It is exceptionally difficult to see how anyone could know all this and still agree with Martin: “To be sure, Paul and other earlier epistle writers thought Jesus was crucified and was resurrected. But there is no good evidence that they believed that these events occurred at the beginning of the first century.”^37
34 Ibid., pp. 95–96.
35 Ibid., pp. 53, 85.
36 See Rom. 16:7; 1 Cor. 1:12; 3:22; 9:5; 2 Cor. 11:4–5; 12:11; 1 Thess. 2:4–7. 37 Ibid., p. 85.
Initially, it does no good (and Martin does not suggest it) to assert that Paul believeditems like the resurrection appearances and their proximity to the life of Jesus but that he was mistaken. Although we can argue forcefully against the latter point, it is not the issue here. As Martin says in the words just quoted, the question is precisely whether Paul believed the proximity of these events. So how does Martin answer this material?
He does not really explain the connection between Paul and contemporary apostle-eyewitnesses like Peter and John, or the other apostles. But he does challenge the claim that the James that Paul knew was really the brother of Jesus. Repeating what he terms the “plausible” suggestion of Wells, Martin postulates that, since there were factions in the early church who favored Paul, Apollos, or Peter, “there may well have been one at Jerusalem called the brethren of the Lord, who would have had no more personal experience of Jesus than Paul himself.”^38 Later, Martin confidently asserts that “it is dubious that ‘James the Lord’s brother’ means ‘James, Jesus’ brother.”^39 Thus, James would have been the member of a Christian faction called “the brethren of the Lord” that had no physical, familial relation to Jesus!
Page 123456789101112131415161718192021
