Two Jameses in Galatians: Harmony with Mark and Luke-Acts

[gryan]

"brethren" can also mean members of the church of Jerusalem:
Acts 11:29 "Then the disciples, every man according to his ability, determined to send relief unto the brethren which dwelt in Judaea:"
The next "brethren" is in Acts12:17: "But he, beckoning unto them with the hand to hold their peace, declared unto them how the Lord had brought him out of the prison. And he said, Go shew these things unto James, and to the brethren. And he departed, and went into another place."
So it looks that "brethren" are the same as is 11:29.

Ok, I looked up that passage:

"In those days some prophets came down from Jerusalem to Antioch. One of them named Agabus stood up and predicted through the Spirit that a great famine would sweep across the whole world.e (This happened under Claudius.) So the disciples, each according to his ability, decided to send relief to the brothers living in Judea. This they did, sending their gifts to the elders with Barnabas and Saul."

When I saw the reference to Barnabas and Saul, my mind flashed to the scene in Galatians where the "esteemed pillars" asked Paul to remember the poor in Jerusalem. And of course, I think the "James" of the pillars--who asked Paul to remember the pillars--I think of James as "son of Alphaeus" of the 12, who is mentioned in Acts too. It is a circular logic, you could say.

The passage is ambiguous, and that means filling some gaps. Earlier in Acts, there is a scene where the audience addresses Peter and the apostles as men-brothers:

"When the people heard this, they were cut to the heart and said to Peter and the other apostles, "Brothers (ἄνδρες ἀδελφοί), what shall we do?" Acts 2:37

Since "Peter and the apostles" are called "brothers," Peter could have been describing his fellow apostles as "James and the brothers."

[gryan]

"brethren" can also mean members of the church of Jerusalem:
Acts 11:29 "Then the disciples, every man according to his ability, determined to send relief unto the brethren which dwelt in Judaea:"
The next "brethren" is in Acts12:17: "But he, beckoning unto them with the hand to hold their peace, declared unto them how the Lord had brought him out of the prison. And he said, Go shew these things unto James, and to the brethren. And he departed, and went into another place."
So it looks that "brethren" are the same as is 11:29.

Re: "send relief to the brethren which dwelt in Judaea"

The issue of care for the poor was addressed earlier in Acts (6:1-3). In that account there is no mention of any "James," (which one might expect if "James and the brothers" were synonymous with "the brethren which dwelt in Judaea"). There is however prominent mention of "the twelve" as leaders. And so it seems to me that "James and the brethren" more likely refers to "the twelve" with "James the son of Alphaeus" being one who had risen to prominence from among the twelve.

Paul's phrase "brother/s of the Lord" does not appear elsewhere in the NT. I have wondered if "James and the brothers" in Acts might echo a combination of "James, brother of the Lord" (Gal 1:19) and "the brothers of the Lord" (1 Cor 9:5). The author of Acts could have made that clear by sayings something like "James and the brothers of the Lord." Earlier in Acts the family of Jesus is not described as family of "the Lord", but echoing the Gospels, Acts 1:14 reads--"Mary the mother of Jesus, and his brothers."

Weighing those consideration I still favor my two Jameses interpretation of Mark and Luke-Acts. But I admit, there is ambiguity, and thus also room for a whole history of alternative interpretations. I think the idea that "James the brother of the Lord" in Gal became one of the "esteemed Pillars" and so also was the speaker at the Jerusalem Conference in Acts might have been the result of misreading Galatians, projecting that into Acts, and perhaps even anti-Marcionism (since Marcion, following the author of GLuke, was inclined to turn a blind eye to James the blood brother of Jesus from his story.

[Bernard Muller]

to gryan,
(young) Josephus was a contemporary of (old) James, both living in Jerusalem. He implied that James was prominent among "some others", because that James is named & identified. James and the others were of the same group, because the accusation was the same for the members of that group & James.

the brother of Jesus, who was called Christ, whose name was James, and some others; and when he had formed an accusation against them as breakers of the law, he delivered them to be stoned:

Josephus' Ant., XX, IX, 1 (Wm. Whiston's translation).

Also, the author/compiler of James' epistle did not bother to identify that James, who certainly sounds like a leader.

It looks to me that in the first century, "James" with no identification was understood to be James, the brother of Jesus.

I think the idea that "James the brother of the Lord" in Gal became one of the "esteemed Pillars" and so also was the speaker at the Jerusalem Conference in Acts might have been the result of misreading Galatians, projecting that into Acts, and perhaps even anti-Marcionism (since Marcion, following the author of GLuke, was inclined to turn a blind eye to James the blood brother of Jesus from his story.

That's a bunch of speculations.

Cordially, Bernard

[gryan]

to gryan,
(young) Josephus was a contemporary of (old) James, both living in Jerusalem. He implied that James was prominent among "some others", because that James is named & identified. James and the others were of the same group, because the accusation was the same for the members of that group & James.

the brother of Jesus, who was called Christ, whose name was James, and some others; and when he had formed an accusation against them as breakers of the law, he delivered them to be stoned:

Josephus' Ant., XX, IX, 1 (Wm. Whiston's translation).

As discussed in another tread: Carrier and McDonald agree, persuasively IMHO, that "who was called Christ" was an interpolation. Josephus was not intending to talk about Jesus of Nazareth and his blood brother James.
viewtopic.php?f=3&t=7652

Also, the author/compiler of James' epistle did not bother to identify that James, who certainly sounds like a leader.

It looks to me that in the first century, "James" with no identification was understood to be James, the brother of Jesus

For your interpretation to work, it would be helpful if the book titled "James" gave some clue of the author's "blood brother" status. But, as rgprice has argued at length in his book , it does not.
https://www.google.com/books/edition/De ... frontcover

Thanks for your comments.

[Bernard Muller]

to gryan,

As discussed in another tread: Carrier and McDonald agree, persuasively IMHO, that "who was called Christ" was an interpolation. Josephus was not intending to talk about Jesus of Nazareth and his blood brother James.
viewtopic.php?f=3&t=7652

Carrier and McDonald are two mythicists who of course would contest "who was called Christ".
That's not evidence.
I know about what Carrier wrote on the topic: total BS.
Here is my main webpage where I addressed Carrier's arguments: http://historical-jesus.info/104.html
and also this one: http://historical-jesus.info/33.html
and also this one: http://historical-jesus.info/67.html

I already answer you on that topic: viewtopic.php?f=3&t=7652#p118095
as I also did for rgprice:
viewtopic.php?f=3&t=7652#p118099

PS: I wish you (and other mythicists) be as much critical on the writings of mythicists as you are on mine. If not, that means you are very biased.

Cordially. Bernard

[rgprice]

The whole part of Galatians that mentions "James, brother of Jesus" wasn't in Marcion's version of the letter.

The writer of Luke and Acts never names a brother of Jesus, either in Luke or Acts. Clearly the writer of Acts did not believe that any James he was talking about who was a leader of the disciples or the Jerusalem church, was a brother of Jesus.

The letter of James, which is likely a forgery, doesn't claim to be from a brother of Jesus. This indicates that even the forger didn't think that James was a brother of Jesus. Letter of Jude identifies the writer as a brother of James. This indicates that the writer/forger of Jude didn't think that James was a brother of Jesus either, or else they would have identified themselves as a brother of Jesus.

All of these claims about people being so humble they don't associate themselves with Jesus are nonsense.

If people thought that James was the brother of Jesus, you can be sure that a forger would have known and latched on to that, to present himself as a brother of Jesus. The letters of James and Jude almost got thrown out by later scholars BECUASE they were suspected of forgery in part because the writer didn't identify himself as a brother of Jesus. A forger would also work to meet expectations. Forgers aren't humble.

So much evidence stacks up against James the leader of the Jerusalem church being a literal brother of Jesus its not even a close argument.

[Bernard Muller]

to rgprice,

The whole part of Galatians that mentions "James, brother of Jesus" wasn't in Marcion's version of the letter.

Of course, because Marcion had an adult Jesus descending from heaven and denied he had a human mother.

The writer of Luke and Acts never names a brother of Jesus, either in Luke or Acts. Clearly the writer of Acts did not believe that any James he was talking about who was a leader of the disciples or the Jerusalem church, was a brother of Jesus.

But "Luke" knew gMark which has James as a brother of Jesus. So, what do you think: James was James, the son of Alphaeus?

The letter of James, which is likely a forgery, doesn't claim to be from a brother of Jesus. This indicates that even the forger didn't think that James was a brother of Jesus. Letter of Jude identifies the writer as a brother of James. This indicates that the writer/forger of Jude didn't think that James was a brother of Jesus either, or else they would have identified themselves as a brother of Jesus.

Certainly, James was not the author of that letter. But I don't see why you can deduct: the forger didn't think that James was a brother of Jesus.
In the letter of Jude, the author wrote Jude is a brother of James and Jude & James are brothers of Jesus in gMark & repeated in gMatthew. Maybe, because of gLuke & gMatthew nativity stories, the author of the epistle avoided to have Jude as brother of Jesus.

If people thought that James was the brother of Jesus, you can be sure that a forger would have known and latched on to that, to present himself as a brother of Jesus. The letters of James and Jude almost got thrown out by later scholars BECUASE they were suspected of forgery in part because the writer didn't identify himself as a brother of Jesus. A forger would also work to meet expectations. Forgers aren't humble.

I never wrote (and thought) forgers are humble.

So much evidence stacks up against James the leader of the Jerusalem church being a literal brother of Jesus its not even a close argument.

Not at all.
Let's go to a source text: Galatians.
After Paul mentioned James, the Lord's brother (1:19), some forteen years later, Paul has a "James" in position of leadership in the church of Jerusalem (2:9). What James? no other "James" is mentioned between 1:19 & 2:9, so that "James" has to be James, the brother of the Lord.
That's normal writing, avoiding confusion & repeating again the identification of the character identified before.
And so, in Acts & epistle of James, the James described as a leader, is James, the brother of Jesus.

Cordially, Bernard

[hakeem]

Not at all.
Let's go to a source text: Galatians.
After Paul mentioned James, the Lord's brother (1:19), some forteen years later, Paul has a "James" in position of leadership in the church of Jerusalem (2:9). What James? no other "James" is mentioned between 1:19 & 2:9, so that "James" has to be James, the brother of the Lord.
That's normal writing, avoiding confusion & repeating again the identification of the character identified before.
And so, in Acts & epistle of James, the James described as a leader, is James, the brother of Jesus.

Cordially, Bernard

Not at all. In Acts there are two apostles called James. James the brother of John and James the son of Alphaeus.

No mention at all of a brother of Jesus named James anywhere in Acts.

[gryan]

It looks to me that in the first century, "James" with no identification was understood to be James, the brother of Jesus.

If 1) instead of reading Luke-Acts as a unit, you read Matthew-Acts, and 2) if you keep 2 Cor 15:7 in mind--"Then He appeared to James, then to all the apostles."--Then yes, 3) "James" with no identification in Acts--“Tell James and the other brothers what happened,”-- can be understood to be "James, the brother of the Lord" of Gal, and 4) it is easy to conclude that the "James" at the Jerusalem Conference in Acts and in Galatians is one and the same "brother of the Lord."

Bernard: I'll grant you that.