Jude and the Relatives of Jesus in the Early Church

Jude and the Relatives of Jesus by Richard Bauckham

Please give my Amazon review a helpful vote - https://www.amazon.com/gp/customer-reviews/R21SFAMTSUQA7T?ref=pf_ov_at_pdctrvw_srp


This is a fascinating book that looks at early Christianity through the perspective of Jesus's often overlooked relatives, namely Jude and other obscure relatives, collectively known as the “desposynoi” (“those who belong to the Master.”) The term “desposynoi” itself implies something like a royal household. (p. 126.)

Bauckham begins by addressing the different views of the relationship of Jesus to his family, i.e., the Helvidian (Jesus was the natural son of Joseph and Mary and his brothers were brothers), the Hieronymian (Jesus' brothers were cousins of Jesus who was the son of Mary), and the Epiphanian (Jesus's “brothers” were the son of Joseph from a prior marriage.) Bauckham does not give much credit to the Hieronymian view promoted by St. Jerome in opposition to the view of Helvidius. Bauckham's position is that the references in the Passion narratives to various women who were not Mary as the mothers of James and Jude (and the others) are probably referring to another set of James and Jude who were not the same people described as “brothers of the Lord.” He particularly relies on Eusebius who seems to give credit to the idea of Symeon as a cousin, but leaves James as a brother of the Lord.

On the other hand, Bauckham argues that the Epiphanian view has as much going for it as the Helvidian position – notwithstanding the belief of many Evangelicals that the Helvidian position is obviously the correct answer. Bauckham writes:

“In conclusion, the Epiphanian view has a better claim to serious consideration than it often nowadays allowed. The second century tradition could preserve an accurate historical memory. (p. 31.)

The second century includes the Protoevangelium of James as well as a passage from Hegesippus to the effect that James was Joseph's firstborn son. (p. 31.)

I was disappointed that Bauckham did not have a real discussion on Jude's identification of himself as “the brother of James.” Bauckham uses this formula to conclude that Jude was therefore the brother of Jesus since James the brother of Jesus was the only person sufficiently well-known to be identified only as “James.” (p. 172.) But one wonders why Jude didn't identify himself as the brother of the better known “Jesus.” Bauckham explains that the “brothers of Jesus” downplayed family relationship to the Lord. (p. 128.) James begins his letter without mentioning his role as “brother of the Lord” while Jude identifies himself as the “brother of James.” (Id.) Likewise, neither referred to themselves as “apostles.” Bauckham concludes that the point was that this was not about “modesty” but about modeling the basis of their authority was not their natural relationship but their role as “servants” of Christ. (p. 129.)

Bauckham points out that the earliest bishops of Jerusalem appear to members of the desposynoi, although this line ends with the destruction of Jerusalem. Members of Jesus family were still around in the first half of the third century, according to Julius Africanus, and that they preserved the family genealogy, which they interpreted on their travels – apparently missionary travels – through Palestine. (p. 60-61.) Grandsons of Jude were also interviewed by agents of the emperor Domitian. (p. 94-95.) These grandsons were small farmers with callused hands, who attested to end of the world and the return of Christ. (Id.)

This information is fascinating. It suggests various sources of information outside of the New Testament. It is also interesting how the desposynoi don't seem to play a role in the New Testament. Bauckham denies that this was a way of keeping the desposynoi from forming a “Christian Caliphate.” (p. 125-126.) Bauckham points out that the desposynoi would not “see themselves as successors to Jesus in the strict sense, as though Jesus himself were just one more successor to the throne of David, who could be succeeded by the next in line to the throne.” (p. 126.) Likewise, the authority of the desposynoi came from the commission they received from Christ himself. Their authority was apostolic, not dynastic. (p. 127.)

Bauckham also deconstructs the letter of Jude. The letter is almost impenetrable, in part because it assumes a familiarity with texts that were never brought into the canon, and which, in fact, have been lost. Bauckham's analysis of Jude's short letter is a deep dive which contains a lot of insights. It is largely corrective to the confusing understanding that a superficial reading might leave. Bauckham's position seems to be that Jude is opposing gnostic/docetic claims of not being subject to the moral rule of God.

The final section of the book involves the Lukan genealogy. Given the long time that Jesus' family was around and the emphasis that they apparently placed on their own genealogy, this section defends the accuracy of the genealogy in Luke as accurate by explaining how the various difficulties in the genealogy can be resolved. These are all deep inside game issues, but this book is a useful resource if one is challenged by those issues.

Overall, I was fascinated by the idea that Jesus's family had a continuity that attested to Jesus's historicity. That fact tends to puncture Jesus mythicism and arguments that assume that Christian sources simply made-up historical facts to fit theology. The sources were available to Christian writers. More importantly, the sources were available to contradict Christian writers who made things up merely to fit theology.