On more than one occasion this past Christmas, I found my thoughts preoccupied with questions regarding the family of Jesus. We know so little about them, and yet from the little we do know, it is apparent that they must have played a pivotal role in the formation and continuation of the early Jesus movement. Once we add in the ideas explored on this blog (specifically, that the Historical Jesus is one and the same as Judah the Galilean and that he is buried in the Talpiot Tomb) some further details are introduced that may help shed additional light on the relationships touched on so briefly in the New Testament. What I offer below are no firm conclusions, but mere thinking out loud on some of the individuals who came to be known as the “Desposyni” or those “of the Master.”

The natural point for starting any analysis of Jesus’s immediate family is the list of brothers we are presented in the gospels. In Mark 6:3, we are told Jesus has four brothers: Jacob, Simon, Judas, and Joses. Immediately, we must write off Judas, as according to our current hypothesis, the man we know as Jesus was Judas. The appearance of the name here may be seen as one of many attempts at misdirection in order to distance the Hellenized savior from his messianic Jewish roots. “No no, Jesus didn’t lead a rebellion; that was his brother!” The attachment of the name Judas to the disciple known as Thomas/Didymus, the Twin, further completes this transformation:

“He sure looked a lot like Jesus!”

“That was his TWIN!”

“Ah, OK.”

It’s telling that Thomas’s only noteworthy action in the canonical gospels is his DISBELIEF in the resurrection. We are also told that, like Judas Iscariot, he wasn’t present for the initial appearance of Jesus to his disciples. Well, of course he wasn’t. He was dead.

So we can cross off Judas from this list of brothers since we recognize him as a duplicate of Jesus himself. What of the others? For lack of contradictory evidence, we must tentatively accept the list of James, Simon, and Joses as a genuine historical memory. The most prominent of these is, of course, James. Elsewhere referred to as James the Just or James the Brother of the Lord/Jesus, he was a prominent leader of early Christianity, heading the church of Jerusalem from the time of Jesus’s death until his own violent demise in 63 CE.

Eisenman has written on the attempted erasure of James the Just from the Christian tradition in several influential works.[i] According to his analysis, both James the Son of Zebedee (or Zip-A-Dee-Doo-Dah as Eisenman has jokingly remarked) and James the Son of Alphaeus are doppelgangers for this one James, who was related to Jesus by blood and served to continue the Jewish messianic movement in his brother’s absence.[ii] I take a similar approach but with a few important differences.

Turning first to James the Son of Alphaeus, he is mentioned as being a member of The Twelve in Mark, Matthew, and Luke/Acts. This is where we need to refer back to the information that we have on the family of Judah the Galilean. Josephus tells us of three sons of this Judah: Manahem, Simon, and Jacob.[iii] In my estimation, “Alphaeus” is a made-up name since the gospels (colored by the celibate teachings of Paul) could not portray Jesus as married with children. We might look to Jesus’s title of “Alpha and Omega” as a source of this punny moniker. Matthew aka Levi (this dual name remains a bit of an issue, but we’ll gloss over it for now) is also said to be the son of a certain “Alphaeus,” and what do you know, there is a “Matya” (Matthew) buried in the Talpiot Tomb along with our misidentified messiah, Judah bar Jesus. All things considered, it seems reasonable for us to tentatively conclude that the gospels’ James of Alphaeus represents James the son of Judah/Jesus.

Thus, James the brother of the Lord does not seem to be James son of Alphaeus. Could the Just One be James son of Zebedee? This is a distinct possibility, but not without its issues. For one, this James is said to be the brother of John and there is no person of this name listed among the brothers of Jesus.[iv] We can, of course, speculate that Mark simply got things wrong, but without any evidence, it would be just that: speculation. On the other hand, this inner circle of James, Peter, and John does seem to be an echo of the James, Cephas, and John mentioned as the “Pillars” of the church by Paul in Galatians.[v] Furthermore, as Robert M. Price has pointed out, the name, Boanerges, commonly translated as “Sons of Thunder” could also mean, “Upholders of the Vault of Heaven,” in which case the title of “Pillars” would seem appropriate.[vi] It does seem a bit too convenient that we would have two figures by the name of James featured in such prominent positions back to back.

Luke throws a monkey wrench into all of this by claiming that James son of Zebedee was executed via orders of Herod Agrippa around the year 44 CE (Acts 12:1-2). We know James the Just lived on for another couple of decades, but, according to Josephus, a person named James was executed shortly after this time: the aforementioned son of Judah the Galilean. Consider the following: The gospels portray the sons of Zebedee as hotheads, hankering to burn down a village of unbelievers and jostling for positions to the left and right of Jesus (Luke 9:51-56; Mark 10:35-40). The Savior of course replies to the effect of, “You’ll get those spots alright, but you don’t know what you’re asking for.” This foreshadowing of the brothers’ fates can easily be understood as a reference to their also being crucified, which Jacob (James) and Simon, sons of Judah, reportedly were.

Adding together these conflicting bits of evidence, we can only conclude that the actual family of Jesus has been hopelessly confused and obfuscated by our gospel sources. Recall that “Mark” is an author who played fast and loose with identities, inventing punny surnames such as “Iscariot” and “Arimathea” out of whole cloth. It is even possible that “Boanerges” was a title originally applied to James the Just and Jesus himself. It is not so far a stretch to interpret “The Thunderer” as YHWH and we all know who His Son supposedly was. The alternate translation given by Price would also apply here, as it was Christian tradition that it was the execution of James that triggered the destruction of the Jerusalem Temple. With these two pillars upholding the heavens, it all came tumbling down. Thus, it seems we must concede that in some cases James bar Zebedee represents James the Just, and in others, he may be meant as an alias for James the son of Judah. What is important historically is that there was a younger James and an older James amongst Jesus’s earliest followers. The younger was Jesus’s son and the older was his brother.

Jesus’s other two brothers, Simon and Joses, are even more enigmatic than James. Joses we know almost nothing about. He is perhaps the Joses of the Talpiot Tomb, although we certainly can’t rule out there being another Joses in the family. As for Simon, his identification is an even more difficult proposition, as it was the number one most popular name amongst Palestinian Jewish males at the time.[vii] Indeed, as candidates, we might look to Simeon bar Cleophas, Simon the Zealot, listed in the gospels as one of The Twelve, and even Simon Peter.[viii] For my money, I would bet on Simon the Zealot being Simon the Son of Judah the Galilean, who met his fate along with his brother, Jacob, whom we already mentioned.

Could Simeon bar Cleophas be the brother of Jesus? The gospels do attest to there being a familial connection between this Simon and Jesus, as the Fourth Gospel calls a certain Mary of Clopas the sister of Jesus’s mother. Since the notion of two sisters having the same name seems preposterous, even granted the explosive popularity of the name Mary in first-century Judaism, scholars have often taken “sister” as meaning “sister in law” in this passage. The commonly accepted means for this relation is Clopas/Cleophas being the brother of Joseph the Carpenter. In fact, this is what Hegessipus states in his writing, also naming Simeon bar Cleophas as a cousin of Jesus.[ix] This would seem to satisfy the dynastic conditions implied in the early church history, with Simeon succeeding James the Just as Bishop of Jerusalem after the latter’s death.

While it is not out of the question that Simeon bar Cleophas was known as a brother of Jesus, I lean towards the two being separate people. For one, we mentioned that Simon was the single most popular male name amongst Palestinian Jews at the time, owing in no small part to the legendary heroism of Simon Thassi in the Maccabean Revolt several generations prior. Bearing that in mind, there is a good chance that many families contained multiple Simons. Additionally, we must return to the name, “Alphaeus,” previously mentioned as the father of James and Levi/Matthew. Proponents of the Simon bar Clopas/Brother of Jesus hypothesis usually posit the names “Clopas” and “Alphaeus” as two different renderings of the same Jewish name, “Hilfai.” The explanation here is that Greek speakers would have been unsure of the “H,” nonexistent in their language, and thus settled on variously the hard “C” or the “A” preceded by a silent “H” at the start of the name.[x] This explanation to me is less than satisfactory and other scholars have concluded that the two names cannot be equated linguistically.[xi] On a very basic, nonexpert level, I might ask, “Where did the “O” vowel come from?” There’s no reason to add an “O” to Hilfai in translating the name into Greek. Furthermore, the gospel writers themselves distinguish these two names, with Luke mentioning both Alphaeus (Luke 6:15; Acts 1:13) and Cleopas (Luke 24:18). Finally, if Alphaeus and Clopas/Cleopas/Cleophas are one and the same and his son, Simon, was known as a brother of Jesus, where does that leave Levi/Matthew, who is also called the son of Alphaeus? Why was he not listed as one of the Lord’s brethren?

Granted these difficulties and the commonness of the name, Simon, I must conclude at this time that Clopas was not the same person as Alphaeus. I also am not compelled by the argument that either was the second husband of Mary, as is also sometimes suggested.[xii] Rather, the traditional explanation of the Emmaus visionary being a brother of Joseph the Carpenter seems reasonable. He could also be Mary’s brother I suppose. The name Clopas/Cleopas seems to be a shortened version of the popular male name, Cleopatros (the masculine form of Cleopatra).[xiii] This, to me, seems to be a rather good explanation for an otherwise puzzling name, as we see name shortening amongst acquaintances all over the place in this time period and up to the present day.

At this point, we’ve done our best to cover the list of Jesus’s brothers given to us in the gospels. Before we wrap up this inquiry, however, we might turn to another suspicious character listed amongst the twelve: Judas, elsewhere referred to as Thaddeus (see Matt 10:3, Mk 13:18, Lk 6:16, Acts 1:13). In some manuscripts of Matthew he is also called “Judas the Zealot.” As we have established, Judas Iscariot is a double of Jesus himself. The gospels, however, seem adamant in their insistence that there was another Judas. John’s Gospel calls him, quite literally, “Judas (not Iscariot)” and leaves it at that (John 14:22). Elsewhere, he is referred to as “Judas of James.” Traditionally, this has been taken in one of two ways. He could be the brother of James, which would point to him being the brother also of Jesus. This is the stance Eisenman takes.[xiv] Of course, in our reconstruction, there could not be a Judas brother of Jesus. Also, this disciple’s alt account, Thaddeus, is suspiciously close in sound to “Theudas,” a prophet-rebel mentioned by Josephus and the author of Acts who was decapitated in the 40s CE.[xv] By all reasonable accounts, Jesus died under Pontius Pilate, and so this cannot be our man.

Could he be the brother of Judah the Galilean’s son, James? Possible, but we have no external attestation to such a person existing. Right now, we have as the sons of Judah the Galilean: Simon (the Zealot), James (of Alphaeus), Menahem, and if I am correct, Matthew/Levi. As mentioned, there is some disagreement on how to translate the Greek phrase “of James,” which would normally imply that this Judas was the son of James. I favor this possibility, as it would be easy enough to believe that James the Just had a son who he named after his famous brother. “Son of” is the more natural reading, although it is easy to see how early Christians might get confused knowing that there existed a “Judas brother of James (the Just)” as well, this individual’s true significance being obfuscated with the application of the name, “Jesus” to Judah the Galilean.

Although many in Christ’s family suffered a martyr’s death, we do have accounts that at least some descendants survived into the reign of Emperor Trajan (98 – 117 CE). Eusebius forwards a report that he claims was originally found in the works of Hegesippus. The anecdote concerns the grandsons of Jude, Jesus’s brother. Could these be the grandsons of Jesus himself? We will likely never know. Here is the excerpt:

There still survived of the kindred of the Lord the grandsons of Jude, brother of Jesus, who according to the flesh was called his brother. These were informed against, as belonging to the family of David, and Evocatus brought them before Domitian Caesar: for that emperor dreaded the advent of Christ, as Herod had done.

So he asked them whether they were of the family of David; and they confessed they were. Next he asked them what property they had, or how much money they possessed. They both replied that they had only 9000 denaria between them, each of them owning half that sum; but even this they said they did not possess in cash, but as the estimated value of some land, consisting of thirty-nine plethra only, out of which they had to pay the dues, and that they supported themselves by their own labour. And then they began to hold out their hands, exhibiting, as proof of their manual labour, the roughness of their skin, and the corns raised on their hands by constant work.

Being then asked concerning Christ and His kingdom, what was its nature, and when and where it was to appear, they returned answer that it was not of this world, nor of the earth, but belonging to the sphere of heaven and angels, and would make its appearance at the end of time, when He shall come in glory, and judge living and dead, and render to every one according to the course of his life.

Thereupon Domitian passed no condemnation upon them, but treated them with contempt, as too mean for notice, and let them go free. At the same time he issued a command, and put a stop to the persecution against the Church.

When they were released they became leaders of the churches, as was natural in the case of those who were at once martyrs and of the kindred of the Lord. And, after the establishment of peace to the Church, their lives were prolonged to the reign of Trajan.

Eusebius, Ecclesiastical History Book 20, Ch. 3.

After this, the trail seemingly goes cold. Did the line of Jesus fall off somewhere or did it merely fade into obscurity? Many questions still remain, and we will surely revisit this topic in a future post. What are your thoughts on the ideas presented here? Have I missed any morsels of information tucked away in the ancient sources?  Be sure to let me know in the comments!

---

References

[i] See Robert Eisenman, James the Brother of Jesus: The Key to Unlocking the Secrets of Early Christianity and the Dead Sea Scrolls (New York: Viking, 1997). Also see: Robert Eisenman, The New Testament Code: The Cup of the Lord, the Damascus Covenant, and the Blood of Christ (London: Watkins, 2006).

[ii] See, for example, Eisenman, The New Testament Code, 17, 60.

[iii] See Josephus, Jewish Antiquities 20.5 and Josephus, Jewish War 2.17.

[iv] That is unless we accept the traditional belief that the Fourth Gospel’s “Beloved Disciple” is John the son of Zebedee. If this is true, then Jesus’s saying to his mother and this disciple in John 19:26-27 would represent a sort of adopted relationship between the two, effectively making James the Just and John son of Zebedee brothers. This idea is worth exploring in a later post.  

[v] Eisenman, The New Testament Code, 16-17.

[vi] Robert M. Price, The Pre-Nicene New Testament: Fifty-four Formative Texts (Salt Lake City: Signature, 2006), 77.

[vii] See Richard Bauckham, Jesus and the Eyewitnesses: The Gospels as Eyewitness Testimony (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2006), 85.

[viii] See Eisenman, The New Testament Code, 16, in which Eisenman deduces that all three of these names may refer to the brother of Jesus.

[ix] See Eusebius, Church History 3.11. https://www.newadvent.org/fathers/250103.htm

[x] See David Francis Bacon, Lives of the Apostles of Jesus Christ (New Haven: LH Young, 1836), 390. See also Eisenman, The New Testament Code, 60.

[xi] John J. Gunther, “The Family of Jesus,” Evangelical Quarterly 46, no. 1 (1974): 25-41. https://biblicalstudies.org.uk/pdf/eq/1974-1_025.pdf

[xii] See James D. Tabor, The Jesus Dynasty: The Hidden History of Jesus, His Royal Family, and the Birth of Christianity (New York: Simon and Schuster, 2006), 79-81.

[xiii] Gunther, The Family of Jesus, 26.

[xiv] Eisenman, The New Testament Code, 5-6.

[xv] Josephus, Jewish Antiquities 20.5.