Paul and Jesus

As we have noted, it is Paul who gives us our earliest reference to James and his leadership over the Jerusalem-based movement following the death of Jesus (Galatians 1:18–19; 2:9). Paul’s evidence here is invaluable since the author of the book of Acts only begrudgingly and obliquely acknowledges the leadership of James over the entire Jesus movement. Acts is our only early account of the history of early Christianity, and its prominent place in the New Testament, following the four gospels, ensured its dominance. It is the book of Acts that is largely responsible for the standard portrait of early Christianity in which Peter and Paul assume such a dominant role and James is largely marginalized or left out entirely. The presentation of Acts has become the story, even though its version of events is woefully one-sided and historically questionable. The author of Acts surely knew, but was not willing to state, that James took over the leadership of the movement after Jesus’ death. In his early chapters he never even mentions James by name and casts Peter and John, the other two “pillars,” as the undisputed leaders of Jesus’ followers, effectively blurring out James entirely. His major agenda in the book as a whole is to promote the centrality of the mission and message of the apostle Paul. Although Acts has twenty-four 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. Rather than “Acts of the Apostles” the book might better be named “The Acts of Paul.” This suppression of James is systematic and deliberate, as we shall see.

According to Mark, our earliest gospel, the townspeople at Nazareth, where Jesus grew up, are amazed at his teachings and his miracles. They say to one another: “Is this not the carpenter, the son of Mary and brother of James and Joses and Judas and Simon, and are not his sisters here with us?” (Mark 6:3). Most scholars are convinced that the author of the gospel of Luke, who also wrote the book of Acts, used Mark as his main source. He has some independent material, as well as the Q source (which I will explain below), but his core story of Jesus is taken from Mark. Accordingly, he edits Mark freely, based on his own emphases and agenda. Here, for example, when he relates this scene in Nazareth, based on Mark, he omits the names of the brothers and has the people ask, “Is not this Joseph’s son?” (Luke 4:22). His silence has nothing to do with the idea that Mary had no other children. His clear intention is to make the brothers, and James in particular, virtually anonymous. He continues this practice throughout his two-volume work of Luke-Acts.

When Mark describes Jesus’ death on the cross he notes that “Mary the mother of James and Joses” was present.¹³ Luke changes this to read “the women [unnamed] who had followed him from Galilee” (Luke 23:49). When Jesus is buried, Mark again notes that “Mary Magdalene and Mary the mother of Joses” were present at the tomb (Mark 15:47). Luke changes his account to read “the women [again unnamed] who had come with him from Galilee followed and saw the tomb” (Luke 23:55). In most cases Luke followed Mark rather closely as a source, much more so than did Matthew, who constantly adds his own editorial revisions. But this is not the case when it comes to the mother and brothers of Jesus. Such bold editing could not be accidental; there is something very important going on here. Since this editing runs through both volumes of this work, Luke and Acts, it is clearly part of the author’s central agenda to recast the history of the early movement so that James and the family of Jesus are muted and Paul emerges as the ultimate hero who proclaims the true gospel to the world.

The author of Luke-Acts was also pro-Roman. Paul, according to Acts, was a Roman citizen. Luke wants his Gentile Roman readers to know and value that about Paul, and thus look with favor on the growing Gentile Christian movement. At the time he writes, in the first half of the second century A.D., after the bloody Jewish revolts against Rome, it was less and less popular to be Jewish or to be associated with Jewish causes—particularly anything that might be seen as messianic.¹⁴ For example, in his account of the trial of Jesus, Luke goes far beyond Mark, his primary source, to emphasize that Pontius Pilate was a reasonable and just ruler who went to extraordinary lengths to get Jesus released. He removes the reference to Pilate having Jesus scourged and even omits the horrible mocking and abuse that Jesus suffered at the hands of Pilate’s Roman Praetorium guard (Luke 23:25 compared with Mark 15:15–20). In Luke Jesus might not have been a friend of Rome, but he was surely treated fairly by his Roman captors, as is Paul throughout the book of Acts when he encounters Roman authorities.