“So comprehensive and pervasive is the resurrection of Jesus that, historically speaking, the onus is on the skeptic to overturn it.”[1]
– Historian Paul W. Barnett
This article is the fourth in a series of 5 facts that nearly every historian accepts as true, including atheist and non-Christian ones! These facts are:
(1) Jesus died by crucifixion
(2) Jesus’ followers believed he rose and appeared to them
(3) Sudden Change in Church persecutor Paul
(4) Sudden Change in skeptic James
(5) Empty tomb discovered
You may have heard of these labeled as the minimal facts argument which Gary Habermas champions. While attending Liberty University where Habermas taught, I had the privilege of hearing him give an extensive lecture series on the historicity of Jesus’ resurrection. I would like to share some of these facts while incorporating the insight of several other world-renowned historians who also accept these historical facts as true.
In my third article, I’ve established that:
- Paul was a devout Jew and Pharisee who persecuted Christians.
- Paul sincerely believed he encountered the risen Jesus; therefore, friends and enemies of Jesus both believe he was resurrected.
- Paul saw the body of Jesus and did not have a subjective vision, and an objective vision seems highly improbable.
- Universal agreement among historians that Paul believed he experienced what he thought was the resurrected Jesus.
So, did the disciples and Paul die in vain? Again, just because they claimed and believed Jesus was risen, obviously does not mean Jesus was actually risen. Was there anyone else besides Jesus’ disciples and Paul who suffered and died because of their belief that Jesus was alive again? Yes, there was. In this article, I will cover historical fact 4: Sudden change in skeptic James.
Who Was James?
Biblical writings
There is not very much information about James in the Bible, however, the little we do know serves as an important fact in supporting the arguments for Jesus’ resurrection. James was not one of the original 12 disciples.
William Scarborough reminds us that before James’ conversion to Christianity, he was a devout Jew and his speeches in Acts demonstrate he was still very committed to his Jewish roots and wanted to uphold the Jewish law in addition to his new faith.[2]
James was Jesus’ brother and became an apostle and one of the “pillars” in the Jerusalem church (Gal. 1:19, 2:9). Historian Richard Bauckham reminds us that this church “became the mother church of the whole Christian movement;”[3] so, you could say that James was a very important figure in early Christianity. New Testament scholar William Farmer adds that Paul “always refers to James in connection with some pivotal moment in the life of the church.”[4]
Nonbiblical writings
When we turn to nonbiblical writings from the early church, we find more information on James. Clement of Alexandria and Eusebius inform us that James was appointed by the apostles to be the first bishop of the first church in Jerusalem.[5] So, this also confirms that James was an authoritative figure, assuming leadership of the church from 42 A.D. to 62 A.D.
Hegesippus (150-180 A.D.) tells us legendary details about James, such as, he never allowed a razor to touch his head, he didn’t use the public bath, only he could enter the holy of holies, he prayed for the sins of the people, and because of his constant prayer he had calloused knees like those of a camel.[6] Although these descriptions are exaggerated, they convey the impact of James in the early stages of Christianity.
Jewish Roman historian Josephus mentions James in his Antiquities and even tells us how he died.[7] Regarding the writings of Josephus, historians Keith and Hurtado remind us that James
“also has the distinction of being the only Christian mentioned by name in a first-century source [Josephus] not written by a Christian.”[8]
So, we know James existed and played a significant role in early Christianity.
James’ Letter
Most likely written in the 50s, we have good reason to believe that James the brother of Jesus is the same James that wrote the letter we have in our Bible. Some critics have argued that the Greek is far too sophisticated for the son of a carpenter to have written it; however, this mistakenly takes a general statistic of the era and applies it universally to all people which disregards other considerations.
There are extenuating circumstances, and other scholars have put forth convincing arguments for James being the writer. James could have used an amanuensis (secretary/scribe) to write for him as we see Paul and others did from time to time, and we know from external sources that translators were readily available. Maybe James learned this skill over time as Jerusalem was immersed in Hellenism and communication in Greek was extremely common.
Biblical scholar Scot McKnight believes James wrote it and that the arguments against it are fairly weak, but regardless of whether James did or didn’t, he highlights that “the evidence suggests that the ‘James’ of James 1:1 is the brother of Jesus, whether the writer was he or someone writing in his name.”[9] Distinguished historian Luke Timothy Johnson agrees and claims that the voice of James’ letter, whether he wrote it or not,
“Agrees substantially with the best reading of Luke and Paul with respect to the historical James (and for that matter, with the evidence provided by Josephus as well.)”[10]
We can also see aspects of his letter steeped in Judaism which corresponds to what we know about him from the rest of the New Testament and nonbiblical early Christian writings/traditions.
McKnight points out that James renders the Torah (first 5 books of Old Testament) as loving God and others, and applies it through the incorporation of the Shema,[11] and focuses more on wisdom and prophetic sources rather than instructive and salvific ones as seen from Paul and Peter.[12] And Johnson points out that James references Leviticus 19:18 in James 2:8 to show that our moral duties stem from loving others as ourselves, which is exactly what Jesus taught (royal law or law of love).[13]
You may be wondering why I am covering all of this. Basically, I want to show that James wasn’t just a casual religious Jew; rather, he was a very loyal and serious one, and this is going to help us better appreciate the magnitude of his conversion.
Why Did James Become a Christian?
Here is the real question that we need to address: What persuaded a devout Jew such as James to convert to a new faith that declared Jesus as the Messiah and God? James knew there was only one God, yet he is ready to worship Jesus as that same God. However, he also knew that Jesus wasn’t the same person as his Heavenly Father (hence the necessity for the Trinity—One Being/God comprised of 3 Persons).
Why would this Jew forsake his life-long cherished faith that he rigorously practiced? The key for James was that he wasn’t forsaking anything, rather he was accepting a revelation that had finally unfolded, emerging from the very roots of his treasured Jewish faith. The long-awaited Messiah was finally here to fulfill what had always been promised to the Israelites. What made this even more incredible is the fact that James grew up with the very man he is now worshiping.
Can you imagine what it would take for you to worship your brother!? I have 2 older brothers, and although they would probably enjoy it if I did worship them, the only way I could stomach such a thought would be if one of them were actually God, which thankfully, they are not!
Likewise, when James found out that Jesus was being worshiped and proclaimed as the Messiah, no doubt flashbacks of a perfect child—who did no wrong—popped into his mind and made him wonder for a second if it could actually be true, but then quickly dismissed such a preposterous theory. James was a skeptic and did not believe that his brother Jesus was the Messiah or God.[14]
Habermas says,
“That James was an unbeliever during Jesus’s public ministry is granted by almost all contemporary scholars, since this is attested both by multiple independent sources and by the principle of embarrassment.”[15]
The principle or criterion of embarrassment is an analytical tool that historians use to help determine the truthfulness of ancient writings. For example, if someone told a lie to make themselves look really good, that would be understandable; however, if someone told a lie to make themselves look really bad, that would be stupid.
So, if the writers of the New Testament were to invent the story of the resurrection, they would obviously avoid including embarrassing details that would make people doubt the truthfulness of their story. It doesn’t look good that James, the leader of the mother church of Jerusalem, didn’t think too highly of its founder, Jesus, during his earthly ministry nor believe that he was the Messiah.[16]
Historian Michael Licona rightly asks,
“Why would all four canonical Gospels paint a negative picture of Jesus’ brothers, writing during or after the period in which James had been a leader of the church in Jerusalem? This would only serve to undermine the church authority the Evangelists would be expected to support.”[17]
If the story were made up, they probably would have said that James was a major supporter of Jesus, claiming that he was a perfect Jew, believed he was the Messiah all along, and that God really did raise him from the dead.
Prominent atheist historian Gerd Lüdemann also believes that James did not have a close relationship with Jesus, and that James had an encounter (vision) with whom he thought to be the risen Jesus, noting, “James even received an individual vision— that James who had not thought much of his brother during Jesus’ lifetime (Mark 3:21; John 7:5).”[18]
This encounter with the risen Jesus serves as the best explanation for how a devout Jewish skeptic could suddenly become a staunch believer, enduring extreme hardship because of it while receiving nothing in return. Renowned historian E. P. Sanders explains that
“It appears from I Cor. 15.7 that James had a separate resurrection experience, and presumably this accounts for his commitment to the early Christian movement.”[19]
1 Cor. 15:7 is part of the early creed I had mentioned in the previous article series. Historian N. T. Wright adds that James “belongs firmly in the earliest tradition we possess (1 Corinthians 15.7).”[20]
James believed he had seen his brother Jesus alive again, and he was so sure of it that he would be willing to suffer and die because of it. There are 2 traditions regarding James’ martyrdom.
The first says that because of how many Jews James was converting to Christianity, he was brought forth by Jewish religious leaders to publicly denounce that Jesus was the Messiah. He refused and was thrown down from the temple, stoned and finally killed with a club as he prayed for his enemies.
However, the second tradition is upheld as the more reliable one and accepted among scholars today because of Josephus. Biblical scholars Bock and Simpson reference this recognized fact saying that “in AD 62 the Jews stoned James, Jesus’s brother.”[21] (You can easily find Josephus’ writings online). Josephus tells us that the high priest Ananus wrongfully killed “the brother of Jesus who was called Christ, whose name was James” and other Christians by having them stoned.[22]
Scholars think that James was stoned because of his messianic preaching, and the only way someone would preach this despite the persecution, is if they were fully persuaded that Jesus truly was the Messiah. Therefore, it is reasonable to conclude that James’ radical transformation, conversion and martyrdom was due to his encounter with who he sincerely believed to be the risen Jesus.
Did James Really “See” Jesus?
In article 3, I covered something similar in regard to Paul. I demonstrated that Jews understood resurrection to be a bodily event, not a spiritual one. This means that James encountered the risen body of Jesus and did not have a subjective vision or hallucination. Based on James’ pre-resurrection attitude toward Jesus, there is no evidence suggesting that he was grieving his brother’s death to the point of hallucination.
Furthermore, even if James were a follower of Jesus before Jesus died, which the majority of critical scholars disagree with,[23] we need to remember that Jesus died a humiliating and shameful death, similar to that of a common criminal. This execution was not at all what Jesus’ followers anticipated, especially after witnessing his miracles and hearing him identify himself as a divine figure.
Theologian Gerald O’Collins contrasts the incredible things that Jesus said and did with how he was killed and the impact it would have had on his followers, noting,
“In short, the prior claims coming from Jesus and the specific nature of his death separate his case from ‘normal’ deaths and the bereavement sequences that follow for those who have lost their dear loved ones.”[24]
If anything, these followers were more discouraged and upset that they left behind their families and jobs to go and follow a man that deceived them into thinking he was the true Messiah with authority equal to God’s.
So, trying to compare James’ grieving with that of someone who has lost a child or spouse is not an adequate comparison. Habermas and Licona rightly add,
“Although we do not have as much information about James and his frame of mind after Jesus’ death as we do for Paul, there is no indication that James was stricken by grief over his brother’s death…. James did not believe that his brother was the Messiah.”[25]
Again, James had a Jewish understanding of bodily resurrections. If he had any doubts, he could have just gone and looked at the decomposing body of Jesus still lying in the tomb (but of course he couldn’t since the tomb was empty!). Therefore, I don’t think that James had a subjective vision of the risen Jesus.
Psychoanalyzing someone today is difficult enough, let alone attempting to do so with an individual from 2,000 years ago. This view lacks supporting evidence; we should base our understanding on the evidence that we do have, not what we don’t have.
So, James was a devout Jew who grew up with Jesus and eventually converted to Christianity because of seeing the risen Jesus, became the leader of the Jerusalem church and died as a martyr. The majority of critical scholars accept this position.
Alternative naturalistic explanations fail to adequately explain James’ conversion. Thus, given the existence of God and our background knowledge of this event, the best explanation for such an event would be if Jesus really did rise from the dead.
The next article will cover: Historical Fact 5: Empty Tomb Discovered. Thanks for reading. Be bold and share this!
Blessings,
Andrew Drinkard
[1] Paul W. Barnett, “Is the New Testament Historically Reliable,” ed, Steven B. Cowan and Terry L. Wilder. In Defense of the Bible: A Comprehensive Apologetic for the Authority of Scripture (Nashville: Broadman & Holman Academic, 2013), 250.
[2] William J. Scarborough, “James the Just.” Journal of Bible and Religion 9, no. 4 (1941): 234-38. Accessed February 15, 2021. http://www.jstor.org/stable/1459105.
[3] Richard Bauckham, Jesus and the Eyewitnesses: The Gospels as Eyewitness Testimony, 2nd edition (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans Publishing, 2017), 298.
[4] William R. Farmer, “James the Lord’s Brother, According to Paul” in Bruce D. Chilton and Craig A. Evans, James the Just and Christian Origins (Leiden: BRILL, 1999), 134.
[5] See Scarborough, “James the Just.” Journal of Bible and Religion 9, no. 4 (1941): 234-38. Accessed February 15, 2021. http://www.jstor.org/stable/1459105.
[6] See Scarborough, “James the Just,” 236.
[7] Josephus, Antiquities of the Jews, XX.9. Accessed February 15, 2021. http://penelope.uchicago.edu/josephus/ant-20.html.
[8] Chris Keith and Larry W. Hurtado, Jesus among Friends and Enemies: A Historical and Literary Introduction to Jesus in the Gospels (Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2011), 110.
[9] Scot McKnight, The Letter of James (Grand Rapids: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 2011), 43-52.
[10] Luke Timothy Johnson, Brother of Jesus, Friend of God: Studies in the Letter of James (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans Publishing Company, 2004), 9.
[11] The Shema can be found in Deut. 6:4-5 and is the daily prayer of the ancient Israelites. You could compare it to something like the Christian tradition of the Lord’s prayer. This prayer was performed twice every day and was one of the core tenets of the Judaism.
[12] See McKnight (2011), 35-36.
[13] Johnson, Brother of Jesus, Friend of God, 13.
[14] See Keith and Hurtado (2011), 109. There are some scholars who believe it is possible that James was already a follower of Jesus by the time the risen Jesus appeared to him, and that he did not convert to Christianity because of this encounter. They claim it’s because James had family members (uncle) who were already followers of Jesus, and that his mother and aunt were present at the cross.
[15] Habermas, The Risen Jesus and Future Hope, 28.
[16] See Licona, The Resurrection of Jesus, 460 for a list of biblical passages that show James and Jesus’ other brothers doubting and even taunting Jesus. They were very skeptical.
[17] Michael R. Licona, The Resurrection of Jesus: A New Historiographical Approach. Downers Grove, IL: Intervarsity Press, 2010), 455.
[18] Gerd Lüdemann, “The Earliest Christian Belief in the Resurrection,” Historical Jesus in Recent Research, ed. James D. G. Dunn and McKnight, Scot McKnight (Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns, 2005), 415.
[19] E. P. Sanders, The Historical Figure of Jesus (New York: Penguin Books), 329. Kindle.
[20] N. T. Wright, The Resurrection of the Son of God, 377-84 and Habermas & Licona (2004), 704.
[21] Darrell L. Bock and Benjamin I. Simpson, Jesus According to Scripture: Restoring the Portrait from the Gospels. Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2002), 74.
[22] Josephus, Antiquities of the Jews, XX.9. Accessed February 15, 2021. http://penelope.uchicago.edu/josephus/ant-20.html.
[23] I’ve already quoted Habermas saying this, but if you see Licona, The Resurrection of Jesus, 460-461, Licona references a portion of Habermas’ list of reputable scholars who believe James converted after seeing the risen Jesus.
[24] Stephen T. Davis, Daniel Kendall, and Gerald O’Collins, Editors, The Resurrection (Oxford: Oxford University, 1997), 11-12.
[25] Gary R. Habermas and Michael R. Licona, The Case for the Resurrection of Jesus (Grand Rapids: Kregel Publications, 2004), 107.
