Jesus's half brother, James

 I found myself fascinated by James, the half brother of Jesus this week.  It is interesting to me that in John 7:4-5, James challenges Jesus to show himself openly as the Messiah.  John comments that this suggestion shows that James didn't believe that Jesus was the Christ. I don't think that you can extrapolate that from the one comment, but John clearly knew James better than I do, so maybe John was, at that time, doubting his older half brother's divine mission.   

Then, when Jesus was hanging on the cross, Jesus asks John to take care of his mother. (John 19:26).  In one way, this makes sense.  As the oldest son it would have been his responsibility to look after and financially take care of his mother.  Since he knew he would soon be dead, he was making sure his responsibility to his mother was going to be met.  John would take his place as his mother's caregiver.  

That is all well and good, but why would Jesus need John to take care of his mom, when it was to James, his oldest half brother, that the responsibility would have naturally passed.  James was clearly still living. Did John have ulterior motives for including this detail in the narrative.  Was he disparaging James, or emphasizing his own close relationship with Jesus as he did throughout the book by calling himself "the disciple Jesus loved."  

A few years later we suddenly see James as the leader of the Christian movement in Jerusalem.  As I read Acts 15 this week it seemed to me that James was acting, not only as the leader of the Jerusalem branch, but as the presiding authority at the meeting.  Here are my evidences:

• When Paul and Barnabas were faced with the issue of how much gentile converts had to obey the Mosaic Law they felt they needed to go to Jerusalem to settle the questions with the "apostles". (15:2)
• When they arrived at Jerusalem they talked with "apostles and elders". (v 6).  We know who the apostles were (mostly) at this point,  but who were the "elders".  Could James have been considered an "elder" since he was the oldest remaining son of Mary but wasn't, as far as we know, an apostle.
• When Peter stands up, he reminds them of his revelation about the Gentiles and his experience with Cornelius, but that doesn't settle the question. (v. 11) He seems to be one more argument in favor of not requiring conversion to Judaism instead of the ultimate authority in the church. 
• Ultimately it was James, not Peter, who had the final say on the matter.  It was also James who came up with the way it would be implemented.  All the others followed his lead. (v 19-22)

 I wonder if, for a while, James was actually the main leader of the Jesus movement.  It would have made sense in the Jewish culture, for leadership of a group to pass from one brother to another. Even at this time they were still very patriarchal.  (An example of the importance of family succession, look at the Herodian Dynasty during the New Testament era.)

I wonder if this fact has been passed over by history because, ultimately, it was Peter who Catholics recognized as the founder of their church and the true successor to Jesus, not his brother.  Maybe there was a little revisionist history going on here.  Or maybe, it just so happened that because of persecution Peter had to leave Jerusalem, and James did not.  Therefore he became the church leader in Jerusalem, but Peter was still recognized as the chief apostle, as is the acepted narrative. I will pay attention as I read on, to see if there is more support for one idea over the other.