Robert said

What are Carrier’s arguments for thinking there are two different James in the Galatians 1-2? 

Similar to Victorinus and Augustine, who regard the “esteemed pillars” as “Peter, James and John” (according to a textual variant), Carrier thinks that the trio James, Cephas and John must be the three lead apostles of the narrative Gospels. 

My reasoning is related, but different. I think that the flow of thought in Galatians works better if the “James” of the phrase, “James the brother of the Lord” and the phrase “the ones from James” are both aligned with the “false brothers”. 

This link between “the ones from James” and “the false brothers” makes best sense as per Carlson’s textual criticism at Gal 2:12: 

“The most historically significant difference between this study’s critical text and the text of the Nestle-Aland edition is the change of a single letter at Gal 2:12. Rather than stating “when they came” (ἦλθον), referring to some people from James, the best attested reading states, “when he came” (ἦλθεν), referring to Cephas. Yet this tiny difference in the text results in a markedly different understanding of the Antioch incident. With the reading of the NestleAland text, on the one hand, Cephas came to Antioch, ate with the local gentiles, but then was intimidated into changing his mind. With this study’s critical text, on the other hand, Cephas came to Antioch with no intention of eating with the gentiles, and this is what Paul objected to.”

** you do not have permission to see this link **

Robert said
Carlson’s text doesn’t doesn’t really work in my opinion. It doesn’t do justice to ‘he used to eat with the gentiles’ (pp 161-164). When? Where? In Jerusalem many years ago?

In Jerusalem. Within the reading I’m proposing, it may be that before the arrival of the “false brothers”/”men from James,” Peter ate with Titus, who was uncircumcised. When they arrived, Peter still ate with Barnabus, but withdrew from Titus. When Peter came to Antioch, he was about to do the same–eat with Barnabus and other Jews, but, for fear of “the circumcision” he came with the idea of continuing the practice of withdrawal from eating with the uncircumcised. Paul had held his tongue in Jerusalem (as a guest on majority Jewish turf) but in Antioch, where Gentiles were in the majority, Paul spoke his views openly–“because all flesh will not be made righteous (i.e. reconciled in the Eph 2:11 sense of breaking down barriers separating Jews from “the Gentiles in the flesh, the ones being called the uncircumcision by that being called the circumcision, made by hands in the flesh”) by works of the law” (Gal 2:16).

——————-

My paradigm includes 1) the “faithfulness of Christ” thesis, 2) the thesis that since Galatians influenced later writings such as Eph and Hebrews, then a better reading of the grammar and sense of Galatians will tend to generated echoes in these later writings, and 3) a focus on finding best contextual fit for the flesh phrases of Galatians (within the text of NT Galatians understood as a literary unity).

My study of “James the brother of the Lord” began with an examination of Paul’s claim: “…I did not immediately consult with flesh and blood…” I reasoned that although he did not do so immediately, he may have done so when he met James specifically in his status as the Lord’s “brother.” This conceptual flow of thought works best if James is a “brother” but not an “apostle” (as argued by Betz and others). This seemed to me to make the discourse of Gal 1:18-19 flow more smoothly. Next, I studied the flow of thought in Gal 2:1-13 with a suspicion that as “flesh and blood,” James, the Lord’s “brother,” might be outside the inner circle of “esteemed pillars” from among the chosen 12. It seems to me now that when Paul went to Jerusalem the second time, and he tried to meet privately with the “esteemed”, this language of an exclusive meeting was intended specifically to exclude James, the Lord’s flesh-and-blood brother. Paul’s attempt to exclude James, the Lord’s brother failed when “false brothers” sneaked in under false pretenses (i.e. pretending that they were not “from James”). Next I examined how the flow of thought extended to the next flesh phrase, “all flesh will not be made righteous by works of the law.” Again I found a meaningful flow, with James, the Lord’s brother’s influence being on the side of “works of the law” that are outmoded in Gentile territory.

In addition to all his coherence in Gal, there is this potentially confirmatory nudge: By linking the idea of “brother” to the notion of “flesh and blood” (Cf. Eph 6:12, “the battle is not against blood and flesh…”), I sensed an echo in Hebrews:

From Hebrews Ch 2

9 But we see him who for a little while was made lower than the angels, namely Jesus, crowned with glory and honor because of the suffering of death, so that by the grace of God (or rather, “apart from God”) he might taste death for all (i.e. “all flesh”?).

10 For it was fitting to Him, for whom are all things and by whom are all things, having brought many sons to glory, to make perfect the author of their salvation through sufferings. 11 For both the One sanctifying and those being sanctified are all of one, for which reason He is not ashamed to call them brothers, 12 saying:

“I will declare Your name to My brothers;

in the midst of the congregation I will sing Your praises.”

13 And again:

“I will be trusting in Him.”

And again:

“Behold, I and the children whom God has given Me.”

14 Therefore, since the children have partaken of blood and of flesh, He also likewise took part in the same things, so that through His death He might destroy the one holding the power of death, that is, the devil, 15 and might set free those who all their time to live were subject to slavery through fear of death.

16 For surely He helps not the angels, but He helps the seed of Abraham. 17 Therefore it behooved Him to be made like the brothers in all things, so that He might become a merciful and faithful high priest in things relating to God, in order to make propitiation for the sins of the people. 18 For in that He Himself has suffered, having been tempted, He is able to help those being tempted.

—————

This highly metaphorical image of what it means to be “called” a “brother” of Jesus in the sphere of “blood and flesh” seems to me to echo the arguably literal language in 1) in Gal 1: “…I did not immediately consult with flesh and blood… I saw no other apostles except [or “only”] James the Lord’s brother…” and 2) Gal 4 “God sent his son, born [lit. having come into being] of a woman, born [lit. having come into being] under the law…”

Is it just me, or is there a literary echo in Hebrews that is being generated by my re-reading of Gal?

Carrier is a highly skilled scholar, and not only so in his main field, history, where he has an excellent grasp of appropriate methods. His skills also include ancient Greek language and textual criticism. The discussion of the existence of Jesus has generated close re-readings of the passage in Galatians dealing with James, the Lord’s brother. Since I am interested in re-reading Galatians, specifically in reference to the flesh phrases of Galatians, it behooves me to avail myself of meaningful exegetical insights that this debate may bring to the fore! And so, when Carrier cites exegetical arguments by a well known scholar, Betz, and a little known scholar, Trudinger, published in a respected journal, then I take an interest.

Robert said

Robert said

1 Cor 15,7 seems to indicate that Paul thought of this James as one of the apostles, perhaps one of the more prominent apostles (other than the twelve mentioned in 15).

GREGORY HARTZLER-MILLER said

… This conceptual flow of thought works best if James is a “brother” but not an “apostle” (as argued by Betz and others). This seemed to me to make the discourse of Gal 1:18-19 flow more smoothly. …

Sorry if I missed your response to this. What do you make of 1 Cor 15,7? Don’t you think that this implies that James is one of the apostles, even an apostle of higher rank than Paul claims for himself? 

Then he appeared to James, then to all the apostles. 8 Last of all, as to one untimely born, he appeared also to me. 9 For I am the least of the apostles, unfit to be called an apostle, because I persecuted the church of God.

And if James (and even his delegates) were not perceived as having something like apostolic authority, why would Cephas, Barnabas, and other Jews be persuaded to abandon their prior eating with and living like gentiles?

Gal. 2,11 But when Cephas came to Antioch, I opposed him to his face, because he stood self-condemned; 12 for until certain people came from James, he used to eat with the Gentiles. But after (t)he(y) came, he drew back and kept himself separate for fear of the circumcision faction. 13 And the other Jews joined him in this hypocrisy, so that even Barnabas was led astray by their hypocrisy.

Isn’t it more likely that Cephas was observant early on in Jerusalem, but when he visited a mixed community at Antioch his views evolved toward the new idea of ‘eating with and living like a gentile’? Yet he was not so confident in this new practice that he could not be influenced by the arrival of strict emissaries sent by James from Jerusalem. Perhaps he merely wanted to engage in Jewish fellowship with them and he respected their strict observance. 

If Cephas had a particular sense of mission to the circumcised, as distinct from Paul’s to the uncircumcised, then Cephas may have made a consistent effort to practice what Paul called “works of the law” to fit in among the circumcised. Likewise, Paul according to 1 Cor 9:20, says that he “became as” a Jew to win Jews, those under the law to win those under the law. So he–and Barnabus with him–may have tried to support Cephas in his efforts to fit in with the “works-of-the-law” community while in majority Jewish settings. When not dealing with absolutes, but with contextual discernment of what is appropriate, then there is opportunity for sharp differences of opinion, even between those who agree in principle, such as in the Antioch context where Paul confronted Cephas “when he came.”

In the tradition passed down according to 1 Cor 15:5-7, it is striking that Cephas and James are both named, and none other. I take that as a parallel to Gal 1, where both are likewise named. I take it that Cephas was one of the 12 (along two other Jameses listed in the 12 in GMark), and the other “James” of 1 Cor (one of the “brothers of the Lord” who like Cephas were accompanied by sister-wives, according to 1 Cor 9:5) was not one of the 12. I think the category of “esteemed pillars” alludes to the 12. There were “apostles” other than the 12, according to this passage, and the passage does seem to include James among them by association, but it is not stated outright, and legitimate scholarly debate is due to this room for ambiguity. 

It is precisely the ambiguity of James’s status as “apostle” that is at issue in Gal 1. My proposed close reading of this passage suggests that if you include James, the Lord’s flesh-and-blood brother as an “apostle” then you should consider the that he may be a “false apostle”. The concept of “false apostle” (ψευδαπόστολος, used explicitly in 2 Cor 11:13) is not used explicitly in Gal, but it is implied by association with “men from James” who were, in my reading, “false brothers” (ψευδάδελφος Gal 2:4 Cf 2 Cor 11:26).  Gal and 2 Cor 10-13 have a number of striking parallels including Paul’s claim that he is not lying (ψεύδομαι 2 Cor 11:31 and Gal 1:20), and the concept of “false brothers” i.e. “lying brothers.” I would add to these direct parallels the idea of “false apostle” in 2 Cor which could fit with Paul’s view of James, the Lord’s brother in Galatians.

I wonder whether James may have been one of Cephas’s first converts as part of his mission to the circumcised. In any case, according to Gal 1, when Paul visited Cephas for 15 days, he also saw “James, the Lord’s brother.” This suggests that Cephas and “the brother of the Lord” were fairly close. I think it is unlikely that the three of them did not share a meal. I imagine Paul and Cephas discussing such a meal with “the Lord’s brother” in advance and agreeing to do everything they could to make James feel accepted and valued. In such a conversation, Cephas would have had opportunity to verbally share about his practices of eating with Gentiles. According to Acts 10, Cephas/Peter went through serious changes as per eating with Gentiles, and it was in the direction of being more, not less open. I imagine Paul was pushing him all along to see eating practices as contextual, not “works-of-the-law” absolutes. But if in that first visit with James, the Lord’s brother, Paul was seeing him as someone with whom he would “become as a Jew to win the Jews” then he would have been in a different category than Cephas who was already being moved by the Spirit toward a mission that included Gentiles.

My bottom line in this rereading is flow of thought in Galatians. I think that this reading of context makes for an excellent flow of thought. Paul sees Cephas on three occasions 1) In Jerusalem, 3 years his conversion/call, 2) In Jerusalem 14 years after, and 3) in Antioch (probably soon after the Jerusalem visit). In each setting “James, the Lord’s brother” is part of the scene, 1) in a face to face visit, 2) not explicitly and 3) explicitly in the phrase “men from James” which alludes back to Jerusalem.

In my opinion, the flow of thought is even better if Tertullian (and other patristic witnesses) are correct that Gal 2:5 contains an error, and Paul was saying: “We did yield in subjection for a time…” That fits Paul’s mode of operation, it fits with Acts, and it explains why context is so important that Paul would hold his tongue in Jerusalem, but speak out in Antioch. Tertullian accuses Marcion of making the change, which would be in keeping with an (overly-Pauline/pseudo-Pauline) absolute view of Paul’s practice vis-a-vis “works of the law.” Since this textual tradition is in our NT Galatians, it has shaped the history of interpretation since the time of Jerome, who knew the alternative, but advocated for the text we now have. My reading does not depend on the textual alternative, but I mentally bracket the given text as suspect when I am making my interpretation of the flow of thought.

My main ancient support for my reading is Victorinus. In his commentary on Gal, he, somewhat ambiguously, presumes two Jameses in Gal, he views “James, the brother of the Lord” as a brother “according to the flesh,” and he regards James as a perceived leader in the circumcision party.

I appreciate questions and comments.

Robert said
I just don’t think it likely that Cephas would already be so openly ‘eating with gentiles and living like a gentile and not as a Jew’ so early in Jerusalem, of all places (μετὰ τῶν ἐθνῶν συνεσθίων, ὑπάρχων ἐθνικῶς καὶ οὐχὶ Ἰουδαϊκῶς). I would expect this would be much more likely to have occurred for the first time in a mixed community in Antioch, in a foreign country.

I’m also persuaded by Gerd Lüdemann that the incident at Antioch may have been Paul’s inspiration to go up to Jerusalem to lay his gospel before the pillars. This presumes upon a rhetorical ordering here rather than a purely chronological account by Paul of these two events.

  

Not being familiar with Gerd Lüdemann’s interpretations of the ancient reports about James, the Lord’s brother, I found this article on the web for starters. Here are extended quotations of some of the relevant paragraphs:

Jesus’s postmortem appearances—both to Peter, who repudiated and later deserted him and to the other disciples who had earlier fled—were surely taken to signify forgiveness, and naturally the content of these experiences was passed on to others. No doubt, the reports emphasized that, far from abandoning Jesus, God had taken him to heaven. They may even have suggested—perhaps speculatively at first—that Jesus would soon be reappearing from heaven as the Son of Man. That scenario emboldened his followers to embark on a tremendous new venture: the women and men who had attached themselves to Jesus would return to Jerusalem to continue the work their master had left unfinished. Once again (and perhaps it would be God’s last offer), they would call for a change of heart and mind. These first visions reported by Peter and the twelve proved so infectious that we are told of another appearance, this time to more than five hundred people at once. At this point, surely, any non-ecstatic interpretation comes to grief. The dynamic power of such a beginning is not to be underestimated. Jesus’s own brothers were sufficiently swept up in the excitement that James—who had so little sympathy for Jesus’s cause that he likely participated in the reported attempt to have his “crazy” brother put away (Mark 3:21)—is said to have received an individual vision.

…In Paul’s presence, delegates from Jerusalem fomented a bitter dispute over purity concerns in the mixed community of Antioch and thereby threatened all that he had achieved. And so it was that, fourteen years after the first visitation, Paul received a revelation from his heavenly Lord to return to Jerusalem. Proud and unbowed, he took with him Titus, an uncircumcised Greek, to establish a precedent. It is no coincidence that Paul’s former mission partner Barnabas was also a party to the discussion, but so, too, were those strict Jewish Christians who, as Paul put it, had crept into the (mixed) community and provoked a bitter dispute. Initially, this was completely different from the first visit, for besides Cephas, John now had a voice, and Jesus’s biological brother James led the triumvirate. It is indicative of the changing alignment of forces that two of the
original disciples were now subordinate to one who had been—at the very least—skeptical of Jesus’s ministry.

From: WHAT REALLY HAPPENED? The Rise of Primitive Christianity, 30–70 C.E. by Gerd Lüdemann, (2007) ** you do not have permission to see this link **

———————-

Lüdemann speaks with an air of great authority as a result of scholarly consensus, but with scant textual evidence. Is it really likely that James thought his brother was “crazy”? I’ve been doing a close reading of that story, and I think another scenario is more likely given the flow of thought in Mark’s narrative.

Jesus had just called 12 apostles “that he might be with them…” and then in the next scene, “he came into a house.” Whose house? The text does not say.  Because of a crowd, “they are not even able to eat bread.” Then comes the key, very ambiguous sentence, rendered fairly well by the Literal Standard Version: “and those alongside Him having heard, went forth to lay hold on Him, for they said that He was beside Himself,”

Who were “those alongside Him” (οἱ παρ’ αὐτοῦ)? There is no mention of his biological family up to that point in the GMark narrative. He had just called the 12 in part so that they might “be with him.” 

Those who “went fort the lay hold of Him” said, ἐξέστη (meaning, “He is beside himself” or something like that.)

If those who said ἐξέστη were some of his newly appointed apostles, which seems contextually most probable, then it seems very unlikely that they would so quickly say he was ἐξέστη in the sense of “crazy”! More likely he was faint, and in need of someone to take care of him after a long day and lacking food. The idea that somehow his biological brother James was there calling him “crazy” is one of those strangely under-examined scenarios which supposedly critical scholars routinely put forward as “what really happened.”

Later in Mark 3:31-35 the biological family of Jesus does appear, but no names are given. This is how it is told:

** you do not have permission to see this link **And a crowd was sitting around Him, and they said to Him, “Behold, Your mother and Your brothers outside are seeking You.”

** you do not have permission to see this link **For whoever shall do the will of God, he is My brother and sister and mother.”

It does not sound like biological family of Jesus has any special authority over him any more; indeed, the whole point of the story is to say that his real family is not defined by family of origin. Given that scenario, how likely is it that it was his brother James who “took hold of him” earlier, and that he had said his brother was “crazy”? Very unlikely IMHO (more on the reason for my confidence later).

Given the explicit mention of “sister and mother,” it seemly likely that it those who had come to take care of him earlier in his time of need included women metaphorically called “sister and mother”–those who do God’s will (perhaps unnamed sister-wives of the named male apostles).

Later, in Mark 6:3 when Jesus visits his πατρίς, lit. his “father-land”, his hometown, we do have mention of a brother of Jesus named James. Unlike the earlier scene, in his hometown, Jesus does not have so much crowd-appeal and skeptical onlookers say:

“Is not this the carpenter, the son of Mary, and brother of James and Joses and Judas and Simon? And are not His sisters here with us?” 

Presumably they are factually correct. This passage is the best evidence that “James, the Lord’s brother” of Gal 1 was a literal same-womb brother. But we learn nothing about James’s character or his deeds.

Twice, later in GMark this “Mary” appears and is identified by her son/s. At the Mark 15:40 scene of Jesus’s death, she is identified as “Mary the mother of James the younger and of Joses.” At the Mark 15:47 scene of Jesus’s burial, she is identified as “Mary [the mother] of Joses.”

At the scene of the Mark 16:1 empty tomb, there is a “Mary the mother of James” who should not be considered the same Mary since this “James” is not called “James the younger” and there is no mention “Joses.” GLuke does not copy any of the earlier Mary/Joses scenes, but does quote this one. Since in GLuke, the only perviously named Jameses were apostles, and since the brothers “James and John” were usually named together, then it is logical to suppose that this “Mary of James” was probably the mother of the apostle James, “son of Alphaeus” in both Gospels (Luke 6:15/Mark 3:18; since GMatt had quoted the earlier GMark mentions of Mary/Joses, with only a small spelling change, Tr Joseph, it is no help in our question that the Matt 28:1 version of the “Mary” at same empty tomb scene identifies her as simply “the other Mary”).

————————

I think that the “James, the brother of the Lord” of Gal 1 is James as the son of Mary, and brother of Joses according to GMark 6. I think Jesus and James were supposed to be understood in Gal/GMark as literal same-womb brothers. On that much, I agree with “most scholars.” 

But IMHO, the idea that GMark’s James called his brother “crazy” has almost no basis and other interpretations are more likely.

To be continued. Questions and comments welcome.

Re: the claim that “Jesus’s biological brother James led the triumvirate”

Again, Lüdemann speaks with an air of great authority that results from a scholarly consensus built scant textual evidence.

I can agree with most scholars on two inter-textual claims that are fairly solid:

1) The “James, brother of the Lord” of Gal 1:19 is the same as the “James”–Mary’s son–in Mark 6:3.

2) The “James” and “Cephas/Peter” of the “esteemed pillars” of Gal 2:9 are the same as the “James” and “Peter/Simon” in Acts 15:13.

But the inter-textual bridge linking “James”–the Lord’s brother–of Gal 1 with “James”–the esteemed pillar–of Gal 2 is almost non-existant.

GMark presents three Jameses. Perhaps confusingly, the “James” of “Mary of James” at the empty tomb scene of Mark 16:1, ought not be identified with the “James” of Mark 6:3, i.e. The “James” in “Mary the mother of James the less and of Joses” of Mark 15:40 and in “Mary of Joses” of Mark 15:47. Given the “James” of “Mary of James” in Mark 16:1 is not called “James the less” and is not connected with “Joses,” it seems best to connect this “James” son of Mary with one of the two apostles named James–either the “James” of Mark 3:17, “James son of Zebedee and his brother John (whom He named Boanerges, meaning “Sons of Thunder” or the “James” of Mark 3:17, “James son of Alphaeus.”

GLuke erases the brother of Jesus named “James the Less” in Mark 15:40 (Mark 6:3 and 15:47), but at Luke 24:7, in parallel with Mark 16:1, at the empty tomb, there is a Μαρία ἡ Ἰακώβου (Mary the [mother] of James). Who is this “James”? As in Mark, so also in Luke 6:14-15 there are the two Jameses among the 12 named apostles to pick from.

In Acts 1:14, as in GLuke 8:19-21 (echoing Mark 3:31-35, but without explicit mention of Jesus’ sisters), there is mention of “Mary the mother of Jesus, and his brothers”. But nowhere in Luke-Acts are any of the brothers of Jesus explicitly or unambiguously given names. 

And so after the report in Acts 12:2 that Harod had put to death “James the brother of John with the sword,” it is obvious for the reader of Luke-Acts as a literary unit, that when Peter gets out of jail and says “Report these things to James and to the brothers” he is talking about the other apostle named James explicitly in Luke and in Acts, “James son of Alphaeus” (Acts 1:13). Naturally also, this is presumably the James of Acts 15, in the scene that parallels Gal 2 featuring the esteemed pillars, James, Cephas and John.

Since inter-textuality, thus construed, does not provide an unambiguous bridge connecting “James the Lord’s brother” of Gal 1 with “James” of the “esteemed pillars” of Gal 2, the any such connection depends on interpretation of the flow of thought in Galatians. As I have argued elsewhere, the flow of thought works perfectly fine identifying 1) “James the Lord’s brother” with “the men from James” i.e. the “false brothers.” And 2) “James” of the “esteemed pillars” with 12 apostles which did not include James the biological brother of Jesus.

That said, I have to confess, that if instead of reading Luke-Acts-Galatians, I read Matthew-Acts-Galatiians, it is almost possible for me to construe a whole other version of the ambiguous Jameses. A small but potentially important decision at Matt 26:61 was to identify the “Mary” at the burial of Jesus as “the other Mary”, thus, unlike Mark’s use of the phrase “Mary of James” which redirects the attention of very altert readers from “James” the brother of Jesus to “James” the apostle, Matthew leaves the reader open to projecting the brother of Jesus into Acts 15 and Gal 2. The rest is IMHO a misreading misconstrued early on by the anti-Marcionite Hegesippus as if it were history: “James, the Lord’s brother, succeeds to the government of the Church, in conjunction with the apostles.”  ** you do not have permission to see this link **

Comments are much appreciated.