13: Minimal Fact 5: The Conversion of James
13
Minimal Fact 5: The Conversion of James
The fifth of our minimal facts is that, according to the majority of recent scholars, James the brother of Jesus became a believer because, like Saul (Paul) of Tarsus later, he also had a real experience after Jesus’s crucifixion that he too thought was a resurrection appearance of Jesus. Following the two major steps regarding each of our minimal facts arguments, we will first survey a number of the major critical arguments that favor this assertion, followed by a survey of major scholars who accept the historicity of these data. We will also consider the evaluations of two recent researchers who disagree with the majority view on the question of whether or not James was a believer before witnessing the risen Jesus.
Historical Arguments
Early testimony reports that James was an unbeliever during at least some of Jesus’s public ministry. Mark’s Gospel, usually dated about thirty to forty years after the crucifixion, states that on one occasion when Jesus returned to his home area, some members of the crowd charged that he had gone mad (exestē). Subsequently, his family heard this complaint and responded by attempting to restrain Jesus, apparently somewhat in agreement with the crowd (3:20–21). Some scribes suggested that he was casting out demons by the power of Satan himself, prompting a response by Jesus (3:22–30). Mark then reports that Jesus’s mother and family were waiting for him, prompting Jesus’s response that those who obediently followed him were his family members (3:31–35).
In another incident in Jesus’s hometown, the townspeople cited their knowledge of Jesus’s family members as the reason for their being offended because of him (kai eskandalizonto en autōi, Mark 6:1–6). In general, the reference was not positive in any sense. Apparently, familiarity caused the lack of respect and unbelief. A couple of key insights here are that while the accusation came from the people, Jesus’s response regarding prophets being without honor in their own hometown specifically included the term “relatives” (Greek root sungeneus, “kin”) in 6:4, followed by his expressing his amazement at the evident unbelief (kai ethaumasen dia tēn apistian autōn).
Larry Hurtado remarks here that “the attitude of Jesus’ family . . . is to be seen as a response like that of these critics.” However, “Mark presents them both as wrong responses to Jesus.”1 Further, though we are not told in 3:31–32 exactly what Jesus’s family members desired, Hurtado adds that since they wanted to “take charge of him” in 3:21, it must therefore be assumed that “their intent here is no doubt the same—that is, this is not simply a friendly visit from relatives!” This makes the most sense of Jesus’s response concerning them and his claim that those who truly followed him were his family.2
R. T. France points out that the traditional meaning of this text that Jesus’s family members objected to his teachings and actions is so “uncomfortable” and embarrassing that alternate interpretations are not surprising. However, these further, seemingly more positive proposals often do violence to the best sense of the Greek wording as well, such that the resulting notions make the remaining meaning of the text rather difficult. Therefore, when Mark 3:20–21 is taken together with 3:31–35, the conclusion seems to follow, requiring the difficult understanding that Jesus’s mother, brothers, and sisters agreed with the popular criticism of the crowd, that Jesus had “flipped” and hence he needed to be removed from the situation “for his own sake and for the family’s reputation.”3 For France, the “traditional” view of Mark 3 is roughly that at least James and Jesus’s other brothers were unbelievers during these times.4 Mark’s early recording here is our beginning affirmation that something was amiss with Jesus’s family members.
The tradition of at least James’s unbelief during Jesus’s ministry is also attested by multiple sources. Besides Mark, in John’s Gospel, when Jesus was in Galilee and the Jewish Feast of Tabernacles was approaching in Judea, Jesus’s brothers suggested he attend the festival so that the people there could witness the works (i.e., miracles) which he was doing (John 7:1–4). But in John’s parenthetical comment here, he indicates that “not even his brothers believed in him” (oude gar hoi adelphoi autou episteuon eis auton, 7:5).
Once again this difficult theme emerges. Although his mother and brothers may have followed along at least occasionally with Jesus and his disciples (John 2:12), this seems not to have been a lasting situation. In John 2:3–5, Mary and the brothers desired that Jesus perform some miracles. As Craig Keener points out, “John specifically attributes their request for Jesus’s open revelation to unbelief (7:5).” This is an intriguing contrast with Jesus’s disciples, who did not wish for Jesus to go into the region of Judea for his own sake (11:8). At any rate, the comparison here in context may well be that Jesus’s brothers were at least somewhat like those former followers of Jesus who had withdrawn (apēlthon eis ta opisō) and just recently left him (ouketi met’ autou periepatoun, 7:66).5
One other passage should be mentioned here, namely, John 19:25–27. During his crucifixion, it is narrated that Jesus noticed his mother standing near the cross along with some other women and committed her to the care of the beloved disciple who was also present, who responded by caring for Jesus’s mother from that time onward. The point is often made that, as the eldest son, Jesus was duty bound to take care of this crucial matter. Especially in ancient Jewish culture, this incident could signify a very meaningful obligation that had now been completed. Alternate suggestions have also been made. Among these proposals is that Jesus knew his brothers had not followed him and he wanted a believer to care for his mother. This could especially be the case in light of John’s earlier acknowledgment of this reality (John 7:5). On this view, James and the other siblings would still not have joined the disciples and other believers.6
So with both Mark and John providing independent accounts and affirmation of James the brother of Jesus being an unbeliever at least on these occasions during Jesus’s ministry, there exists both an early record and multiple sources for this truth. This is the dual testimony which accounts chiefly for contemporary critical scholars who comment on the matter and almost unanimously draw these conclusions.
Almost needless to say, the incidents with Jesus’s family members in Mark 3 plus John 7 and the townspeople in Mark 6, are exceptionally awkward and humiliating, even doubly so. As France notes, the uncomfortable and embarrassing nature of these occasions spawned the inevitable attempts from scholars who wished to explain the reports otherwise, even if these suggestions did not best account for the language and frequently invoked additional conundrums and near contradictions in the process!7 Certainly, the aftereffects of the pastor of the later Jerusalem church having had numerous occasions to witness Jesus’s teaching and mighty works while still refusing to believe is another uncomfortable angle too. There is no shortage here of troublesome but honest reports.
Some limited eyewitness observations may also bear on these considerations. For instance, a recent survey of a broad cross section of contemporary critical New Testament scholars revealed that a majority considered Mark to be the original author of the Gospel that bears his name, with about half of that total opting for Papias’s early tradition that the apostle Peter was Mark’s chief source for the observations.8 The extent to which these results may have a bearing on our passages here is difficult to say without further research. But these results are significant, particularly when the comments regarding the rather extreme judgment by the members of Jesus’s family are possibly acknowledged by other authorities like Peter, who would presumably not take such things lightly.
Moreover, Keener (supported by other scholars with similar comments) reports, “Early eyewitness tradition indicates that John son of Zebedee, with whose tradition, at least, most scholars associate this Gospel, once shared leadership in the conservative Jerusalem church with both Peter and James; Gal 2:9.”9 As with the comment on Mark, this hardly determines the Gospel texts to which such conclusions might apply, but it at least raises a few possibilities. Again, this is particularly so when it is considered that the clear, straightforward judgment by John regarding the unbelief of Jesus’s brothers would hardly have been recorded without good reason when James had already served very well as the leader of the Jerusalem church and had long before died as a martyr by the time this last canonical Gospel was written.
Further, the pre-Pauline creedal material in 1 Cor 15:3–7 lists Jesus as having appeared to James (15:7a). This material, as noted elsewhere in this study, is often dated as being before Paul’s conversion, including even by the Jesus Seminar.10 If so, this traditional information would have originated a mere year or so at most after the crucifixion! It is exceptionally seldom dated as later than the mid-30s even by additional skeptical researchers. Hence, the appearance to James is recorded about as early as anything could be in the early church. A key question, of course, is whether James became a believer before or after the resurrection. The majority of scholars think that his conversion was due to Jesus’s appearance to him.11 Also, one of the fragments of the second-century Gospel to the Hebrews depicts a brief narrated story of the resurrected Jesus appearing to his brother James as they broke bread together.12 James is described as looking forward to sharing the cup with the risen Jesus when Jesus appears and shares it with him. But it is difficult to know the provenance of these fragments.13
Additionally, concerning the comment above regarding Paul’s trips to Jerusalem in Galatians 1–2, the near eyewitness interview data gathered by Paul in his discussions with Peter and James, the brother of Jesus, is crucial.14 Besides multiple attestation of independent sources, another criterion is that of multiple forms, such as the Gospel sources and Acts, the noncanonical Gospel of the Hebrews along with Paul’s Epistles, plus the reference by Josephus the historian. These combined writings mark the intervals all the way from James’s rather strong pre-crucifixion doubt, to his appearance from the risen Jesus, to his presence in Jerusalem after the appearances (Acts 1:14), to Paul’s two meetings with the two apostles in Jerusalem and his leadership there (cf. Acts 15:1–31), to his martyrdom in AD 62 (Ant. 20.9.1). While this information does not answer the question of the precise timing regarding James’s earlier unbelief, it definitely provides a few hints, referencing James’s earlier life, Jesus’s appearance, James’s leadership and recognition by others in that capacity in Jerusalem, followed years later by his persecution and death.
So, when coupled together with the pre-Pauline creedal material in 1 Cor 15:3–7, along with the ultimate sacrifice of James’s life in the same city about fifteen years after Paul’s second visit to the city, we have here a veritable timeline of sources that outline the key events in James’s life. So there is very early eyewitness material, plus independent attestation from multiple sources in addition to other indications of reliable data like multiple forms. But a very precise answer on whether or not James was a believer when Jesus appeared to him is one of the missing pieces in this discussion.
The criterion of coherence or contextual credibility is also apparent here. Though there are only a limited number of resurrection appearance accounts, there are still several intriguing passages where the doubt or even the disbelief of individuals is expressed. These would include the disciples themselves or those who were present with them (Matt 28:17; Luke 24:36–43; pseudo-Mark 16:11, 13, 14), or the challenges of declared unbelievers, such as possibly Thomas (John 20:24–29), Paul (1 Cor 15:8–9), or a large number of Jewish priests (Acts 6:7). On these occasions (except for the last one), the doubters were provided with evidence of Jesus’s resurrection that often produced assurance or actually caused them to become believers due to the resurrection appearances. So at least in principle, if James had become a believer due to such an appearance, this would be anything but strange. It would be quite consistent with the other examples.
So these considerations above seem to indicate that members of Jesus’s family, and his brothers in particular, doubted his ministry in general and, more specifically, several particular aspects of his claims and teachings. It is also known that James became a strong believer and leader in the early church at a later date, even becoming what might be thought of as the pastor of the large body of believers located in Jerusalem, where ultimately he died as a martyr for his ardent Christian faith.
Among the majority of researchers across the scholarly spectrum who comment on the matter, the predominant view is that James became a believer because of Jesus’s resurrection, and most likely through Jesus’s personal appearance to him in particular, as per the very early tradition in 1 Cor 15:7a. For the mainstream, this has been the most likely option.
We will turn now to these scholarly testimonies, once again concentrating on the more skeptical members of the community. This move is made to both gain a broader cross section of views and to survey the perspectives of those who generally do not accept the historicity of the resurrection at all, though still concluding that this remained what James believed was the nature of his experience.15
Scholarly Assessments
The number of critical scholars who have weighed in on the cause of James’s conversion is not as large as those who have commented on the other minimal facts,16 as also noted elsewhere.17 Yet, as Licona recognizes so well, “There is significant heterogeneity within this group that includes atheists, agnostics, cynics, revisionists, moderates and conservatives.”18 As with Licona’s list, some of the more radical voices will be presented first. The smaller number of commentators here may be due to James being a slightly more obscure figure in the early church than Paul, Peter, or John, with fewer verses pertaining to his testimony and situation. This hardly meant that James had any less influence in the church, least of all in Jerusalem. However, like the other minimal facts, there are very few dissident voices on the other side either, probably due to the strong data in this category.
One atheist New Testament scholar who shares the majority view here is Gerd Lüdemann, for whom the appearance to James in 1 Cor 15:7a is a reliable creedal statement indicating that James had some sort of a visual experience of his brother. This occurrence led to his conversion.19 Ehrman likewise thinks that James claimed to have seen the risen Jesus, leading to his conversion.20
At least three additional members of the Jesus Seminar (since Lüdemann became a member of this group as well) apparently acknowledge a number of these circumstances as well. Cofounder Robert W. Funk thinks it fits the known facts that Jesus’s mother and four brothers were all originally skeptics but only later “became part of the Christian movement.”21 Roy W. Hoover acknowledges that James was not a follower of Jesus in Galilee but joined the movement later, after believing he also saw the risen Jesus.22 For John Dominic Crossan, James the brother of Jesus was martyred in AD 62, but in the Gospel of Thomas when the disciples asked Jesus who would be their leader after he was gone, Jesus indicated that they should follow James the Just.23
Several Jewish scholars have also concluded that James joined the early Christian movement as a convert to Christianity after he believed that he had also witnessed an appearance of the risen Jesus. After this occurrence he quickly arose to become a leader or coleader of the young church in Jerusalem.24
Other skeptical voices in this general camp have likewise expressed similar views. For instance, in a chapter titled “James—From Critical Sibling to Ardent Worshiper,” John Shelby Spong asserts, “We can be certain of the fact that the brothers of Jesus were not impressed, were not followers of Jesus during his lifetime. They were scoffers, cynics, suspicious of Jesus’ sanity. But something happened. . . . Look at James before Easter. Look at James after Easter. What caused a change that was this dramatic?”25 Elsewhere, Spong comments that the James listed in 1 Cor 15:7 “was surely the James identified in Gal. 1:19 as ‘the brother of the Lord’” who “was a leader of the Christian church who exercised great authority.” This promotion “demands some kind of explanation.”26 However, for Spong, what happened was not externally measurable; it did not happen in space, time, or in history, nor was it connected to an empty tomb, and no one else shared James’s experience in any objective way. The new conviction really cannot be described, though it changed him completely.27
Four more skeptical New Testament scholars also should be mentioned here. Hans Conzelmann thinks that James’s position in the early church was due to a resurrection appearance of Jesus, noting that this event is frequently thought to account for James’s conversion.28 A. J. M. Wedderburn quite often identifies his own view as being agnostic toward any actual resurrection event, thereby ruling out any historical path to this occurrence.29 He agrees that the texts apparently state “that James and other members of Jesus’ family did not believe in him during his ministry.”30 Seemingly, “their view of him and his activities was an unfavorable one.”31 Yet shortly after an experience believed to be that of the risen Jesus, “James clearly played a leading role in the early church in Jerusalem.”32
Moreover, Dale C. Allison, referring to himself as a “cryptic Deist,”33 comments that “presumably James, the brother of Jesus, was not a believer before Easter [Mark 3:21, 31–34; John 7:5] but only after he had an encounter with the risen Lord [1 Cor 15:7].”34 Identifying himself as a non-Christian agnostic, Maurice Casey agrees that Paul, Peter, and James achieved major leadership roles in the early church, noting the visions that each of these prominent men accepted as being actual appearances from the risen Jesus.35
A considerable number of other skeptical scholars also could be adduced for these important data regarding James’s prior unbelief and his later experience that he believed was an appearance of the risen Jesus.36 This testimony could be extended quite a long way further to many moderate and conservative researchers as well.
For N. T. Wright, in all likelihood James did not follow Jesus during his public ministry. But commenting on the recorded appearances of Jesus, Wright attests, “It is difficult to account for his centrality and unrivalled leadership unless he was himself known to have seen the risen Jesus.”37 In quite a similar and hard-hitting comment, Reginald H. Fuller proclaims that, not having been a disciple of Jesus before the crucifixion, “it might be said that if there were no record of an appearance to James the Lord’s brother in the New Testament we should have to invent one to account for his post-resurrection conversion and rapid advance.” The importance of this event is that it “betokened his conversion.”38
Numerous German scholars have weighed in on these subjects as well. Wolfhart Pannenberg joins the large majority of critical scholars who note that what we know of James indicates he was not a disciple in the earliest stages of the church but joined the growing community of believers in Jerusalem where the appearance of the resurrected Jesus to him apparently occurred.39 Noting the “historical core” of the underlying appearance tradition, Ulrich Wilckens argues that “the vision of James cannot be contested on any convincing grounds.”40 Based on texts such as Mark 3:21 and John 7:5, Peter Stuhlmacher notes that James “did not belong to the followers of Jesus when he was on the earth, but distanced himself in unbelief from his brother. It was the appearance of the risen and uplifted Christ which first made him into a respected member of the church in Jerusalem, and, after Peter’s departure, to its (second) head.” He was stoned for his views in AD 62.41
John P. Meier treats these questions in much detail, stating that the appropriate texts in Mark 3 and John 7 make it not only highly unlikely that the unbelief of Jesus’s family was contrived, but rather that it was apparently quite well-known in the early church. Further, this is the best explanation for the crucifixion scene in the Gospel of John where, during his crucifixion, Jesus commits his mother to the beloved apostle instead of to a brother.42
E. P. Sanders starts two of his works by providing lists of more or less secure historical facts that may be known regarding Jesus’s life. Pertaining to James, “It is noteworthy that Jesus’s family were not followers” of Jesus. Most of the data are negative,43 such as “the brothers of the Lord are emphatically excluded from Jesus’ own followers in the Gospel accounts.”44 “Yet after the resurrection, Jesus’s mother and brothers joined the disciples and the women followers in prayer (Acts 1:14), and some of Jesus’ brothers, notably James, became leaders of the early church.”45 According to 1 Cor 15:7, “James had a separate resurrection experience, and presumably this accounts for his commitment to the early Christian movement.”46 Years later, James died as a martyr.47
For Thorwald Lorenzen, the early, accredited list of Jesus’s resurrection appearances in 1 Corinthians included two individuals, Paul and James, who were not believers before these events. But beyond evidence alone, these appearances constituted “the call to faith and mission . . . a call to radical discipleship.”48
Conservative critical scholars have also weighed in on James’s initial unbelief, the resurrection appearance of Jesus to him, and his subsequent position of commitment, leadership, and faith. Theologian George Eldon Ladd agrees with the foregoing comments in that “it is highly probable that it was this [resurrection] experience which made James a believer.” After his conversion, “James the brother of Jesus suddenly emerges as the central figure in the Jerusalem community.”49 Like the ideas of several other thinkers, historical theologian Thomas C. Oden comments that James was one of the relatives of Jesus who rejected belief in him before the resurrection, so it becomes incumbent on us to explain the huge change that occurred after Jesus’s appearance to him.50
In an exceptionally balanced and insightful treatment, New Testament scholar Michael Licona evaluates James’s situation quite carefully. While still judging that the New Testament texts are more than clear on a number of fronts that James and his family members had serious doubts and even unbelief that blurred their fair perception and evaluation of Jesus, Licona pulls back from a full endorsement of this situation as the highest of bedrock facts due to the possibility that James may have converted before Jesus’s appearance.51 As philosopher William Lane Craig points out quite succinctly, “Given James’s antipathy to Jesus during his lifetime and his leadership of the church thereafter, it seems very plausible that his turnabout was due to a resurrection appearance of Jesus to him.”52
New Testament scholar Grant R. Osborne states that James the brother of Jesus “was not a believer during Jesus’ earthly life (Mark 3:21f.; John 7:5), yet he later became the leader of the Jerusalem Church.”53 Also favoring the view that James was an unbeliever when Jesus appeared to him is philosopher Stephen T. Davis.54 Lastly, scholar and pastor Eugene H. Peterson draws the same conclusion, namely, that James’s life changed significantly from an unbeliever to a believer because he had seen his brother returned from the dead.55
It has already been mentioned that the critical support for James’s case lacks slightly when compared to the outstanding plethora of information available for the other minimal facts. This slight lack is particularly the case when comparing the volume of research agreement available for the other events. Regarding James, scholars sometimes are more likely to employ greater nuance by using terms such as presumably and seemingly. Yet as has been witnessed in this chapter, there is still a very strong critical affirmation of the facts all the way across the critical spectrum from atheist to conservative scholars from within the various areas of relevant research. This indicates that the underlying data here are quite strong, even while the scholarly agreement remains very diverse. On the other hand, very few scholarly voices have offered serious points of challenge to these positions on the grounds of the available information. In this time of assorted opinions in almost all scholarly areas, this last observation is truly amazing.
Did James Become a Believer Before Jesus’s Crucifixion?
The two chief researchers who have gone on record here are theologian John Painter and New Testament scholar Richard Bauckham. Both of these academics acknowledge freely that they are swimming upstream against the majority of their peers who hold that James’s prior unbelief was probably superseded by his conversion after he witnessed an appearance of the risen Jesus.56 Nonetheless, both offer some comments that will be addressed in this context.
Painter questions the historicity of the passage in Mark 3:20–21, especially in that it is only mentioned by Mark. Nonetheless, Painter points out that there is no hostility expressed on the part of the family members as they wait calmly for Jesus. Further, why is it so seldom mentioned that Jesus’s mother was included here as well without her faith also being questioned? The opposition is often said to be more apparent in John 7:3–5, which Painter interprets against the background in the Fourth Gospel. There does not seem to be any opposition or denial from Jesus’s brothers concerning his miracles, nor is cynicism expressed here on their part—a point that Painter repeats. The brothers reportedly did not believe in Jesus, at least in John’s sense in 7:5.57 Painter still concludes, however, that Jesus’s brothers were followers of Jesus throughout his ministry from the very beginning.58
Regarding the creedal appearance tradition in 1 Cor 15:5–7, Painter points out that the passage never states that James was converted at this juncture, which would seldom be challenged anyway. James was already a leader in the Jerusalem church during Paul’s early visits in Galatians 1–2. Later he was martyred.59
As for Painter questioning the historicity of Mark 3:21, Mark is both the earliest as well as the most respected of the four Gospels, so exceptionally few scholars ever make this same move. This can be witnessed even with the more skeptical scholarly views already expressed. As just mentioned above, a recent survey of over 200 contemporary New Testament critical scholars indicated that the majority view was that Mark was the author of this Gospel and that his chief historical source was the apostle Peter.60
But even with Painter working with the traditional scholarly view of Mark 3:21, Licona makes the statement, “John Painter may stand alone in his belief that this interpretation is mistaken.”61 That the brothers of Jesus showed no hostility and waited calmly is an entirely moot point regarding whether or not they believed in Jesus. Needless to say, one can be unbelieving or even seething and yet remain quiet at the same time. Certainly, a quiet and settled lack of faith can frequently be the case. Licona adds that Mary could well be following the others here, not in the sense of disbelieving herself but simply hoping to alleviate any negative outbreak here,62 which would be consistent with what mothers often do! Plus, Mary is not part of the judgment of unbelief in John 7:5. Moreover, a number of scholars do implicate Mary as being included in the unbelief expressed here, or whatever the brothers’ state of mind may have been at that time, as already mentioned above.
Concerning John 7:5, it could well be the case, as with Painter, that the brothers manifested no hostility or cynicism toward Jesus’s miracles, but that could be no more than an honest desire to witness supernatural events (John 2:11–12). But as for those observers in John 2:23–25, belief in Jesus’s miracles no more requires faith and trust in the one doing the miracles than any number of examples of fascination requires commitment to the particular cause at hand. These are very far from opposite reactions.
But Licona suggests that cynicism could indeed be present in this passage. In John 7:1 we are told that Jesus was avoiding a trip to Judea at this time because certain Jews wanted to kill him, and it was not yet his time (7:8). Whether or not the brothers knew this, their encouragement for him to go certainly could imply both cynicism as well as some bad intentions!63
Did Jesus’s brothers indeed follow Jesus from the beginning of his ministry, as per both Painter and Bauckham?64 Licona thinks that while this is possible, this suggested scenario “seems implausible” and “unconvincing” in light of the major point that in between “John 2:12 and 7:3, only Jesus and his disciples are mentioned (Jn 3:22; 4:2, 7–8, 27, 31–38; 6:3–24, 70–71), and there is nothing in these texts that indicate his brothers are with him during this period.”65 At the very least, that the brothers are not listed in these narratives would seem to remove them from among at least the key characters who participated during this time. To declare otherwise appears to at least border on an argument from silence, especially when the disciples are mentioned repeatedly as being present during this phase of Jesus’s ministry.
Making the views of Painter and Bauckham even less likely is that the disciples are said to have placed their faith in Jesus at the beginning of these passages (John 2:11). This is clearly in contrast to the brothers, who are explicitly asserted not to be believers at the end of these passages (7:5)!
Further, it appears highly questionable to hold that Acts 1:14 does not comment that James and his family were later believers, as when Paul states that about himself in 1 Cor 15:8.66 That this creedal text does not mention James’s conversion in the same context as Paul’s statement is irrelevant too. They are different passages by different authors discussing totally separate incidents. Besides, Paul’s comment about his own conversion is not even a part of this creed anyway—he adds it to the traditional portion. Concerning this entire contention by Painter, Licona holds that “this is neither necessary nor even hinted.”67 Other items could be mentioned here,68 but these are sufficient to argue that there are reasons why Painter’s views have not been embraced by virtually any other writers. We have seen that he simply does too much special pleading where texts do not contain their apparent meanings and where lesser sources are preferred over better ones, to name a few problems. It has all the sound of someone who does not want Mark and John to go in the direction that they do. Licona summarizes: “It is plain that Painter’s case is desperate.”69
Bauckham does not stretch into the highly questionable points that Painter does. For Bauckham, “both the best evidence that the brothers of Jesus were followers of Jesus during his ministry (2:12)” and the best evidence for the traditional view “that they were not (7:5)” come from John’s Gospel. We have already addressed above the absence of the brothers during the stretch between John 2:12 and 7:3. The data favoring the brothers are simply absent, and while it was recognized that their presence was possible, it cannot be established, so such attendance would certainly seem to be of minimal importance since it is not even mentioned at all! Further, especially in the absence of Bauckham’s initial argument, John 7:5 reigns supreme as the most direct statement on this subject in juxtaposition to John 2:11 regarding the disciples.
Moreover, Bauckham acknowledges freely that in light of John 7:5, even if the brothers had been accompanying Jesus and the disciples during this past time, “it may be possible that John means to indicate that from this point onward they are no longer followers of Jesus, like the many disciples who had given up following him some six months earlier (6:66).” Though the brothers believed Jesus’s miracles, “they are rather like those about whom Jesus laments that they will not believe unless they see signs and wonders (4:48)”70 and were hence considered by Jesus to be unbelievers.
Indicating that his argument here is even less like Painter’s, Bauckham asserts that in spite of Painter’s possible arguments against Jesus’s brothers being the ones whom Mark criticizes in 3:20–21, “I still find that [traditional] view plausible.” On Bauckham’s view, “Those who say that Jesus is ‘out of his mind’ in 3:21 are, then, the family of Jesus who appear in verse 31.” Elsewhere in the early literature,71 there are indications that Jesus thought a prophet was without honor in his own country, so here this notion “has been expanded, probably by Mark himself, to include Jesus’ own family explicitly among those who do not recognize his divine calling.”72
In sum, Bauckham’s points are far more balanced, allowing alternate interpretations that change significantly the trajectory of his overall argument. Still, inasmuch as Bauckham thinks that John 2:12 provides the best evidence for the nontraditional and heavily minority argument, Licona concludes, “I do not find Bauckham’s ‘best evidence’ convincing.”73
James Tabor is the last of the cited scholars who oppose what we have called the traditional scholarly position concerning the unbelief of Jesus’s brothers and possibly his other family members. For Tabor, Jesus’s brothers were members of his disciples, and this is what he calls “perhaps the best-kept secret in the entire New Testament.” And James, the eldest brother, was none other than the Gospel of John’s “beloved disciple”! Further, John 7:5 is held by Tabor to be the single text that teaches that Jesus’s brothers did not believe in Jesus, relegating Mark 3:21, 31–35 to an endnote. Then Tabor asserts, “It is amazing what firm opinions have been built upon such shaky foundations.”74
What may be even more amazing than Tabor thinking that the traditional views on the disciples’ unbelief are based on flimsy conclusions is that scholarship as a whole across the entire critical spectrum of divergent views has apparently not realized the import of his insights either! For example, one of Tabor’s own considerations was taken from the sixteenth-century kabbalistic rabbi Isaac ben Luria, who taught in a mystical tradition which held that Jesus was actually buried in Galilee! Tabor even poses for a photograph in that area, which he states was a burial area for several famous rabbis from the Roman era. Then Tabor asks, “Was it even remotely possible that Jesus’ family took him back to Galilee for burial?”75
Moreover, if these arguments so far do not weigh heavily enough against these claims,76 Tabor additionally supports the highly contentious conclusion that the Talpiot Tomb located near Jerusalem was the burial place of Jesus, his wife, Mary Magdalene, and his brother James, among others.77 However, to assert that the outcry from specialist scholars in relevant fields has been anything but affirmative would be a massive understatement.78 Literally dozens of refutations have come forth.79
This treatment by no means indicates that a scholarly survey should determine our views and that nontraditional interpretations do not have a chance of being correct, for this is definitely not the case. Rather, the underlying and far more basic idea here is precisely the opposite: that these views are (or at least should be) determined by research and careful study.
A Checklist: James’s Post-Resurrection Conversion
A list of reasons in support of the resurrection appearance to James will be summarized just briefly. The support for these statements has been reported in this chapter as well as in the other treatments in this volume on the minimal facts.
(1) As a crucial baseline consideration here, it has been argued in this chapter that the data (summarized in the conclusion below) treat James, the brother of Jesus, as an unbeliever until after Jesus’s crucifixion. When Jesus’s brothers appear in the Gospel narratives, they are viewed as nondisciples and even unbelievers, with John 7:5 striking a difficult note that is not contradicted elsewhere. This continues until the reports of James’s about-face concerning both Jesus’s resurrection appearances and his place in the early church.
(2) The most vital information of all concerns Jesus’s appearance to James as contained in the pre-Pauline creedal tradition in 1 Cor 15:7a (cf. the fragment of the Gospel to the Hebrews 7),80 where it was reported that the risen Jesus had appeared to James. It was also recorded that he and his family were previously in the company of the earliest postascension gathering of Christians (Acts 1:14).
(3) Given the plethora of information available regarding the report of Jesus’s appearances in 1 Cor 15:3–7,81 the exceptionally early date of James’s appearance is crucially important, plus being well accepted by critical scholars. This creedal statement was introduced as such by Paul himself (15:3) and is widely thought to have most likely been dated even before Paul’s own conversion at about AD 32 or 33, as already mentioned. An earlier report could hardly be imagined.
(4) A number of factors indicate clearly that James was utterly transformed by his experience, and his life subsequently changed dramatically. Paul was an eyewitness of this when he met with both Peter and James in Jerusalem a mere five to six years after the crucifixion (AD 35–36), when these two apostles were the leaders of the large church there (Gal 1:18–21). Then still before writing the earliest New Testament Epistle, Paul returned to the city later and found that Peter, James, and the apostle John were still ministering to the believers there (Gal 2:1–10). James handed down the final verdict in Acts 15:19–21 at what most scholars think was the same meeting.82 In 1 Cor 9:5, Paul refers to the Lord’s brothers traveling with their believing wives when they ministered.
(5) Multiple attestation of independent sources is frequently mentioned as the most crucial and best respected of the historical criteria regularly applied by critical scholars to the Gospel texts to help determine the historicity of various passages.83 All along the line here, the events in James’s life are supported by these multiple sources. From James as an unbeliever, to Jesus’s appearance to him at an exceptionally early date, to his corresponding transformation for many years to come, these events are each backed by multiple sources apiece.
(6) Another criterion is that of multiple forms or literary categories usually as found in the Gospels, but also possibly in other literary genres. In James’s case, this might be extended to include the references in the Gospels of Mark and John as well as in Acts, the later noncanonical Gospel of the Hebrews along with Paul’s Epistles, plus the reference by Josephus. The idea here is that themes that are gathered and repeated across various literary genres, types, or forms can point to broad areas across the early church, hence reflecting earlier traditions.84
(7) Enemy or otherwise adversarial attestation may be ascertained from items that are gathered from those who oppose a person or message. Though James was not an outright enemy such as Paul and his persecutions of the early church, James’s previous behavior followed by his conversion was striking enough in that it involved a family “insider” who had not believed previously though there was ample reason for doing so, who later changed thoroughly and completely due to an extraordinary event that altered his life forever.
(8) Quite embarrassing features are also present in James’s life and conversion. Why would the leader of the Jerusalem church with a pristine reputation be characterized so negatively? This is especially the case when the Gospel comments most likely postdated James’s death, and it might be thought that Jesus’s brother should not be characterized so negatively but ought to have been remembered in a much more positive light, at least for the sake of promoting the gospel message. But the stories were told for a particular reason: they were true!
(9) James’s life was cut short by martyrdom, as Josephus makes clear enough. James was willing to die both for his Lord and for his faith, and then did so. People have died in the past for what is untrue, but it is almost impossible to locate cases of someone dying for what they totally believe was untrue as well as having that belief located at the very center of their lives. As Ehrman asserts strongly, it was this very belief that “turned the world on its ear.”85
(10) In all fairness, there is much uncertainty among critical scholars regarding which alternative thesis best answers the question of who wrote the book of James. More conservative scholars tend to take the view that James the brother of Jesus either wrote the epistle or that his teachings were at the heart of the work, which was edited by others. Yet, it is acknowledged that the question is difficult at points.86 Thus, while the subject is not an easy one, it should be acknowledged that if James was either the author or a primary contributor, some data in this volume would provide additional considerations in favor of James’s transformation and teaching abilities.
(11) A last tentative possibility concerns the so-called James Ossuary, purported to possibly be the “bone box” where James’s skeletal remains were later reburied after his flesh had decayed. Popularly translated, the name on the box reads “James son of Joseph brother of Jesus.” The pro and con arguments will not be reviewed here, though the relevant issues have raged through both the Israeli court system and scholarly discussions for several years.87 If for any reason(s) the ossuary did not belong to James the brother of Jesus, then it hardly helps us here. If it is James’s ossuary, the question is why his family would still be pleased to identify him as a follower of Jesus over thirty years later by placing his brother’s name on the outside of the bone box.
Eleven major and a few potential subsidiary points constitute a much smaller list of historical arguments for the appearances to James and even Paul.88 Perhaps it is easy to be spoiled by the much larger numbers (even the seemingly overwhelming total considerations in these other cases) of supporting reasons for the first four minimal facts. Yet there are certainly plenty of excellent factors for Jesus’s individual appearances to both James and Paul. After all, it must be considered precisely why the strong majority of critical scholars also recognize these data as being enough to establish these historical facts in both cases with few serious disagreements. Furthermore, it must be remembered that it is definitely the quality of the arguments, rather than their quantity, that determines the evidential weight of each historical event.
Conclusion
Licona summarizes his responses to Painter, Bauckham, and Tabor by making four basic points. The New Testament reports in one way or another indicate that Jesus’s brothers were not numbered among his disciples and other followers during his earthly ministry. Jesus’s brothers are mentioned in three Gospel pericopes, though not a single one of them is clearly positive. Only after the resurrection are the brothers spoken of as being followers of Jesus Christ. Consequently, the responses of these three critical scholars “cannot stand up to a closer examination of the texts they cite.” The arguments presented by the majority of critical scholars is a better indication of what these passages indicate.89
A review of the key canonical references on James is as follows:
Mark 3:20–21, 31–35: Jesus’s family members appear to have agreed with the local opinion that Jesus was “out of his mind” and, accordingly, attempted to remove Jesus from the situation.
Mark 6:2b–6: The townspeople responded negatively to Jesus, with Jesus’s family members apparently agreeing once again. Jesus’s response included his rejection by his family members or kin, and he was amazed at the levels of unbelief expressed here.
John 7:5: After the report that many of Jesus’s followers turned away and left, no longer following him (6:66), the comment was made quite clearly that even his own brothers did not believe in him. That remark is never refuted in any of the Gospels.
John 19:25–27: As he was dying, Jesus commits his mother to the care of the beloved disciple as both of them were standing near the crucifixion site. This action has been read as an additional signal or indication by some scholars that James had still not by that time become a believer in Jesus.
1 Cor 15:7a: A decisive event included within the pre-Pauline creedal tradition is that, after his death, Jesus appeared to James.
Acts 1:14: Days later, after Jesus’s death, appearances, and ascension, Mary, James, and the other brothers were gathered in Jerusalem for prayer along with Jesus’s disciples.
Gal 1:18–20; 2:1–10 (cf. Acts 15:1–31): Beginning just a few years later, James was by that time firmly embedded in the early Christian leadership in Jerusalem, as he apparently passed down the final verdict on a crucial theological discussion, even though Paul, Peter, and other dignitaries were also present (Acts 15:13–21, particularly verse 19).
1 Cor 9:5: Jesus’s brothers are among those who, along with the apostles, were traveling with their believing wives in ministry situations.
So when did James (as well as the other brothers) come to faith in Jesus Christ? The majority view among critical scholars due to a general scenario like that outlined above is that we have no real indication that any of the men believed before the crucifixion. Whatever is thought of the text in John 19:25–27, this could be a prime indication that their belief had not happened by the time of Jesus’s death. But Jesus’s resurrection appearance to James likely occurred before Jesus’s family members became participants in the prayer session with the apostles and others after the ascension (Acts 1:14). This cannot be known for sure, however, but placing James’s conversion during the several-week period of Jesus’s appearances makes much sense. It is most certain that, well before the time of Gal 1:18–20; 2:1–2; Acts 15:1–31; 1 Cor 9:5; and so forth, James had been a believer for years and had become essentially the pastor or copastor of the Jerusalem church.
As mentioned from the outset in this chapter, the resurrection appearance to James stands out in a major way as the foremost event in James’s own life as well as occupying the very center of the entire New Testament proclamation as a whole. While other scenarios are possible options here, the predominant indication is that this is the most probable situation and hence the prime choice for this answer.90
To repeat Reginald Fuller’s insightful remark, “It might be said that if there were no record of an appearance to James the Lord’s brother in the New Testament we should have to invent one to account for his post-resurrection conversion and rapid advance.”91 This reminder is an appropriate way to recall and summarize the best overall solution to the available data that are known to us.
Notes
1 Larry Hurtado, Mark, New International Biblical Commentary (Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 1989), 65.
2 Hurtado, Mark, 67.
3 R. T. France, The Gospel of Mark: A Commentary on the Greek Text, The New International Greek Testament Commentary (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2002), 164–67.
4 France, Gospel of Mark, as affirmed separately on 165, 166, and 167.
5 For many of these ideas, see Keener, Gospel of John, 1:704–6, with Keener’s quotation on 704 (see chap. 9, n. 111).
6 See Keener, 2:1141–45.
7 France, Gospel of Mark, 164–67.
8 Pelletier, “Dating of Mark’s Gospel” (see chap. 4, n. 42). In this MA thesis, Pelletier surveyed over 200 New Testament scholarly works of liberal, moderate, and conservative persuasions regarding various stances on the Gospel of Mark. More scholars than not favored the traditional authorship of John Mark. More specifically, almost exactly 80 percent also favored Peter being Mark’s primary historical source or as having some other sort of influence on the writing of the Gospel. From a personal email from Pelletier dated December 27, 2022. See also Raymond Brown’s comments on Mark’s chief source in John, 1:xcvii (see chap. 9, n. 148).
9 Keener, Gospel of John, 1:705. Keener also introduces the conclusion of the opening discussion in this commentary on John’s authorship with the words “Scholars commonly concur at least that the beloved disciple is the reliable source of much of the tradition recorded in the Fourth Gospel” (1114). See also James D. G. Dunn, “Let John Be John: A Gospel for Its Time,” in The Gospel and the Gospels, ed. Peter Stuhlmacher (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1991), 293–22; and Brown, John, 1:xcvii.
10 Funk and the Jesus Seminar, Acts of Jesus, 454 (see chap. 4, n. 84).
11 For a list of many critical scholars who agree here, many of whom are skeptics of one sort or another, see the discussion later in this chapter.
12 See Bock, Missing Gospels, 218 (see chap. 6, n. 151). John Dominic Crossan dates the Gospel to the Hebrews to the 50s, being written in Egypt; see Crossan, Historical Jesus, 428–29 (see chap. 6, n. 44). Crossan’s view is a minority position.
13 Ron Cameron, ed., “The Gospel of the Hebrews,” in The Other Gospels: Non-canonical Gospel Texts (Philadelphia: Westminster, 1982), 83–86. The implication that James was desirous of sharing the cup with the risen Jesus could be due to his pre-resurrection conversion. But that desire might also be due to James’s previous desires to see Jesus perform miracles (John 2:3–5, 12; 7:3–4), which still did not keep John from stating that Jesus’s brothers did not believe in Jesus at that point (7:5), or even that such a hope arose in James after the resurrection but before he actually saw Jesus. Again, there is also the textual issue of the fragmented Gospel to the Hebrews with regard to its own dating and reliability, or even whether it had been altered on one or more occasions before this reading. For instance, Dale C. Allison expresses some doubts regarding this text, including referring to it as “a relatively late invention, perhaps in its entirety.” Allison, Resurrection of Jesus, 77–79 (see chap. 2, n. 15).
14 Once again, even Bart Ehrman takes Paul’s visits to Jerusalem to meet with Peter, James, and John as among the most important of the texts pertaining to the historical Jesus, bordering on providing eyewitness testimony. See Ehrman, Did Jesus Exist?, 144–48, 251 (see chap. 2, n. 15); Ehrman, How Jesus Became God, 137–43 (see chap. 6, n. 173).
15 Of course, there is a fair chance that James was alone when he thought that Jesus appeared to him. So those who reject this resurrection appearance may opt in favor of hallucinations or other species of subjective experiences. These and other alternate options are entertained and critiqued in much detail in the next volume of this study. But it needs to be remembered that, given several strong options from the exceptionally early appearance list in 1 Cor 15:3–7 as well as elsewhere, it should be judged quite likely that James was also present at one or more of the group appearances such as those to “all the apostles,” or to the 500 persons at once, or on the very last day of Jesus’s appearances, for examples. After all, we are told that James was indeed present when the apostolic group was together in the “upper room” directly after Jesus’s appearances ended with his ascension, which would place James right there at the close of this period (Acts 1:14). In fact, it would be strange if James had not also been a witness at one or more of the group appearance events.
16 As Michael Licona has pointed out in Resurrection of Jesus, 461 (see chap. 2, n. 13). However, in our coauthored volume The Case for the Resurrection of Jesus (Grand Rapids: Kregel, 2004), 67–69, we still counted James’s conversion as a minimal fact.
17 Habermas, “Minimal Facts,” 25 (see chap. 4, n. 2). In Licona’s response to my essay here, he acknowledges the strength of the argument and holds that he may reinstall James to his own list at some future date, along with some other additional facts. So the friendly discussion continues. See Licona, “In Reply,” 55–56 (see chap. 4, n. 2).
18 Licona, Resurrection of Jesus, 461.
19 This is reported in both Lüdemann with Özen, What Really Happened to Jesus, 102 and Lüdemann, Resurrection of Jesus, 109 (see chap. 6, n. 173).
20 Ehrman, Apocalyptic Prophet, 201, 229–230 (see chap. 5, n. 43); Ehrman, How Jesus Became God, 192, 203.
21 Funk, Honest to Jesus, 33 (see chap. 5, n. 7).
22 Hoover, “Contest between Orthodoxy and Veracity,” 135, in context (see chap. 10, n. 56).
23 Crossan, Who Killed Jesus?, 27 (see chap. 6, n. 151). Granted, it is difficult to know from the Gospel of Thomas when and why James was believed to have joined the group of disciples, or even whether or not this comment should be thought of as a retrospective reflection that looks forward to James’s subsequent role in the early church. But the majority of scholars agreed that the title “James the Just” can hardly be regarded as a title for James while Jesus was still alive!
24 Alan F. Segal, Life after Death: A History of the Afterlife in Western Religion (New York: Doubleday, 2004), 448; Shanks and Witherington, Brother of Jesus, 26 (Shanks) (see chap. 6, n. 166); Joseph Klausner, From Jesus to Paul, trans. William F. Stinespring (New York: Macmillan, 1944), 280; cf. Bruce Chilton’s closing “Epilogue,” in Chilton and Jacob Neusner, The Brother of Jesus: James the Just and His Mission (Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 2001), 185.
25 Spong, Easter Moment, 68 (see chap. 12, n. 25).
26 John Shelby Spong, Resurrection, Myth or Reality? A Bishop’s Search for the Origins of Christianity (New York: HarperCollins, 1994), 52.
27 Spong, 256, 259, 289.
28 Conzelmann, First Corinthians, 258, esp. n. 91 (see excursus 2, n. 27), but Conzelmann notes that he doubts this, though without explanation.
29 Wedderburn, Beyond Resurrection, 95–98, 134, 153, 218–219, 225 (see chap. 1, n. 42).
30 Wedderburn, 116.
31 Wedderburn, 264n171.
32 Wedderburn, 116.
33 Allison, Resurrecting Jesus, 215, cf. 269, 343 (see chap. 1, n. 30). Allison also addresses similar matters in Resurrection of Jesus, 77–79.
34 Allison, The End of the Ages Has Come: An Early Interpretation of the Passion and Resurrection of Jesus (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1985), 167; also Allison, Resurrecting Jesus, 237n146, 262–63.
35 Maurice Casey, Jesus of Nazareth: An Independent Historian’s Account of His Life and Teaching (London: T&T Clark, 2010), 495, also 492. Casey’s personal beliefs are also noted in his work Jesus, 3, 37, 39 (see chap. 4, n. 41).
36 Betz, Galatians, 78 (see chap. 10, n. 70); J. Duncan M. Derrett, The Anastasis: The Resurrection of Jesus as an Historical Event (Shipston-on-Stour, UK: Drinkwater, 1982), 98–99, in spite of Derrett rejecting the historicity of the resurrection; also Derrett, “Financial Aspects of the Resurrection,” in The Empty Tomb: Jesus beyond the Grave, ed. Robert M. Price and Jeffery Jay Lowder (Amherst, NY: Prometheus, 2005), 400–401; Howard Clark Kee, What Can We Know, 61 (see chap. 4, n. 46), even though the resurrection appearances cannot be considered as historical events (23); Grant, Saint Peter, 140 (see chap. 12, n. 25), though Grant thinks James was not converted until after Jesus’s crucifixion, he proposes that James’s “appearance” was probably invented. Another provocative volume that deals with some of the prominent issues here is Akenson, Saint Saul, 167–69, 176–77 (see chap. 3, n. 118).
37 Wright, Resurrection of the Son of God, 325, 560, quotation on 325 (see chap. 6, n. 44).
38 Fuller, Formation of the Resurrection Narratives, 37 for both quotations, also 177 (see chap. 10, n. 23).
39 Pannenberg, Jesus: God and Man, 97.
40 Wilckens, Resurrection, 113 (see chap. 8, n. 17).
41 Stuhlmacher, “The Resurrection of Jesus and the Resurrection of the Dead,” Ex Auditu 9 (1993): 49.
42 Meier, Marginal Jew, 1:67–71 (see chap. 1, n. 27).
43 Sanders, Historical Figure of Jesus, 125 (see chap. 1, n. 44).
44 Sanders, Jesus and Judaism, 105 (emphasis added) (see chap. 5, n. 19).
45 Sanders, Historical Figure of Jesus, 126, also 234.
46 Sanders, 303n4, also 277; see also Sanders, Jesus and Judaism, 105, and Sanders, “But Did It Happen?,” Spectator 276 (1996): 17.
47 Sanders, Historical Figure of Jesus, 267.
48 Lorenzen, Resurrection and Discipleship, esp. 143–44, also 128, 141, 184 (see chap. 5, n. 49).
49 Ladd, I Believe in the Resurrection of Jesus, 105–6, also 91, 138 (see excursus 1, n. 12).
50 Oden, Word of Life, 490 (see chap. 12, n. 34).
51 Licona, Resurrection of Jesus, 440–61, particularly 441, 445, 452, 454, 461. We will return below to Licona’s astute critique of the views of Painter, Bauckham, and Tabor.
52 Craig, “On Doubts about the Resurrection,” 63–64 (see chap. 10, n. 70).
53 Osborne, Resurrection Narratives, 229–31, quotation on 229 (see chap. 1, n. 44).
54 See Stephen Davis’s stimulating essay, “‘Seeing’ the Risen Jesus,” in The Resurrection: An Interdisciplinary Symposium on the Resurrection of Jesus, ed. Stephen Davis, Daniel Kendall, and Gerald O’Collins (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1997), 131.
55 Eugene H. Peterson, Living the Resurrection: The Risen Christ in Everyday Life (Colorado Springs: Navpress, 2006), 101.
56 See John Painter, “Who Was James? Footprints as a Means of Identification,” 24, 29, and Richard Bauckham, “James and Jesus,” 106–9, both in The Brother of Jesus: James the Just and His Mission, ed. Bruce Chilton and Jacob Neusner (Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 2001).
57 Painter, “Who Was James?,” 24–29, 57.
58 Painter, 29–31.
59 Painter, 57–58.
60 Pelletier, “Dating of Mark’s Gospel” (from a personal email from Pelletier dated December 27, 2022).
61 Licona, Resurrection of Jesus, 441.
62 Licona, 442.
63 Licona, 446.
64 Painter concentrates on the text between John 2:1–11 and 7:9 in “Who Was James?,” 28, while Bauckham lists Jesus’s brothers as accompanying him “during his ministry” in between John 2:12 and 7:10 in Bauckham, “James and Jesus,” 106–7, quotation on 106.
65 Licona, Resurrection of Jesus, 452.
66 Painter, “Who Was James?,” 29.
67 Licona, Resurrection of Jesus, 448–49.
68 For example, why question the historicity of texts in Mark and John, as seen in Painter, “Who Was James?,” 23, 25, but search for hints to support one’s view in the Gospel of Thomas, the Gospel to the Hebrews, and even the Second Apocalypse of James (29–30, 32–34) instead of the far more accredited criteria that confirm the major passages here in the canonical texts? Here is yet another stretch.
69 Licona, Resurrection of Jesus, 450.
70 Bauckham, “James and Jesus,” 107.
71 Here Bauckham lists Luke 4:24; John 4:44; the Gospel of Thomas 31; and P. Oxy (Papyrus Oxyrhynchus) 132–33. See Bauckham, “James and Jesus,” 108.
72 Bauckham, 108. This response by Bauckham also addresses in part Painter’s doubts regarding the historicity of Mark’s comments in 3:21, as raised earlier. See Painter, “Who Was James?,” 25.
73 Licona, Resurrection of Jesus, 452.
74 Tabor, Jesus Dynasty, 165 (see chap. 1, n. 18).
75 Tabor, 238–40.
76 As mentioned earlier in this study, James Tabor is another critical scholar who has become a friend after we spent some quality time together just before the breaking of the Talpiot Tomb news. So this note is an autobiographical comment that nothing here should be misconstrued in any way as expressing animosity toward him or his views. It is simply a matter of thinking there are some serious issues with a number of the statements expressed above.
77 Tabor, Jesus Dynasty, including several key discussions on the Talpiot Tomb on 20, 23–27, 224, 235–36.
78 For example, in a combined protest that is almost never witnessed from the most respected scholars in the relevant area of study within a given field, see “The Talpiot Tomb Controversy Revisited,” issued under the name of the “Duke University Religion Department,” https://dukereligion.blogspot.com/2008/01/talpiot-tomb-controversy-revisited.html (January 24, 2008), with the following summation: “To conclude, we wish to protest the misrepresentation of the conference proceedings in the media, and make it clear that the majority of scholars in attendance—including all of the archaeologists and epigraphers who presented papers relating to the tomb—either reject the identification of the Talpiot tomb as belonging to Jesus’ family or find this claim highly speculative.” Signing the document were more than a dozen of the most respected scholars from elite universities and seminaries in the appropriate areas of research listed above, mostly from the United States and Israel, holding Christian, Jewish, and other views.
79 Strangely enough, even the highly positive volume by the Emmy-winning documentary director Simcha Jacobovici and Charles Pellegrino admits concerning the name on one of the ossuaries, namely “Jesus son of Joseph,” that according to the detailed information of male names in the first-century Jerusalem area, it is known that more than 1,000 men would have had this very same father-son combination during the century of ossuary use! To not miss the point, that means approximately one man in every seventy-nine would be a “Jesus” with a father named “Joseph.” See Jacobovici and Pellegrino, The Jesus Family Tomb: The Discovery, the Investigation, and the Evidence That Could Change History (New York: HarperSanFrancisco, 2007, 75). This alone amounts to a prodigious mountain to climb, with this statistic coming from those on the promotional side of this topic! Clearly the fine print needs to be studied here. That would also account for the fact that this was not the only ossuary to bear this combination of names during those years. For a compendium of dozens of opposing testimonies and refutations of these Talpiot Tomb arguments, see Gary R. Habermas, The Secret of the Talpiot Tomb: Unraveling the Mystery of the Jesus Family Tomb (Nashville: B&H, 2007).
80 Crossan also includes the Gospel of Thomas 12 as an additional source for the appearance to James; see Crossan, Historical Jesus, 436.
81 See especially the chapters above on the disciples’ experiences, the early dating for these events, plus the brief study on the New Testament creedal reports.
82 Keener, Acts, 361 (see chap. 9, n. 38).
83 Stein, Gospels and Tradition, esp. 158 (see chap. 2, n. 35); cf. Ehrman, Did Jesus Exist?, 271, 290–91; Ehrman, How Jesus Became God, 95–96.
84 Stein, Gospels and Tradition, 162–63.
85 Ehrman, Apocalyptic Prophet, 230, particularly in the context of 230–32.
86 For examples, see Carson, Moo, and Morris, Introduction to the New Testament, 410–413 (see chap. 10, n. 20); Donald Guthrie, New Testament Introduction, 4th ed. (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity, 1990), 723–46; David P. Nystrom, James, The NIV Application Commentary Series (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1997), 19–21.
87 This debate concerning the James Ossuary is far removed from the controversy regarding the Talpiot Tomb. For a well-known overview and defense of the former, see Shanks and Worthington, Brother of Jesus. Shanks was the Jewish editor of Biblical Archaeological Review while Witherington is a well-published New Testament scholar. After their investigation, both Shanks and Witherington accepted the authenticity of the James Ossuary. Shanks reported that the tests “eliminated the possibility that the inscription was a modern forgery on a genuine ancient ossuary” (20). Later Shanks concluded, “To my mind, it is virtually certain that the James ossuary and its inscription are authentic ancient artifacts” (50). For his part, Witherington asks, “Why did Jesus continue to have such a celebrated presence three decades after he had died? Why was he mentioned on his brother’s burial box so many decades years later?” (220). Yet, many scholars have not granted the authenticity of this artifact, and even an authentic artifact would not necessarily indicate that this ossuary belonged to Jesus’s brother. The arguments for and against this identification went back and forth and of course will not be solved here, though there is some potential for a helpful response in terms of this chapter.
88 It is also recognized that the sixth plus the last two reasons above might be thought to be weaker than the other arguments. As has been remarked in other chapters, different researchers will evaluate evidential considerations variously.
89 Licona, Resurrection of Jesus, 454.
90 In a recent PhD dissertation, Brian L. Cunningham argues similarly; see “From Mocker to Martyr: The Unlikely Conversion of James the Brother of Jesus” (PhD diss., Liberty University, 2022), 181–97.
91 Fuller, Formation of the Resurrection Narratives, 37 (emphasis added); cf. 177.