Is Paul "Othering" James in Galatians 1:19?

[dbz]

In OHJ I put the case like this:

[W]hy didn’t Paul just say ‘of them that were apostles before me [1.17] I met none except Peter and James [1.18-19]’? Why does he construct the convoluted sentence ‘I consulted with Peter, but another of the apostles I did not see, except James’? As L. Paul Trudinger puts it, ‘this would certainly be an odd way for Paul to say that he saw only two apostles, Peter and James’. To say that, a far simpler sentence would do. So why the complex sentence instead? Paul could perhaps mean that he consulted with Peter (historeō) but only saw James (eidō)—that is, he didn’t discuss anything with James. But if that were his point, he would make sure to emphasize it, since that would be essential to his argument. Yet he doesn’t. In fact, if he is saying that he saw none of the other apostles, that would entail he was claiming he did not consult with any, either.
Carrier, OHJ, pp. 588-89

And:

In fact the Greek here is quite strange, unless Paul actually meant ‘other than the apostles I saw only James’, meaning quite specifically that this James was not an apostle. Ordinarily, to say you saw ‘no other apostle’ you would write heteron ton apostolon ouk (compare Rom. 7.23; 13.9; etc.) or oudena heteron tōn apostolōn (as Paul usually does: e.g. 1 Cor. 1.14; 2.8; 9.15; etc.) or things similar. But here Paul instead chose the unusual (and for Paul, unprecedented) construction heteron tōn apostolōn. Without oudeis, the word heteron plus the genitive in this fashion more often means ‘other than’, rather than ‘another of ’. Paul would then be simply classifying a meeting with ‘Cephas’ as a meeting with ‘the apostles’ (as anticipated in 1.17), and then making sure he named all the Christians he met on that occasion (Cephas and James) in anticipation of his claim that no one in Judea had ever seen him (1.22). The latter claim would be a lie if he had met any Christian, even one who was not an apostle, during his visit to Cephas (in 1.18). So Paul has to name all the Christians he met on that occasion. And, lying or not, that number needed to be low for his argument to hold. Accordingly, Paul says there was only one other: brother James.
Carrier, OHJ, pp. 590

The points I am making here about Greek vocabulary and grammar I could confirm myself, but I first encountered them in a peer reviewed paper in Trudinger (as I mention) that lays all this out, with examples demonstrating each point. If it were important enough, you could get ahold of that paper and read it yourself: L. Paul Trudinger, “[Heteron de tōn apostolōn ouk eidon, ei mē iakōbon]: A Note on Galatians I 19,” Novum Testamentum 17 (July 1975), pp. 200-202.

---

--Carrier (26 December 2021). "Galatians 1:19, Ancient Grammar, and How to Evaluate Expert Testimony". Richard Carrier Blogs.

[gryan]

In OHJ I put the case like this:

[W]hy didn’t Paul just say ‘of them that were apostles before me [1.17] I met none except Peter and James [1.18-19]’? Why does he construct the convoluted sentence ‘I consulted with Peter, but another of the apostles I did not see, except James’? As L. Paul Trudinger puts it, ‘this would certainly be an odd way for Paul to say that he saw only two apostles, Peter and James’. To say that, a far simpler sentence would do. So why the complex sentence instead? Paul could perhaps mean that he consulted with Peter (historeō) but only saw James (eidō)—that is, he didn’t discuss anything with James. But if that were his point, he would make sure to emphasize it, since that would be essential to his argument. Yet he doesn’t. In fact, if he is saying that he saw none of the other apostles, that would entail he was claiming he did not consult with any, either.
Carrier, OHJ, pp. 588-89

And:

In fact the Greek here is quite strange, unless Paul actually meant ‘other than the apostles I saw only James’, meaning quite specifically that this James was not an apostle. Ordinarily, to say you saw ‘no other apostle’ you would write heteron ton apostolon ouk (compare Rom. 7.23; 13.9; etc.) or oudena heteron tōn apostolōn (as Paul usually does: e.g. 1 Cor. 1.14; 2.8; 9.15; etc.) or things similar. But here Paul instead chose the unusual (and for Paul, unprecedented) construction heteron tōn apostolōn. Without oudeis, the word heteron plus the genitive in this fashion more often means ‘other than’, rather than ‘another of ’. Paul would then be simply classifying a meeting with ‘Cephas’ as a meeting with ‘the apostles’ (as anticipated in 1.17), and then making sure he named all the Christians he met on that occasion (Cephas and James) in anticipation of his claim that no one in Judea had ever seen him (1.22). The latter claim would be a lie if he had met any Christian, even one who was not an apostle, during his visit to Cephas (in 1.18). So Paul has to name all the Christians he met on that occasion. And, lying or not, that number needed to be low for his argument to hold. Accordingly, Paul says there was only one other: brother James.
Carrier, OHJ, pp. 590

The points I am making here about Greek vocabulary and grammar I could confirm myself, but I first encountered them in a peer reviewed paper in Trudinger (as I mention) that lays all this out, with examples demonstrating each point. If it were important enough, you could get ahold of that paper and read it yourself: L. Paul Trudinger, “[Heteron de tōn apostolōn ouk eidon, ei mē iakōbon]: A Note on Galatians I 19,” Novum Testamentum 17 (July 1975), pp. 200-202.

---

--Carrier (26 December 2021). "Galatians 1:19, Ancient Grammar, and How to Evaluate Expert Testimony". Richard Carrier Blogs.

Hi dbz,

Thank you for bringing up this argument by Carrier. Years ago, I studied it along with his scholarly sources, but it was interesting to revisit them:

"WAS JAMES AN APOSTLE? A Reflection on a New Proposal for Gal. 1:19" by George Howard

Also, L. P. Trudinger's article, "ΈΤΕΡΟ Ν ΔΕ ΤΩΝ ΑΠΟΣΤΟΛΩΝ ΟΥΚ ΕΙΔΟΝ, ΕΙ ΜΗ ΙΑΚΩΒΟΝ. A Note on Galatians 1:19" in Novum Testamentum, 17 (1975), 200-202.

Based on a range of factors not considered by Carrier or his sources, I remain convinced that Paul was describing James the Lord's brother as the only apostle he discerned to be heterodox in the sense of preaching the heteron gospel (Gal 1:6). I also believe that an accurate exegesis of canonical Galatians in the context of canonical literary echoes indicates that Paul did consult with flesh and blood when he met James, the flesh and blood brother of Jesus.

I do agree with Carrier that James the Lord's brother and the pillar James were two different people. However, as I recall, he identifies the pillar James as the son of Zebedee, in line with Augustine's view. For my part, in line with the death of John's brother in Acts, identify him as the son of Alphaeus.

My future book on this topic is still in progress, where I plan to elaborate on text and syntax of Gal 1:19 along with ten other key passages in canonical Galatians, with support from canonical literary echoes. I'm curious to hear your current perspective on the question Carrier is addressing.

Greg

[dbz]

I plan to elaborate on text and syntax of Gal 1:19 along with ten other key passages in canonical Galatians, with support from canonical literary echoes. I'm curious to hear your current perspective on the question Carrier is addressing.

Is it correct that only one counter-argument to Trudinger has been published?

• Howard, George (January 1977). "Was James an Apostle?: A Reflection on a New Proposal for Gal. I 19". Novum Testamentum. 19 (1): 63. doi:10.2307/1560803.

Carrier makes a strong case for Trudinger's reading.

I searched the peer reviewed literature and found only one counter-argument to Trudinger, and duly mentioned it in OHJ: George Howard, “Was James an Apostle? A Reflection on a New Proposal for Gal. I 19,” Novum Testamentum 19 (January 1977), pp. 63-64 (also on JSTOR).

---

--Carrier (26 December 2021). "Galatians 1:19, Ancient Grammar, and How to Evaluate Expert Testimony". Richard Carrier Blogs.

The grammar is clear: Paul did not say “I saw two apostles,” it says he saw an apostle and an exception to an apostle, whatever exception that is supposed to be. That he used a highly convoluted construction to say this makes quite clear he means to say this; this isn’t just some accidental garbage sentence Paul got tangled into when trying to just say he met two apostles. This is Trüdinger’s point. And Howard has no real objection to it. Nor has anyone since. Which is why many new Bible translations now follow Trüdinger. Likewise, if Paul meant to say “I went to see the apostle Peter but also saw the apostle James,” again, that’s what he would say. That’s why it is relevant that he chose to say none of these obvious, simple things in Greek but chose an extremely convoluted and highly uncommon grammatical construction instead. We need to explain why Paul chose to do that. And Trüdinger has the only plausible answer to that question. Comment by Richard Carrier on November 7, 2022 at 3:21 pm

Trudinger is refuting the likes of “Fritzsche, Neander, and Winer.” They have no arguments against Trudinger and thus cannot be cited against him. They are obsolete. Trudinger’s analysis is precisely what they overlooked. Thus citing them produces no argument against Trudinger’s analysis. Not least because the central point in Trudinger is the use of the genitive plural after heteron, and the convoluted choice of structure in the first place, neither of which they address, yet which is what changes their “possibly” into “probably not,” as illustrated by every point Trudinger makes. Otherwise, all citing them gets you is a possibiliter fallacy, and worse, one already refuted by positive evidence rendering the possibility improbable in this case. Comment by Richard Carrier on January 30, 2022 at 4:49 pm

[gryan]

I plan to elaborate on text and syntax of Gal 1:19 along with ten other key passages in canonical Galatians, with support from canonical literary echoes. I'm curious to hear your current perspective on the question Carrier is addressing.

Is it correct that only one counter-argument to Trudinger has been published?

• Howard, George (January 1977). "Was James an Apostle?: A Reflection on a New Proposal for Gal. I 19". Novum Testamentum. 19 (1): 63. doi:10.2307/1560803.

Carrier makes a strong case for Trudinger's reading.

I searched the peer reviewed literature and found only one counter-argument to Trudinger, and duly mentioned it in OHJ: George Howard, “Was James an Apostle? A Reflection on a New Proposal for Gal. I 19,” Novum Testamentum 19 (January 1977), pp. 63-64 (also on JSTOR).

---

--Carrier (26 December 2021). "Galatians 1:19, Ancient Grammar, and How to Evaluate Expert Testimony". Richard Carrier Blogs.

The grammar is clear: Paul did not say “I saw two apostles,” it says he saw an apostle and an exception to an apostle, whatever exception that is supposed to be. That he used a highly convoluted construction to say this makes quite clear he means to say this; this isn’t just some accidental garbage sentence Paul got tangled into when trying to just say he met two apostles. This is Trüdinger’s point. And Howard has no real objection to it. Nor has anyone since. Which is why many new Bible translations now follow Trüdinger. Likewise, if Paul meant to say “I went to see the apostle Peter but also saw the apostle James,” again, that’s what he would say. That’s why it is relevant that he chose to say none of these obvious, simple things in Greek but chose an extremely convoluted and highly uncommon grammatical construction instead. We need to explain why Paul chose to do that. And Trüdinger has the only plausible answer to that question. Comment by Richard Carrier on November 7, 2022 at 3:21 pm

Trudinger is refuting the likes of “Fritzsche, Neander, and Winer.” They have no arguments against Trudinger and thus cannot be cited against him. They are obsolete. Trudinger’s analysis is precisely what they overlooked. Thus citing them produces no argument against Trudinger’s analysis. Not least because the central point in Trudinger is the use of the genitive plural after heteron, and the convoluted choice of structure in the first place, neither of which they address, yet which is what changes their “possibly” into “probably not,” as illustrated by every point Trudinger makes. Otherwise, all citing them gets you is a possibiliter fallacy, and worse, one already refuted by positive evidence rendering the possibility improbable in this case. Comment by Richard Carrier on January 30, 2022 at 4:49 pm

In Galatians 1:19, the passage ἕτερον δὲ τῶν ἀποστόλων οὐκ εἶδον [εἶδον οὐδένα D* F G (b) d ×vg] εἰ μὴ Ἰάκωβον τὸν ἀδελφὸν τοῦ κυρίου raises an exegetical question: Was "James the Lord's brother" considered by Paul to be an apostle?

In 1990, Longenecker's commentary on Galatians addressed arguments put forth by both Trudinger and Howard:

L.P. Trudinger has argued that the word ἕτερον, meaning "other," in this context has a comparative force that differentiates James as "other than the apostles," implying that James should be excluded from the group of apostles. On the other hand, George Howard observes that while such an interpretation of ἕτερον is possible, the examples cited by Trudinger from classical literature to support his thesis actually compare persons or things within the same class. Howard rightly argues that if Paul intended to distinguish James from the apostles, he would have used a construction like ἕτερον δὲ ἤ τῶν ἀποστόλων, meaning "other than the apostles," or employed a combination with παρά, meaning "than," or the dative case.Thus, any remaining ambiguity in this verse regarding whether James is counted among the apostles is more related to the referent of εἰ μὴ (unless) than to the use of ἕτερον. In light of this, it's reasonable to consider ἕτερον here as enumerative rather than differentiative, εἰ μὴ as referring to the entire preceding clause, and James as included among the apostles, including those mentioned as "apostles before me" in verse 17.

Carrier's critique is noteworthy:

"...if Paul intended to say, 'I went to see the apostle Peter but also saw the apostle James,' he would have expressed it more directly in Greek. It's relevant to note that Paul chose to use an extremely convoluted and uncommon grammatical construction. We need to explain why Paul made this choice."

In agreement with Carrier, it is evident to me that this convoluted sentence structure was a deliberate choice by Paul and carries a meaning different from Longenecker's interpretation (Paul saw only two apostles; only two). If that had been Paul's intention, would he have said it in such a convoluted way?

My exegesis provides a plausible alternative solution: ἕτερον—a loaded word in both Galatians 1:6 and 1:19—has a differentiative rather than an enumerative force in both. In the context of his opposition to ἕτερον gospel—'a qualitatively different gospel' (1:6)—I suggest that Paul discerned "the Lord's brother" named James to a qualitatively different, ἕτερον, apostle (1:19, Cf. false apostle, 2 Cor 11:13).

My translation: "But among the apostles, I saw discerned no other heterodox one (ἕτερον), except James the Lord's brother."

Grammar and sense is contextual. In my reading of context, Paul consulted the Lord's "flesh and blood" brother--neither one of the 12, nor one of the three recognized pillar apostles, of whom Paul speaks so glowingly in Galatians 2:7-9:

"...seeing that I was entrusted with the gospel to the uncircumcised... and knowing the grace given to me, James (son of Alphaeus) and Cephas (Peter) and John (son of Zebedee), those recognized as pillars, gave me and Barnabas the right hand of fellowship."

"Those people from James" in Gal 2:12 came not from Paul's ally, the pillar James (a servant of all, see the epistle of James), but rather from Paul's main opponent, the Lord's flesh and blood brother named James, a heterodox apostle who was preaching a gospel requiring such "works of the law" as circumcision for gentile converts.

[schillingklaus]

That's because the whole epistle is late piecemeal forgery, as is everything in the New Testament.

[dbz]

In 1990, Longenecker's commentary on Galatians addressed arguments put forth by both Trudinger and Howard:

Trudinger has argued that ἕτερον, “other,” here [1:19] has a comparative force that differentiates (“other than the apostles”) and so excludes James from the apostles (NovT 17 [1975] 200-202).

(p. 38)

---

--Longenecker, Richard N. (1990). "Galatians". Word Biblical Commentary, Vol. 41. Texas: Word Books. ISBN 0849902401.

Longenecker, Richard N. (2017 [1990]). Galatians, Volume 41. Zondervan Academic. p. 38. ISBN 978-0-310-58633-3.

Screenshot 2023-12-15 at 16-23-52 Galatians Volume 41 - Google Books.png (238.43 KiB) Viewed 3537 times

Longenecker cites Trudinger 1975, Howard 1977 and concludes:

Thus whatever ambiguity remains in this verse about James being classed among the apostles, it has to do with the referent of εἰ μή and not with the use of ἕτερος. And this being so, ἕτερον here should probably be seen as enumerative and not differentiative, εἰ μή as referring to the whole previous clause, and James as included among the apostles (also, then, among the τοὺς πρὸ ἐμοῦ ἀποστόλους, “apostles before me.” of v 17).

(p. 38)

---

--Longenecker, Richard N. (1990). "Galatians". Word Biblical Commentary, Vol. 41. Texas: Word Books. ISBN 0849902401.

[gryan]

In 1990, Longenecker's commentary on Galatians addressed arguments put forth by both Trudinger and Howard:

Trudinger has argued that ἕτερον, “other,” here [1:19] has a comparative force that differentiates (“other than the apostles”) and so excludes James from the apostles (NovT 17 [1975] 200-202).

(p. 38)

---

--Longenecker, Richard N. (1990). "Galatians". Word Biblical Commentary, Vol. 41. Texas: Word Books. ISBN 0849902401.

Longenecker, Richard N. (2017 [1990]). Galatians, Volume 41. Zondervan Academic. p. 38. ISBN 978-0-310-58633-3.Screenshot 2023-12-15 at 16-23-52 Galatians Volume 41 - Google Books.png


Longenecker cites Trudinger 1975, Howard 1977 and concludes:

Thus whatever ambiguity remains in this verse about James being classed among the apostles, it has to do with the referent of εἰ μή and not with the use of ἕτερος. And this being so, ἕτερον here should probably be seen as enumerative and not differentiative, εἰ μή as referring to the whole previous clause, and James as included among the apostles (also, then, among the τοὺς πρὸ ἐμοῦ ἀποστόλους, “apostles before me.” of v 17).

(p. 38)

---

--Longenecker, Richard N. (1990). "Galatians". Word Biblical Commentary, Vol. 41. Texas: Word Books. ISBN 0849902401.

dbz,

Based on the exegesis you've cited by Longenecker, his translation appears very clear on the surface: "I did not see any other apostles—only James the Lord's brother". However, as Carrier points out, a closer examination of the Greek sentence structure and choice of words suggest that there may be more to it than Longenecker's reading admits.

The convoluted sentence structure may point to a differentiative rather than an enumerative meaning of "ἕτερον". In other words, Paul may not have been simply counting apostles but emphasizing that of James the Lord's brother was a different kind of apostle. This alternative interpretation excludes Cephas the "qualitatively different apostles" or "heterodox apostles" or "false apostles". It also leaves room for the possibility that Paul may have encountered other apostles before this moment, such as Barnabas, without including them in this specific judgment. Paul's encounter with the Lord's brother named James was the one exception.

Here is my alternative translation:

"But among the apostles, I saw discerned no other heterodox one, except James the Lord's brother."

What are your thoughts on this alternative interpretation of Galatians 1:19?

[dbz]

"But among the apostles, I saw discerned no other heterodox one, except James the Lord's brother."

What are your thoughts on this alternative interpretation of Galatians 1:19?

1) But among the apostles I discerned no heterodox one
except
James

2) But of the apostles I did not see any other
otherwise
I saw James

[gryan]

"But among the apostles, I saw discerned no other heterodox one, except James the Lord's brother."

What are your thoughts on this alternative interpretation of Galatians 1:19?

1) But among the apostles I discerned no heterodox one
except
James

2) But of the apostles I did not see any other
otherwise
I saw James

Making the Case for Distinguishing 'the Lord's Brother' Named James from the James Among the Three Pillars: James, Cephas, and John.

In the canonical book of Galatians, there are three mentions of individuals named "James," each accompanied by distinct contextual clues that shed light on their identity. Firstly, there is a reference to a "brother of the Lord" named James (Galatians 1:19). Secondly, the text mentions three individuals referred to as "pillars"—"James, Cephas, and John." Lastly, there are "some from James" whose arrival marked the moment when Cephas ceased dining with gentiles.

While almost all modern scholars presume that these three references to "James" pertain to the same individual, this assumption is far from certain, especially considering the presence of three different Jameses in the Gospels and Acts. For instance, in the Upper Room before Pentecost, as described in Acts, there is a list of individuals that includes "Peter, John, James... and James son of Alphaeus... With one accord... and Mary, the mother of Jesus, along with His brothers."

Evidence from Mark 6:3 (also see 15:40, "James the less," and 15:47) suggests that one of Jesus' brothers was named James the Less. It becomes apparent in the Gospels of Mark and John that James the Less, unlike the twelve disciples, did not believe in Jesus.

It is noteworthy Luke-Acts does not echo mentions of James, the blood brother of Jesus. Luke's edit of Mark erases the mention of James the Less, Jesus blood brother in Mark 6:3 (or 15:40). Furthermore, Acts does not contain references to phrases like "James the Lord's brother" or "some from James [the Lord's brother]" as found in Galatians 1:19 and 2:12. In fact, Acts solely echoes the blessing bestowed upon Paul by the pillar James (Galatians 2:9), who, following the death of James Zebedee, is likely to be the other James among the twelve—identified as the son of Alphaeus.

My identification of two distinct Jameses in Galatians is a refinement of the thesis proposed by Karl Georg Wieseler (1813–1883), which was briefly mentioned by J. B. Lightfoot in his work 'St. Paul’s Epistle to the Galatians.'

Lightfoot summarized the thesis critically in order to reject it: "... built on arbitrary assumptions and improbable combinations of known facts, and from their artificial character have failed to secure any wide acceptance. It is assumed for instance, that two persons of the same name, James the son of Alphaeus and James the Lord's brother, were leading members of the Church in Jerusalem, though history points to only one."

Footnote: "According to this writer the James of Gal. ii. 9 and the Acts is the son of Alphaeus, and not the Lord's brother, and therefore different from the James of 1. 19."

While Lightfoot's dismissal has gained widespread acceptance, I assert that Wieseler was moving in the right direction. To support this argument, I present this alternative interpretation of Galatians 1:19:

"But among the apostles, I saw discerned no other heterodox one, except James the Lord's brother."