You nailed it—and taught me more than I realized I didn’t know. Thanks! A striking takeaway is the depiction of James not as a latecomer reluctantly won over, but as someone already marked by religious seriousness and moral authority even before Jesus' resurrection. That James may have been scandalized by Jesus not because of indifference, but because of earnest conviction, overturns the caricature of a skeptical brother—and opens the door to seeing his transformation not as conversion from doubt to faith, but as a continuity of devotion newly clarified. This depth of character—and its implications for leadership in the early church—often goes unrecognized. You said it!
Thanks. Yes, I find the idea of James as merely "skeptical" wholly out of character with how he's presented in the sources and likewise out of sync with the culture he lived in.
Thank you, Addison, for this insightful post on James. To add to your last points about the apparent conflict between Paul and James, it is hard to read the corpus of Pauline epistles and fail to see how frequently he pairs the faith of Abraham with the deeds which revealed the faith—precisely as James argues. Then one considers how frequently he is collecting donations from those early house churches to be taken up on behalf of believers in Jerusalem.
I was also curious how you’d discuss the relational connection between the brothers and sisters of our Lord given the various explanations in the different faith communities. I was impressed by those words of Jesus from the cross to the Beloved disciple to look upon Mary as his mother and for Mary to view the Beloved disciple as her son—not something that makes sense if the siblings were from the union of Mary and Joseph. But it does make sense if Jesus was her only son begotten by the Holy Spirit.
The concreteness of the advice given in the letter of James is something I’ve felt I needed. Sometimes in reading Paul’s letters I find myself looking for some of that concrete direction and don’t always find it in his theology. But the exhortations James offers is precisely parallel to the rules for living we find him giving to the new church in Antioch which you quoted: do A, B, and C.
I look forward to reading yoir commentary on James!
A late comment, but I just started reading your book a couple weeks back and life’s business has kept me from it, and the blog, but things should be heading back to normal soon.
After listening to the arguments by the Hebrew roots folks, that James represents the true Christian way and Paul being sort of a heretic of sorts, I thought your book would be good balm on the subject. Do you recommend any specific books etc. that tackle this controversy in some depth? I’ll be honest and say that it shook me when I listened closely to folks like Ross Nichols on YT, but I can’t help but think that without Paul, I’m pretty convinced that I wouldn’t at all be aware of Jesus Christ, nor would any of us westerners. Thanks for posting this 🙏🏼
I don't have a recommendation to suggest. If my commentary has a weakness, it's that I didn't stress sufficiently that I think James' letter was written in response to a distortion of Paul by some of his zealous followers, not in response to Paul himself. That there was a brief tension between Paul and James is indicated by Galatians 2, in the famous episode of his chastising Peter. My forthcoming book on the Gospels, out this autumn from Angelico, will clearly show my position regarding Paul: that the *only* tradition we have is the "Petrine-Pauline Tradition," and everything else branches from that. All four Gospels are firmly within that mainstream tradition, and James has his honored place there, as well. I also have returned to a belief that all the letters bearing Paul’s name in the NT are authentic (I agree, in other words, with J. N. D. Kelly and Luke Timothy Johnson). I agree with you that, without Paul, we would be -- at best -- destitute. And Paul is every bit as Judaic as James -- their differences are much less in importance than some divisively try to make them. If I ever have a second edition of my James commentary, I will stress Paul’s greatness and indispensable presence much more. In the meantime, pick up my Gospels book when it appears.
It’s a really good book!
You nailed it—and taught me more than I realized I didn’t know. Thanks! A striking takeaway is the depiction of James not as a latecomer reluctantly won over, but as someone already marked by religious seriousness and moral authority even before Jesus' resurrection. That James may have been scandalized by Jesus not because of indifference, but because of earnest conviction, overturns the caricature of a skeptical brother—and opens the door to seeing his transformation not as conversion from doubt to faith, but as a continuity of devotion newly clarified. This depth of character—and its implications for leadership in the early church—often goes unrecognized. You said it!
Thanks. Yes, I find the idea of James as merely "skeptical" wholly out of character with how he's presented in the sources and likewise out of sync with the culture he lived in.
Thank you, Addison, for this insightful post on James. To add to your last points about the apparent conflict between Paul and James, it is hard to read the corpus of Pauline epistles and fail to see how frequently he pairs the faith of Abraham with the deeds which revealed the faith—precisely as James argues. Then one considers how frequently he is collecting donations from those early house churches to be taken up on behalf of believers in Jerusalem.
I was also curious how you’d discuss the relational connection between the brothers and sisters of our Lord given the various explanations in the different faith communities. I was impressed by those words of Jesus from the cross to the Beloved disciple to look upon Mary as his mother and for Mary to view the Beloved disciple as her son—not something that makes sense if the siblings were from the union of Mary and Joseph. But it does make sense if Jesus was her only son begotten by the Holy Spirit.
The concreteness of the advice given in the letter of James is something I’ve felt I needed. Sometimes in reading Paul’s letters I find myself looking for some of that concrete direction and don’t always find it in his theology. But the exhortations James offers is precisely parallel to the rules for living we find him giving to the new church in Antioch which you quoted: do A, B, and C.
I look forward to reading yoir commentary on James!
Since writing the commentary, I have embraced the tradition that the brothers and sisters of Jesus were Joseph's children from his previous marriage.
A late comment, but I just started reading your book a couple weeks back and life’s business has kept me from it, and the blog, but things should be heading back to normal soon.
After listening to the arguments by the Hebrew roots folks, that James represents the true Christian way and Paul being sort of a heretic of sorts, I thought your book would be good balm on the subject. Do you recommend any specific books etc. that tackle this controversy in some depth? I’ll be honest and say that it shook me when I listened closely to folks like Ross Nichols on YT, but I can’t help but think that without Paul, I’m pretty convinced that I wouldn’t at all be aware of Jesus Christ, nor would any of us westerners. Thanks for posting this 🙏🏼
I don't have a recommendation to suggest. If my commentary has a weakness, it's that I didn't stress sufficiently that I think James' letter was written in response to a distortion of Paul by some of his zealous followers, not in response to Paul himself. That there was a brief tension between Paul and James is indicated by Galatians 2, in the famous episode of his chastising Peter. My forthcoming book on the Gospels, out this autumn from Angelico, will clearly show my position regarding Paul: that the *only* tradition we have is the "Petrine-Pauline Tradition," and everything else branches from that. All four Gospels are firmly within that mainstream tradition, and James has his honored place there, as well. I also have returned to a belief that all the letters bearing Paul’s name in the NT are authentic (I agree, in other words, with J. N. D. Kelly and Luke Timothy Johnson). I agree with you that, without Paul, we would be -- at best -- destitute. And Paul is every bit as Judaic as James -- their differences are much less in importance than some divisively try to make them. If I ever have a second edition of my James commentary, I will stress Paul’s greatness and indispensable presence much more. In the meantime, pick up my Gospels book when it appears.
I really appreciate your response my friend. You’ve got me very excited for the new book! 🙏🏼
I should have added that I have two articles specifically on Paul in the archives:
https://addisonhodgeshart.substack.com/p/apostle-paul-1-his-worlds
https://addisonhodgeshart.substack.com/p/apostle-paul-2-opposing-bodies