The Resurrection of Jesus Fact #8: James, an Unbeliever, Thought He Saw Jesus

James, despite being a blood brother to the Lord, is proven historically to have disbelieved and scorned Him. He is acknowledged in Mark 6:3 as having been the brother of Jesus, and in 3:21 it is reported that His family thought "He is out of His mind." Later, in verses 31-35, Jesus appears to have to disown the authority of His "mother and brothers."

I don't know if Luke and Matthew report their unbelief, but they both are aware that Jesus had brothers (Matthew 13:55; Luke 8:20). However, John does explicitly bring up their lack of faith. This is important, because the story he tells, and the fact that John is strikingly different than Mark and the other synoptics (that's why his Gospel isn't one), shows this is independent attestation. Furthermore, in John 7:1-10, it is striking that James and his other brothers were implicitly claiming Jesus should go and get Himself killed! 

And of course Jesus's own family not believing in Him is highly embarrassing, especially for a Jewish rabbi.

But was James surely still an unbeliever when he supposedly thought he saw Jesus? If you read Ehrman, you might think to say that we can't know what James's state of faith was before he converted to Christianity. But actually, Ehrman once mentioned "James, who evidently converted to faith in Jesus soon after the crucifixion (1 Cor. 15:7)." (1) Let me explain to you how I think we can know James wasn't a believer during the natural lifetime of Jesus (i.e. before the crucifixion). 

James definitely was a staunch unbeliever. So why would he have converted during Jesus's ministry? I mean, come on, this is his Brother! He's known this Guy probably virtually all his life! Surely if anyone would know the truth about Jesus it would be James!

This makes me think of the point debaters can sometimes make, which basically says "arguments don't sway those who don't agree"; "arguments are only for those who want to be convinced." (This is exactly what I'm trying to avoid when writing this blog project, by the way.) See, it often is much easier to evangelize to children than adults. Children usually have open hearts and are impressed with the beauty of God's creation, rather than adults who have already asked questions and are set in their ways.

No one really knows why James disbelieved. It of course would have to do with some disagreement about God. But the fact that this person, who was close to Jesus, did, makes it highly unlikely that he would change his mind. (Unless, I suppose, he did something like observe Jesus heal a bunch of critically sick people. But that means... I'll just let you finish that thought in your head.)

Then, here, absence of evidence is evidence of absence, I believe. All the Gospels mention His brothers, and two say they disbelieved, but none mention that at least one changed his mind? I'm sure had James actually been a believer in the lifetime of Jesus, he would have been noticed by at least someone. Luke talks about a lot of people at the crucifixion (23:27, 48-49), and John even mentions His mother being there (John 19:25). But there is not a shred of evidence that his brother followed Jesus during His lifetime. And does it make sense to suggest that James converted somewhere along the line, but kept his belief quiet so no amount of tradition could be formed? At least definitely not after he showed himself as a believer!

Finally, and this is very important, is something observed by prominent critical scholar, Reginald Fuller. He said that even without the report of the appearance in 1 Corinthians 15:7, "we should have to invent" one to explain two facts: his belief despite the crucifixion and his elevation to the pastor of Jerusalem, the home base of first-century Christianity(2).

That's right, the crucifixion. Remember that it shook the Disciples to their core and they all ran off (fact #1). This was surely because a crucified messiah is the opposite of what a messiah should be (fact #2). Jesus was cursed by God, not exalted by Him! 

But let me explain to you why I agree that it is "certain," as Gerd Ludemann said, that James thought he saw Jesus and converted(3).

Did James even claim to have seen Jesus?

Back in fact #6 I had to prove that all the Disciples thought they had seen the risen Jesus by the fact that Paul learned that well in the time of the eyewitnesses. See, I am not really depending on the earliness of any part of the creed to prove the claims I desire to use. There definitely are critical scholars who argue all of it is early material, but I can't show that.

I couldn't have asked for a better source to prove this claim than Bart Ehrman's Peter, Paul, and Mary Magdalene. As a matter of fact, I see evidence of God's sovereignty behind Ehrman's writing hand at that time, because I had a number of ideas to prove this question, but no good evidence -- well, I mean, I couldn't demonstrate it with skeptical scholarship. However, I got more than enough in Ehrman, and he corroborated every main point of mine! I suppose one could argue that I got the book, was theorizing the ideas, and Ehrman mentioned them all by coincidence. After all, they do all closely go along with one another. But I do know this was in God's plan, even if He was just mindful of what would happen.

While there were three named "pillars" of the Jerusalem church, James ended up becoming the top leader, as supported by multiple pieces of evidence, one being Paul in Galatians 2:12(4). (By the way, this very well could have been because other apostles, like Peter, would focus their missionary work elsewhere.) 

"According to Paul's account in the book of Galatians, Peter came to visit Antioch and followed suit, meeting with both Jews and Gentiles (Gal. 2:11-12). ...

"But then other Jewish Christians arrived from Jerusalem. These were close associates of James, the brother of Jesus, who was evidently the ultimate authority in the Jerusalem church at the time." (5)

See, back in those days, it didn't matter if places were many, many miles away. Writing wasn't all that common and people were in an oral culture. Word got around. People would walk. And walk, and walk, and walk... I remember one time my adopted Grandmother said to my mom after reading a part of the Bible, (I paraphrase), "All those Disciples and people sure had to do a lot of walking!"

I mean, why did Paul even write letters to churches? The "Christian communities that he himself had established in urban areas around the Mediterranean" sometimes had trouble. "When he would hear about how one of his churches was doing (often the news wasn't good), Paul would write a letter back to them to reestablish their relationship and to deal with various problems they were facing, whether these problems had to do with ethical issues, false teachings, personality conflicts, or something else." (6)

That's right, Paul faced "opposition" often from his own churches; "Paul had plenty of enemies in his own lifetime." (7)

In the last post on him, I mentioned how the Galatians profaned the Gospel by adding works (specifically following the Jewish law) to faith. Months ago I started reading 1 Corinthians and found multiple places with quite unflattering references to the members of the church (3:1-3; 4:18-21; 5:2). Also, in 1 Corinthians 15:6, right before he mentions James, he talks about how most of the 500 witnesses of the resurrected Christ were still alive. Verses 11, 14 and 15 say they all were preaching the same Gospel. That Paul was very conscious (and welcoming) that members of the church might want to learn more apart from Paul is obvious.

Finally, I learned from Ehrman that in the first two centuries of Christianity, three of the largest churches were Jerusalem (the main church where James was), Antioch (where his followers visited), and Corinth (to where Paul said James saw Jesus)(8). So it would have been all too easy for someone to get back to James and debunk Paul, the highly intelligent former Pharisee, who had a reputation to uphold. 

Of course he was right! Recall from fact #6 that Paul had personally visited James, as reported in Galatians. Paul was well aware of the truth, and dangers he faced if he lied. 

Did James really believe it?

But here I can raise two questions, one learned from Ehrman. The first is from my own thought and is "Could Paul claim this because James wouldn't be around? That is, that he had died?"

As I mentioned in fact #6, 1 Corinthians was written roughly around AD 55. I think Galatians is earlier than that. So it is very hard to imagine Paul -- or anyone -- allowing legend to slip into accounts about him so early. To specify, James may have been gone, but his death would be relatively fresh (as compared to, say, the latter part of the first century). Surely others, like some of James's close followers as mentioned above, would still be around.

But we have proof that Jesus's treasured brother was very much alive in the 50s. Highly authoritative non-Christian Jewish historian Josephus has this in his Antiquities of the Jews 20.200:

"[Ananus the high priest] thought he had now a proper opportunity [to exercise his authority]. Festus was now dead, and Albinus was but upon the road; so he assembled the Sanhedrin of judges, and brought before them the brother of Jesus, who was called Christ, whose name was James, and some others. ...he delivered them to be stoned." (9)

Ehrman tells us that historians know this took place in Jerusalem, AD 62(10). 

There are three strong reasons, I think, for knowing that this passage is authentic to the non-Christian author. The majority of scholars, including Ehrman, believe Josephus actually recorded this.

1. Josephus's account has significant differences with second-century Christian Hegesippus and third century Clement of Alexandria(11).

2. James is quickly called "the brother of Jesus, whom was called Christ." In one more passage Josephus has on Jesus, an obvious interpolation is when it says "He was the Christ." The majority of scholars agree that passage, called the Testimonium Flavianum, was largely original to Josephus and there are at least three Christian insertions. But with James, Jesus is given no high title. I find this very striking, because Christian inventors obviously would exalt Him, but even if they had, we couldn't know because Tacitus's passage on Jesus (see fact #2) calls Him "Christ," but only because it became a common title for Him. 

3. A Christian inventor would add more good "evidence" for Jesus than that little blip on James. Why was James even there? What did he believe? What did he preach?

In short, this passage is, in at least my sight, as unembellished as it possibly could be.

So here is my final question, the one I formulated with an idea from Ehrman: "(Moreover, we have lots of instances in history of people dying for lies when they think it will serve the greater good. But that's neither here nor there: we don't know how most of the disciples died.)" (12)

So can we not know whether or not James just was converted, and then lied about the appearance? Maybe he thought something like, "People need to elevate me more because I knew what Jesus was like when He was growing up. He was perfect, I can explain that." And so James invents an appearance to himself, to be able to become an apostle.

But I sincerely denounce this scenario. For one thing, we have already seen that James surely wasn't a believer until he reportedly saw Jesus. But moreover, I doubt he would decide to lie about that. 

I remember reading that Christianity isn't proven just because it has martyrs. Rather, the martyrdom of Jesus's earliest followers who claimed to have seen Jesus proves they were convinced He really had. But probably every religion has had their share of martyrs, and I remember reading that this includes atheists. So I imagine people who believe that when they die, they will be snuffed out. They want things to change, so they allow themselves to be martyred, so others can have a better life.

 

But contrast this with the situation James was in: he was talking to those who were much more faithful followers of Jesus than him, who insulted Jesus, and if he did lie to them, he would lie to them in the presence of the risen Christ and so practically be lying to the face of his risen Brother Himself. 

Also the fact that he decided to become a Christian shows he was convinced because he was putting himself at high risk (see the information about persecution and the Disciples in the bottom of fact #6), and since he really was convinced he would trust Jesus. That means he would trust Jesus to appear to him if need be. (This was another point from fact #6, this time about an appearance to the rest of the Disciples, past Peter and John.)

The only reasonable explanation for James's conversion is that he honestly thought he saw Jesus. Critical scholars like Reginald Fuller know this, and I can see why it is true.

Citations:

1. Bart Ehrman, Truth and Fiction in the Da Vinci Code: A Historian Reveals What We Really Know About Jesus, Mary Magdalene, and Constantine (Oxford University Press: New York, NY. 2004), 165-66.

2. Reginald H. Fuller, The Formation of the Resurrection Narratives (New York: Macmillan, 1971), 37. Gary R. Habermas and Micheal R. Licona, The Case for the Resurrection of Jesus (Kregel Publications: Grand Rapids, MI. 2004), 68. 

3. Gerd Ludemann, The Resurrection of Jesus, trans. John Bowden (Minneapolis: Fortress, 1994), p. 109. Cited in Paul Copan and Ronald K. Tacelli, Jesus' Resurrection: Fact or Figment? A Debate Between William Lane Craig and Gerd Ludemann (InterVarsity Press: Downers Grove, IL. 2000), 191.

4. Bart Ehrman, Peter, Paul, and Mary Magdalene: The Followers of Jesus in History and Legend (Oxford University Press: Oxford, NY. 2006), 81; see also p. 19.

5. Ibid., 20, emphasis mine.

6. Ibid., 95. 

7. Ibid., 89.

8. Ibid., 81.

9. Josephus' Complete Works. Translated by William Whiston. Grand Rapids, MI: Kregel Publications, 1960, p. 645. Cited in Josh McDowell and Sean McDowell, Evidence That Demands a Verdict: Life-changing Truth for a Skeptical World (Thomas Nelson: Nashville, TN. 2017), 153.

10. Bart D. Ehrman, Did Jesus Exist? The Historical Argument for Jesus of Nazareth (HarperOne: 2012), 59.

11.Licona, Michael R. The Resurrection of Jesus: A New Historiographical Approach. Downer's Grove, IL: IVP Academic, 2010, p. 236-37. Cited in McDowell and McDowell, Evidence, 154.

12. Bart D. Ehrman, How Jesus Became God: The Exaltation of a Jewish Preacher from Galilee (HarperOne: 2014), 165.