas (Clopas), which would mean that 'James son of Alphaeus' is the same person as 'James the younger' (Mark 15:40) and that his mother's name was Mary (Matt 27:56; Mark 15:40; 16:1; John 19:25). But such connections are by no means certain."

Darrell Bock in his 2 volume commentary on Luke (Baker 1994) says on Luke 6:15 that the identification is "possible but not certain", and notes that Joseph Fitzmyer rejects it.

So I've found one reference supporting the equation of the two, and two which take a neutral stance, therefore not saying it is "unlikely". Peter Ballard (talk) 08:01, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Okay, that's great! We should include those cites in the <ref> tag at the end of the sentence. – Quadell ^{(talk) (random)} 12:04, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Merge with James the Less?

(Continuing above discussion) OK. I'm just thinking about how best to put it. In particular, in wondering whether to put the discussion here or in James the Less, I'm wondering whether to merge this article with James the Less. Not because they are necessarily the same person, but because (a) to avoid duplication of discussion; (b) if they are different, there isn't much to say about James son of Alphaeus; (c) rightly or wrongly, the apostle is traditionally called "James the Less", and it's rather weird having all these links about the apostle, when in the links (and the photo) he is called "James the Less". I think a merge would solve these problems. Or to summarise: traditionally they are the same person, even if in reality they were two distinct people. Peter Ballard (talk) 11:56, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, this is an interesting situation. The problem also comes up in Matthew the Evangelist (which covers info on Levi as well), Jude the Apostle (which covers Thaddaeus), Bartholomew the Apostle (which covers Nathanael), etc. One could argue that all these should be split. On the other hand, John the Evangelist, John the Apostle, John of Patmos, and Disciple whom Jesus loved are all separate articles, probably since a good deal can be said about each. Obviously Wikipedia shouldn't try to authoritatively state whether two names are the same person or not, if there's a dispute. But how do we handle these?

In the case of Jude/Thaddaeus, I considered having three articles: Jude the Apostle, Thaddaeus the Apostle, and Saint Jude (the first two about historic individuals who may or may not have been identical, and the third about the saint believed to have been both persons. But just about the only thing notable to say about Jude or Thaddaeus is (1) that there is debate on whether they were the same person, (2) traditional material about the saint, and (3) other (Gnostic) tradition that doesn't involve the saint, but conflates the apostle with the Jude, brother of Jesus. So I support those three being the same article, as it is. And I support the 3 Johns and the DwJl staying split, since they have enough material for separate articles. But Nathanael/Bartholomew, Matthew/Levi, and these James's are trickier cases. I'm open to suggestions. In this case, I think you're right: there's just about too little to say about James of Alphaeus independently, so perhaps they should be merged. (I would keep James, brother of Jesus separate though.) What do you think? – Quadell ^{(talk) (random)} 17:24, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

I agree with all those assessments (except possibly John, but that's beside the point). i.e. I agree that Matthew/Levi and Jude/Thaddaeus should stay merged. For the current proposed merge, it's not just that there's little to say about James, son of Alphaeus alone, but that all the apostolic tradition has been associated with the name James the Less, i.e. this apostle is known by both of those names. So merge I say (with James the Less only) .Peter Ballard (talk) 00:08, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Merge Done. James the Less is now a redirect to James, son of Alphaeus. I copied a little bit of stuff from JTL first. Peter Ballard (talk) 02:35, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Well done! – Quadell ^{(talk) (random)} 14:39, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

I restore the separate article. James the Less is sometimes identified with this James here, sometimes with James the Just. Though we have little information strictly about JtL, we should not muddy the waters by merging the article.

This case is in contrast to the other examples where there is only one identification.

The apostolic tradition (which of course should be covered here or over at "James the Just") is not a good argument since most of it concerns all three James - the Less, the son of Alphaeus and the brother of the Lord - all under the name of Jacobus Minor. Str1977 ^(talk) 21:39, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

My understanding is that only Western (Roman Catholic) apostolic tradition identifies James the Just with James son of Alphaeus. In Eastern tradition they are distinct. So there is a lot more to separately say about James the Just than there is a about the other two.

Now regarding the splitting of James the Less and James son of Alpahaeus, how do you now handle the templates and categories? e.g. Template:Apostles - which lists the 12 Apostles - contains James son of Alphaeus but not James the Less. This is correct by Protestant tradition but not correct by Catholic Tradition, which has "James the Less" as one of the 12 Apostles. If you're going to split the article, you need to find a NPOV way to represent which James goes into the various templates and categories. Also, all the "saints" info - e.g. the infobox on the right - should be moved out of James, son of Alphaeus and into James the Less. Peter Ballard (talk) 00:19, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

You could have a disambiguation page for James the Apostle (there is already a John the Apostle and Jude the Apostle). 68.123.64.182 (talk) 18:21, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

I see there already is a James the Less. That would do. 68.123.64.182 (talk) 18:40, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

Removed Sentence

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)

The thing about the fuller's club though, if we can get a citation, would stay, since that revolves on James SA not being James the Just. It is then a tradition proper to this page. Qowieury (talk) 05:04, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

Gospel of Mark's James, son of Alphaeus

Gospel of Mark

Mark the Evangelist is the earliest known source in the bible to mention James, son of Alphaeus as one of the twelve Apostles if the two-source hypothesis is true. Mark the Evangalist only mentions a James, son of Alphaeus only once and this is in his list of the 12 ApostlesMark 3:16–19. At the beginning of Jesus' ministry he first calls Peter and his brother Andrew and asks them to follow him Mark 1:16–17. In the next verses it tells the story of how James the Greater and his brother John the Apostle came to follow Jesus Mark 1:19–20. After some healing by Jesus he meets Levi son of Alphaeus who was a tax collector and he then asks Levi to follow him Mark 2:14. Peter, Andrew, James the Greater and John the Apostle are listed as Apostles Mark 3:16–19. Levi, son of Alphaeus is not listed as an Apostle but James son of Alphaeus is Mark 3:16–19. Overall Mark the Evangelist lists three different James’. James, son of Alphaeus, James the Greater and James the brother of Jesus Mark 6:3. On three separate occasions he writes about a James without clarifying which James he is referring too. There is a James at the transfiguration Mark 9:2, at the Mount of Olives Mark 13:3 and the Garden of Gethsemane Mark 14:33. Although this James is listed alongside John the Apostle a clear distinction isn't made about which Apostle James is being referred to, even when both Apostles are meant to be in the similar location. All twelve Apostles attend the Last Supper Mark 14:33 which immediately precedes Garden of Gethsemane. There is a reference to Mary mother of James the Younger and Joseph Mark 15:40, however, Mark the Evangelist has already told us that James the brother of Jesus has a brother called Joseph Mark 6:3.

Earlier today I added the above to the James son of Alphaeus page and it was deleted. This is my third version of the article as I was told that the previous two versions constituted own research. I have therefore edited it so I have eliminated anything that is not referenced. I am new at this and was wondering what factual errors or own research that I have put into this article.

    Bunofsteel.