James, the son of Zebedee, one of the first disciples called by Jesus, is among the first three in each list of the apostles. In Mark, James is mentioned second after Peter (Mark 3:17), and in Matthew, Luke, and Acts he comes third (Matt 10:2; Luke 6:14; Acts 1:13). Since James is most often listed before John, and John is almost consistently referred to as “the brother of James,” many scholars believe James was the elder brother.1 James and John both left their fishing business and followed Jesus when he personally called them (Matt 4:21–22; Luke 5:10), although their quick response suggests possible earlier contact. He is often called James the Great, to differentiate him from James the Little (Mark 15:40), James, the son of Alphaeus (Mark 3:18), and James the brother of Jesus (Gal 1:19).
Along with John his brother and Peter, James was among the privileged circle of the apostles. He was present at the Mount of Olives (Mark 13:3), witnessed the raising of the daughter of Jairus (Mark 5:37–42) and the transfiguration (Mark 9:2–13; Matt 17:1–13; Luke 9:28–36), and joined Jesus in the Garden of Gethsemane (14:32–42). As noted in Chapter 8 on the apostle John, it is interesting that these three instances each relate to death—preparing for death (Jesus in Gethsemane), rising from the dead (Jairus’s daughter), and appearing after death (Jesus, Moses, and Elijah). Considering that James saw the risen Jesus (John 21:1–2) as well, it is clear that he would have had tremendous confidence and firsthand convictions to face death as a follower of Jesus.
Given how prominent James was among the apostles, it is remarkable we do not have more information about him. Still, the New Testament provides some material, and stories and legends about him develop in the ensuing centuries. For instance, in Book 7 of his Outlines, Clement tells the story of a man brought into court with James who was so moved by his testimony that he also confessed Christ.2 This story is likely legendary embellishment. Nevertheless, it is interesting that Clement does confirm the death of James by beheading as reported by Luke, even if he adds this additional tale. The tradition of his death, then, was firm by this time and taken for granted.
Other legendary accounts of the apostle James begin to crop up in the ensuing centuries. The Apostolic History of Abdias (sixth/seventh century) tells a story of James and his interaction with two pagan magicians who eventually confess Christ. The Acts of Saint James in India reports a tradition that he went to India along with Peter.3 Given the late date of composition and the lack of any local accounts of their visit, Eastern and Western scholars are united in dismissing this latter account as legendary. James has also become the patron saint of Spain. According to the tradition, James preached in Spain, and returned to Judea shortly before his death. Given the short timespan between Pentecost and James’s martyrdom, the trip to Spain seems unlikely. And since the earliest written record of James’s visit to Spain is in the seventh century (c. AD 600), most scholars dismiss it as legendary.4 The most likely reason apocryphal accounts are rare for James is because his martyrdom in Judea (AD 44) was so firmly entrenched in the early church and limited the trajectory of such stories.
While these missionary accounts are likely fictional, we have good reason to believe the death of James occurred while the apostles were on the brink of world missions. When Judas died, the apostles immediately appointed Matthias as successor (Acts 1:15–26), yet they did not reconstitute the Twelve after the execution of James (Acts 12:2). In fact, the death of James serves more as a backdrop for the protection of Peter and his departure to another place (12:6–17),5 which began the expansion of the Gospel to the “ends of the earth” (1:8). Riesner observes:
When Peter, as the leader among the twelve, now left the holy city and the holy land itself, now completely under the rule of Agrippa I, this marked a clear cut in the activity on behalf of Israel itself. This absence of any reestablishment of the circle of twelve to its entirety betrays a consciousness of living in a new age, one in which missionary efforts on behalf of the older people of God in Jerusalem and in the holy land no longer constituted the only task.6
Even though Jesus had earlier commanded the apostles to spread out and reach the world (1:8), the tipping point seemed to come at the death of James. With his death, persecution was no longer propagated by the religious leaders of the Jews, but by Herod Agrippa I, an official of the state. The apostles were forced to leave Jerusalem and begin reaching out to the “ends of the earth.”
Jesus had predicted that James would suffer and die for his faith. In Mark 10:35–45, James and John approach Jesus, requesting that he give them what they ask for. After they request to reign with him, he tells them they must drink his “cup” (10:39). Scholars are split over whether this refers to suffering or death, but the passage’s most natural reading indicates that Jesus is prophesying that they would both die for their faith. Questions remain about the fate of John, but the earliest evidence indicates Herod Agrippa had James put to death (Acts 12:2).
One of the most unexpected elements in the book of Acts is the brief mention of the death of James by King Agrippa: “About that time Herod the king laid violent hands on some who belonged to the church. He killed James the brother of John with the sword” (Acts 12:1–2). The brevity of this account is what makes it so unexpected. This is only the second reference to James in the entire book of Acts, apart from his mention in the list of the Twelve (1:13). Why did Luke mention him so briefly, especially since he was in the inner circle of Jesus? Given the amount of space dedicated to the martyrdom of Stephen (6:8–7:58), one would expect Luke to provide more information on the fate of James.
One possibility is that Luke simply did not know any more than he reports. But this seems unlikely, and raises a further question: How could he—and the church—have forgotten the tradition of such a prominent apostle? Controversial questions in the book of Acts typically raise issues that one would expect Luke to have less information about, such as private conversations or events that were distant geographically or chronologically.7 But the death of James is an area in which Luke would be expected to have reliable information—since it would have been public knowledge.
We must remember that Acts is not strictly a book about the apostles per se, but about the spread of the Gospel to the “ends of the earth” (1:8). The title “Acts of the Apostles” is technically a misnomer. The apostles are only included in the narrative insofar as they advance the Gospel worldwide, in fulfillment of the theme of Acts. It may also be surprising that Acts does not report the deaths of Peter and Paul, but as demonstrated earlier, such reports were not integral to Luke’s wider purpose. It may be puzzling why Luke does not include more about the fate of James. But the brief report indicates why Peter was arrested, which in turn shows his departure to another place and the shift in the narrative to the focus on the missions of Saul (13). The brief account of the death of James fits the pattern of Luke focusing on details necessary to advance his larger goal.
The brevity of the account may be unexpected, but it does serve to strengthen its reliability. It has the ring of authenticity, and lacks details of legendary development. This is clear when the narrative is compared with the execution of Stephen. Shelly Matthews suggests that the parallels in the Stephen episode are the result of the motif of imitatio Christi, rather than genuine historical concern.8 While the historicity of Stephen is a separate matter from this inquiry, it is important to recognize that this critique would not apply to the death of James. No parallels are drawn between his death and Jesus. No legendary details creep into the narrative. In fact, quite the opposite is true. The account reads like an official execution.9
King Herod Agrippa, who ruled Judea in AD 41–44 and was the grandson of King Herod the Great, ordered the execution of James. After thirty-five years of direct Roman control through procurators, many Jews welcomed a Herodian ruler. Some of his admirers may have even considered him a potential Messiah.10 Josephus records the fondness with which many remembered Agrippa I (Antiquities of the Jews 19.328–331). His popularity among the Jews may help explain why he specifically targeted Christians for persecution. Although he had seemingly tolerated Christians at the beginning of his reign, at some point “he laid violent hands on some who belonged to the church” with the specific intent of doing evil to them.11
King Herod Agrippa had James put to death by the sword, with the likely intent of snuffing out the movement from the top down. It may seem unlikely Agrippa would utilize death by sword rather than a more brutal method such as burning, impaling, or crucifixion. But as Keener notes, death by sword is not implausible since Josephus reports on other occasions that Agrippa showed mercy even to his enemies.12
According to Jewish law, execution by sword was the punishment for murder or apostasy (m. Sanhedrin 9:1; Deut 13:6–18).13 Herod lived as a faithful Jew, so he would naturally have been concerned to stop the growth of any heretical sect. According to Deuteronomy 13:6–18, if an individual entices the Jews to “go and serve other gods,” then that person is to be stoned to death. But if that person entices the entire city to follow other gods, then that person is to be killed by the sword. Simon Kistemaker concludes: “In the eyes of Herod Agrippa, James had led the city of Jerusalem astray.”14 Agrippa seemingly had both political and religious reasons for having James killed by sword.
Brownrigg may be overstating the case when he concludes that the martyrdom account of James is “absolutely reliable,”15 but he is right to emphasize that the tradition is early and consistent and has a very high historical probability of being true. Not only is the tradition of the martyrdom of James emphasized in the biblical record (Acts 12:2; Mark 10:39), it is also consistently affirmed by later church fathers from the second century onwards.16
Richard Pervo has challenged the idea that the genre of Acts is apologetic history. He believes the writing of Acts has more in common with ancient fiction than historiography. Pervo concludes: “Luke’s achievement as a historian lies more in his success at creating history than in recording it.”17 In other words, he sees Acts as one kind of historical novel that contains much more fiction than history. On his view, there would be little reason to take the report of the death of James as historical, since Luke was more interested in advancing the early movement evangelistically than in reporting sober truth.
Pervo notes a number of the techniques that Acts shares with ancient fiction.18 While these parallels are literarily insightful, his approach ignores the many features of ancient romances that are absent from Acts as well. Ben Witherington concludes: “The essential problem for Pervo is that he must define the ancient novel much too widely in order to include Acts within its compass, and he must strain to show that Acts has features that are distinctive of, not merely characteristic of, ancient novels.”19
Witherington concedes that viewing Acts as a novel reveals some fruitful literary insights. Yet he says: “It must also be said that there are clearly some indisputable historical traditions being used in this section involving the death of James and Agrippa.”20 Even if Pervo were right about the genre of Acts, it would still likely follow that Acts 12:1–2 contains genuine historical tradition regarding the fate of James.
We have good reason, then, to believe that Acts is apologetic historiography.21 And we have ample evidence that Acts is a generally reliable historical document and can be confirmed in most cases.22 Bart Ehrman argues that the narrative structure of Acts, which focuses on chronicling the historical development of the Christian church, is closely related to other histories produced in antiquity.23 While this does not definitively prove the account in Acts 12:1–2 is historical, it does mean it should get the benefit of doubt. If Luke can be confirmed as accurate on the accounts that can be investigated, it gives reason to trust his accounts when they cannot. The burden of proof is thus on those who doubt the early, consistent, and reliable tradition that James, the son of Zebedee was the first apostolic martyr.
1. James experienced martyrdom in Jerusalem under Herod Agrippa I—highest possible probability (Acts 12:1–2; Mark 10:39; Clement of Alexandria, Outlines, Book 7 [Eusebius, Ecclesiastical History 2.9]; Chrysostom, Homilies on the Acts of the Apostles 26; Gregory of Nyssa; Homily 2 On Stephen; Philip of Side, Papias fragment; lack of any competing tradition).
1 David Noel Freedman, ed., The Anchor Bible Dictionary (New York: Doubleday, 1992), s.v. “James,” by Donald A. Hagner.
2 Eusebius, Ecclesiastical History 2.9.3, as cited in Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers: Eusebius: Church History, Life of Constantine the Great, and Oration in Praise of Constantine, ed. Philip Schaff and Henry Wace (New York: Christian Literature Co., 1890), 1:111.
3 E.A. Wallis Budge, The Contendings of the Apostles: Being the Histories and the Lives and Martyrdoms and Deaths of the Twelve Apostles and Evangelists (London: Oxford University Press, 1935), 246–52.
4 John Williams and Alison Stones, eds., The Codex Calixtinus and the Shrine of St. James (Tübingen, Germany: Gunter Narr Verlag, 1992), 41–42.
5 Hans Conzelmann, Acts of the Apostles, Hermeneia, trans. James Limburg, A. Thomas Krabel, and Donald H. Juel (Philadelphia, PA: Fortress Press, 1972), 93.
6 Rainer Riesner, Paul’s Early Period: Chronology, Mission, Strategy, Theology, trans. Doug Stott (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1998), 121.
7 Craig S. Keener, Acts: An Exegetical Commentary (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker, 2012), 1:102.
8 Shelly Matthew, Perfect Martyr: The Stoning of Stephen and the Construction of Christian Identity (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2010), 15–20.
9 James D.G. Dunn, Beginning from Jerusalem: Christianity in the Making (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 2009), 2:209.
10 Wolf Wirgin, Herod Agrippa 1: King of the Jews, Monograph Series, vol. 10(A) (Leeds, England: Leeds University Oriental Society, 1968), 79.
11 Darrell L. Bock, Acts, Baker Exegetical Commentary on the New Testament (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker, 2007), 424.
12 Keener, Acts, 2:1872.
13 William J. Larkin, Acts, The IVP New Testament Commentary (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 1995), 182.
14 Simon J. Kistemaker, Exposition of the Acts of the Apostles, New Testament Commentary (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker, 1993), 433.
15 Ronald Brownrigg, The Twelve Apostles (New York: Macmillan, 1974), 94.
16 Clement of Alexandria, Outlines Book 7; Eusebius, Ecclesiastical History 2.9.1; Chrysostom, Homilies on the Acts of the Apostles 26; Gregory of Nyssa, Homily 2: On Stephen; Philip of Side, Christian History; The Apostolic Acts of Abdias (Latin text).
17 Richard I. Pervo, Acts: A Commentary on the Book of Acts, Hermeneia (Minneapolis, MN: Fortress Press, 2009), 18.
18 Ibid., 17.
19 Ben Witherington III, The Acts of the Apostles: A Socio-Rhetorical Commentary (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1998), 378; emphasis in original.
20 Ibid., 381.
21 Keener, Acts, 1:51–165.
22 For instance, see C.K. Barrett, “The Historicity of Acts,” Journal of Theological Studies 50:2 (1999): 515–34; Colin Hemer, The Book of Acts in the Setting of Hellenistic History, ed. Conrad H. Gempf (Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 1990); Keener, Acts, 1:166–220.
23 Bart D. Ehrman, A Brief Introduction to the New Testament, 3rd ed. (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2013), 166.