Carrier and "experts" who argue for two Jameses in NT Galatians

[hakeem]

I'm pretty sure that "born of a woman, born under the law" is also an anti-Marcionite interpolation. Unfortunately, Tertullian provides us with a confusing comment on the passage. He comments on Gal 4:4 with no mention of, "born of a woman, born under the law", but had also just talked about erasures of Marcion, to which he noted that it wasn't worth commenting on what Marcion had erased, so its hard to know if he didn't comment on "born of a woman, born under the law" because of what he had just said or what.

Anyway, it reads to me like a direct anti-Marcionite interpolation. We have to acknowledge that Galatians was seen as the most important Pauline letter by Marcion and also by opponents of Marcion, who viewed Galatians as the text it was most important to refute.

"born of a woman, born under the law" is a very gratuitous statement.

4 But when the set time had fully come, God sent his Son, born of a woman, born under the law, to redeem those under the law, that we might receive adoption to sonship.

vs

4 But when the set time had fully come, God sent his Son to redeem those under the law, that we might receive adoption to sonship.

I mean be serious, we all know that the last sentence is far more reasonable.

I think very seriously that Galatians was worked over by a redactor and is full of interpolations. Primary among them: Gal 1:19-20, Gal 2:8, Gal 4:4 "born of a woman, born under the law".

Marcion would not have written what you suggested. Marcion's Son of God was not sent by the Christian God.

Ephraen's Against Marcion III

These are two things from which the Marcionites have deflected, for they are not willing to call our Lord 'the Maker,' nor (do they admit) that He was (sent) by the Maker.

Tertullian's "Against Marcion" appears to be a bogus writing full of mistakes. Marcion never had any Epistles attributed to an apostle called Paul.

[robert j]

I'm pretty sure that "born of a woman, born under the law" is also an anti-Marcionite interpolation ...

"born of a woman, born under the law" is a very gratuitous statement.

4 But when the set time had fully come, God sent his Son, born of a woman, born under the law, to redeem those under the law, that we might receive adoption to sonship.

vs

4 But when the set time had fully come, God sent his Son to redeem those under the law, that we might receive adoption to sonship.

I mean be serious, we all know that the last sentence is far more reasonable.

I'll use the modern legal term of "standing", that is, to have a right or cause to bring an action.

Just like Paul's Jesus Christ having come in the likeness of man gave him "standing" to die a salvific death on behalf of mankind, having been born under the law gave him "standing" to redeem those under the law.

However, neither characterization should be assumed to mean that Paul's Jesus Christ was a recent historical figure in relation to Paul's time.

[gryan]

In this reading, Paul does not regard James, the Lord's brother as one of the "apostles."

----------

In my own ongoing re-reading of NT Galatians (as I see it this morning), "James the Lord's brother" (Gal 1) is the "James" in the phrase "the men from James" (Gal 2) who is associated with "the circumcision" who intimidated Cephus, but is not the to be confused with the "James" of the "esteemed pillars" ("James, Cephas and John"). Also, "the false brothers" (Gal 2) are interpreted as "the men from James". So they came in from outside the inner circle, and were not invited in by any of the pillars. I also think that by his way of speaking, Paul is writing against the argument made by some that "James, the Lord's brother" was an apostle. Paul regarded him both as a "pseudo-Apostle" and as "the Lord's brother" in the sphere of "flesh and blood" (a phrase that for Paul, in 1 Cor 15, carries a connotation of "perishable" rather than "imperishable.")

Rubbish. Did Paul really write such a confusing mess? Paul really mentioned a literal brother of Jesus one time and never anywhere else every expanded on anything about the family of Jesus? And Paul included a confusing reference to James again when talking about Peter, never making clear which of the two he was talking about?

That's just nonsense. This reading has Paul write something so confusing that it essentially was misread by everyone and significantly altered the entire concept of who the leadership of the church was. Was Paul really such a horrible and clueless writer?

No, Paul isn't talking about two Jameses and confusing everyone in the process. Paul talked about one James, and someone else introduced a second James.

@rgprice, Carrier and I all agree that there are two Jameses in NT Galatians, although for different reasons. On this point, it is us against, to my knowledge, all modern published NT scholars. IMHO that may soon change. Evidence is too compelling for those who chose to study it.

My project is to try to read NT Galatians as a coherent text. I think Paul did in fact write confusingly for readers who were not originally intended. His discourse was highly contextual, and so later, out of original context, it was easily misread, especially by people that found it embarrassing.

I think all the flesh phrases from Galatians 1:16 to 4:15 were misread in part to to avoid perceiving literary echos of Galatians in Hebrews, particularly is it relates to the image of Jesus "in the days of his flesh":

From Hebrews Ch 2

10For 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. 11For both the One sanctifying and those being sanctified are all of one, for which reason He is not ashamed to call them brothers, 12saying:

“I will declare Your name to My brothers;

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

13And again:

“I will be trusting in Him.”

And again:

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

14Therefore, 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, 15and might set free those who all their time to live were subject to slavery through fear of death.

16For surely He helps not the angels, but He helps the seed of Abraham. 17Therefore 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. 18For 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 some kind of an echo here?

Documentary Hypothesis

1) Paul wrote his authentic letters, including NT Gal
2) These were combined with the "Deutero-Pauline" letters to form a letters collection used by
3) The author of Hebrews to compose a liturgical text (used in a "sacrifice of praise"/eucharistic service), which was combined with Paul's letters to form proto P46
4) Docetic Marcion was offended both by the "flesh and blood"/ "brother of the Lord" idea in Galatians, and its interpretation in Hebrews. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marcion_of_Sinope
5) So he made his own alternative Pauline canon, replacing Hebrews with proto/redacted GLuke, and combined it with selected quotations from Paul (with no "flesh and blood" brother).
6) the anti Marcionite Hegesippus misread Galatians to make James the brother of Jesus one of the esteemed pillars
7) Jerome likewise misread Galatians identifying James the brother of Jesus as a half brother, James Son of Alphaeus, who was one of the 12
8) Jerome rejected the notion that Paul ever "consulted with flesh and blood" since apostles are not "flesh and blood" who will not inherit the Kingdom
9)the church to this day as represented by modern scholars thinks that Paul did not consult with flesh and blood and that James of Gal 1 became an "esteemed pillar."

[rgprice]

Documentary Hypothesis

1) Paul wrote his authentic letters, including NT Gal
2) These were combined with the "Deutero-Pauline" letters to form a letters collection used by
3) The author of Hebrews to compose a liturgical text (used in a "sacrifice of praise"/eucharistic service), which was combined with Paul's letters to form proto P46
4) Docetic Marcion was offended both by the "flesh and blood"/ "brother of the Lord" idea in Galatians, and its interpretation in Hebrews. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marcion_of_Sinope
5) So he made his own alternative Pauline canon, replacing Hebrews with proto/redacted GLuke, and combined it with selected quotations from Paul (with no "flesh and blood" brother).
6) the anti Marcionite Hegesippus misread Galatians to make James the brother of Jesus one of the esteemed pillars
7) Jerome likewise misread Galatians identifying James the brother of Jesus as a half brother, James Son of Alphaeus, who was one of the 12
8) Jerome rejected the notion that Paul ever "consulted with flesh and blood" since apostles are not "flesh and blood" who will not inherit the Kingdom
9) the church to this day as represented by modern scholars thinks that Paul did not consult with flesh and blood and that James of Gal 1 became an "esteemed pillar."

That is entirely wrong IMO. What a lot of recent research shows is that everything goes the opposite direction. It was Marcion who came out with the first set of Christian scriptures. It was Marcion who formed the first collection of Paul's letters. If any version of Paul's letters are authentic, it is most likely Marcion's.

I'm undecided as to whether Marcion's letters were indeed the original set of letters, from which every other version of letters descends. To me, that fact that the orthodox collection includes all of Marcion's letters strongly supports the conclusion that the orthodox letters descend from Marcion's Apostolikon. Colossians and Ephesians/Laodiceans are Marcioniteish forgeries. Some think they were written by Marcion himself. I'm not so sure about that, but even if they weren't, they were written by someone who was leaning theologically in Marcion's direction. They are perhaps proto-Marcionite. But they do most likely reflect the teachings and ideas of the community that formed the final collection that Marcion used.

The fact that the orthodox collection contains these letters almost forces the conclusion that the orthodox collection is simply built on top of the Apostolikon. I find it very doubtful that some "authentic" collection of Pauline letters, actually in the possession of a proto-orthodox community, would contain Colossians and Ephesians. It seems that someone took the Apostolikon and then revised it to counter Marcion's theology.

That person was not necessarily orthodox themselves, indeed it could have even been Apelles. Its not necessarily the case that the alternate version of the letters was created by someone like Irenaeus or Polycarp or anyone nearly so anti-Marcionite. But, its also the case that the letters were redacted multiple times. It appears that there have been multiple rounds of redaction by different people at different points in time.

The Pastorals were clearly added much later, in fact after the Gospels had been written and likely after Acts of the Apostles had been written. The Pastorals are written as extensions of Acts. Whoever wrote the Pastorals also likely engaged in a final round of redaction of the entire collection.

It would seem that the orthodox version, including the Pastorals, was created sometime in the mid second century and was only known to apologists when it was published as a part of the anti-Marcionite first edition of the "New Testament", around 140-160 CE. It would seem that Marcion put out his New Testament, likely around 130ish, then opposing works were produced quickly following his, and an anti-Marcionite NT was put out within 5-10 years of Marcion's NT. And it is from that anti-Marcionite NT that all of the apologists and church fathers worked. It is from that anti-Marcionite NT that Tertullian read.

This is essentially what Matthias Klinghardt proposes. I agree with a lot of what Klinghardt says, except I still think that gMark preceded Marcon's Gospel, whereas Matthias Klinghardt has Marcion's Gospel as they very first.

So to me, I find it far more likely that the original form of Galatians never mentioned any meeting with a "bother of the Lord" to begin with. That was added later as an anti-Marcionite revision to the letter. But keep in mind that these revisions weren't being done by committee, out in the open by "the Catholic Church." There was a lot going on with single individuals making revisions and promoting editions in private, and even other people who may have been aligned with them ideologically were not necessarily aware of what was happening in the texts nor did they understand the meaning behind some changes.

Anyway, my view is that these letters are minefields that contain many different revisions that occurred over time by different people with different agendas. Trying to make sense of them as if they were all consistently written by a single individual and reflect a single coherent set of ideas is a fool's errand.

[Bernard Muller]

to rgprice,

rgprice wrote: ↑Fri Mar 19, 2021 10:18 am
I'm pretty sure that "born of a woman, born under the law" is also an anti-Marcionite interpolation ...

"born of a woman, born under the law" is a very gratuitous statement.

4 But when the set time had fully come, God sent his Son, born of a woman, born under the law, to redeem those under the law, that we might receive adoption to sonship.

vs

4 But when the set time had fully come, God sent his Son to redeem those under the law, that we might receive adoption to sonship.

"born of a woman, born under the law," is absolutely essential for Paul's long (and thick!) argument starting at 3:16:
From http://historical-jesus.info/18.html Probably the best evidence for an earthly & human Jesus
Galatians 4:4 is certainly bothering mythicists. But "come of woman, come under Law" is the keystone holding together a long argument: without Jesus known to be born as an earthly human, the whole argumentation would collapse ...

Paul started by making a claim: "But to Abraham were the promises addressed, and to his seed: he does not say, And to seeds, as of many; but as of one, And to thy seed; which is Christ."(3:16 Darby). That seems to refer to Genesis 17-22 but it is never specified here according to Paul's words.

Anyway, the promise is about inheritance (3:18) for all (Gentiles and Jews --3:8, 14, 28-29) but that is put on hold by the Law "until the seed [Christ] should come ['erchomai', clear expression of a first coming to occur] to whom the promise was made" (3:16, 19). Then everyone would be liberated from the Law by Christ (3:13 "Christ has redeemed us from the curse of the law, having become a curse for us (for it is written, "Cursed is everyone who hangs on a tree""), 22-25) & his crucifixion (3:13) and "the promise, on the principle of faith of Jesus Christ, should be given to those that believe." (3:22), allowing Paul's Galatians to be God's sons & heirs and (by "adoption"?) seed of Abraham (3:7, 29).

What remains is for the Son/Christ to come as the seed of Abraham, that is as a Jew and earthly human (as other seeds of Abraham, like Paul (Ro 11:1), Jews of Israelite descent (Ro 9:7), other apostles (2 Cor 11:20)), in order to enable the promise. So we have:
Gal 4:4-7 Darby "but when the fullness of the time was come, God sent forth his Son, come of woman [as an earthly human], come under law [as a Jew would be], that he might redeem those under law, that we might receive sonship. But because you are [Greek present tense] sons ... So you are [present again] no longer bondman, but son ..."

So Paul was thinking about an earthly "flesh & blood" mother! And Christ had already come and gone (1:1)!

Notes:
1) Paul used the common knowledge Jesus had been an earthly man (from a woman) and a Jew (as descendant of Abraham) in order to clinch a long & complicated argument. If the existence of Jesus on earth was not accepted or even doubted, then the argument would simply not work.
2) ...
3) "born of (a) woman" expression is used three times in the OT book of Job (14:1, 15:14 & 25:4) in order to indicate earthly human being.

Galatians 3:5-4:7:

3:5 He [Paul] therefore that supplieth to you the Spirit, and worketh miracles among you, doeth he it by the works of the law, or by the hearing of faith? 3:6 Even as Abraham believed God, and it was reckoned unto him for righteousness. 3:7 Know therefore that they that are of faith, the same are sons of Abraham. 3:8 And the scripture, foreseeing that God would justify the Gentiles by faith, preached the gospel beforehand unto Abraham, saying, In thee shall all the nations be blessed. 3:9 So then they that are of faith are blessed with the faithful Abraham. 3:10 For as many as are of the works of the law are under a curse: for it is written, Cursed is every one who continueth not in all things that are written in the book of the law, to do them. 3:11 Now that no man is justified by the law before God, is evident: for, The righteous shall live by faith; 3:12 and the law is not of faith; but, He that doeth them shall live in them. 3:13 Christ redeemed us from the curse of the law, having become a curse for us; for it is written, Cursed is every one that hangeth on a tree: 3:14 that upon the Gentiles might come the blessing of Abraham in Christ Jesus; that we might receive the promise of the Spirit through faith. 3:15 Brethren, I speak after the manner of men: Though it be but a man's covenant, yet when it hath been confirmed, no one maketh it void, or addeth thereto. 3:16 Now to Abraham were the promises spoken, and to his seed. He saith not, And to seeds, as of many; but as of one, And to thy seed, which is Christ. 3:17 Now this I say: A covenant confirmed beforehand by God, the law, which came four hundred and thirty years after, doth not disannul, so as to make the promise of none effect. 3:18 For if the inheritance is of the law, it is no more of promise: but God hath granted it to Abraham by promise. 3:19 What then is the law? It was added because of transgressions, till the seed should come to whom the promise hath been made; and it was ordained through angels by the hand of a mediator. 3:20 Now a mediator is not a mediator of one; but God is one. 3:21 Is the law then against the promises of God? God forbid: for if there had been a law given which could make alive, verily righteousness would have been of the law. 3:22 But the scriptures shut up all things under sin, that the promise by faith in Jesus Christ might be given to them that believe. 3:23 But before faith came, we were kept in ward under the law, shut up unto the faith which should afterwards be revealed. 3:24 So that the law is become our tutor to bring us unto Christ, that we might be justified by faith. 3:25 But now faith that is come, we are no longer under a tutor. 3:26 For ye are all sons of God, through faith, in Christ Jesus. 3:27 For as many of you as were baptized into Christ did put on Christ. 3:28 There can be neither Jew nor Greek, there can be neither bond nor free, there can be no male and female; for ye all are one man in Christ Jesus. 3:29 And if ye are Christ's, then are ye Abraham's seed, heirs according to promise.
4:1 But I say that so long as the heir is a child, he differeth nothing from a bondservant though he is lord of all; 4:2 but is under guardians and stewards until the day appointed of the father. 4:3 So we also, when we were children, were held in bondage under the rudiments of the world: 4:4 but when the fulness of the time came, God sent forth his Son, born of a woman, born under the law, 4:5 that he might redeem them that were under the law, that we might receive the adoption of sons. 4:6 And because ye are sons, God sent forth the Spirit of his Son into our hearts, crying, Abba, Father. 4:7 So that thou art no longer a bondservant, but a son; and if a son, then an heir through God."

Cordially, Bernard

[hakeem]

That is entirely wrong IMO. What a lot of recent research shows is that everything goes the opposite direction. It was Marcion who came out with the first set of Christian scriptures. It was Marcion who formed the first collection of Paul's letters. If any version of Paul's letters are authentic, it is most likely Marcion's.

What you say about Marcion is completely without evidence. The contemporary of Marcion, Justin Martyr, wrote about Marcion and his teachings but never a word about NT Paul, his evangelism, his preaching and the Epistles.

Since Justin, a Christian, knew nothing about NT Paul, his evangelism, his teachings and Epistles how could it be expected for Marcion to have written about Paul and the Epistles?

As can be seen, Christian writers had to fabricate witnesses for NT Paul and the Epistles like Ignatius, Clement, Irenaeus and Tertullian.

Based on my research, the so-called Pauline writings are extremely late writings unknown up to at least the 3rd century.

[gryan]

This is my new interpretation/translation of Gal 1:19

ἕτερον δὲ τῶν ἀποστόλων οὐκ εἶδον, εἰ μὴ Ἰάκωβον τὸν ἀδελφὸν τοῦ Κυρίου.

Other than the apostles I saw no [apostle]–-unless you count James, the Lord’s brother.



“’Other than the apostles…

For the argument for έτερος in the comparative sense, "other than", see P. TRUDINGER, “ΈΤΕΡΟ Ν ΔΕ ΤΩΝ ΑΠΟΣΤΟΛΩΝ ΟΥΚ ΕΙΔΟΝ, ΕΙ ΜΗ ΙΑΚΩΒΟΝ. A Note on Galatians 1: 19”, Novum Testamentum, 17 (1975), 200-202.

…I saw none [i.e. no apostle]

For a refinement of TRUDINGER'S reading: "έτερος...makes a comparison between persons or objects of the same class of things" in this case, "apostles". See, "WAS JAMES AN APOSTLE? A Reflection on a New Proposal for Gal. 1:19 BY GEORGE HOWARD Athens, Georgia (1977)

….unless you count James, the Lord’s brother.

A paraphrase of the sense of the Greek advocated by JOHN BLIGH, Galatians in Greek (Detroit, i960), p. 96. As quoted by L. P. TRUDINGER

———–

Interpretation:

1) In the phrase “Other than the apostles”, the plural “apostles” with an article “the apostles” refers to those of “repute” the “esteemed pillars”. Paul does not intend to suggest that he saw only Peter; rather, he saw some of the same “esteemed pillars” he saw again the next time he visited Jerusalem. (For a parallel to Paul’s first visit to Jerusalem, see Acts 9:27, “Barnabas brought him to the apostles” plural)

2)The “James” in the “esteemed Pillars” (Gal 2) was James the apostle, that is, James son of Alphaeus–not to be confused with “James the Lord’s brother.” (Cf Acts 15:13 where the “James” of Luke-Acts is best understood as one of the 12 James son of Alphaeus who rose in status after James the brother of John who was beheaded according to Acts 12:17. Note that nowhere in Luke-Acts is any of the “brothers of Jesus” named.

3) Paul is implying that–like the “pseudo-brothers”/”the ones from James”–James, the brother of the Lord was a “pseudo-apostle” (2 Cor 11:19).

4) Although according to Gal 1:16, Paul did not immediately “consult with flesh and blood,” he did do so when he met with James in his status as the Lord’s “brother” i.e. “brother” in the sphere of “flesh and blood.”

-------------

This is significantly different than Carrier's reading, but, I agree with Carrier on two significant departures from mainstream readings of the Greek text: 1) I agree in reading έτερος in the comparative sense, "other than," and 2) I agree that there are two Jameses in NT Gal Ch. 1 and 2.