Having already discussed this suggestion by Wells, we will only summarize our response here. Several decisive problems that plague this interpretation include the most natural way of understanding Paul in Galatians 1:19 and 1 Corinthians 9:5, the testimony of all four Gospel writers, Josephus (who calls James “the brother of Jesus, who was called Christ”^40 ), as well as the lack of any ancient evidence to support Wells’ position.
One gets the distinct impression in reading the dubious interpretations of Wells and Martin that the point is not to fairly explain Paul’s meaning, but to say anything in order to avoid the clear meaning of the texts. The reason in this instance is plain. If James is the actual brother of Jesus, then this defeats the supposition that Jesus could have lived much earlier and still be believed by early Christians to have appeared in the first century. But the sense of special pleading here is strong. Martin himself appears to recognize the weakness of Wells’ position when he adds: “Wells’s interpretation may seem ad hoc and arbitrary.”^41 I think most scholars would agree, and for reasons such as these.^42
38 Wells as cited by Martin, Case Against Christianity, p. 55.
39 Ibid., p. 92.
40 Antiquities20:9.1
41 Martin, Case Against Christianity, p. 55.
42 In a discussion about what can be known of Jesus’ life, even Helmut Koester lists James as one of Jesus’ brothers (p. 73). Concerning Peter, he asserts “it cannot be doubted that Peter was a personal disciple of Jesus . . . .” (p. 164). Of further interest, Koester remarks about a first century dating for Jesus: “It is certain, however, that Jesus was arrested while in Jerusalem for the Passover, probably in the year 30, and that he was executed” (p. 76). (The italics in both quotations above have been added.) Helmut Koester, Introduction to the New Testament, vol. 2 (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1982).
2.The dating of the Gospels
Martin devotes just one page to a discussion that is crucial to his thesis—the dating of the four Gospels. Even here he does not present Wells’ arguments, but simply relates what he thinks is the state of current scholarship. His typical approach is to report that the majority of scholars favor a date that is significantly later than most, in fact, actually hold.
A case in point concerns what is usually considered to be the earliest gospel. Martin confidently asserts that Mark is dated from 70–135, and adds that “most biblical scholars date Mark around AD 80.” He provides no grounds other than a citation of a single page in Wells.^43
However, the dates Martin provides by no means represent the current attitude of “most biblical scholars.” John Drane, quoted approvingly by Martin in the same chapter, lists the most common date for Mark as 60–70,^44 which is up to 65 years earlier! Guthrie agrees, noting “the confidence of the majority of scholars that Mark must be dated AD 65–70.”^45 It is certainly true that the views of current scholars do not determine the issue. However, Martin not only likes to cite and summarize scholarly opinion, but his case is hurt by his misunderstandings of the current state of New Testament scholarship.
Unfortunately for Martin, his inaccuracies concerning the Gospels do not end with his late and incorrect datings. He compounds the issue by making other claims that are, at best, misleading. He declares that “Mark was not mentioned by other authors until the middle of the second century.”^46 Yet he does not discuss the important mention by Papias, usually placed about 25 years earlier, linking this gospel to the apostle Peter.^47
