Replies

But the early Church fathers disagree. They were closer to the time why would they lie?
------------------------------------------------------------

You probably didn't see this the first time I posted it so I will repeat.

Starting with Clement, the bishop of Alexandria (150 - 215 CE), who confirms in Outlines, Bk. VI, "Peter, James (bar Zebedee) and John, after the ascension of the Saviour, did not claim pre-eminence because the Saviour had especially honored them, but chose James the Righteous as Bishop of Jerusalem."

Eusebius (263 - 339 CE), Historia Ecclesia ii,23.4: ".....turned their attention to James, the Lord's brother, who had been elected by the apostles to the episcopal throne at Jerusalem."

<**> Hmmmm! That's funny, Eusebius seems to agree with Clement.

Hegesippus (c. 100 - 160 CE), Bk 5: "Control of the Church passed to the Apostles, together with the Lord's brother James...."

<**> Now Hegesippus was a first generation member of the Jerusalem Assembly of Jesus’ disciples and family. He knew the folks..... how could he have gotten so confused??

Origen (185 - 254 CE), quoting early Josephus: "These things happened to the Jews in requital for James the Righteous, who was a brother of Jesus, known as Christ."

Josephus (37 - c. 100 CE), Antiquities xx: "So he assembled a counsel of judges and brought before it James, the brother of Jesus, known as Christ."

=================================

Would they lie?

The rest of the story is that James died and, soon afterwards, did the Jerusalem that Jesus and the Apostles knew, and any preeminance that the family of Jesus might have enjoyed as blood relatives. The Gospels and Acts make clear that Peter, not James, was the outstanding personality. Assuming that James was the true author of the Letter, he demonstrates gravity but no boldness or originality and is the inferior of either Peter or Paul in either respect: a figurehead but no prince.