Further, how are we
to account similarly for the conversion of Jesus’s skeptical brother James? Along
with his family members, James’s earlier stance was apparently to reject Jesus
and his message along with joining the public sentiment (hoi par’ autou)
that Jesus was out of his mind (exestē, Mark 3:21, 31-35; John 7:3-5).
Yet later, after he met the risen Jesus, James appears to have been converted
from his early position to his subsequent leadership of the Jerusalem church.
Admittedly, this was
a rather abrupt about-face for James—a change from thinking that his brother
was mentally ill to following him even to the point of being willing to be
stoned to death for his belief in him (Josephus, Ant. 20.9.1). The
majority opinion among critical scholars is that the apparent and awe-inspiring
changes in James was due to an appearance of the risen Jesus. This event was
recorded in both the very early creedal tradition in 1 Cor 15:7 as well as
narrated briefly in chapter 8 of the later, noncanonical Gospel of the
Hebrews.
James’s move away
from his previous unbelief has to be accounted for adequately both in his
conversion and in his leadership position in the early church. Scarcely has
anyone stated this more succinctly than critical scholar Reginald H. Fuller,
who went as far as to retort, “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 in order to account for his post-resurrection conversion and rapid
advance.” (Reginald H. Fuller, The Formation of the Resurrection Narratives,
2nd ed. [New York: Macmillan, 1980], 37, after citing Gal 2:1-10, 12; Acts
15:13; 21:18). Quite similarly, N. T. Wright also asserts regarding Jesus’s
brother James, “it is difficult to account for his centrality and unrivalled
leadership unless he was himself known to have seen the risen Jesus.” (Wright, Resurrection
of the Son of God, 325. Wright likewise follows the majority view that
James probably came to believe in Jesus due to a resurrection appearance [560])
(Gary R. Habermas, On the Resurrection, 4 vols. [Brentwood, Tenn.:
B&H Academic, 2024], 2:460-61)
The Greek text in
Mark 3:21, 31-35 is difficult in its own right, such as regarding the question
of the identity of those who attempted to restrain Jesus. The Greek literally
indicates that these were people nearby (hoi par’ autou), but both the
way the terms are used plus Jesus seemingly ignoring his family, at least temporally
(3:31-35), favors the notion that Jesus’s family agreed with this public
sentiment. IT no doubt looked embarrassing for both Jesus and his family, hence
raising its likelihood of authenticity. (Ibid., 460 n. 64)
To Support this Blog: