About a contrast between the Paul persecutor and the James persecuted of Gal 1:19

[Giuseppe]

A suspicion arises in me about the effective knowledge about James the Just of a hypothetical proto-Catholic interpolator of Gal 1:19.

Assuming the possibility of a such interpolation, the interpolator knew surely that James was executed by Ananus (by reading the info from the interpolation in Josephus) or by the Jews of Jerusalem (by reading the info from Hegesippus). At any rate, he knew that James was the martyr by excellence, and even independently from Acts (since there Stephan is the martyr by excellence, and there was no mention of a James brother of Jesus).

So the interpolator interpolated Gal 1 by interpolating not only James (of Gal 1:19) in it but also the legend of Paul persecutor, so that a perfect contrast is raised, between the persecutor who became the Christian by grace (read: hallucinations) and the persecuted who would be became the Christian by work (martyrdom).

[Giuseppe]

Note that a strong clue of the fact that the interpolator knew about Josephus's interpolated bit on James (or - that is the same - about the Hegesippus inventions) is the surprising fact that he placed James in Jerusalem by already assuming from these above-cited forgeries the special link of James with Jerusalem (the causal link death of James--->fall of Jerusalem). So under the hypothesis of interpolation, the readers knew already the best explanation about the otherwise strange (=surprising, =unexpected, = not probable) detail of the solitary presence of James alone in Jerusalem (differently from the other apostles, who were all out from Jerusalem). In the mere solitary presence of James in Jerusalem it is already contained in nuce the fate that will meet him in that same city: martyrdom.


But then also "brothers of the Lord" in 1 Cor 9:5 is a banal interpolation, since the carnal brothers of the Lord could't exit from Jerusalem so even less to have a wife during their missionary trips out Jerusalem.

[Giuseppe]

And it is 100% expected in fictions (not in real History) to show apparently "unimportant"clues about the fictional character who is being introduced, clues indeed that the omniscient readers can already interpret as allusive references to the fate that the fictional character will receive.

The best example of this pattern that comes in my mind now is the movie The Hobbit where who has already seen The Lord of the Rings knows in advance the sequel of the story (and so he could like better some otherwise irrelevant clues of the prequel).