Epistula Apostolorum
We, John, Thomas, Peter, Andrew, James, Philip, Batholomew, Matthew, Nathanael, Judas Zelotes, and Cephas, write unto the churches…
** you do not have permission to see this link **
Apostolic Church-Ordinance
The names of the Apostles are so listed: John, Matthew, Peter, Andrew, Philip, Simon, James, Nathanael, Thomas, Cephas, Bartholomew and Judas.
** you do not have permission to see this link **
In Galatians 2 there is a stylistically awkward mention of “James and Cephas and John” (Gal 2:9) alongside mention of “Peter” (Gal 2:8). Ehrman cites these early lists of apostles in support of his (uncharacteristically out-of-the-scholarly-mainstream) argument that Paul was actually talking about two different people, one named “Peter” and one named “Cephas”. I think Ehrman’s argument is wrong, because I think the writers of the New Testament were fully aware of what John 1:42 made explicit: “Jesus said, ‘You will be called Cephas’ (which means Peter).”
I agree with the mainstream consensus that, after the NT was written, some tried to soften the harshness of Paul’s confrontation of Cephas/Peter in Galatians by making it seem that his confrontation toward the humble Cephas did not apply to the great Peter.
But I find something else striking that I have not seen discussed. In both of these lists, there is only one “James.”
Does the single name of James represent the son of Zebedee or the son of Alphaeus? The earlier placement–Thomas, Peter, Andrew–in Epistula Apostolorum is suggestive of the son of Zebedee. But the later placement–Simon, James, Nathanael–in Apostolic Church-Ordinanceis suggestive of the son of Alphaeus. Either way, the mention of only one James leaves the question open.
I think I can explain what was going on. I think the single “James” in these lists refers to the “James” mentioned three times in Acts following the death of James, son of Zebedee the brother of John.
I’m guessing that this is presumed to be “James of Jerusalem” aka “The Lord’s brother” of Gal 1:19.
Is this reading of the single James in tune with the scholarly mainstream?
(On the Ehrmanblog Q and A, I asked Ehrman for his view on which NT “James” these lists are probably referring to. I’ll report back here what he says.)
An interesting question. The problem is that these writers had no idea people would still be poring over their words two thousand years later. Rather worth hoping for an afterlife so these mysteries could be finally settled.
I agree about Peter and Cephas being the same person. Mainly for the same reason I think Superman and Clark Kent are the same person. They never appear together. And both Peter and Cephas are described as being so central to the early Christian leadership that it is odd that two so very important people never appear together. Only one Peter and Cephas in Paul’s letters would have been sufficient.
I agree there was a split between the Jerusalem Community and the Pauline churches. A split that whose vibrations can be detected in much o the New Testament. The Book of Acts exists in the main in order to heal that breach or at least to paper over a big ole crack in the wall. The way Acts does that is to pretend everybody agreed about everything right from the beginning. And what they agreed with was the Pauline point of view. The winners write the histories.
The First Revolt covered a multitude of sins as the saying goes. It had the unintended result of marginalizing the Jewish Christian community. It is interesting to speculate what would have happened if the Jewish Church had been strong and grew. But it was probably doomed from the start.
Gal 2:7-8
…seeing that I had been entrusted with the task of preaching the gospel [to the uncircumcised, just as Peter had been to the circumcised. For God, who was at work (ἐνεργήσας) in Peter as an apostle to the circumcised, was also at work (ἐνήργησεν) in me as an apostle to the Gentiles.] and perceiving the grace given to me, James and Cephas and John, those recognized as pillars, gave me and Barnabas the right hand of fellowship when they perceived the grace given to me. They agreed that we should go to the Gentiles, and they to the circumcised.
Here is the same text, excluding a proposed non-Pauline interpolation involving the name “Peter”:
…seeing that I had been entrusted with the task of preaching the gospel / and perceiving the grace given to me, James and Cephas and John, those recognized as pillars, gave me and Barnabas the right hand of fellowship. They agreed that we should go to the Gentiles, and they to the circumcised.
“One can eliminate the material in question ‘without causing a break in the characteristic style of the sentence.'” –WILLIAM O.WALKER, JR, Galatians 2:7b-8as a Non-Pauline Interpolation (CBQ, 2003) ** you do not have permission to see this link **
Walker writes that it is possible that Peter and Cephas were two different people. This interpolation hypothesis does not eliminate the possibility.
GREGORY HARTZLER-MILLER said
Epistula ApostolorumWe, John, Thomas, Peter, Andrew, James, Philip, Batholomew, Matthew, Nathanael, Judas Zelotes, and Cephas, write unto the churches…
** you do not have permission to see this link **
Apostolic Church-Ordinance
The names of the Apostles are so listed: John, Matthew, Peter, Andrew, Philip, Simon, James, Nathanael, Thomas, Cephas, Bartholomew and Judas.
** you do not have permission to see this link **
My out of the mainstream thesis is that 1) the “James” presented simply is reflective of the “James” whose name is presented simply in Acts 15:13-21, and 2 Cor 15:7 and Gal 2:9 who 2) ought not be confused with the James who is called “the Lord’s brother” in Gal 1:19, but who 3) ought to be understood as one of the 12–James, son of Alphaeus.
It is unclear to me what the authors of these lists intended. They may have had the idea that “James” stated simply was “the Lord’s brother.” But I am arguing that this early church interpretation advocated by Jerome is a mistaken reading of the NT “James”.
Of particular interest for identification of “James” when the name is stated simply is 2 Cor 15:7. This “James” is generally today identified as the Lord’s brother. But this depends on the assumption that James, the recognized pillar was the Lord’s brother.
If the James and Cephas of Gal 2:9 are identical to the Cephas and James of 2 Cor 15:7. And if it can be shown that James the pillar was not the Lord’s brother. Then it becomes “obvious” that the James of 1:19 is called “the Lord’s brother” to avoid confusion with one of “the recognized ones” (Tr: “those who seemed influential” Gal 2:2, ESV) whose name, as one of the 12, can be presented simply alongside Cephas’s and, for the first readers of Galatians, can be recognized.
GREGORY HARTZLER-MILLER said
Epistula ApostolorumWe, John, Thomas, Peter, Andrew, James, Philip, Batholomew, Matthew, Nathanael, Judas Zelotes, and Cephas, write unto the churches…
** you do not have permission to see this link **
Apostolic Church-Ordinance
The names of the Apostles are so listed: John, Matthew, Peter, Andrew, Philip, Simon, James, Nathanael, Thomas, Cephas, Bartholomew and Judas.
** you do not have permission to see this link **
On the Ehrmanblog Q and A, I asked Ehrman for his view on which NT “James” these lists are probably referring to. I’ll report back here what he says.
In answer to my question: Which NT “James” were they most likely referring to?
Ehrman replied in his wonderfully characteristic quick style–without correction of minor errors in spelling and capitalization.
-
The son of Zebedee. THese are meant to be lists lf the apostles.
BDEhrman
FreedomBen
evgendob
Robert
1 Guest(s)