Talk:James, brother of Jesus/Archive 3

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The Jerusalem Church - (Citation Required)

I am no expert in Early Christianity; however I checked with the translations of Papias on http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/text/papias.html . There Papias X reads: "(1) Mary the mother of the Lord; (2) Mary the wife of Cleophas or Alphaeus, who was the mother of James the bishop and apostle, and of Simon and Thaddeus, and of one Joseph; (3) Mary Salome, wife of Zebedee, mother of John the evangelist and James; (4) Mary Magdalene. These four are found in the Gospel."


I fully understand that there is some confusion about which James is which, but Papias seems to be quite clear here in referring to two different people called James. The first James referred to in the text is clearly the son of Alphaeus and therefore James the Less according to the Wikipedia article, which goes on to say that "James, the son of Alphaeus, is rarely mentioned in the New Testament. He is distinguished[citation needed] from James the Lord's brother (Gal.1:19), an important leader in the New Testament church, and James, son of Zebedee, another one of the Twelve Apostles." If you follow the link on James the Lord's brother you are redirected to James the Just.


Therefore, whatever else is the case, Wikipedia needs to be consistent. If the decision has been made that James the Lord's Brother and James the Less are different individuals (which does not actually appear to universally accepted), then under this view the text of Papias X does not refer to James the Lord's Brother/James the Just and therefore should be removed from the James the Just article. If this is not the case, and James the Less and James the Lord's Brother are actually regarded as the same person, then the text claiming they are different needs to be removed.--TonyFleet (talk) 10:04, 17 August 2013 (UTC)

NPOV

I'm removing the POV tag from the main part of the article because I didn't see anything particularly POV about the main body and there was no rationale givin on the talk page for the tag in the first place. I did, however, move the tag down to the section on the James Ossuary because there seems to be some sort of dispute running about that section. If anyone thinks that the article as a whole has problems, please feel free to reinstate the tag and justify your actions on the talk page. -- jackturner3 15:04, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

I'm confused about what exactly in the Ossuary section is POV. Reading the section as it stands now, it seems to be rather straightforward. I looked in Archive 1, linked at the top of this page, and found only one reference to the section. Has the dispute about this section been archived somewhere else? Perhaps the section has been edited since the POV tag was placed on it (16 October 2007). At any rate, unless anyone has some objections, I recommend the tag be removed from this section. If anyone does have objections, perhaps they could post them here. Thanks very much. MishaPan (talk) 22:31, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
I see no basis for objecting to the removal based on the existing text, but I'm far from being an expert on the subject. Let's hope someone more knowledgable chimes in soon. John Carter (talk) 00:20, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
This surely is written POV. (See last paragraph of introduction) "Orthodox doctrine"? Claiming orthodoxy is inherently POV. The doctrine in question was not even considered until the mid-second century. And then, as it was repeatedly re-tackled during the next five centuries (and even long after), one must wonder that if this were so widely an orthodox position, why continue to have the greatest theological minds scramble to reassert its orthodoxy? "This could be proved by the fact that..." Connecting Jesus' instruction to John to care for his mother, while it certainly has plausible logic, perpetual virginity is not "proved" by this. Jyg (talk) 05:43, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

Citation of Clement of Rome's 'Letter' (actually Homily) to James an acknowledged forgery

The citation to Clement of Rome letter to James is from the Clementine Homilies - long acknowledged as not being genuine and a 3rd/4th century creation (e.g. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clementine_literature). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.169.234.233 (talk) 16:25, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

It seems someone vandalised the historically accurate change to correct the error relating to Clement on the basis that the 'Homily of Clement' cited in the pssage 'is usually accepted as genuine'. No it isn't, and I doubt you will be able to find a respectable source for this assertion. Since Eusebius in the 4th century it has been held almost unanimously that of the literature ascribed to Clement of Rome only the First Epistle to the Corinthians is genuine - as Wikipedia records at the link set out above and at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pope_Clement_I. So at present we have a statement of fact based on one person's opinions and a reference to Reza Aslan (whose factual errors are so manifest, it takes pages to set them out) rather than the general consent of over a thousand years of scholarship. So much for Wikipedia being anything other than an example of 'he who reverts the most, wins'. Indeed, the vandalism now puts Wikipedia into contradiction with itself. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.169.234.233 (talk) 12:10, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

I'm having trouble following your rambling diatribe about Wikipedia and its machinations - what is your suggested problem/fix for this page exactly? Ckruschke (talk) 19:51, 7 November 2013 (UTC)Ckruschke
It was I who "vandalised" the page with this reversion. I did a reasonably thorough Google Books search, and most sources seemed to accept the letter as genuine.[1][2][3] StAnselm (talk) 20:20, 7 November 2013 (UTC)
These books are not scholarly works that are actually about the Clementine literature, meaning they are not attempting to critique that literature or decide whether its components (like the Epistle of Clement to James) are authentic. Such works do exist, and so those are the ones that should be consulted. Those works are unanimous that the Clementine literature, including this Epistle of Clement to James, is not authentically from Clement. [4] [5] — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.34.179.217 (talk) 07:19, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

The identity of James

There was an article here from the Catholic Encyclopedia about the identity of James. Unfortunately, I had to remove it per WP:TALK as a probable copyright violation, since it was just cut and pasted from their website. But by all means, please feel free to go to the Catholic Encyclopedia's site and read the article yourself! As Rumping points out, it is one of the sources used for this Wikipedia article. -- Joren (talk) 07:30, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

That is the article [6] from the Catholic Encyclopedia about James the Less. It is the first reference and used 8 times in the James the Just article here--Rumping (talk) 13:12, 18 July 2010 (UTC)
Heh. Somehow I never noticed this. I suppose this fails WP:PLAG even though it's on a talk page; it certainly isn't attributed so I'll blank it and leave your link up in case people want to see it. Sorry!
-- Joren (talk) 07:30, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

The 1906 Catholic Encyclopedia is public domain. 75.0.15.84 (talk) 04:37, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

Which means odds are it is hopelessly out of date for current information. --216.223.234.97 (talk) 23:41, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

Bishop of Bishops

The new line about Bishop of Bishops, which directly contradicts Scriptural evidence that places Simon Peter in that role, should not be in the introduction. If someone want to include it in the article, specious speculation though it is, it should be placed lower down and not cited as objective fact but credited to the one who claims it. Qowieury (talk) 06:44, 2 August 2014 (UTC) Do you have any other alternative sources other than biblical versus? — JudeccaXIII (talk) 23:56, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

Never mind, apparently someone wanted to cite a source it a discussion. — JudeccaXIII (talk) 23:58, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

Requested move 16 April 2015 : Change article's title to "James, brother of Jesus"

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: move. – Fayenatic London 13:18, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

– He is much better known as "the brother of the Lord" than as "James the Just" (do a search in Google Books and you will get 348,000 hits from "the brother of the Lord", whereas you will get only 42,000 hits from "James the Just"). Also, none of the most ancient writings (New Testament and Josephus) call him "the Just". Mksword (talk) 05:23, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

No, no, Jesus wasn't bishop of Jerusalem, and Peter not James was the first Christian patriarch
That would depend on the source. There are sources saying James was the first, and I didn't say Jesus was the bishop of Jerusalem, only that James was his successor. From the article Gospel of Thomas, Jesus names James his successor and James was called the "bishop of bishops, who rules Jerusalem, the Holy Assembly of Hebrews, and all assemblies everywhere" -- 65.94.43.89 (talk) 09:57, 16 April 2015 (UTC)
WP:PSTS In ictu oculi (talk) 11:04, 16 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Support - almost anything would be an improvement, but the nom has picked the clear common name in books. (NB this current article title isn't as un-encyclopedic as Saint Joseph...) In ictu oculi (talk) 09:21, 16 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Support, seems most correct. Torquemama007 (talk) 17:03, 16 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Support, prominence of title is sufficient reason. ReformedArsenal (talk) 18:30, 17 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Support as a much more universal and accessible title. Red Slash 04:12, 18 April 2015 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

POV tag

Quoting from the tag: "Please do not remove this message until the dispute is resolved." We have seen some books claiming that Jesus was brother of James (whatever they meant by that, some books do say "cousin"), but we have also seen Christians and Muslims claiming he was not brother of Jesus. How do you want to use Wikipedia's voice to say something directly against at least some teachings? The title is not NPOV, and it is not even a proper noun, but a contrived (and controversial) descriptory phrase. Khestwol (talk) 21:10, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

  • Your tag seems to be more of an effort to stoke some fire in the discussion above. "We have also seen Christian and Muslims" points not at scholarly sources, but at you and another contributor to that move/rename discussion. I am removing the tag until you have better (secondary and tertiary) material. Drmies (talk) 22:32, 31 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Is there anything you claim that is POV other than the title of the article?
  • Also I'm just repeating myself at this point, but belief that James was not a full blood brother is not mysteriously defamed by this appellation. As you can see if you read this article (and James, son of Alphaeus), there are notable people who simultaneously used the "brother of Jesus" title and also thought James was not a blood brother. Again, do you find it POV to, say, refer to Lucius Verus as brother to Marcus Aurelius, for a case where they indisputably weren't related by blood (not the case here)? How is it POV to use the term?
  • Honestly this is weird because this is not the REAL firestarter with regards to James: the big question is if the parts in Acts where James & Paul & Peter are all buddy-buddy and on the same page were a later invention by Paulites who wanted to stress the "originalness" of their beliefs. There are a number of notable historians who think it is, and that there was a big split between James & Paul! And of course there are plenty of historians who think there wasn't. I can totally see a flame war on that topic, but James being merely called a brother being controversial? SnowFire (talk) 23:22, 31 August 2015 (UTC)
  • While I acknowledge some of the points above, I do not necessarily see how they are directly relevant. First, the point as to whether or not he was a full blood brother is at best somewhat irrelevant, as the article title doesn't say he was, and the comment seems to me to be acting on the assumption it does. Regarding the second point, the Council of Jerusalem is a real point of contention in the religious and Christian world, but I am less sure that there is a great deal of contention on the topic in the academic world, although I haven't checked. Inherently Catholic or Orthodox or Protestant sources, like, maybe, something published by the Pontifical Biblical Commission, are admittedly academic sources but also clearly religious sources. The correct place for discussion about the Council would, obviously, be the page on the Council which I linked to above. This page is probably better devoted to his broader life, with at best a short summary section as per WP:SS here.
  • At this point, although I admit I haven't checked, I tend to think the Brill/Eerdmans Encyclopedia of Christianity is maybe the best current well regarded source to indicate what to cover in this article, and to what weight, and what to discuss elsewhere. If the article there is truly short, though, that obviously won't help much. John Carter (talk) 23:38, 31 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Actually, ignore the last paragraph above. The EoC has what might charitably be called a very short entry on this topic, and I cannot see any reason to try to use it as any sort of a template for this article. John Carter (talk) 18:21, 1 September 2015 (UTC)
  • Duly ignored and stricken from the records ;p, Dr Crazy 102 (talk) 11:01, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

Requested move 28 August 2015

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: not moved. Clear consensus that referring to him as "brother of Jesus" is more common in reliable sources than "the Just". The blatant canvassing and POV-pushing on the side of the supporters didn't exactly help their case either. A reasonable suggestion has been made that the article should be moved to James (brother of Jesus) – that should probably be followed up on in a new RM as this one is a bit of a mess. Jenks24 (talk) 16:38, 5 September 2015 (UTC)


James, brother of Jesus → James the Just – The article was previously and correctly titled 'James the Just' which is in line with Church teaching and historically actuate. Apparently a group of 5 people with heretical views is enough to revise history on Wikipedia. I believe standards on Wikipedia should be better than this so people coming here can actually learn factual information rather than going away believing something which is false blatant heresy. Nice try guys. NewYork1956 (talk) 09:01, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

Note: New user, first edit on en.wp
Note: New user, first edit on en.wp
  • Comment: The OP mentioned in an edit summary that he would "get TONS of Christians here to give their vote on the subject". StAnselm (talk) 09:26, 28 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Reply: Exactly, and? If that's what it takes to come to a consensus of the truth on this website so full of false information, so be it. It's clear that someone got 4 of his friends with views that differ from what has been historically handed down to vote to change it before, so I'll get as many as needed to change it back. The truth is the truth and history cannot be revised just because 5 people think they know better. That's not how it works. And there is certainly no sock puppetry here; nice try! NewYork1956 (talk) 09:35, 28 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Strong Support move back to "James the Just", and this coming from a non-Christian Muslim. Various sources (academic and religious) have described James as a cousin or just a relative of Jesus. Not all RS considers him as his brother, so Wikipedia's voice should not be used to promote a view which only some people believe in but others reject as per WP:POV. Secondly, the proposed title is more encyclopedic as per WP:COMMONNAME, and disambiguates James the Just from other persons named James by using WP:NATURAL disambiguation, and is more WP:CONCISE. Khestwol (talk)
Seriously, User:Khestwol how is "the Just" more WP:CONCISE than "brother of Jesus", concise isn't about counting letters. In any case "I don't think so. If you want to get an actual consensus going I'll get TONS of Christians here to give their vote on the subject. 5 people do not have the right to revise history. Just try me." this RM has to be closed now as started with an indication of intention to WP:MEAT. In ictu oculi (talk) 11:42, 28 August 2015 (UTC)
It is more concise because Jesus had no brother, therefore "James, brother of Jesus" is inaccurate and not worthy to be the title of the article for the man historically known as James the Just. This is an encyclopedia whose purpose is to relay correct information to those looking for it, not to revise history based on the vote of 5 know nothings. Whether there is a misdemeanor involved with the starting of this discussion is neither here nor there; the previous consensus is null and void since its result is something flat out incorrect. We could concede that 1+1=3 until the cows come home but it doesn't make it true. No matter though as another discussion can always be started; as many as necessary to get this article up to snuff. 24.86.118.231 (talk) 12:29, 28 August 2015 (UTC) … … Note: New user,edits on en.wp
Encyclopedia article titles aren't based on Google search hits but if you want to play that game do read on. James the Just is neutral while 'James, brother of Jesus' would be disputed by any of the old Churches which claim to be founded by Jesus. 'James, brother of Jesus' is just plain historically and factually inaccurate. At any rate if you want to be consistent your search terms should be these: James + "brother of Jesus" and James + "the Just", in which the latter returns nearly double the results as the former. Also your search settings are ridiculous; the world didn't start 15 years ago. Change the setting to "Any time" rather than books written since 2000 and you have 5 times the hits for the latter. So much for that argument of yours. 24.86.118.231 (talk) 12:29, 28 August 2015 (UTC)… … Note: New user,edits on en.wp
  • Support People should generally be known for who they are. I think common name issues are fairly even on this. Many references to "James the Just" also have "brother of Jesus" but this comes as a description to the title. GregKaye 15:18, 28 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment The 'brother of Jesus' designation isn't uncommon--I can't see Britannica using a variation if it were the least bit controversial [7]--and derives from several mentions in the Bible. Accusations of heresy, that the original move was not made in WP:GOODFAITH, and an intention to lobby for votes won't be productive. 2601:188:0:ABE6:91EC:4CDC:7CD6:827C (talk) 18:42, 28 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose on grounds offered. Since when is it anti-Christian to use "brother of Jesus"?! As noted in the article, denominations that don't believe he was a full blood brother merely think he was a half-brother, other relative, or 'spiritual brother' in closeness. So... interpret it that way if you want, the term 'brother' is certainly attested to in early Christianity. And even if it somehow WAS perceived as anti-Christian to some people, too bad, doesn't matter, we go by the term used in the majority of the sources. Popes don't exist in Protestantism, so move all Popes to their secular names? No. If you want to move it back, show evidence that Just is the most common epithet, not whether it's right or wrong. SnowFire (talk) 22:18, 28 August 2015 (UTC)
Which sources are you referring to? Again looking at James + "brother of Jesus" and James + "the Just", the latter returns nearly double the results as the former. Remove the search setting for books written in the last 15 years (of course we all think we know better today than they did years ago closer to when this man was actually alive!) and the results for the former are multiplied nearly 5 times. I know we don't exactly live in a world of reason and intellect today but there it is all laid out for you as simple as can be. Of course I don't go by Google searches to decide what the titles of articles should be, but if you want to that's your prerogative. Also your mentioning of what the meaning of blood brother was in early Christianity is irrelevant since the article mentions the two as blood brothers throughout. Along with a title change this article also needs a good cleanup. What a joke this all is. 24.86.118.231 (talk) 08:01, 29 August 2015 (UTC)… … Note: New user,edits on en.wp
Comment: Apparently to some this is more worthy of pointing out rather than the vast amounts of inaccuracies found within the article. Goes to show what a farce Wikipedia really is.
Read your own Google searches. 3 of the top 4 hits for James "the Just" prominently use "brother of Jesus". Seems to argue for "brother of Jesus", not "the Just." (I'm more interested in the ten best hits here than the total hit count, which is more volatile.) SnowFire (talk) 16:18, 31 August 2015 (UTC)
24.86.118.231 has been added to the Sock Puppet Investigation In ictu oculi (talk) 07:06, 1 September 2015 (UTC)
  • POV tag added to article. What has been suppressed is the view of many mainstream Christians, all believing Muslims, as well as the Ebionites from among the ancient Nazarene Israelites and the followers of Arianism from among the ancient Gentiles. Because to them Jesus had no literal father, and Virgin Mary had no second son. The current non-concise title (too long, and with a redundant comma in the middle) gives a description that is factually incorrect according to the very beliefs that this article is meant to present. Khestwol (talk) 08:50, 29 August 2015 (UTC)
  • #1, nothing is being suppressed. #2, as I have stated above, the current title is better attested to even among groups which don't think he was a full blood brother. There is no misrepresentation going on here, any more than adopted sons being referred to as brothers to their adoptive family. SnowFire (talk) 16:12, 31 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Support The article explains how James is the "brother of Jesus". But it doesn't mean that it has to be the name of the article. It is still controversial and not an agreed consensus, that the mentioned James is a "brother" of Jesus. Moreover the fact that he is also known as the brother is mentioned in the opening sentence itself which will let the readers know the truth in the first glance. ~ ScitDeiWanna talk? 12:04, 29 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment Several of the book references I looked at were using 'brother' to discuss how he is perceived and described in different traditions. They were not themselves using that descriptor. I also think we need to rely more on the generally used term in scholarly sources (over a reasonable period). Google hits aren't going to prove very much here. Pincrete (talk) 13:47, 29 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Obvious support. Deal with it. 96.48.58.181 (talk) 08:44, 30 August 2015 (UTC)
    • We're all shaking in our boots. I'm removing your nasty little comments under what appear to be messages from your other IPs. Drmies (talk) 22:58, 31 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose - Our existing guidelines tend to rule out the use of the word "Saint" in biographical articles of individuals who are in many cases most commonly referred to with that term. This subject may, admittedly, most frequently referred to in explicitly Christian sources, but the fact that the independent reliable sources have a common bias, of a sort, is not to my eyes sufficient cause for us to follow suit. The existing title is, so far as I can determine, the one most neutral, in that it does not give possibly excess weight to specifically Christian sources, and, to my eyes, is preferable on that basis. Having said that, aren't there a few more meaningful things we all could be doing around here than arguing over minor points like this one? John Carter (talk) 22:26, 31 August 2015 (UTC)
    I also note that the Brill/Eerdmans Encyclopedia of Christianity, probably the single longest, most comprehensive and most highly-regarded reference work dealing with the broad topic of Christianity, on page 6 of the 3rd volume of the 1999 edition, which is, unfortunately, the most recent one I at least have really easy access to, includes as the title of its subarticle relating to this topic "James the brother of Jesus." John Carter (talk) 15:36, 1 September 2015 (UTC)
  • First things first: both are acceptable names in scholarship. JSTOR seems to have more hits for the "brother" version than for the "just" version, but both results (227 vs. 125) are skewed because the "brother" version is used often together with "just"--"James the Just, brother of Jesus". Second: "brother" is in many ways just a name. There's nothing here about bias, it's simply not relevant--and if an editor uses the term "heresy" or "heretic" one more time they should be blocked indefinitely for having a point of view that blinds them from neutrality. Third, there's plenty of book sources for the "brother" version, and you can throw in another variety: "the lord's brother". In short, as long as someone doesn't come up with a more detailed argument, I see no reason whatsoever to change it. Drmies (talk) 22:45, 31 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Support current title pushes POV in favor of a discredited, false teaching. Elizium23 (talk) 00:01, 1 September 2015 (UTC)
I sincerely hope that when an admin (not a non-admin) closes this RM, - beyond the meat puppet issues - that votes of support based on "heresy" "false teaching" will be disregarded. In ictu oculi (talk) 07:04, 1 September 2015 (UTC)
  • Neutral What kind of brother is James and how it must be interpretated? full-brother, half brother, brother in faith, cousin. If we have the title "James, brother of Jesus" someone can think that James is a full brother of Jesus but we don't know if it is true. On the other hand, James appears as a "brother of the Lord" not as "James the Just" in the bible but outside of Scriptures appears as "James, who is called the brother of the Lord, surnamed the Just"--Rafaelosornio (talk) 01:34, 1 September 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose. "James the Just" is less neutral, since it uses a post-biblical epithet, and one that is not used much in Protestant Christianity. The current title follows the biblical designation. Certainly, many Christians do not consider James to be a "brother" in the strict sense - in fact, few if any Christians would regard him as a full brother anyway. But the Catholic NABRE and Douay–Rheims translations both have "brother" in Galatians 1:19. So the word has sufficient breadth to preserve neutrality. StAnselm (talk) 07:48, 1 September 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose. The Wikipedia does not cater to religious tenets/dogma, for one; we wouldn't move Muhammad to The Prophet Muhammad (which is a redirect). Second, I don't even like the current title. If there's a need to disambiguate from the other James' in history, it should be James (brother of Jesus). Tarc (talk) 14:13, 1 September 2015 (UTC)
Finally one suggestion which is a step towards "consensus", I guess. I would support moving the article to James (brother of Jesus) in line with Jude (brother of Jesus) and Simon (brother of Jesus). Also, since this is an encyclopedia, religious viewpoint does not carry precedence. So, even though I do not believe that James is the actual brother of Jesus, I agree that people searching for this person will use the term "James, the Brother of Jesus" or "James, Brother of the Lord" as per the Bible version they are referring to. However, an encyclopedia should be able to correct the reader by giving him facts rather than popular views. So I suggest a move to James (brother of Jesus) with more explanation of why he is not a blood brother(i.e if its not already clear).~ ScitDeiWanna talk? 05:53, 2 September 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Per StAnselm and Tarc. As I noted above, commenting as a similar IP, Britannica has no problem with the designation [8], and I'm guessing they're a bit more conservative in approach than is Wikipedia. Maybe there's a discussion to be had here, but it's repulsive to think that it will be driven by parties making accusations of heresy, as an expression of WP:IDON'TLIKEIT--see the last rationale there for deletion of an article. 2601:188:0:ABE6:B169:DAFB:E15A:DBC4 (talk) 19:06, 1 September 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose for several reasons.

The article was previously and correctly titled 'James the Just' which is in line with Church teaching and historically actuate [sic]. Apparently a group of 5 people with heretical views is enough to revise history on Wikipedia. I believe standards on Wikipedia should be better than this so people coming here can actually learn factual information rather than going away believing something which is false blatant heresy.

  1. This comes off as blatant POV-pushing, due to the lines: "in line with Church teaching", "5 people with heretical views", "I believe" and "false blatant heresy". It also sounds like there may be the starts of a battle about who is "correct" and "historically accurate". So this reason is more based on principle and perception than anything else, but that seems to be the basis of the request as well, not the actual policies and searches done for James "whoever", so ... *shrug*.
  2. There is precedent, from Jude (brother of Jesus), to have the brother's name followed by their relation to Jesus (if it so important) in disambig parentheses.
  3. Brittanica lists James as "the Lords brother", similar to the article on Jude, has James listed as Jesus' brother but states that:

    Hypotheses have been forwarded that James and Jesus were brothers (after Tertullian and Clement of Alexandria), stepbrothers (after Origen, among others), or cousins (after St. Jerome).

    [1] :which would be in line with WP:NPOV, per WP:POVNAMING and WP:WEIGHT.
  4. Per WP:COMMONNAME, I did two sets of searches, one on Google Search and the second on Google Scholar. A Google Search shows that James the Just produces "About 262,000,000 results", while James the brother of Jesus produces "About 46,100,000 results" and James the brother of the Lord produces "About 54,300,000 results", so Google Search leans in favour of "James the Just" per WP:COMMONNAME. However, a Google Scholar search of "James the Just" produces "about 1,230 results", a search of "James the brother of Jesus" produces "about 1,700 results", finally, a search of "James the Lord's brother" produces "about 612 results", so Google Scholar leans towards "James the brother of Jesus". So COMMONNAME seems to be contentious and needing a tiebreaker from other policies to actually solve the problem. See my above points for those tie-breakers.
If there is an actual basis for the move besides religious texts and teachings that are (IMO) blatantly hypocritical and contradictory, and these sources outway the NPOV policies in favour of WP:IAR and WP:UCRN, then I could be persuaded since there does appear to be a clash here between NPOV and common name policy depending on whether you consider Google Search or Google Scholar to be more reliable. Sincerely, Dr Crazy 102 (talk) 03:00, 2 September 2015 (UTC) updated at 11:00, 2 September 2015 (UTC)
Comment: Dr Crazy 102, please try that again but enclosing those phrases in quotation marks, to search for the exact phrases rather than loose combinations of those words. – Fayenatic London 12:38, 4 September 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose Per above - and seriously, give it a break with the Blasphemy/heretical bull, no one cares. --109.149.122.179 (talk) 14:58, 2 September 2015 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

References

  1. ^ http://www.britannica.com/biography/Saint-James-the-Lords-brother

Parens vs. comma on disambiguator

ScitDei moved the page to James (brother of Jesus) briefly. I moved it back, as the closer explicitly suggested a new RM if we wanted to take that up. I'd lean against the parens myself: while it's true that he's just referred to as "James", and in fact I'm strongly in favor of referring to him as just "James" whenever possible in the article, parenthetical disambiguation is discouraged when we could use a "full title" which is also (per the above RM) in active use. That said it's not a big deal either way. Anyway... any thoughts? SnowFire (talk) 19:45, 6 September 2015 (UTC)

I am concerned that Wikipedia has been used to promote outright lies which harms its reputation. For example in the Jesus article is had been written in the infobox that Joseph was Jesus' father. Here, for the title of this article, I am strongly against a controversial title. The disambiguation used for the title should be more neutral, and certainly it should not be misleading like the current title. Khestwol (talk) 21:56, 6 September 2015 (UTC)
Are you trolling? This has nothing to do with "brother of Jesus vs. the Just" and nothing to do with Joseph, this is merely talking about parentheses vs. a comma. And lots of topics are controversial but Wikipedia covers them anyway. Even if you were right that the naming is controverisial, it wouldn't actually help us find a better title. (As in, if the name is controversial, presumably it'd be just as controversial to go with whatever YOUR favored terminology is, just like it wouldn't actually help things if global warming articles were written by skeptics. It'd just be the other side that was pissed off then, it wouldn't end the controversy.) SnowFire (talk) 03:25, 7 September 2015 (UTC)
(edit conflict)Khestwol, would it be wrong to assume you are highly religious and hence have a conflict of interest? Wikipedia does not source dogma, Wikipedia does source factual information which does not include using the Bible to source the supernatural/paranormal birth of Jesus, if Jesus wasn't actually just a regular guy with a Superiority complex, but that's my own opinion and is starting to go towards WP:FORUM. Discussion may include such elements with sources and attributed quotes, but an infobox is based on real-world facts, not the Bible's "facts". Dr Crazy 102 (talk) 04:19, 7 September 2015 (UTC)
First of all, adherents of any religion do not have a COI. That is a long-settled issue. Secondly, the real-world, historical fact that James was not a brother of Jesus coincides with the Biblical facts on the matter. James was the son of "the other Mary"; see Matt. 27:56 and Mark 15:40. Any Wikipedia article concerning itself with facts would do well to take such things in context and reach the same conclusions as Biblical and historical scholars operating in good faith. Elizium23 (talk) 04:31, 7 September 2015 (UTC)
@Elizium23:; first, I am not saying "adherents" in general, since I am fairly confident that the majority of editors on Wiki have edited pages related to their religious beliefs without incident. It is why I made the distinction of saying "highly religious" since having such strong beliefs can result in advocacy, hence the COI comment. COI's do not have to be a paid-editing COI, they can have a "general COI" (see WP:EXTERNALREL and General COI).
Second, I said "the Bible" not "Biblical scholars", but thank you for pointing out the difference between as it should be noted that we (as Wiki editors) should stick to what reliable sources say.
Finally, as stated above in the RfC for a move back to James the Just, Britannica states:
"Saint James, also called James, The Lord’s Brother ..."(emphasis added)
and follows this, several paragraphs later, with the line:
"Later tradition records that James was called “the Just” and was noted for his fulfillment of Jewish law."(emphasis added)
Britannica, a highly RS, introduces James as "The Lord's (Jesus') Brother" not "the Just" though it does note that James is referred to as such; and yes, the original introduction is as "St. James" so if we are going to really pedantic about it, we should go with St. James and potentially add "(brother of Jesus)" if there are other "St. James"'s. Dr Crazy 102 (talk) 09:08, 7 September 2015 (UTC)
@SnowFire: - In my opinion, the RM closer did not "explicitly" state that further renaming should be done only after an RM, he suggested that it "should probably be followed up on in a new RM". Which does not rule out WP:BOLD. Plus I have stated that it is in line with the other two so called "brothers". I thought their titles should be uniform, is that wrong?. I would also like to note that the previous RM was started as WP:NOTVOTE, but was closed as per majority opinion. The RM closer however contented that moving the page to James (brother of Jesus) is a "reasonable suggestion". Hence the move. Finally, I think discussion on the implications of a comma in this context is ridiculous.But that's just my opinion. ~ ScitDeiWanna talk? 05:32, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

(de-indent) @ScitDei: I agree that there isn't any change in meaning between the two options. However, I'd lightly argue that WP:NATURALDIS should win here, as natural disambiguation is favored over parenthetical disambiguation. As for consistency, I'd personally argue that means we should perhaps move the other two articles to natural disambiguation as well? I'd want to look up how they're referred to in the literature, though, first, which likely won't happen for a bit. SnowFire (talk) 23:33, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

"Saint James"

Drcrazy102: I liked your last suggestion about move to Saint James (the current content on that location can be moved to another title, like St. James (disambiguation), following the same pattern as the similar title St. Peter (disambiguation)). This article about Saint James is a very notable one, about a personality revered in multiple religions. So we have to be careful about the title. I am yet to check though if "Saint James" is COMMONNAME? However it is more WP:CONCISE, neutral, and a proper name. There is WP:CONSISTENCY with high traficked articles' title like Saint Peter. Thus it has already several advantages over the current title. Khestwol (talk) 13:41, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

I had moved the article as per WP:CONSISTENCY which states The title is consistent with the pattern of similar articles' titles...like Jude (brother of Jesus) & Simon (brother of Jesus).
Also WP:CONCISE states that the goal should be that sufficient information to identify the topic should be there with a concise name. It also states Exceptions exist for biographical articles. So moving it to Saint James is clearly against WP:CONCISE. The title should be WP:PRECISE too. James (brother of Jesus) fulfills all the conditions of WP:NAMINGCRITERIA, other options suggested do not! ~ ScitDeiWanna talk? 16:15, 7 September 2015 (UTC)
The problem with Saint James is that James, son of Zebedee is a *hugely venerated* and important other Saint James. He's possibly even more important than this James. We'd be stuck with something like St. James, brother of Jesus, which wouldn't really help. SnowFire (talk) 23:33, 7 September 2015 (UTC)
Khestwol, Saint James is already a disambig page. I was being rhetorical (hence the "pedantic" comment), since I knew someone would argue that James is initially mentioned as "St. James". Moving the current Saint James page is unneeded since there are many "St. James"'s and would need to refer to a disambig page in itself and include dozens of distinguish links which is useless at the moment. Dr Crazy 102 (talk) 01:42, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

RfC in response to this discussion over parenthetical disambig vs. natural disambig.

This RfC was closed by original poster (myself) due to WP:SNOW. Dr Crazy 102 (talk) 23:56, 13 September 2015 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

This is to formally decide on whether to use James (brother of Jesus) or James, brother of Jesus not to debate a move to either "Saint James" or "James the Just". This is based on the recent moves from "James the Just" to the current title of "James, brother of Jesus", as well as the contested WP:BOLD move to "James (brother of Jesus)" that has been reverted.

This will be based on votes for "A)" or "B)", unless there are significant arguments from the minority side. In the case of an undecided consensus, the article will remain on the current title of natural disambiguation "James, brother of Jesus". Thanks, Dr Crazy 102 (talk) 02:28, 9 September 2015 (UTC)

  • A. (There is also Mary (mother of Jesus).) StAnselm (talk) 03:08, 9 September 2015 (UTC)
  • A Laurel Lodged (talk) 16:04, 9 September 2015 (UTC)
  • Neither, since technically it's not agreed upon that James was Jesus' brother, but a more prevalent view is that they were cousins. Per the article: "James, along with the others named "brethren" of Jesus, are claimed by others to have been Jesus' cousins. This claim is justified by the fact that cousins were also called "brothers" and "sisters" in Jesus' native language, Aramaic, which, like Biblical Hebrew, does not contain a word for cousin. Furthermore, the Greek words adelphos and adelphe were not restricted to their literal meaning of a full brother or sister in the Bible, nor were their plurals."

But if I have only two options to choose from, then B per WP:NATURAL disambiguation. Khestwol (talk) 16:33, 9 September 2015 (UTC)

  • A. The term is regularly used, but I would hesitate to use it as straight-text because that could reasonably be seen as a form of endorsement of it. There is some cause to believe, as Khestwol says above, they may not have been in any way real or full brothers, but that is, honestly, somewhat beside the point. He is called the brother of Jesus or similar and that is a perfect reasonable way, in accord with the original text describing him as such, for us to disambiguate him from the rather huge number of other Jameses and Saint Jameses out there. John Carter (talk) 17:14, 9 September 2015 (UTC)
  • A - Note: I am the creator of the RfC, but I feel the precedents and the large disambig page for "James" and "St. James" push for parenthetical disambig IMO. Dr Crazy 102 (talk) 00:47, 10 September 2015 (UTC)
I am going to do a move in perhaps 24 - 48 hrs time, unless there is a significant change in consensus or this discussion suddenly springs to life. Dr Crazy 102 (talk) 02:06, 10 September 2015 (UTC)
  • B for reasons stated above - WP:NATURAL is favored over parenthetical. Not a big deal regardless of course. Not to get too hung up on procedure, though, but why phrase this as an RFC? Just open a new RM, which is where people expect move discussions... I think you've done the requisite due diligence before opening a new one so soon afterward. SnowFire (talk) 04:49, 10 September 2015 (UTC)
I was looking more to see if there were strong and reasonable arguments to oppose the move request, and then I was going to put up a MoveReq. This was really more to test the waters but if it is preferred to use the MoveReq, I will go ahead and do that and close this discussion. Sorry for any misunderstanding, Dr Crazy 102 (talk) 05:19, 10 September 2015 (UTC)
While I'd definitely have recommended the RM if there was only a narrow majority one way or the other, it seems like nobody else cares for the comma, so feel free to move this without a RM IMHO. SnowFire (talk) 19:17, 13 September 2015 (UTC)
  • A - As per WP:CONSISTENCY. I agree with Khestwol's reasoning but I suppose that should be discussed separately. Also, in reply to SnowFire's opinion, I think that as per WP:NATURAL disambiguation using parenthesis is also an option, and comma separated disambiguation is preferred mainly for places. All examples shown otherwise have used parens as the disambiguation method. ~ ScitDeiWanna talk? 05:11, 10 September 2015 (UTC)

Moved page - There seems to be a silent consensus beyond those that have commented here in support of Parenthetical Disambiguation (Option A) Dr Crazy 102 (talk) 23:52, 13 September 2015 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Proposed move of content into combined section

I would like to propose that the controversy of James' relation to Jesus and the ossuary controversy, be combined under a section titled Controversies related to James. My reasoning is that the article is about James as a person/Saint, not his relation to Jesus which should be placed lower in the article., after discussion of James. What do other editors think of either/both idea(/s)? Cheers, Drcrazy102 (talk) 09:30, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

I think a summarized clarification is ok in the lede. Though the article needs expansion. Ebionites (Jewish Christians) of whom James was leader, also deserve a mention in the lede, and a section in the body of the article. Cheers. Khestwol (talk) 10:50, 28 September 2015 (UTC)
I'm assuming you are putting forth proposed changes? Not answering my query above? Just checking for clarification, Drcrazy102 (talk) 11:07, 28 September 2015 (UTC)
I think the current version of the article covers the relationship with Jesus well. There is already a whole Relationship to Jesus section, containing 5 subsections. No need for yet another section devoted to that. Also there is no need to remove clarification about the relationship from lede. Instead, what this article really lacks is a background information about the Jewish Christian community that James lived in and was a leader of. So a section devoted to Ebionites might be very useful. I hope, someone expert in history writing can add it. I found some online information, written by a religious studies professor (James Tabor), here: "This Ebionite/Nazarene movement was made up of mostly Jewish followers of John the Baptizer and later Jesus, who were concentrated in Palestine and surrounding regions and led by “James the Just” (the oldest brother of Jesus), and flourished between the years 30-80 C.E." The article must provide more background information on that. Khestwol (talk) 14:07, 28 September 2015 (UTC)
Time to put thoughts into dot-points to clear up what I am trying to say:
  1. I agree, there is enough content regarding James and his relationship to Jesus. I am not saying to add yet more content on that section.
  2. I am proposing creating a new section titled "Controversies relating to James" which would have the current section and sub sections on James' relationship with Jesus and the section "James' Ossuary" combined under the one banned me at the end of the article instead of having one almost front and centre.
  3. Wholehearted support for adding more content about James himself and his effects on societies and cultures; provided it is verifiable and reliable of course.
Hope this helps clear up the confusion about what I was trying to say earlier. Cheers, Drcrazy102 (talk) 14:53, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

Clarification of the sister accompanying Jesus on his travels

Copied from my talkpage:

Hi.. I notice your edit here. Perhaps I'm not good enough reasoning the clarification tag. I'm not a native English speaker but I'll try to explain it better:

  • The first sentence, "There were three who always walked with the Lord: Mary, his mother, and her sister, and Magdalene, the one who was called his companion." : indicating Mary's (her) sister.
  • The second sentence, His sister and his mother and his companion were each a Mary." : indicating the Lord's (His) sister.

Thats why I said that contradiction exist, the second sentence doesn't match the first. I think both sentences should use the same her/his. I look forward to hear your comments, perhaps I miss something. Cheers, Ign christian (talk) 07:11, 27 September 2015 (UTC)

Actually this clarifies much of your clarification tag, and is well reasoned. The shortness of notes in articles often leads to confusions such as these but this does seem to be an issue of just who actually has a sister named Mary whom accompanied Jesus. I will put this up at the talk page as I am more of a copy editor than a researcher per se, but I will see what I can find over than next few days. There is the problem of the quote being direct from the source and changes made to our quoted version are argued as being OR unless specifically stated from somewhere else. Cheers, Drcrazy102 (talk) 08:46, 27 September 2015 (UTC)

Could I ask for some input on this conundrum please? The source does seem to refer to different gendered individuals and yet the "sister" in question seems to be the same person. Cheers, Drcrazy102 (talk) 08:46, 27 September 2015 (UTC)

  • Moved quote from article space to talk page until further clarification is given:

There were three who always walked with the Lord: Mary, his mother, and her sister, and Magdalene, the one who was called his companion. His sister and his mother and his companion were each a Mary.[1][2][a]

Cheers, Drcrazy102 (talk) 12:50, 10 October 2015 (UTC)

References

References

  1. ^ The Old and New Testament and Gnostic contexts and the text are discussed by Robert M. Grant, "The Mystery of Marriage in the Gospel of Philip" Vigiliae Christianae 15.3 (September 1961:129-140)
  2. ^ "The Gospel of Philip". Translated by Wesley W. Isenberg. Gnostic Society. Retrieved 22 September 2015.{{cite web}}: CS1 maint: others (link)

Notes

  1. ^ That passage is confusing regarding whose "sister": the first sentence appears to describe the sister of Jesus's mother (Mary), then the second as the sister of Jesus. A translation problem may exists.
I agree that this quote is not needed in this article. I have now made a link here to the relevant section in the Gospel of Philip page so that readers can easily check the quotation there. – Fayenatic London 19:11, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

Half brother confusion

It is just me, or is the section "Younger half-brother, son of Mary and a second husband" confusing. As a Christian, I (and other Christians) believe that James is already the half-brother of Jesus, because his mother is Mary and his father is God, his step/foster father is Joseph of Nazareth. Therefore, Jame is his half brother because Jesus and James don't share the same father. Do you see where I am coming from? So I believe titling the section that could be confusing. Also, "Younger blood brother, son of Mary and Joseph" would be confusing, because Christian's don't believe Jesus is blood related to Joseph, since Jesus is the Son of God. I think that is confusing, and maybe we can somehow establish a consistence to make it less confusing. Or maybe it is just me? CookieMonster755 📞 ✉ ✓ 22:41, 2 June 2016 (UTC)

@CookieMonster755: I believe both sections should say "Younger half-brother, son of Mary and ____". It would be true in both cases. (Although as a Catholic I think both of those theories are false.) Note also that there is no "scholarly consensus" that Joseph was Jesus' biological father. Jujutsuan (talk | contribs) 05:43, 3 June 2016 (UTC)
@Jujutsuan: Since there is no scholarly consensus that Joseph was Jesus' biological father (which of course I don't believe), Well you want to bold responsibility with reliable sources? It should mention something about James and Jesus being half-brothers due to Jesus' father as God the Father, but of course, find a reliable scholarly source, or whatever Wikipedia requires for that info. CookieMonster755 📞 ✉ ✓ 15:35, 3 June 2016 (UTC)

Requested move 30 May 2016

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: moved as proposed. SSTflyer 08:31, 7 June 2016 (UTC)


James (brother of Jesus) → James, brother of Jesus OR James the Just – Per WP:NATURAL, WP:COMMADIS, and WP:CONSISTENCY with Mary, mother of Jesus and Mary, mother of James. The old argument for consistency in the discussion above no longer applies. See Talk:Mary, mother of Jesus for full reasoning. Deus vult (aliquid)! Crusadestudent (talk) 16:09, 30 May 2016 (UTC)

Another point that needs to be considered is that James was not necessarily a brother of Jesus. The infobox of the article, under its "Controversy" section, states that "There is disagreement about the exact relationship to Jesus." Khestwol (talk) 17:47, 30 May 2016 (UTC)
@Khestwol: Good point. I've updated the proposal. Deus vult (aliquid)! Crusadestudent (talk) 19:24, 30 May 2016 (UTC)
  • Support James the Just. Protestants and adherents to Catholicism have different views of James and whether he was (half) brother of Jesus or a cousin, etc. CookieMonster755 📞 ✉ ✓ 07:00, 31 May 2016 (UTC)
Neutral on the issue. CookieMonster755 📞 ✉ ✓ 22:06, 1 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Oppose James the Just per my (and others') arguments in the previous move discussion at the top of this page. StAnselm (talk) 09:17, 31 May 2016 (UTC)
  • Comment Proposer now blocked for socking. 16:53, 31 May 2016 (UTC)
Unblocked Meters (talk) 18:34, 1 June 2016 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Sentence may need amending

One sentence reads, "The New Testament says that Jesus was miraculously conceived and born of a virgin, and Jesus is referred to as the 'first-born son' of Mary, so James and the other 'brothers' of Jesus are considered by some people as younger full-brothers."

Now, although I personally find the notion of an immaculate conception highly improbable (to put it mildly), let's assume, for sake of argument, that Jesus of Nazareth was a real man who truly was conceived immaculately.  Let us also assume, for sake of argument, that, unlike Jesus, his brothers were fathered by Joseph.  Would this not make them, at most, Jesus's half-brothers, not full-brothers?

It seems to me that acceptance of the view that they were full brothers relies on either the assumption that Jesus was naturally conceived (which most Christians would deny) or the contrary view that Jesus's brothers were also immaculately conceived (which virtually everyone would deny).

allixpeeke (talk) 12:13, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

P. S.  Unless it is to be claimed that although Jesus was immaculately conceived, the DNA immaculately bestowed to him was nevertheless one of Joseph's Y-chromosomes.  (Which wouldn't be totally absurd, considering that God (if such an entity exists) does not likely possess DNA, and Jesus does have to have some human's Y-chromosome.  (In other words, God may have simply said to Him-/Her-/Itself, "Hey, why should I go through the hassle of creating a whole new Y-chromosome unrelated to any male who has ever yet existed when I could just duplicate one of Joseph's and use that instead?"))  12:21, 15 February 2017 (UTC) (Slightly expanded 05:46, 25 February 2017 (UTC))

Adding POV tag

Paul never says brother of Jesus. Paul says brother of the Lord. Article should be moved.VictoriaGraysonTalk 15:10, 27 June 2017 (UTC)

It is abundantly clear that when Paul says "brother of the Lord," he means "brother of Jesus," since he considered Jesus to be his lord. In any case, this is beside the point; James is explicitly referred to as the brother of Jesus in Mark 6:3, Matthew 13:55-56, and in Josephus's Antiquities of the Jews 20.9.1. Later writers including Tertullian, Bonosus of Sardica, Jovinian, Photinus, Helvidius, and others all believed that James was Jesus's biological brother. I see no reasonable justification for the POV tag and I certainly see no justification for moving the article. --Katolophyromai (talk) 05:03, 9 July 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on James, brother of Jesus. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 11:35, 20 November 2017 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:James,_brother_of_Jesus/Archive_3&oldid=1091626596"