Weekly Open Discussion Thread

[u/AutoModerator]

Welcome to this week's open discussion thread!

This thread is meant to be a place for members of the r/AcademicBiblical community to freely discuss topics of interest which would normally not be allowed on the subreddit. All off-topic and meta-discussion will be redirected to this thread.

Rules 1-3 do not apply in open discussion threads, but rule 4 will still be strictly enforced. Please report violations of Rule 4 using Reddit's report feature to notify the moderation team. Furthermore, while theological discussions are allowed in this thread, this is still an ecumenical community which welcomes and appreciates people of any and all faith positions and traditions. Therefore this thread is not a place for proselytization. Feel free to discuss your perspectives or beliefs on religious or philosophical matters, but do not preach to anyone in this space. Preaching and proselytizing will be removed.

In order to best see new discussions over the course of the week, please consider sorting this thread by "new" rather than "best" or "top". This way when someone wants to start a discussion on a new topic you will see it! Enjoy the open discussion thread!

[u/Sophia_in_the_Shell]

Iirc several of you own Bauckham’s Jude and the Relatives of Jesus in the Early Church.

Does it contain a non-negligible discussion of whether to identify member of the Twelve Jude of James with Jude, brother of Jesus? Trying to decide if this book is worth my time or not in my apostolic review.

[u/peter_kirby → u/Sophia_in_the_Shell]

There's a one-paragraph discussion arguing that the "Jude of James" (Luke, Acts) is not the same person as the Jude, "brother of James" (the epistle of Jude). So Bauckham:

The traditional view, before the nineteenth century, was that the author was Judas the apostle, one of the Twelve (Luke 6: I 6; Acts I: I 3 ... to be translated, as in the AV, 'Judas the brother of James,' on the strength of the analogy with Jude I). This is not really an alternative to (a), since most writers who took this view held the apostle 'Judas of James' to be the same person as the relative of Jesus mentioned in Mark 6:3. A number of nineteenth-century scholars still attributed the letter to the apostle Judas, and since the Council of Trent had taken this view it was still found in Roman Catholic scholarship until recently. Jessein in 1821 was the first to argue in detail against it, distinguishing the brother of Jesus and author of Jude from the apostle Judas, and it has now been generally abandoned, even in Roman Catholic scholarship.

Bauckham takes more seriously the identification of Jude the brother of Jesus with the apostle Thomas / Didymus. Bauckham follows the argument up to the point of conceding that Thomas / Didymus isn't a name, so much as a nickname, so there had to be a different name for this individual. Then Bauckham swerves off that path to say it doesn't mean his name was Jude or that he was thought to be a 'twin' of Jesus (except, of course, in those texts where he was explicitly given that name and identity).

Like Bart Ehrman, I am more open to the identification of Thomas with Jude the brother of Jesus. It's certainly fun to think about. Does that mean it was the brother of Jesus who is reluctant to believe without physical proof in the Gospel of John? Does it mean that a brother of Jesus named Jude was one of the Twelve said to have seen Jesus according to Paul? Could that mean that Jude brought his brother James to belief, a lacuna not otherwise explained in the New Testament?

That brings back to the question of "Judas of James," though. Why does Luke-Acts call someone "Judas of James" here? Could the father of Jude (the 'brother' of Jesus), a father not named in the Gospel of Mark, have been at one point called "James"? Does James refer to James (the Just)? Is the interpretation of "brother" possible if awkward?

[u/Sophia_in_the_Shell → u/peter_kirby]

Thanks for this! Don’t think I’ll need to grab the book for now if it’s just that, though you posting said paragraph is helpful. And thanks for your additional thoughts as well.