This is my reply to Jason Engwer's attempt to bolster the notion Jesus' brother James believed Jesus rose from the dead.
The Gospels' Agreement About James And Corroboration Of Other Sources In a post yesterday, I discussed agreements among the early sources regarding the apostles. Some evidence that's often neglected in that context is what the gospels tell us about Jesus' brother James. I've discussed their material on him elsewhere. Something I don't believe I've discussed here before, though, and it's something that doesn't seem to get much attention in general, is James' position in the lists of Jesus' siblings in Matthew 13:55 and Mark 6:3. Notice that the two lists are different, and there are some differences in the surrounding context, so it's not just a matter of Matthew's copying Mark, Mark's copying Matthew, or both's copying some other source. What I want to focus on here, though is how they list the names of Jesus' brothers in a different order, yet agree in putting James first. As I've mentioned before, the order in which names appear in a list can be determined by a wide variety of factors. James could be listed first because he was the oldest brother of Jesus. Or it could be because he was the most prominent for whatever other reasons. Or it could be both. Maybe James was the most prominent, which was partly because he was the oldest and partly because of one or more other factors. Whatever the cause of his being listed first in both documents, that's consistent with his prominence elsewhere.
"consistent with"? Gee, what lawyer can't show that his lying client's testimony is "consistent with" other facts? You need to show that your theory has greater probability than the theory you disagree with.
He's prominent in Acts, much more prominent than the other siblings listed with him in Matthew 13 and Mark 6.
No, the only "James" who is "prominent" in Acts is the James of Acts 15 and Acts 21, neither of which express or imply he is the brother of Jesus...while two of the original 12 disciples of Jesus were named "James" and thus make better candidates. Especially given that you can't even show that Jesus' brother James ever even became a Christian in the first place. Inerrantist Christian scholar T. George is far less impressed with Galatians 1:19 than you are:
George, T. (2001, c1994). New American Commentary, Vol. 30: Galatians. On p. 74 he says:
1:19 Paul claimed that he saw none of the other apostles except James, the brother of Jesus. The expression is ambiguous in Greek, so we cannot be sure whether Paul meant to include James among the other apostles. Did he mean: “The only other apostle I saw was James,” or “I saw no other apostle, although I did see James”? Probably he meant something like this: “During my sojourn with Peter, I saw none of the other apostles, unless you count James, the Lord’s brother.”
Engwer continues:
He's the only sibling of Jesus mentioned by name in the resurrection appearances discussed in 1 Corinthians 15.
What makes you think the unqualified "James" in 1st Corinthians 15 is specifically the brother of Jesus, when in fact there were two different Jameses among the original 12 apostles, who would be better candidates, especially given that you cannot even show James ever became a Christian to begin with?
He's the only brother of Jesus mentioned in Galatians 1-2
No, the James of 1:19 is not clearly equated with the apostles, as inerrantist Christian scholars admit, supra, and the "James" of Galatians 2 is unqualified in context, and the mere fact that the brother James was mentioned in the prior chapter by no means "requires" that the unqualified James mentioned in ch. 2 is the same person.
and the only one named anywhere in Paul's letters. Jude identifies himself in connection with James (Jude 1),
Brother to which James? He doesn't say, and the most we can reasonably infer is that he was probably talking about a James who was some type of church leader. And the two Jameses among the original 12 apostles certainly qualify for that position far more than Jesus' brother of the same name.
but James sees no need to appeal to a relationship with any of his brothers in his letter.
And you don't know which James wrote that letter, so your theories and why he doesn't state any biological relation to Jesus are nothing that could possibly threaten the reasonableness of the skeptical position that says the James who wrote that book is too obscure to justify dogmatic pronouncements about his identity.
This sort of greater prominence James had, in comparison to his brothers, is corroborated by the passages in Matthew 13 and Mark 6.
No, they merely mention James first, and you admitted that could just as easily be due to his being older, but now, you shove all that aside and blindly insist his being mentioned first can only imply he was a Christian leader.
Several years ago, I wrote an article addressing why the gospels don't include any reference to the resurrection appearance to James. I said that the best explanation for their not including the appearance to James is a desire to be consistent with their previous focus on Jesus' earliest followers and a desire to honor those earliest disciples.
A better theory for that silence is that Jesus' brother James never saw a risen Christ, a theory you could prove wrong from the bible or Josephus, which means the theory must remain reasonable.
You can read the article just linked for a further discussion of that subject and others that are related. I want to note here, though, that since one of the gospels that doesn't include the appearance to James is Luke, there's an implication that Luke wanted to honor Jesus' earliest disciples above individuals like James in the manner I just described. That's significant in light of the fact that some people deny that Luke viewed James as an unbeliever during Jesus' public ministry. I've argued that Luke 8:19-21 probably alludes to his unbelieving status.
I prefer, as do most conservative apologists, John 7:5 and Mark 3:21 to document Jesus' brother James thinking Jesus' miracles were fake. And let's not forget the bizarre Mark 6, where the people of his own hometown are angry for his doing a miracle, and he admits even those of his own household were his "enemies". Your 'explanation' for why his family members didn't believe in him before the crucifixion, is utterly laughable...they were too blinded by their hope in a military messiah to appreciate the obvious ramifications of Jesus' miracles! LOL.
But even if we didn't have that passage, or even if my view of it is wrong, I think the absence of any reference to the resurrection appearance to him is best explained if he was an unbeliever in the relevant timeframe.
Agreed. Now you need to explain what's so unreasonable about the skeptical theory that says the reason James was an unbeliever during Jesus' pre-cross ministry, is because he didn't think Jesus' miracles were genuinely supernatural. That theory is obviously reasonable, and similarly explains why lots of Christians stop following "faith-healers". It's not like you know enough about this brother of Jesus to "prove" that he held any "military messiah" hope, or that if he did, held it so strongly that he blinded himself to obvious reality.
And if he did blind himself to obvious reality, that constitutes a legitimate impeachment of his general credibility, which cannot be erased merely by screaming that he became a believer. Peter was stupid during his time with Jesus and even afterward, apparently.
Even if I'm wrong about both of these matters, the meaning of the Luke 8 passage and the absence of the appearance to James, there has to be some reason why all of the gospels don't mention that appearance. And that's further common ground they have about James.
In light of inerrantist Christian scholar's unlikely admissions about the ambiguity of Galatians 1:19, I say Mark 3:21 and John 7:5 not only tell us THAT this James was an unbeliever during Jesus' public ministry, but they support the inference that he probably didn't find Jesus' miracles' to be genuinely supernatural.
