(20 votes, average: 4.75 out of 5)
Loading...In my previous post explaining why I think the Mythicist position – that there never was a man Jesus – is simply untenable, I pointed out that among the things Paul says, none is more specifically relevant than the fact that he indicates that he was personally acquainted with Jesus’ own brother James (along with Jesus’ disciples Peter and John).
When Paul mentions knowing and spending time with James, it is decidedly not in order to prove that he knew him. The comments he makes are completely incidental, explaining to people who already know about James how it is that he, Paul, met with him on a couple of important occasions. One of these occasions was just three years after Paul converted – so in about 36 CE.
At that time Paul paid a visit to Jerusalem to meet with Cephas and James, the leaders of the church there. Paul is reluctant to mention that he had gone there, since the entire point he is making is that he did not learn anything of relevance for his gospel message from the founders of the church in Jerusalem, but independently knew the truth about Christ’s death and resurrection from a revelation from Christ himself. So he stresses that this meeting was fully three years after he had already known the truth of the gospel and that he didn’t meet with any of the other apostles, only those two.
Fourteen years later …
THE REST OF THIS POST IS FOR MEMBERS ONLY. If you don’t belong yet, Join the Known Universe! Pay up! It doesn’t cost much and give a LOT. And every nickle goes to charity!
A mythicist I met, claimed that Paul certainly met with someone who claimed to be Jesus’disciples (including a “brother”), but they were all con men who had fabricated the initial sectarian message, and were later joined by increasing groups of gullible believers. How do we disprove that?
Probably the same way we disprove the claim that the moon landing was filmed in a TV studio….
You have made it abundantly clear that you deem Paul a “convert.” To what? Also, do you consider the members of the Jerusalem church to be converts? They disagree with Paul about many things, but are they co-religionists with Paul or believers in different religions?
A convert to belief in Jesus as messiah. (Not a convert *away* from Judaism. He continued to see himself as a Jew)
Gavriel:
Ask for evidence. That would be my approach. The whole thing sounds made up.
When Paul talks about the Twelve, mythicists argue that you can’t assume that its speaking in reference to the Twelve apostles because the Gospels weren’t written then and so you can’t use the Gospels that were written later to understand what Paul’s earlier letters meant by the Twelve. What are your comments?
It’s kind a like saying that Paul couldn’t know about Jesus because the Gospels that are our source for knowledge about Jesus weren’t written yet. Or that he couldn’t know Peter because Peter is mentioned only in the Gospels. Or ….
Why do people think these arguments are persuasive?
The “fourteen years after” of Gal 2, is that fourteen years after the conversion or after his first encounter with Cephas/James?
It appears to be 14 years after the first encounter.
It’s a fascinating discussion, but the Mythicists are cooked either way–if James was only Jesus’ spiritual brother, there still had to be a Jesus for him to be spiritual brother TO. Jesus as an only child would still be a flesh and blood human being. And that is how Paul speaks of him in this context–while, confusingly, still seeing him as this pre-existent angelic being, who had merely been incarnated in the body of a man for a short time.
Paul knew perfectly well Jesus had lived and breathed and walked around in his own time, but he almost certainly had no experience of that Jesus. To him, his own vision of Jesus was preeminent. He still had to deal with the fact that others in the cult he had joined had actually spoken with the Lord, walked with him, broken bread with him, had earthly relationships with him. I think it probably made him uncomfortable–to feel that he understood Jesus’ will better than anyone, could express it more powerfully–while still knowing that others had known Jesus the Man as he never could. One reason why he and Peter and James could never see eye to eye–each had experienced Jesus in a different way. But at this stage in the development of Christianity, such differences were subsumed by a shared sense of persecution and evangelism.
Excellent write up! Thank you!
I was a mythicist until I started reading this blog. The mythicist argument makes a lot of sense, fills in some important blanks, and ties it all up neatly in a bow. It is attractive to me as a former fundamentalist. But alas, Dr. Ehrman has destroyed it with these pesky little arguments.
I still wonder why there is so very little overlap between the stories in the Gospels and Paul’s Epistles.
Me too!
The reason, I believe, that “there is so very little overlap between the stories in the Gospels and Paul’s Epistles” is that the gospels and epistles were written some 30 years apart by men with different agendas and different backgrounds. One of the men, Paul, actually lived the events. Luke didn’t.
The name “James” comes from Yaakov in Arameic. In Spanish is Santiago: from Sant Yago. In Portuguese it derived from San Tiago.
I remember your saying that you once – wrongly – entertained a theory about “Cephas” and “Peter” being two different people. I *don’t* remember your explaining why you’d thought that, and what convinced you the theory was wrong. I’d still like to know!
Ha! Maybe I should do a thread on that!
Peter and Cephas is the same person?
“Cephas” and “Peter” are definitely the same person (nicknames meaning “rock,” in different languages). I don’t think anyone doubts that. Bart has told us that at one time he *did* entertain a theory that they were two different people; but he eventually became convinced they were one and the same.
My *guess* at why he might have thought they were different people? It may have had something to do with that quote from Paul, about the supposedly-resurrected Jesus having appeared “first to Cephas, then to the twelve…” I don’t think that wording, *in English*, would make someone who *already believed Cephas was one of the twelve* doubt it. But there may have been a different implication in Greek.
(Of course, “the twelve” is puzzling in itself! Unclear whether it was a “nickname” for the group, or Paul actually *didn’t know* Judas had betrayed Jesus and was no longer one of his disciples.)
I think “The Twelve” was a nickname and Judas was replaced with another disciple. I need to go back and reread Paul’s letters where he mentions Peter/Cephas.
Why should we think that Peter and Cephas are the same person? Unless we read the Gospels first, we shouldn’t think that as far as I can see. To say that only one person was called Rocky is like saying that anyone called Rocky now is the foundation of the church. Could just be a nickname. I’m not saying that it changes the story much, but it does weaken the ties between the authentic Paul and the Gospels. I feel that apologists are given a free pass when they get to say, ‘See, Paul knew Peter. Peter met Jesus. They all preached essentially the same thing, just as it says in Acts.’ Then they gloss over the differences between the epistles and the gospels.
I don’t think a Mythicist will be impressed by arguments that Cephas was Jesus’ closest friend when they don’t beloved Jesus had ANY friends! The other argument – that Paul would not exclude Cephas from among the Brethren of the Lord when he uses the term quite broadly everywhere else – seems more likely to gain traction (of anything can)
My sense is that most mythicists aren’t impressed by any counter-arguments!
What things should the general public look for when searching for books that are historically reputable, while trying to avoid the scholarly works? I usually look at the publisher/imprint, bibliography…what else should we be looking for?
You should look for books written by qualified experts (notice if they teach at highly reputable institutions and have published significantly in their fields) but that have titles that are not technical and recondite. If you can’t find it at Barnes & Noble, that should be a hint that it’s not for a general audience.
Here is, out of what I have seen, the most convincing Mythicist argument in this regard.
We see that Paul calls Christians “brothers” and “sisters” in quite a few areas (for example, Galatians 5:13, 1 Thessalonians 4:13, etc.).
Now, I do not know Greek and so the next part may be where it is made or broken, but when we look at 1 Corinthians 9:5 it says,
“Do we not have the right to take along with us a sister as a wife, as the other apostles and brothers of the Lord and Cephas do?”
I know that Dr. Price’s translation, seen in “The Pre Nicene New Testament” also includes the word “sister”.
In this verse it is really unlikely that “sister” is mean in any sort of biological way, but as a more general term for Christians (or certain types of Christians).
So, the question becomes that if “sister” in this verse is non-biological, why would one assume that “brother” is?
Brother of the Lord could be the full title of these Christians, and it is shortened to simply “brother” in other areas.
And if that is the case, then when we see James being called the “brother of the Lord” in Galatians, then one would be unjustified in saying that it is a biological brother.
My view is that the weakest part of this argument lies in the 1 Corinthians 9:5 passage, where if it made it so that “sister” included “of the Lord” on it that it would solidify this argument. As it is, however, I can see why people can argue it either way.
Translators usually add “sisters” in order to make the translation more inclusive of all people, even though it is not found in the Greek (as in 1 Cor. 9:5)
But does it not further separate Cephas from the Lord’s brothers? Why are they mentioned separately like that?
Because they were two different people. One was a disciple and the other was his physical brother.
In Acts 22:24-29 Luke repeatedly claims Paul is a Roman citizen , even by birth.
Yet Paul never makes any such a claim in his writings. Is this Why you think Paul was not a Roman citizen and that Luke and Paul never met?
Was Luke’s claim that Paul was a Roman citizen an attempt to make Paul more credible and important since Acts was written later?
Was Paul One of the very few well educated Christians to write his letters in Greek ?
Yes, Paul makes no claim to be a citizen. Not many people were. And it’s one of many reasons for thinking Luke did not personally know him. Most of the early Xn writings (all of the earliest) were in Greek.
Is Galatians dated from Paul’s conversion or vice versa? Is Paul’s 2nd meeting with the Jerusalem apostles the same as the “council” of 50 CE and is there reliable evidence that it took place then?
They are dated symbiotically, and yes, his second meeting is usually (though not always) taken to be the one described as well in Acts 15.
Some Mythicists like to point out that James referred to there was not an apostle; that Paul means a non-apostolic Christian. To quote them:
“It appears that when Paul most needs to distinguish non-apostolic Christians from apostles (due to the required force it has on his argument), he always uses the full term for a Christian, ‘brother of the Lord,’ rather than its abbreviation, ‘brother.'”
Bart, how plausible do you find this explanation?
See today’s post. Paul definitely considers James an apostle, as he says in Gal. 1:18-19.
Bart, how was Paul at liberty to persecute the Christian church at a time when Palestine was under Roman rule? Did the roman authority simply turn a blind eye?
I’m not sure he did this in Palestine. But in any event, Romans reserved capital punishment for themselves, but did not intervene with other forms of local justice and its administration.
Could you verify that please? I thought that myself for the longest time. However, I remember reading something within the last year or so that this was not always the case.
I believe the evidence is laid out by Sherwin White in his book Roman Law and Roman Society (if I remember correctly!)
Mr. Ehrman. I think the question regarding Jesus brother, or brothers, can be answered both logically and theologically. The fact that the brother of Jesus is named Jacob makes the answer all the more obvious.
Several texts in the Tanakh makes it clear that Jacob/Israel was regarded as the son of God. For example, the famous “When Israel was a child, I loved him, and out of Egypt I called my son”.
If Jacob was the son of God, and Jesus was the Son of God, then Jacob and Jesus had to be brothers in some way or another. This is the logical argument.
The theological argument comes from the fact that the Tanakh is full of Lamentations from God where he blames Jakob for this and that, and Calls Israel to Repentance.
Amos: “For I know how many are your offenses and how great your sins. Yet you have not returned to me,” declares the Lord”.
Jeremiah: “the word of the Lord has come to me and I have spoken to you again and again, but you have not listened. 4 And though the Lord has sent all his servants the prophets to you again and again, you have not listened or paid any attention”.
Israel, Judah, Ephraim, Manasseh, Levi and all the other tribes AND Jerusalem would just not listen to God! This fact explains this rather strange verse in Mark:
“Then Jesus’ mother and brothers arrived. Standing outside, they sent someone in to call him. 32 A crowd was sitting around him, and they told him, “Your mother and brothers are outside looking for you.”
33 “Who are my mother and my brothers?” he asked.
34 Then he looked at those seated in a circle around him and said, “Here are my mother and my brothers! 35 Whoever does God’s will is my brother and mother.” – Mark 3:31
20 In what I am writing to you, before God, I do not lie!
Do you think it is proper to infer that Paul states that he does not lie because people were accusing him of lying? He seems to need to support himself like this throughout his writings.
That’s one option. Another is that he just wants them to know he’s telling the truth, the very truth, so help him God. Not because others were accusing him of not telling the truth, but because he wants them to realize: REALLY, I never talked with other apostles before this!!!
By the time Paul had his second visit to Jerusalem (fourteen years after his first visit), this disciple James, the son of Zebedee, had already been martyred (44 CE; Acts 12).
As a side note, we know that Peter was not released from prison by an angel. So does that somewhat make this entire story in Acts not necessarily historical? We know that Acts is not generally historical and in this story, the point seems to be that Peter escapes from prison with the help of an angel. According to the story, he was arrested only because it pleased the Jews to see James be executed. If Peter was not really in prison (why should we think that he was since it is unlikely that he would have gotten out) then why should we believe a story in Acts that James was executed?
Mainly because, unlike the Peter episode, it is not told as a narrative with a theological/religious lesson,but is just stated as a bald fact. Plus this is the only one of Jesus’ closest disciples whom Paul shows no evidence of knowing a few years later, which might suggest he wasn’t around to be known.
Dr. Ehrman, though I can’t think of any reason to think that Jesus couldn’t have a biological brother, the possibility that he had a brother James who became a leader of the post-Crucifixion Church raises questions that I did not consider until I had to resolve them in the narrative of my Jesus novel. Namely, the problem is this: Was James part of the group of followers who travelled to Jerusalem and took part in the Passover festival with Jesus et al., and so, therefore, was James there when Jesus was arrested? If so, why isn’t he mentioned in the Gospel accounts as such? (One would think that Jesus’ actual brother being part of the pre-Crucifixion followers would be a rather important detail to include.) But if James wasn’t a part of the group of followers who went with Jesus to Jerusalem for the Passover, why not? Was James skeptical of Jesus before the Crucifixion, but came to believe post-Crucifixion? (And if so, why?) Was James much younger then the rest of the disciples so he was not awarded any respect or honor until after Jesus died? Out of all the books I’ve read so far, no one has offered any helpful answers to this question, and it’s one of the biggest sticking points so far in my Jesus novel narrative. Where to place James the brother of Jesus?!?
For now I’ve tentatively filled the gap — so to speak — by making James a much younger brother of Jesus, too young to journey to Jerusalem with Jesus et al.; and only after Jesus dies, and the remaining followers return to Galilee is James recruited by the disciples to join the revitalized movement based around the “resurrected” Jesus. In the epilogue, James has worked his way up into the Church’s heirarchy, and after a few years has become its ostensible leader (at which point Paul enters the picture at the very end). And after the death of James the son of Zebedee, James the brother of Jesus becomes de facto leader. Anyway, I’m not totally satisfied with that solution, but it’s the best I can come up with for now. If you, Dr. Ehrman, have any better ideas I would certainly, very much appreciate them. They don’t have to be solid theories, but merely plausible scenarios, because, after all, this is a work of fiction.
In the NT James is not a believer in Jesus until *after* his death, based (see e.g., John 7), probably, on a resurrection appearance (see 1 Cor. 15:3-8).
According to mark, Jesus’ mother and brothers thought he was crazy. So maybe James realised he was wrong after the resurrection. Or maybe mark just made that bit up.
Yes, in a short narrative such as the Gospel of Mark that idea is easy to just drop in and out, without asking too many questions. But in the longer narrative of a novel, where motivations and behaviors have to seem plausible and ring true, it comes across as (for lack of a better word) far-fetched. That is, it seems like a hackneyed trope rather than a genuine human action. Hence my difficulties.
Well if you’re interested I’ll try to explain how I imagine it (briefly). I find it interesting that mark never mentions Jesus’ father Joseph. Yet his mother and brothers are the ones who try to stop him from preaching. Is Mary a single mother? A widow? Or worse? I imagine Jesus going to hear John the Baptist preach a particularly charismatic speech, where Jesus has that incredible feeling of revelation where an idea clicks with both the left and right sides of the brain simultaneously. He now knows his purpose. He first tells his family, to which his mother says “yes dear” and goes back to whatever she was doing. His brothers are the same. So he goes out and starts his ministry. All the while his mother is hoping he will snap out of this phase he’s going through, and his brothers are a bit miffed that he’s not working to help support the family like they are. If it were me, that’s exactly how my family would be. So I don’t see any this as far fetched at all. (But you probably don’t have a family like mine.)
The part that I find far-fetched is that James would go from incredulity or ambivalence to sudden true believer AFTER Jesus’ death. It sounds like some melodramatic epiphany that comes across as phoney if not within the context of some inspiritional religious novel a la Ben Hur or The Robe. I’m purposely trying to avoid as much as possible that kind of corniness. I want the novel to feel real and thought-provoking, to feel gritty and poignant, to feel naked and spine-chilling. Not uplifting or inspirational at all.
Can’t help feeling a need to bring this to others’ attention:
“SAN DIEGO — A newsletter from a San Diego Catholic church has warned parishioners they’ll go to hell if they vote for Democrats.
“The San Diego Union-Tribune says a flier inserted in the Oct. 16 bulletin of the Immaculate Conception Catholic Church called voting Democratic a mortal sin. It cited five policies – including support for abortion and same-sex marriage – that will doom supporters to eternal damnation.
“On Oct. 30, the bulletin itself took a Hillary Clinton quote out of context to claim she’s influenced by Satan. It also criticized immigration policies and gun control.
“The church doubles as an election polling site.”
Obviously, I’m appalled. And ashamed that I ever did call myself a Catholic.
Yikes….
You crazy Americans!
Prof Ehrman
In Gal 2:9 Paul at least implies that Peter and James and John knew what he was up to with the Gentiles and signed off on it. But in v 12 and following he writes about “certain people” From James who he refers to as the “circumcision faction”. So what was the actual Jamesian point of view here? That gentiles could join the movement, not be circumcised,but that the observant Jews would have to separate themselves to maintain ritual purity, or, that gentiles could join the movement but they had to be circumcised and observe the law? Here Paul seems to be responding to the former but if so why call your opponents the “circumcision faction” if they accepted that gentiles did not have to be circumcised? And if it’s the latter then doesn’t that contradict the idea that the “pillars” understood and approved Paul’s mission?
Thanks
Yes, the concern seems *not* to have been whether the gentiles could have salvation through Christ, but whether Jews had to continue observing the law so strictly that they had to limit their contacts with non-Jews
Great stuff. Question always on my mind was related to “consider the source”…how did Paul ‘s (who never met Jesus,) non circumcision non law message triumph over Peter ‘ s,( Jesus’ right hand man friend who spent years with him?) Who would I believe is right? Guy with a dream or the one who lived ate breathed and taught with the Christ?…but a new potential convert did not have access to or even knowing about this competing message, unless a missionary happen ed to cross your towns path… obviously paul with growing congregation , simpler message and much larger potential audience had an edge…impressive enough to sway church leaders 14 years later?
My sense is that most people weren’t debating between the two options. Some people heard Paul’s message and others heard Peter’s….
I’ve always wondered this too. So is it justifiable to say that Matthew and Paul do not contradict each other because they both had different audiences to persuade?
No, I’d say they contradict each other (or not) whaever their audience was.
The circumcision / non-circumcision issue had very specifically to do with whether a Gentile needed to convert to Judaism first, before being considered “acceptable” as a Christian. But, to understand this issue, one needs to really understand the Jewish mentality regarding “Jewish-ness” (as it were).
The Law was given to the Hebrews (that would then become known as the Jews). The Law was NOT applicable to ANYONE besides the Jews (with exception, in the Jewish mentality, to the Noahide laws, which were given before Moses). God had not chosen the Hebrew people because He decided He was going to “save them” or something, but rather, it was that He chose “a people” to be like a beacon, or a light, to the rest of the world.
So, the Law of Moses was applicable ONLY to the Jews, and was both their religious, civil and criminal law (in a fashion similar to the US Constitution). The “whole Law” applied to Jews living in Israel, but, for Jews living outside of Israel, it was only partly applicable. (For example, some laws – like those regarding Sabbatical Years – were apparently applicable only in the land of Israel).
For non-Jews? The Law of Moses had no bearing. It did not apply to them. It wasn’t given to them. They weren’t invited to that party. (However, they certainly could become Jews if they wished). The fact that the Law of Moses did not apply to non-Jews did not give Jews some kind of “upper hand”; if anything, it was their obligation to live according to the Law, to which the Gentiles were not subjected.
So, what I’m getting at is this: Paul’s “non law non circumcision” message (as you put it), did not “triumph” over that of James and “the circumcision crowd”, and thus, Paul did not “triumph” over James in any respect. The whole of the discussion boiled down to coming to a recognition that the Gentiles were NEVER “under the Law” in the first place, and that there was no reason to expect them to come under the Law in order to follow Christ. It would be like saying “oh, you have to become an American citizen before you can believe things like ‘all men are created equal’, or that we have the right to life, liberty and pursuit of happiness, or that we should all have freedom of speech and expression”. Anyone can believe those things; one doesn’t have to be an American citizen to do so.
So, the decision was made that for those that were NOT under the Law, they would continue in that fashion; ie, the Gentiles would not be required to be circumcised – ie, become Jews. This was, of course, Paul’s stance. But, Paul’s stance was really had to do with the idea that Christ had come to the Jews “first”, but that he was not going to make a second visit for the Gentiles; thus, he had come once, died once, was resurrected once – for all – Jew and Gentile alike.
And, the reasoning was seen as “good”. The “question of the Gentiles” was one that was BOUND to come up sooner or later, and when it finally did, it was simply discussed, and Paul’s reasoning was deemed sound, and everybody went with that.
It had absolutely NOTHING to do with whether Paul knew Jesus like Peter did, or any such thing. And it certainly had nothing to do with which person YOU would choose to believe – “a guy who had a dream, or the one who lived ate breathed and taught with the Christ”. It wasn’t a decision based on personalities, nor on proximity to Jesus, nor on eating, breathing, or teaching habits. It had, specifically, to do with whether Jesus came JUST for the Jews, or whether he came for ALL. And, if he came for ALL, then there was no need for those who believed in him to become Jews.
I’d encourage you to please take some time to do some in-depth study of Judaism, perhaps starting with websites such as Judaism 101, or My Jewish Learning, or chabad.org, or The Jewish Virtual Library — you’ll find it very enlightening…
When you say that “brother” usually means “from the same mother”, I assume you disagree with Catholic claims that “brother” meant “half brother” or “cousin”?
Yes, nothing suggests they were half brothers or cousins. There is a different word in Greek for “cousin,” and the brohters and sisters are all connected directly with his mother — nothing suggests anythingn other than a sibling realationship, as some Catholic scholars today now concede as well.
Thank you!!! I have been mulling over this issue for at least a month now, after reading the respective passages in Carriers “On the Historicity of Jesus”. From the beginning, to me it seems more than obvious that “brother of” in Galatians is an additional clarification of which James is meant.
Carrier attempts to explain away the use of the article in Galatians 1:19 (τοῦ κυρίου) indicating “the” brother as opposed to “a” brother, by pointing out other places where “the brother” is used. However, in each of these other cases there is no additional qualifier such as “apostle”, which the author then needs to further qualify with “the brother”.
I do not recall major miracles of James.
I do not recall James being a major miracle worker.
James was less than John, the Beloved, if Jesus has to assign John to be a son of Mary.
James was a martyr? In the Works of Josephus, he was not a martyr for Christianity. He was a holy man but he was not a martyr for Christianity.
Jesus had disciples who were brothers. James as brother of Jesus is less than the disciple brothers.
How do the members of the Church of Jerusalem under James react when James is attacked in the accounts of Josephus? We do not read about this in Acts or anywhere else in the New Testament.
Does James even lament the death of Jesus or Mary?
Christians do not embrace the James of the Works of Josephus. The New Testament does not embrace the James of the Works of Josephus. James’ brand of holiness, in the works of Josephus is quite different from the holiness of Jesus and the disciples. So, James of the Works of Josephus, hardly was the same James who was the head of the Church of Jerusalem. I re-iterate, James was not a miracle worker or a faith healer. The holiness journey of James does not seem to heal people in the name of Jesus.
The Biblical James is historical fiction and flimsy in reference to the Jerusalem Church. The James of Josephus seems to be of a different holiness tradition. James the Just – Jesus the Just: there you would have brothers, but there approaches to holiness are too different. Do we know Jesus’ knees being hard scales from kneeling for prayer? No. We do not plausibly see James giving up his holiness journey for the way of Jesus, a historical fiction composite character.
Yes, there was a Jesus Justus (perhaps, Jesus the Just). He was from Galilee, a governor of Tiberias and a Greek writing historian. This Jesus could have been “Lord” as he was governor. Maybe that was the person who was the brother of the biblical James or the James of Josephus.
Dr. Ehrman, do you see James as a martyr for the Church of Jerusalem? Do you disagree with Josephus on the one of two ways his death is recorded in the works of Josephus?
Yes, I suppose I do, but I haven’t worked out what I think of Josephus on the matter.
Re: James as a martyr for the Church of Jerusalem
Other than the accounts in the Works of Josephus, his death is also reported by the second-century Christian writer Hegesippus (Book V):
The aforesaid scribes and Pharisees accordingly set James on the summit of the temple, and cried aloud to him, and said: “O just one, whom we are all bound to obey, forasmuch as the people is in error, and follows Jesus the crucified, do thou tell us what is the door of Jesus, the crucified.” And he answered with a loud voice: “Why ask ye me concerning Jesus the Son of man? He Himself sitteth in heaven, at the right hand of the Great Power, and shall come on the clouds of heaven.”
And, when many were fully convinced by these words, and offered praise for the testimony of James, and said, “Hosanna to the son of David,” then again the said Pharisees and scribes said to one another, “We have not done well in procuring this testimony to Jesus. But let us go up and throw him down, that they may be afraid, and not believe him.” And they cried aloud, and said: “Oh! oh! the just man himself is in error.” Thus they fulfilled the Scripture written in Isaiah: “Let us away with the just man, because he is troublesome to us: therefore shall they eat the fruit of their doings.” So they went up and threw down the just man, and said to one another: “Let us stone James the Just.” And they began to stone him: for he was not killed by the fall; but he turned, and kneeled down, and said: “I beseech Thee, Lord God our Father, forgive them; for they know not what they do.”
And, while they were thus stoning him to death, one of the priests, the sons of Rechab, the son of Rechabim, to whom testimony is borne by Jeremiah the prophet, began to cry aloud, saying: “Cease, what do ye? The just man is praying for us.” But one among them, one of the fullers, took the staff with which he was accustomed to wring out the garments he dyed, and hurled it at the head of the just man.
And so he suffered martyrdom; and they buried him on the spot, and the pillar erected to his memory still remains, close by the temple. This man was a true witness to both Jews and Greeks that Jesus is the Christ.
= = =
Dr. Ehrman, you suppose James was a martyr from this account? This account is accurate history?
It’s hard to say without corroborating evidence.
prof ehrman,
christians believe that jesus and james did not have the same mother because she only had jesus. and they also dont have the same father, in fact jesus did not have a earthly father. how can they then be blood brothers? how did paul reconcile this?
you write that you can be brothers:
1 as in spiritual brothers or 2 bloddbrothers because of you have the same mother. in my opinion there are other options. 3 that they share the same father but not the same mother, 4 that they share the same mother and father, 5 that they were brothers because of adoption.
it does seems like joseph adopted jesus. any thoughts will be appreciated.
There are different views by different Christian groups on these questions, depending, say, on whether you are talking to a Protestant or a CAtholic! The traditional Catholic answer, since Jerome, is that they were cousins; others have argued they were Joseph’s sons by a different marriage; Protestants have always said they were Mary’s sons with Joseph after Jesus’ virgin birth.
“At that time Paul paid a visit to Jerusalem to meet with Cephas and James, the leaders of the church there. Paul is reluctant to mention that he had gone there, since the entire point he is making is that he did not learn anything of relevance for his gospel message from the founders of the church in Jerusalem, but independently knew the truth about Christ’s death and resurrection from a revelation from Christ himself. ”
Do you think Paul was adamant about this issue because he knew that his message was different from the message that Jesus’ disciples were preaching?
Some peole have thought that; but Paul is quite insistent that the message itself was the same (he repeatedly says that; e..g. 1 Cor. 15:3-5); the question was whether gentiles had to become Jews in order to acccept the message or not. Paul’s opponents in Galatia were insisting yes, and saying that the other apostles agreed with them and that Paul got his information from them and then corrupted it. Paul’s vehemently opposed to that idea, and hence his attitude. At least that’s how I read it.
Yes. But it is easy to say the message is the same even when it is obviously different. The Jesus’ disciples that were with Jesus say that Gentiles need to convert to be Jews. Paul says that they do not. So it seems the only way he can get around this difference is to say that the message he claims to have received from the Christ is correct and the message that Jesus’ own disciples received directly from Jesus is wrong. Does this sound right?
I don’t think he was trying to find a way around the problem; I think this is what he genuinely came to think and that he realized it’s massive importance.
Will you expound please, is James the “supposed” pillar one of the disciples? Is there an agendistic shell game with the disciples list, in your estimation? In your estimation, would you put it past the early writers? Given the sophistication? E.g. The messianic secret etc. Rather agendistic, no? What is the agenda if not to distance the disciples from the flesh and blood Jesus? Paul did say we no longer know any man in the flesh, no? Rather platonic, no?
THis is a different James. It is not the disciple, the son of Zebedee and brother of John, but JEsus’ brother James. And yes, I think all authors have an agenda (otherwise they wouldn’t write).
So you disagree with Eiseman? Galatians does refer to seeing James the brother of the Lord in Galatians. Would you happen to know what Tabor supposes the pillar is referring to? Wasnt James Zebedee killed earlier in Acts or no? Do you think that James has been intentionally marginalized or obfuscated and downplayed? Hence all the common names?
YEs, I disagree with most of Eisenmann’s views about James. For what it’s worth, his views have never gained traction among scholars. I’m not sure what Tabor thinks. and yes, James son of Zebedee was martyred early on, already in Acts 12:2
Thanks again for sharing insight/perspective in your posts. Always interesting. So if James the brother of Zebedee is put to death in Acts 12:2 (I suppose if we are to give any historical/chronological credence to Acts — granted an entirely different book, mentioned earlier a symbiotic reading), then wouldnt that leave us with either James the son of Alphaeus or James the brother of Jesus as the “supposed” pillar in Galatians 2:9? Which is the Acts 15 reference to you? Obviously Galatians1:19 is explicit. . . So does that make James son of Alphaeus the pillar?
You mentioned it was son of zebedee in your response above, as one of “supposed pillars”. Somewhat confused because you mentioned a symbiotic reading with Acts, where the son of Zebedee was previously slain earlier in Acts. Yet given what seems out of place in Thomas (“for who heaven and earth have come to exist”), Eusebius book two 2-4 (has James “the Just” with John and Peter), Josephus, Hegesippus etc. . . The Homilies also has some references that seem out of place for its time (“compare all. . . with James”). Seems like James “the just” is viably the pillar as the bishop of the early church.
Eusebius 2.1.4
Maybe of interest that “pillar” is a later (much later) designation for the tzaddik in kabbalistic tradition. While bulwark/fortress a qumran reference to the tzaddik (much earlier structural imagery as designation for the tzaddik). References to James usually refers to him as tzaddik/ the just.
THere doesn’t seem to be much doubt that it is James the brother of Jesus. Paul calls him the “brother of the Lord”
Apologies. I misread you completely! Why I am not the scholar! Yikes. I see you said NOT son of Zebedee earlier.
Oh, I know lots of scholars who misread things completely! (OK, I”m often one of them, as blog commentators will amply attest….)
“For whom he did foreknow, he also did predestinate to be conformed to the image of his Son, that he might be the firstborn among many brethren.”
(Romans 8:29)
This is a verse used by Dr. Carrier to prove that the Greek word “adelphos” can be used figuratively in reference to Christian believers, proving that “adelphos” for James in Galatians 1:19 can be a figurative reference rather than a biological reference, since Jesus is the firstborn among many “adelphos” or brethren…therefore making James one of his “adelphos”. Any comments?
Yes, of course, that is completely non-controversial. Of course “brothers” can be used of non-biological people that are spiritually aligned. Everyone knows this. Is he seriously using this as an *argument* that it’s what it means when Paul calls James the brother of the Lord? Sigh. And why use this one verse as if it’s a dagger? It’s used that way a lot in the New Testament. If you want to see why the argument doesn’t work, I explain on the blog and in my book Did Jesus Exist?
I am currently struggling with mythicism without losing a dog in the fight either way. Personally what I have a difficult time understanding is if Jesus was purely a celestial being who was never on earth, why did later Gospel writes put his entire life story on earth? Why could they not have created his entire life story in a galaxy far far away?
I do struggle with this aspect of mythicism and would love to know your comments.
I think you’re right on target. It simply makes no sense except to people who want to believe it for other reasons.
If James was only Jesus’s brother in a spiritual sense then why is it that we have only James referred to as “brother of the Lord” in a unique and specific manner that no one else is along with the fact that the earliest accounts of Jesus’ life i.e the Gospels have James as his biological brother. With all these factors combined I genuinely believe the most likelihood is that James was indeed Jesus’ actual brother. What are your thoughts? I think you will definitely know where I am going with this. All these factors combined makes it unusually difficult for me to believe that Paul used the word brother for James only in a spiritual/figurative sense.
Exactly.
You said Paul met Simon Peter and John son Of Zebedee, but it seems in later posts, you think Cephas and Simon Peter are different people. Do you still think they are different, and how can we tell that was John, the son of Zebedee? Thanks!
It depends which day of the week you ask me. Today I”m thinking they were the same. Tomrrow, probably not.
Thank you! Sorry for annoying you with so many questions. I’m just very curious. I believe it’s easier just to think of them as the same person, but if they weren’t, Cephas and John (whoever John was) would’ve been important figures in the early church? Paul considered them “pillars” and they *most likely* knew some of the 12 disciples?
John appears to be the Son of Zebedee, and yes, if Cephas was different or the same as Peter, he would have known some or all of the others.
Hi Bart
A simple question, possibly . . .
Do historians consider it to be a historical fact that James believed her saw the resurrected Jesus?
This is not asking whether he really did see him but whether there is evidence to concluded that he believed he actually did see Jesus as opposed to say, simply being told about it by others and believing them.
Many thanks as always.
We can’t know for sure, since we don’t have his words about it. Paul, who knew him, is our only real source and he says James saw Jesus.disabledupes{c178f9499d9b67cfbe57a788409d447e}disabledupes
Thanks, Bart.
‘A simple question, possibly . . .
Do historians consider it to be a historical fact that James believed her saw the resurrected Jesus?’
**************
“We can’t know for sure . . . ”
That sounds quite some way from being a historical fact, would I be correct in that?
“Paul, who knew him, is our only real source and he says James saw Jesus.”
What are you referencing here when Paul says this?
It depends what you mean by “historical fact.” If you mean did it really happen, we can’t know for sure. But it wold have happened (or not) whether we know it or not. I’m referring to 1 Cor. 15:3-8 where he indicates that Christ “appeared to James” after his resurrection.
//It depends what you mean by “historical fact.”//
I am using the term the way a professional historian or critical scholar would use it i.e. an event that we could be confident occurred in the past. This might be similar to the crucifixion of Jesus etc.
As in the scale:
Possible -> Plausible -> Likely -> Probable -> Historical Fact
Of course, there might be other qualifiers one might add to that.
So in I Cor 15:7, Paul is quoting the creed, not James’ himself from when they met.
So where would you put the evidence for the original question on a scale of 1-10 with 10 being a HF?
Ah, my view is that Paul stops quoting the creed with with “Cephas” or with “the rest of the apostles.” The rest is his add on. Certainly his own vision was not in the creed. And if the creed was as balanced at the end as in the rest of it, it would not have included all the appearances. My sense is that it ended with Cephas. So for the rest he is giving what he heard elsewhere. ANd since he knew James, that would *probably* indicate he knew of his vision from him, or at least corroborated it from him.
Thanks again.
Just to clarify, I am seeking to find out whether critical scholars consider it to be a historical fact that James believed he saw the risen Jesus rather than believing it because he trusted the word of others, say.
“So for the rest he is giving what he heard elsewhere. ANd since he knew James, that would *probably* indicate he knew of his vision from him, or at least corroborated it from him.”
Is it not possible that Paul received the creed after he met with James, and so we don’t know what was actually said, or assumed by Paul when they met after 3 years?
Are you saying that you think Paul added the section about James seeing Jesus alive because that’s what James told him?
Is there any other evidence that James believed he saw Jesus alive again, that you know of?
I believe it’s a historical fact that most scholars who study such things think that James himself claimed to have seen Jesus alive after his death and that he was not basing it on the claims of others. Whether that’s actcually a historical fact or not is a different question; but I think it *is* a fact that most scholars think it *is* a fact.
Yes, Paul could certainly have learned the creed after seeing James for th elast time. And no, I don’t know what they talked about when they got together.
The only evidence we have about James being a follower of Jesus is Paul and the book of Acts (and later legends).
“I believe it’s a historical fact that most scholars who study such things think that James himself claimed to have seen Jesus alive after his death and that he was not basing it on the claims of others. Whether that’s actcually a historical fact or not is a different question; but I think it *is* a fact that most scholars think it *is* a fact.”
Many thanks.
What is your view? Do you thinking it is a historical fact that James believed he saw Jesus?
If scholars think it is a historical fact that he did, presumably they also are aware of voluminous, factual evidence to support their view. Do you know what any of that might be?
Yes, I think that’s probably teh case. There’s no other evidence than what I’ve mentioned. He did convert after Jesus’ death. Paul claims he saw Jesus alive, and Paul knew him personally. Acts doesn’t sayanything about it but it’s perfectly compatible with Acts. The later legends don’t count for much.
JH “What is your view? Do you thinking it is a historical fact that James believed he saw Jesus?
If scholars think it is a historical fact that he did, presumably they also are aware of voluminous, factual evidence to support their view. Do you know what any of that might be?”
BE “Yes, I think that’s probably teh case. There’s no other evidence than what I’ve mentioned. He did convert after Jesus’ death. Paul claims he saw Jesus alive, and Paul knew him personally. Acts doesn’t sayanything about it but it’s perfectly compatible with Acts. The later legends don’t count for much.”
I’m sorry that what I thought was a simple question is dragging on here, but I am totally confused as to what critical scholars consider constitutes a historical fact, now.
I can’t remember if you have ever described it directly, but my understanding, reading your books, the blog, debates etc., is that for something to be considered as a historical fact by historians, it would need good, solid evidence from many independent and verifiable sources possibly with some support from other disciplines – something along those lines.
See next post . . .
If a historian considers something to be a historical fact it does not necessarily mean that they are 100% certain about it. It means they think on the basis of the probabilities that it probably happened. IF it did happen, then its happening would be the fact.
Of course no one can be certain, but if I am reading you correctly here, you say that you think it is a historical fact that James believed he saw Jesus alive after his death, but there is no evidence for that other than Paul’s claim, presumably from the creed in I Cor 15:7, which you also agree, Paul might have only come across after his meeting with James i.e. we don’t actually know what James might have told Paul.
My question is, how would the above support the claim that this is a historical fact i.e. it probably happened, given the extreme lack of any evidence, let alone good evidence. I think I must be missing something fundamental to the historical process here, I would be really grateful if you would clarify this please?
There is no such thing as a historical “fact” if you mean by that something that can be demonstrated to the standards of the experimental sciences. Even historical “facts” (Lincoln was assasinated) are statements of probability.
. . . . ctd. from previous post.
If I am reading you correctly here, you say that you think it is a historical fact that James believed he saw Jesus alive after his death, but there is no evidence for that other than Paul’s claim, presumably from the creed in I Cor 15:7, which you also agree, Paul might have only come across after his meeting with James i.e. we don’t actually know what James might have told Paul.
My question is, how would the above support the claim that this is a historical fact given the extreme lack of any evidence let alone good evidence. I think I must be missing something fundamental to the historical process here, I would be really grateful if you would clarify this please.
“There is no such thing as a historical “fact” if you mean by that something that can be demonstrated to the standards of the experimental sciences.”
No, I am absolutely NOT talking about the standards used by experimental scientists. I am talking about the evidence that a critical scholar would need in order to support a claim that they considered had a high probability of being the case. Something like the probability of Jesus existing, for example or that Tiberius was the Roman Emperor at the time of the crucifixion say.
Have you not said in the past – “[summary of Jesus’ life] . . . and the Romans crucified him. That in a nutshell is what I think you can say with relative certainty.”?
This is what I am referring to as an example of a historical fact.
Are you saying that historians and critical scholars don’t use the term ‘historical fact’ when they are referring to and in hi history that has a high probability of actually having happened?
I’m saying that that *IS* what they mean. In most people’s judgment there is a veyr high probability that James claimed to have ahd a vision of the risen Jesus. For them that would qualify for what you are calling a “fact.” You don’t see the evidence as very compelling, and so for you it is not “fact” (i.e., not highly probable). And that’s the reality of scholarship — since it can’t be proved the way an experiment in a chemistry lab can be proved — there will always be differences of opinioin about what constitutes a fact.
Thanks for staying with this. It must be frustrating explaining things to a non-historian trying to make sense of how history works on the ground.
//In most people’s judgment there is a veyr high probability that James claimed to have ahd a vision of the risen Jesus. For them that would qualify for what you are calling a “fact.”//
OK, I understand that and agree, although I am still not clear if that is your position as a well.
//You don’t see the evidence as very compelling, and so for you it is not “fact” (i.e., not highly probable).//
You are correct, and my question is – what is the evidence you/they are seeing that make it highly probably that James claimed he saw the resurrected Jesus?
It’s not that I don’t find the evidence compelling, I simply don’t see any evidence at all at the moment.
As I think we agreed, for an event to be considered to be highly probably, it must have something more than simply an opinion to back it up, would it not? For a historian to say that, wouldn’t there need to be good, clear, incontrovertible evidence to support the contention?
In other words, what is the evidence for this?
OK, I think we’ve covered this ground already; I’ve answered the questoin in my comments about our sources of information in the NT.
The evidence comes fromPaul, the one person who discusses the matter and who knew James. It explains as well why James would have made such an incredible turn around. But it’s not a hill I’m willing to die on. Let’s move on to other things!
disabledupes{64384b7d0a75a8d62d7ffad97ed16b7c}disabledupes
OK, thanks.
Could I put in a request?
I don’t remember seeing much on the blog about how history is done. Members might be interested to see how you come to the conclusion you do and why they might differ from other scholars and especially apologists like Mike Licona. BTW, haven’t listened to that yet, so looking forward to seeing how you got on.
What do you think?
Yup, I’ve done some of that here. But I definitely get into it in my debate with Mike Licona.
2 Cor 3:1-6: Are we beginning to commend ourselves again? Surely we do not need, as some do, letters of recommendation to you or from you, do we? You yourselves are our letter, written on our hearts, known and read by all, and you show that you are a letter of Christ, prepared by us, written not with ink but with the Spirit of the living God, not on tablets of stone but on tablets that are human hearts.
Such is the confidence that we have through Christ toward God. Not that we are qualified of ourselves to claim anything as coming from us; our qualification is from God, who has made us qualified to be ministers of a new covenant, not of letter but of spirit, for the letter kills, but the Spirit gives life.
1. Did James issue letters of recommendation to those who he believed to be apostles?
2. Do we know who received letters?
3. I assume Paul did not receive a letter?
1. The historical James? There’s no evidence either way.
What letters of recommendation is Paul talking about?
We don’t know exactly. These kinds of letters were common in Greek and Roman antiquity; whether Paul is specifically referring to those sent in support of Christian missionaries/apostles/leaders is not altogether certain, though he himself did write some — see, e.g., Romans 16:1.
Dr. Ehrman,
Was the historical James a proponent of Jewish Apocalypticism (not just a believer but taught people about it)?
Was Jewish Apocalypticism part of his holiness?
I see you published a blogpost about James on Nov. 4 2016, “James, the Brother of the Lord,” but when I did a Ctrl-F for Apocalypticism, nothing came up.
So far, we have you saying Jesus was a prophet of Jewish Apocalypticism, but his brother who was an advisor of the Jerusalem Church if not a leader may or may not have become a proponent of the Son of Man coming to usher in a glorious kingdom after Judgment and Tribulation (both the biblical Jesus and the biblical Stephen referenced this and people started ripping their clothes in agony).
Question: Was the historical James a proponent of Jewish Apocalypticism (not just a believer but taught people about it)–was Jewish Apocalypticism part of his holiness?
Steve Campbell
Author of Historical Accuracy
We don’t have a lot of independent information about James and his teaching, but it seems pretty clear that since he was raised in the same environment as Jesus and became an ardent follower of him after his death, that he too would have been an apocalypticist.
Dear Dr Ehrman,
In 2012 the Jerusalem judge acquitted the owner of the James ossuary of all charges of forgery and fraud.
What is your opinion regarding the authenticity of the “James ossuary”?
Thanks
I don’t think it’s connected with the historical jesus in any way.
Luke talks about Mary, the mother of James, in Luke 24:10
’10 Now it was Mary Magdalene, Joanna, Mary the mother of James, and the other women with them who told this to the apostles.’
Is this meant to be the mother of Jesus and implying that James was his brother?
Or is this meant to be someone else?
This seems to be a strange thing to write, i.e. wouldn’t you expect the author to write Mary, the mother of Jesus, since James has never been mentioned up to this point?
It’s debated! And very hard to tell…
So some think it could mean Mary the mother of Jesus?
Interested to know your view on this.
Yes, that’s one of the theories.
Many thanks for responding..
Could I ask what your views are on the matter?
Sorry, you’ll need to repeat the question — I’m not sure which matter you want my views on! (I don’t see the whole thread when you ask a followup questoins)
Of course, my apologies for not realising this.
Here is the original question:
//Luke talks about Mary, the mother of James, in Luke 24:10
’10 Now it was Mary Magdalene, Joanna, Mary the mother of James, and the other women with them who told this to the apostles.’
Is this meant to be the mother of Jesus and implying that James was his brother?
Or is this meant to be someone else?
This seems to be a strange thing to write, i.e. wouldn’t you expect the author to write Mary, the mother of Jesus, since James has never been mentioned up to this point?//
What do you think the author was referring to with this?
I continue not to know. 🙂