James the Forgotten Brother of Jesus

Intimate of Jesus.

Paul’s superior.

Head of the Jerusalem Christians.

One naturally assumes that such epithets refer to the apostles of Jesus. In fact, these are all references to one man, James the brother of Jesus. You’d be forgiven for thinking that this is a conspiracy theory drawn from a Dan Brown novel. Many are unaware that the New Testament teaches that Jesus had siblings, and that James was a prominent figure early on. In this article we will see that James is of critical importance to unlocking the true teachings of Jesus and stands in direct opposition to modern Christianity. We will also see that he has been deliberately marginalised by the compilers and authors of the New Testament.

Who was James?

With regards to James, the New Testament states: “Isn’t this the carpenter’s son? Isn’t his mother’s name Mary, and aren’t his brothers James, Joseph, Simon and Judas?” [Matthew 13:55].

Here we are informed in very literal terms that James was one of the siblings of Jesus. This is coupled with another statement, that Mary was the mother of Jesus. The apparent meaning of both of these very matter-of-fact statements is that Mary and James were the flesh and blood family of Jesus.

Interestingly, Christian denominations have different interpretations about the nature of this relationship between Jesus and James. Protestants tend to be divided, but many accept that Joseph and Mary, following the virgin birth of Jesus, had other children together. So, these were the half-brothers of Jesus from his mother Mary, since Jesus had no human father. Eastern Catholics hold the view that they were stepbrothers, older than Jesus and children of Joseph from a previous marriage. Roman Catholics believe that the brothers mentioned here were cousins, not literal brothers, since both Mary and Joseph remained virgins throughout their lives. This opinion has no scriptural basis, it’s based more on extra-biblical assumptions about the nature and role of Mary and Joseph than a direct understanding of scripture.

A leader in the early Jesus movement

Whatever your views of James and his family ties to Jesus – whether they be cousins, step brothers or literal brothers – there is no doubting that he was a senior figure very early on after the ascension of Jesus. The New Testament itself makes this abundantly clear in numerous places. According to Paul himself, James stands first, along with Peter and John, as the “pillars” of the Jesus movement: “James, Cephas and John, those esteemed as pillars, gave me and Barnabas the right hand of fellowship…” [Galatians 2:9] Note that James is listed first, ahead of Peter and John. There is, in fact, evidence to suggest that James was the head of the Jerusalem congregation. When Peter, having miraculously escaped from prison, must flee Jerusalem, he asked that James be informed:

When the believers of Antioch were concerned over whether Gentile (i.e. non-Jewish) believers in Jesus needed be circumcised in order to be saved, they sent Paul and Barnabas to confer with the Jerusalem congregation. Different opinions were put forward, but it was James who uttered the definitive judgment: “When they finished, James spoke up. ‘Brothers,” he said, “listen to me…’” [Acts 15:13] The apostles and elders, the likes of Peter and John, submitted to the decree made by James. This indicates that James held a very senior position among them. They put James’ decree in a letter that was to be distributed to the Gentile believers via Paul and his companion Barnabas.

Towards the end of his life, Paul visited Jerusalem again and met with the same apostles and leaders. When Paul arrived in Jerusalem, it is James to whom he spoke, and it is James who commanded Paul to ritually cleanse himself:

We can see that the day after his arrival, Paul went to “visit James and all the elders were present”. Once again it is clear that James is leader of the group. Not only did Paul have to account to James, but by undergoing the ritual it shows that Paul was submissive to James.

There are other sources external to the Bible which also point to James’ leadership. According to the historian Josephus, who was a contemporary of Jesus, James was a highly regarded leader in Jerusalem until he died. The Gospel of Thomas discovered at Nag Hammadi in 1945 tells us the following:

Here we have a statement placed in the mouth of Jesus, that he is handing over leadership of his movement to James. Clement of Alexandria is another early source, late second century, that confirms the succession of James. Clement writes:

Eusebius, an early fourth century Christian historian, in commenting on this passage wrote, “James whom men of old had surnamed ‘Just’ for his excellence of virtue, is recorded to have been the first elected to the throne of the oversight of the church in Jerusalem” [2]. Hegesippus, a Jewish-Christian of the early second century, who he says is from the “generation after the Apostles”, stated with regards to James:

The Syriac source “The Ascents of James” reflects some of the earliest traditions related to the Jerusalem church under the leadership of James the Just. It records events in Jerusalem seven years following the death of Jesus, when James is clearly at the helm: “The church in Jerusalem that was established by our Lord was increasing in numbers being ruled uprightly and firmly by James who was made Overseer over it by our Lord” [4].

What is impressive about these sources, which from various authors and time periods, is the way in which they speak with a single voice. The basic elements of the picture they preserve for us are amazingly consistent:

• Jesus passed rule to James
• James had a reputation for righteousness
• The Twelve Apostles looked to James as their undisputed leader

In summary, we have seen ample evidence, both scriptural and historical, which indicate that James was very senior within the early Jesus movement, perhaps even supreme leader. Given his seniority, it’s important that we pay close attention to what he had to say. Beyond the man lies a message, and we will see that this message has devastating implications for Christianity today.

James versus Christianity

There are several critical areas where the teachings of James are in direct opposition to the beliefs and practices of Christianity today:

1. Justification by faith or works?

Many Christians believe that they are justified before God and saved based purely on their faith alone, without the need for righteous works. This is in line with the teachings of Paul: “Therefore we conclude that a man is justified by faith without the deeds of the law” [Romans 3:28]. Paul’s view is that salvation is not earned by good deeds but rather received only as a free gift of God’s grace through faith. Yet James puts forward a radically different view: “Ye see then how that by works a man is justified, and not by faith only” [James 2:24]. Here James directly disputes Paul’s teaching of “salvation by faith” without deeds of righteousness. James does not mention Paul’s name, but the reference is unmistakable. Christians attempt to reconcile these opposing views by all manner of mental gymnastics, usually by stating that James and Paul were commenting on different types of faith.

However, the contradiction in theology between James and Paul is apparent when we consider their very different interpretations of the same passage of the Old Testament. Consider the story of Abraham and the sacrifice of Isaac in Genesis:

Paul quotes this passage of Genesis in support of justification by faith alone:

James also happens to quote the exact same passage of Genesis, but he does so in support of justification by faith and works:

So we can see that James and Paul quote the very same passage of Genesis and make opposing theological points, which proves that their understanding of justification is contradictory. In fact, major Christian theologians have acknowledged this conflict between James and Paul. The sixteenth century biblical scholar Martin Luther in his preface to the Epistle of James, states rather bluntly:

Note that Luther fully acknowledged the incompatibility between James and Paul and went as far to reject James being in the New Testament.

2. A religion about Jesus, or the message of Jesus?

Christianity as a religion today is centred on the person of Jesus. Everyone has heard the famous slogan “Believe in the death of Jesus for your sins and you shall be saved” which is uttered by missionaries and apologists the world over. This directly echoes Paul’s teachings: “If you declare with your mouth, ‘Jesus is Lord,’ and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved” [Romans 10:9]. The “Gospel” for Paul was not the message that Jesus preached, or anything that Jesus taught, but rather the message of what the man Jesus had become through his death and resurrection. For Paul, the heavenly cosmic Christ is no longer the historical figure of Jesus. The man Jesus, born of a woman, as a flesh and blood mortal human being, Paul calls “Christ according to the flesh”:

The old way of remembering Jesus has now passed. That is why, in all of Paul’s letters, he tells his audience nothing about the life of Jesus on earth. This is quite remarkable. Paul relates nothing of Jesus’ birth, that he was from Galilee, that he was baptised by John the Baptist, that he preached that the kingdom of God was near, healed the sick, and worked miracles. Paul could summarise Jesus’ entire life and teachings in a single sentence: God sent forth his Son, born of a woman, who dies for sins and was raised from the dead. That’s it. As Paul tells the Corinthians, “I decided to know nothing among you except Jesus Christ and him crucified [1 Corinthians 2:2]. Paul believed that Christ had transcended his mortal human identity to become the firstborn Son of the new creation, a second Adam, and so the man Jesus is no more. Paul prefers the term “Christ”, using it over a hundred and fifty times, almost as if it is a new proper name replacing Jesus. The single name “Jesus” occurs only eleven times. This reflects his view that the revelations he has received from the heavenly cosmic Christ are far superior to anything anyone received from the earthly Jesus. This is further reflected by the fact that Paul rarely ever directly quotes teachings of Jesus. It is possible, but not certain, that he alludes to two or three sayings of Jesus, but even these are uncertain.

By comparison, the focus of the message of James is very different. It is not the person of Jesus that is important, but rather the message of Jesus. Unlike Paul who makes up a large chunk of the New Testament, James only has a single short letter in the New Testament. And yet, James makes no fewer than 30 direct references to the teachings of Jesus. Here are some examples:

We can see that when James quotes Jesus, he never even mentions his name, he just passes on his teachings. To cite an adage, in the eyes of James it is the message that is important, not the person behind the message. This raises some key questions about his views on the nature and purpose of Jesus. In the introduction of James’ letter he addressed the “twelve tribes of Israel”, and yet he mentions nothing about the deity of Jesus or his death on the cross. Had Jesus been a divine being, and had his original message been focused on his own death and resurrection – just as Paul preaches – then James would have undoubtedly mentioned it to the Jews he was addressing. Such beliefs would have been of critical importance to their salvation and so James would not have been silent on such matters.

3. The Law of Moses – binding or abrogated?

Christianity today is characterised by its lawlessness, in the sense that the laws of the Torah originally revealed to Moses are no longer seen to be binding on the followers of Jesus. Christians believe that the arrival of Jesus did away with the old covenant of Moses, with all its rituals and legalism, and made way for a new covenant based on the death of Jesus on the cross. This is perfectly in line with Paul’s teaching on the Law of Moses:

We can see that in Paul’s eyes, the arrival of Jesus freed believers – both Jew and Gentile – from needing to follow the Mosaic Law. By comparison, James teaches exactly the opposite. He emphasised obedience to the Torah, with all its rituals and regulations. James and the other elders in Jerusalem boasted to Paul that they were the head of thousands of believers who were “zealous for the Mosaic Law”:

We should not be surprised that so many believers were obedient to the Mosaic Law. James, who we have seen was senior in leadership and therefore would have been highly influential, was himself strictly obedient. He taught that breaking just one part of it was equivalent to breaking all of it:

In the following incident, rumours had reached Jerusalem that Paul was telling Jewish followers of Jesus to disregard the Mosaic Law. Acts records James addressing Paul:

Note that James refers to the ritual of circumcision as “our customs”, implying that they practised the Mosaic Law. James and the other elders in Jerusalem wanted to dispel these rumours, so they commanded Paul to perform a public ritual in the Jerusalem Temple to prove his obedience to the Mosaic Law:

We can see that James and the other elders were protective of the Mosaic Law and acted decisively to convince the Jewish followers of Jesus that Paul was also obedient to it.

In summary, we have seen that Paul had a very different perspective on the validity of the Mosaic Law compared to James and the other elders. This raises a key question about the salvific value of the crucifixion. Had the death of Jesus been the centre of salvation, as Paul preached, then there would have been no need for the Jewish followers of Jesus to adhere to the Mosaic Law. The top priority for James was strict obedience to the Mosaic Law, not reliance on a crucifixion. Surprisingly, James never once even mentions the crucifixion of Jesus, so it’s possible that he never believed that it even took place, or (at the very least) was of no importance in the grand scheme of things. In the eyes of James and the other Jerusalem elders, the Mosaic Law is still central to one’s faith, just as it always had been since the time of Moses.

4. The Law of Moses – blessing or curse?

Christianity today neither seeks nor expects to derive any kind of blessing by performing the rituals of the Mosaic Law. This is the theology of Paul, who throughout his writings took a very negative view of the Mosaic Law:

We can see that Paul described the Mosaic Law as a curse, that which brings death and wrath, and even went so far as liken his previous efforts in pursuit of it as “dung”. James, on the other hand, took a very different view:

As can be seen above, James considered the Mosaic Law to be “perfect”, “giving freedom” and providing “blessing” to those who acted upon their knowledge of it. When it comes to the Old Testament, Paul is the odd one out:

We can see that according to the Old Testament, obedience to the Mosaic Law was said to make one “prosperous” and would cause God to “delight” in those who followed it. The teachings of James are perfectly consistent with what God previously revealed, whereas Paul is at odds. This is not the only occasion when Paul completely contradicts the Old Testament. Here is Paul’s reasoning for why God revealed the Mosaic Law in the first place:

We can see that according to Paul, the purpose of the Mosaic Law was apparently to make man realise that he is guilty before God. In other words, it’s to prove to us that it’s impossible to keep. The problem with this claim is that the Old Testament states that the Mosaic Law is not difficult to follow, and that God’s purpose for revealing it was for man to put it into practice:

5. The status of Gentile believers?

Christianity today makes no distinction between Jews and Gentiles (non-Jews), all believers in Jesus are united and on equal footing. This echoes Paul who taught that the arrival of Jesus did away with the former divide that existed:

We can see that according to Paul there is no longer any distinction between Jews and Gentiles. James, however, took a very different view to Gentiles. Consider the Jerusalem Council incident in the Book of Acts. Controversy had arisen with respect to the question of whether Gentile converts had to follow the Mosaic Law by being circumcised. Paul travelled to Jerusalem in order to meet with the apostles and elders and discuss this issue. Different opinions were put forward, with some taking the strict view that Gentiles must follow the whole of the Mosaic Law, and others the lenient view that none of it needs to be followed. It is James who uttered the definitive judgement:

Here James decreed that Gentile believers had to obey four aspects of the Mosaic Law. In doing this, James created a two-tiered Jesus movement, one of Jewish believers obedient to the whole of the Mosaic Law, like himself and the rest of the Jerusalem congregation, and the other of Gentile believers who only needed to follow some aspects of the Mosaic Law. Christians may think that this divide was temporary, but this is by no means the case. Later on toward the end of his life Paul, visited James a second time in Jerusalem, and James reiterated that his earlier decree at the Jerusalem Council was still binding on Gentile believers:

We can see that James maintained this position with repsect to Gentiles from the time of the Jerusalem Council all the way until the end of Paul’s ministry. Unlike Paul, James considered the Gentile followers of Jesus to be subject to different rules and regulations compared to himself and the other Jewish followers of Jesus.

The marginalisation of James

So far in this article we’ve seen that James the brother of Jesus held a very senior position in the early Jesus movement, being influential even among the apostles. We’ve also seen that there are major discrepancies in theology between James and modern Christianity, which derives its doctrines primarily from Paul. In light of James’ importance, and in light of his different beliefs and practices, it’s surprising that he is largely unknown among Christians today. We will now see that this obscurity is by no means accidental.

James has only one small letter in the entire New Testament. When Christians began to canonise the New Testament in the fourth century, the singular letter of James was almost left out entirely as its status was questioned. It was not included in the Muratorian Fragment, our earliest list of New Testament books that were accepted as scripture in Rome at the end of the second century. It was finally made part of the New Testament canon of sacred scripture not because its content pleased the later Church theologians, but because it bore the name of James, the brother of Jesus. By comparison, Paul dominates the pages of the New Testament, with 13 of its 27 books being attributed to him. Thus, about half of the New Testament stems from Paul. This demonstrates just how much of an imbalance existed between James and Paul by the time the New Testament came to be canonised. This is odd, given what we know of James’ importance among the apostles, and his seniority above Paul.

The way that James is presented in the New Testament is also very strange. The four Gospels which make up the beginning of the New Testament rarely mention him. When they do mention him, it is only in passing, with James being stated to be the brother of Jesus. No other information or details are provided. After the Gospels comes the Book of Acts, which is supposed to be a history of the acts of the apostles. The first time James is ever mentioned by name in Acts is in chapter 15 where he mysteriously is presented as the undisputed leader at the Jerusalem Council 20 years after the ascension of Jesus. James just suddenly appears out of nowhere, without any formal introduction, and he is rendering decisions like a judge presiding over a Jewish court of law. James goes from being hardly mentioned to the leader of the Jesus movement in Jerusalem. Acts has 24 chapters, once Paul is introduced in chapter 9 the rest of the book is wholly about Paul. Even Peter begins to drop out of the picture after chapter 12. So, the Book of Acts, supposedly Acts of Apostles, would be better called “Acts of Paul” as he dominates it.

James in English is the name ‘Iakobos’ in Greek which is the name ‘Jacob’ (Yaaqob) in Hebrew. It is the same name as the Old Testament Prophet Jacob, the grandson of Abraham and the son of Isaac, used hundreds of times throughout the Bible, including in the New Testament. For example, when Jesus mentions the names “Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob” in the New Testament, the Greek text uses the word ‘Iakobos’, clearly and properly translated as Jacob in English (e.g. Mark 12:26). Yet the same word, when used of the brother of Jesus, becomes James, not Jacob, in English. It simply makes no linguistic sense to translate it as ‘James’, as the English name ‘James’ did not exist anciently, and the Greek name is plainly Jacob. Unfortunately, the effect is more than a matter of style. To call Jesus’ brother ‘James’ dissociates and isolates him from his Jewish environment. This only serves to further alienate Christians from the message of James, which as we’ve seen has deep roots in the Hebrew Bible and Jewish culture.

James and Islam

What is the Islamic perspective on James as the brother of Jesus? There is nothing in the authentic Islamic sources which either affirms or denies the claim that Jesus had siblings. Theologically speaking, the idea of Jesus having siblings does not contravene any Islamic principles, as both Jesus and his mother Mary are both considered to be human beings. Nor is there anything in the writings of James in the New Testament which goes against Islamic theology. On the contrary, what James teaches actually supports the Islamic perspective of Jesus. We’ve seen that the New Testament portrays James and the other Jerusalem believers as being obedient to the Mosaic Law. This supports the Qur’anic claim that Jesus was sent to the Children of Israel, and that far from abolishing the Mosaic Law, he actually re-affirmed it:

Given that the New Testament has James endorsing the Mosaic Law, and given that the apostles were supporters of James, it’s reasonable to conclude that they were all being faithful to the teachings of Jesus who also preached obedience to the Mosaic Law, just as the Qur’an claims.

We’ve also seen that the focus of the message of James was the teachings of Jesus, not the person of Jesus. James was not interested in who Jesus was, but rather what Jesus taught. Had Jesus been a divine being then James would have undoubtedly mentioned it, but he never does. This is in line with Islamic teaching on the nature of Jesus. The Qur’an does not exaggerate Jesus in any way, he is presented as a human messenger of God, just like Abraham, Moses, Muhammad, and every other messenger of God. The Qur’an states:

Conclusion

In the centuries that followed Jesus, the voice of James was gradually muted and largely disappeared from view. His perspective on Jesus, however, is embedded in the New Testament, and can still be heard, if one pays close attention. The ultimate irony is the possibility that this voice, which has been drowned out by Paul, might well represent something closer to the message of Jesus than do the teachings of Christianity. How one deals with the theological contradictions between James and Paul ultimately rests on what value one places on Paul’s alleged visions of Jesus. It is one thing to try and recover the life and teachings of Jesus and his earliest followers using historical methods, as we have done in this article. It is quite another to enter the world of Paul’s theological interpretation of the heavenly cosmic Christ. Regardless of how one evaluates Paul’s “Gospel”, it is nonetheless a fact that what Paul preached was wholly based upon his own unprovable claims of mystical experiences, whereas James and the original apostles had spent extensive time with Jesus during his earthly life.

Further Reading

Some of the content of this article has been taken from the excellent book “Paul and Jesus” by James Tabor.

To learn more about Jesus from both the Islamic and Christian perspective, please download your free copy of the book “Jesus: Man, Messenger, Messiah” from the Iera website (click on image below):

References

1 – Eusebius, Church History, 2.1.3.

2 – Ibid., 2.1.2.

3 – Ibid., 2.23-24.

4 – Syriac Recognitions 1.43.3.

5 – Preface to the Epistles of St. James and St. Jude (1522).