Is there a James in the NT who didn't believe in Jesus?

[momof8]

I just finished watching The Case for Christ, a DVD about journalist Lee Strobel’s search for the truth regarding Jesus, and his journey from atheism to Christianity. It is a wonderful story and I’m going to have my high schoolers watch it with me. He only chose to contact Protestant Bible experts in his investigation but I do not see a problem with what they say regarding the historical believability of the scriptures.

I do have a question about his investigation into the truth of the Resurrection. He says that “James, a step-brother of Jesus” did not believe in Jesus until seeing him after the Resurrection. They don’t site any verses for this. Does anyone know to whom they could be referring, or to whom they think they are referring? I know it is not very accurate to refer to someone as Jesus’ step-brother since I understand that references to relatives were not that specific, so it would have to be speculation to name someone as a step-brother, but who could this James be? I don’t think they name him as an apostle which wouldn’t make sense - obviously the apostles believed in Jesus, at least to the extent that they were able to understand Him, and while their faith was shaken by the crucifixion I don’t recall a James who could have been considered an unbeliever.

Also, regarding the Resurrection, they quote the verse where Paul says that Jesus appeared to many people after his resurrection and “last of all” to Paul, but they are unclear on when they think that appearance occurred. Did Paul see Jesus any time between the Resurrection and the Ascension, or is Paul referring to Jesus’ appearance to him on the road to Damascus, as I always understood the passage? I don’t believe he did see Jesus’ resurrected body before Damascus but wanted to clarify that.

It is interesting that Mr. Strobel did not contact Catholic scholars. It is understandable, since his wife became Christian first and she and her friends would have led him to Protestant sources, but I pray that he and his wife come to the fullness of the truth now that they knows Jesus!

 

[Angainor]

Also, regarding the Resurrection, they quote the verse where Paul says that Jesus appeared to many people after his resurrection and “last of all” to Paul, but they are unclear on when they think that appearance occurred. Did Paul see Jesus any time between the Resurrection and the Ascension, or is Paul referring to Jesus’ appearance to him on the road to Damascus, as I always understood the passage? I don’t believe he did see Jesus’ resurrected body before Damascus but wanted to clarify that!

Right. Jesus didn’t appear to Paul before the Ascension.

 

[NotWorthy]

As far as James, the brother of Jesus, becoming a believer, there are numerous scholars that think that James, the first Bishop of Jerusalem (in acts 15) is not either of the two apostles, but a Jewish leader who converted. I’ve brought this up on a thread before, and was hammered for it , so it doesn’t have much of a foothold evidently.

This James was accepted by the Jewish leaders as well as the Christians. None of the Apostles seemed to have held much respect among the Jewish leaders. And even though Annias had James executed (circa 57ad?), the Jews raised a great stink with Rome for this and had Annias removed from office. You also see James having 4 priests to be ordained as Nazirites. This would seem to indicate strong ties to the Jewish traditions which the rest of the Apostles were shedding.

But James in Jerusalem, for obvious reasons, had to “walk the line” between Christianity and Judaism in order to keep the peace.

That’s my two cents worth.

 

[momof8]

Thank you, NotWorthy. I had never heard of this controversy. I guess I would tend to doubt that the first Bishop of Jerusalem would be anyone other than an apostle, but it sounds likely that the Protestant scholars in the video are coming from this point of view. There are probably other statements in the video that are, unknown to me, not Catholic, but I nothing stood out in the earlier part of the DVD.

Well, for now, I will stick with watching the first part of the video with my kids since I am not able to discuss the statements about James.

 

[NotWorthy]

Thank you, NotWorthy. I had never heard of this controversy. I guess I would tend to doubt that the first Bishop of Jerusalem would be anyone other than an apostle, but it sounds likely that the Protestant scholars in the video are coming from this point of view. There are probably other statements in the video that are, unknown to me, not Catholic, but I nothing stood out in the earlier part of the DVD.

Well, for now, I will stick with watching the first part of the video with my kids since I am not able to discuss the statements about James.

momof8, you might find this worth reading. It comes from Agape’s Bible Study.

The article I linked is rather long, but worth reading if you have the time. The Agape Studies are very Catholic in teaching, so the thoughts on James being an ex-Pharisee (or other Jewish leader) are worth studying.

 

[JMBNH]

It’s not St James the Great (brother of St John) as he was killed by then. Some people link him with St James the Less (the other Apostle James) though there seems to be little evidence of him having a major role from the Gospels. The most likely candidate is the James listed in St Mark’s Gospel as one of Jesus’s ‘brothers’ who seems a bit skeptical of him. Most likely he was the son of St Joseph from a former marriage, with St Joseph having become a widower (clearly not divorced), though he could also have been a cousin or similar. Though James was well respected by the local Jewish population, so clearly had some kind of Jewish leadership at one stage.

 

[momof8]

The article I linked is rather long, but worth reading if you have the time. The Agape Studies are very Catholic in teaching, so the thoughts on James being an ex-Pharisee (or other Jewish leader) are worth studying.

Thank you, I will look into this.

 

[momof8]

It’s not St James the Great (brother of St John) as he was killed by then. Some people link him with St James the Less (the other Apostle James) though there seems to be little evidence of him having a major role from the Gospels. The most likely candidate is the James listed in St Mark’s Gospel as one of Jesus’s ‘brothers’ who seems a bit skeptical of him. Most likely he was the son of St Joseph from a former marriage, with St Joseph having become a widower (clearly not divorced), though he could also have been a cousin or similar. Though James was well respected by the local Jewish population, so clearly had some kind of Jewish leadership at one stage.

Wow, from simply reading the New Testament I would not have picked up on any of this. I would stick with the concept of Jesus not having any siblings, even half-siblings, only unspecified other relatives. Unless the Church says I am required to believe something about Joseph’s previous marital or parental status, I will believe believe that Joseph, whatever his age when he was betrothed to Mary, was not previously married. To me, Mary and Joseph had to be very focused on Jesus and responsibilities to other children wouldn’t seem right to me - not that they wouldn’t be excellent, but that it is just a family dynamic that doesn’t sit well with my concept of the Holy Family. Can’t see Joseph having to worry about his other children when he had to rescue Jesus from Herod. But I digress!

I will certainly read the related passages very carefully now. Thank you, JMBNH, for the information.

 

[NotWorthy]

Wow, from simply reading the New Testament I would not have picked up on any of this. I would stick with the concept of Jesus not having any siblings, even half-siblings, only unspecified other relatives. Unless the Church says I am required to believe something about Joseph’s previous marital or parental status, I will believe believe that Joseph, whatever his age when he was betrothed to Mary, was not previously married. To me, Mary and Joseph had to be very focused on Jesus and responsibilities to other children wouldn’t seem right to me - not that they wouldn’t be excellent, but that it is just a family dynamic that doesn’t sit well with my concept of the Holy Family. Can’t see Joseph having to worry about his other children when he had to rescue Jesus from Herod. But I digress!

I will certainly read the related passages very carefully now. Thank you, JMBNH, for the information.

According to early Christian tradition, Joseph was considered a widower. The Protoevangelium of James, although not inspired works, was based on previous tradition (note the little “t”) among Christians.

It states that Joseph was a widower chosen to be Mary’s Husband by lot. Mary was becoming of age to marry, and she was a consecrated virgin to the Temple. To prevent scandal among the priesthood, Joseph was chosen to wed Marry and take her into his home. His kids were grown by the time of this new marriage. If I recall correctly, Joseph may have been around 41 at the time.

 

[Todd_Easton]

There was a James who was known as one of the Lord’s brothers. (Matthew 13:55; Mark 6:3; Galatians 1:19)

John 7:5 says, "For even his brothers did not believe in him. "