The Real History of the Early Church

There are two points about which the majority of people, including scholars, seem to agree. That when it comes to who was the first writer of the New Testament, the answer is always St. Paul. And most scholars, atheist and gnostic scholars included, usually believe that it was Paul’s Letter the Galatians or Thessalonians that was written first. The date of the first letter ranges from around 46 AD to the early 50s AD. The other point about which people seem to agree is that St. Peter was the first leader of the early church – in the Catholic Church, St. Peter is considered the first Pope. It is my contention that both of these conclusions about the early church, and when the first New Testament scriptures were written are wrong.

We are overlooking, the most important figure in the early church – the real first writer and first leader. Enter James, the brother of the Lord. It was James who the real first leader of the early church. It was he, who gave the final word on the important matters. All you need to do is turn to Act 15:13-21 to see that when there was contention between members over points of faith, it was James who gave the final say. And furthermore, it was the Letter of James, that was the real first writing of the New Testament. The truth of what I am saying is evident in the writing itself.

The first issue with saying that James was the first writer of the New Testament, is that modern scholars argue over the authorship of the letter attributed historically to James. Nonetheless, the brilliant scholar, John A.T. Robinson lays out a compelling case for James’ authorship in his book Redating the New Testament. It’s hard to argue with his points. The best of which, I believe, is the point if one were trying to write from James’ point of view, which is to say his place of authority, then one would expect him to use titles, like “brother of the Lord” or “Bishop of Jerusalem” to add credibility. James, the actual brother of the Lord and bishop of Jerusalem, did not do this (or feel the need to) because he was extremely humble and religious according to everyone in his time, including those who opposed him. Thus, the real James, would not do what an anonymous pseudo-James would. To quote Professor Robinson, “In fact, the argument for pseudonymity” is weaker here than with any other of the New Testament epistles.” (129)  

Now that we have established that is was James who was writing, how do we know when he was writing. There are a couple of different ways we can tell the timing of the letter. The first is contextual. James is clearly writing to a strictly Jewish audience of believers, which was only true of the early church in the very beginning, because it wasn’t long before gentiles made up the majority of the church. What is more, his letter does not delve into the major components of what make up the Christian faith, such as the crucifixion and resurrection as if it was prior to when those beliefs were fully articulated. What James instead focuses on, is how Jews should understand the Torah in post Jesus world. James writes, “What doth it profit, my brethren, though a man say he hath faith, and have not works? Can faith save him...even so faith, if it hath no works, is dead, being alone. (James 2:14,17).

The point James is making here is clear. One must have in Christ, and also one must do works.

How does this help us date the Letter of James? It’s pretty simple. As I already said, many scholars believe that Paul wrote first, and that his first letter was the Letter to the Galatians. John A.T. Robinson, in his listing of the chronology of the books of the New Testament, places Thessalonians after James. However, in his writing, he makes a case for Galatians being written just as early as Thessalonians, if not earlier. To clear up this ambiguity, I turned to Rose Publishings Bible Overview that places Galatians in 48 AD as Paul’s first letter.

There is no letter that shines a brighter historical light on the early church than Paul’s Letter to the Galatians. It is in this epistle that all becomes clear. And by all, I really mean all. The substance in this letter helps us to draw so many conclusions about the early church history and the chronology and historical impetus behind most (if not all) of the writing in the New Testament.

Let us remember who Paul was exactly and what his position was in the early church. It was not as secure as one might think. There were the apostles who walked with Jesus, like Peter, John, and Matthew, and there was Jesus’ family, James the Lord’s brother, and St. Jude. But Paul, on the other hand, did not walk with Jesus, he was an outsider who claimed that Jesus appeared to him on the Road to Damascus. An appearance, mind you, that occurred as he was in the process of persecuting the faithful.

Nevertheless, Paul carved out a place for himself in the early church. His revelation contained too much truth to be ignored and his eloquence of words and depth of understanding caused those closest to Jesus to accept him as one of their own.

Paul’s letter to the Galatians shows a balancing act between an outsider looking in and insider looking out. This comes through as Paul explains why he is to be a trusted authority on the teaching of Jesus. Paul shared his gospel – that he claims to have received directly from God – with James, Peter and John and they agreed with Paul’s teaching. Paul says this to show that the gospel he received is truly from Jesus, because even though Paul never knew the earthly Jesus, he apparently knew him well enough as it were that those that knew Jesus the best, agreed that Paul’s teaching was correct, and thus, to be trusted as if coming directly from an apostle. We read: “And when James, [Peter], and John who seemed to be pillars, perceived the grace that was given unto me, they gave to me and Barnabas the right hands of fellowship”

What Paul does next is bold and unexpected. After using James and Peter, and the right hand of fellowship they offered him, to show that he should be a trusted authority, he turns the tables on them and says they are not to be the trusted authorities. What? Exactly!

Paul accused Peter of being a two face. Acting one way with Paul and the Gentiles, and acting another way with the Jews that came from James.

We read: But when Peter came to Antioch, I withstood him to the face, because he was to be blamed. For before certain came from James, he did eat with the Gentiles: but when they were come, he withdrew and separated himself, fearing them which were of the circumcision. And the other Jews dissembled likewise with him; insomuch the Barnabas also was carried away with their dissimulation. But when I saw that they walked not uprightly according to the truth of the gospel, I said unto Peter before them all, If thou, being a Jew, livest after the manner of Gentiles, and not as do the Jews, why compellest thou the Gentile to live as do the Jews. We who are Jews by nature, and not sinners of the Gentiles. Knowing that a man is not justified by the works of the law, but by faith of Jesus Christ, even we have believed in Jesus Christ, that we might be justified by the faith of Christ, and not by works of the law: for by the works of the law shall no flesh be justified (Galatians 2:11-16).

This is clearly written in direct opposition to James, and by proxy Peter. Peter is taking the brunt of Paul’s righteousness via the actions that are associated with James. It is highly nuanced point that is monumental in our understanding of the politics and dynamic of the very early church.