[aron]

There are a couple of reasons in the Bible for viewing James with less than sanguinary eyes. First, John writes in chapter 7 of his gospel that "Even his brothers did not believe into Him". When John was writing the gospel, the brothers/family of Jesus had risen into prominence. John is telling the believers that the brothers/family had missed the whole earthly ministry of Jesus Christ. They weren't there. The only time they show up in the narrative is to argue with their brother.

Now, some have told me that this was just to show that Jesus trod the lonely path, and wasn't an indictment against His brothers' later prominince. But I read it as, John is looking at the "leaders of the church" and pointedly reminding everyone that they weren't even there. They missed the boat in the gospels. Why are they now in charge?

Secondly, is Paul's remark in Galatians: "Some came from James" and Peter shrunk back from the Gentiles. Paul could have said, "Some came from Jerusalem" or something like that. But he said "some came from James".

Thirdly, when discussing the resurrection of Jesus, Paul says, "For I delivered to you as of first importance what I also received: that Christ ... appeared to Cephas, then to the twelve. Then he appeared to more than five hundred brothers at one time, most of whom are still alive, though some have fallen asleep. Then he appeared to James, then to all the apostles. Last of all, as to one untimely born, he appeared also to me."
(1 Corinthians 15:3-8 ESV)

Again, James is late on the scene. Why, then, did the Desposyni (the family) end up running the show? Because they were family, not because they knew what was going on. Blood trumped revelation. Eusebius tells us (approvingly) in HE 7.9.1 that they had their own special chair, "the throne of James", that was kept by the desposyni as a revered keepsake.

All of which doesn't mean I agree with Lee, nor his reasoning. I don't. I just wanted to point out why some folks might hold James with less regard than others.