Then He Appeared To James

The resurrection appearance to James (1 Corinthians 15:7) doesn't get nearly as much attention as it should. That's probably largely because we're not given much information about it, including no narrative of the event. Still, more ought to be said about it.

It should be noted that though 1 Corinthians 15:7 is the most explicit evidence of an appearance to James, it isn't the only evidence. He's not only called an apostle, but is even set beside Peter in Galatians 1:18-19 and mentioned before Peter as one of the reputed pillars of the church in Galatians 2:9. So, James had to be an apostle in the highest sense of the term, which means he must have seen the risen Jesus (Acts 1:21-22, 1 Corinthians 9:1). His apostleship also helps explain his prominence in Acts, his role in 1 Corinthians 9:5, and the inclusion of a letter he wrote in the New Testament canon.

I've argued elsewhere for the historical probability that Jesus' brothers were unbelievers past the time of Jesus' death. See here for my argument that the resurrection appearance to James is the best explanation for his conversion and that the appearance likely happened during the latter half of the forty days mentioned in Acts 1:3. Most likely, the appearance to James happened outside the timeframes covered by Matthew, Mark, and John.

But what about Luke? His gospel and its sequel, Acts, do cover the relevant timeframe, yet the appearance to James is neither mentioned nor narrated. I've discussed a potential reason why in another post. As I wrote there, "The reason why most of the gospel authors didn't include the appearance to James in their resurrection narratives probably was at least in part because it fell outside the timeframe they were focused on. Paul was discussing the relevant timeframe in 1 Corinthians 15, though, and he mentions the appearance to James in verse 7. But Luke also covers the relevant timeframe, and does so at length, yet doesn't mention the appearance to James. That may have been partly or entirely because the appearance was of a confrontational and, therefore, embarrassing nature, given James' skeptical background. So, it's similar to the other material that reflects poorly on James and seems to have been left out by Luke for that reason." You can read that post I just quoted for my discussion of the evidence that Luke left out some material of that nature related to James.

Whether the appearance to James was left out for that or some other reason, the modest handling of the appearance to James by the early Christians illustrates that they weren't making up resurrection appearance accounts for every leader or even for the most prominent leaders. James was among the most prominent of the earliest leaders of the church, as Galatians 2:9 reflects. The restraint of the early Christians in handling such a consequential appearance to so important a figure is evidentially significant.

Notice that we have multiple lines of evidence for the appearance to James. It's reported early, it's supported explicitly or implicitly by multiple sources, it makes the conversion of James more coherent, and the modesty of the early Christians' handling of it works against the idea that the fact that there was an appearance to James was fabricated.