Wow. Small world! Ken, I very much appreciate the detail and depth of understanding reflected in your comments!Ken Olson wrote: ↑Fri Apr 23, 2021 2:22 pm
I am familiar with Stephen Carlson’s reading of Gal. 2.11 ( ἦλθεν instead of ἦλθον ), for which he argues in his dissertation. (I’m thanked in the acknowledgements on p. XV, and I was present at Carlson’s dissertation defense as his note taker). I did not find it persuasive when I first heard him present it at Bart Ehrman’s reading group, and I don’t now.
I pointed out then that Carlson’s reading of Gal. 2.12b, “But after HE (rather than “they”) came, he drew back and kept himself separate for fear of the circumcision faction,” leaves open the question of where and when Gal. 2.12a “for until certain people came from James, he used to eat with the Gentiles,” took place. He replied in Antioch. I asked if he meant there were two visits of Peter to Antioch where the issue of table fellowship arose. He said yes...
I agree with you "that Carlson’s reading... leaves open the question of where and when Gal. 2.12a 'for until certain people came from James, he used to eat with the Gentiles,' took place." I further agree with you that his explanation of a prior Antioch visit is not convincing. I'm not steeped in the logic of textual criticism, but, unlike you, I am persuaded with Carlson that given the quality and antiquity of the textual witnesses, "the when he came" reading should stand in critical texts. Furthermore, in my current study of "the flesh phrases of Galatians" I had already decided to accept Carlson's critical text as my working text of Galatians long before I started doing a close rereading of 2:12. This commitment to Carlson's critical text does not commit me to agreeing with Carlson on the grammar and sense of the readings he has put forward. In fact, I disagree with his readings of the grammar and/or sense in each instance where I have studied the questions closely, and this is no exception.
Here is my working translation of the text in question:
11But when Cephas came to Antioch, I opposed him to his face because he stood condemned. 12For before certain ones came from James [the Lord’s brother], he had been eating with the Gentiles. But when they [he] came, he was drawing back and was separating himself, And also the rest of the Jews acted hypocritically with him, so that, by their hypocrisy, even Barnabas was carried away.
My working hypothesis is that the encounter between Cephas and "certain ones from James" happened in Jerusalem upon the arrival of the ones Paul calls "false brothers." I began seeing the situation this way in part because of Carlson's "when he came" text, which, as Carlson rightly points out, suggests that Cephas had made up his mind to withdraw even before he arrived in Antioch. This fits the immediacy suggested by vs. 11: "But when Cephas came to Antioch, I opposed him to his face because he stood condemned." Having become comfortable with this working hypothesis (which I am aware is "off the rails" with respect to prevailing scholarly consensus), I can still see it that same way, even with the "when they came" reading is accepted--in Jerusalem, "when they [the false brothers/from James] came, he began drawing back and separating himself. And also the rest of the Jews [including James and John] acted hypocritically with him, so that, by their hypocrisy, even Barnabas was carried away."
If there was only one James, this is impossible to imagine. It would make no sense for "James" to be intimidated by "men from James." But with two Jameses, it is easy to imagine. That's were the commentary on Galatians by Victorinus comes into the picture for me. I have a personal copy of the scholarly translation, and I have been consulting it regularly in my study of the flesh phrases of Galatians. (I bought it because of his reading of Gal 4:12-14, and that was long before I came up with my two Jameses hypothesis). Victorinus does not so much argue for two Jameses--he assumes it. The translators think that this was because, like Augustine, he was thinking in terms of the "Peter, James and John" text and assuming "James and John" were the brothers Zebedee. I disagree. I think he sees that the discourse unit works best if it is understood that the three esteemed pillars were in unity in their authentic "right hand of fellowship" given to Paul and Barnabas. He considers the possibility that Paul may have "submitted for a time", and even had Titus circumcised. As I imagine it, with the current text, Paul, Barnabus and the "esteemed pillars" did not "submit for a time" with respect to the circumcision of Titus during that particular visit, but they did "submit for a time" with respect to table fellowship. And so the right hand of fellowship goes to Paul and Barnabas but not to Titus, for he is one step removed. This is in keeping with Paul's "to the Jews, as a Jew" principle of flexibility.
Victorinus sees "James the Lord's brother" as being the "James" of the "men from James" and of "the circumcision party." In his reading of the text, "James the Lord's brother" was a brother "according to the flesh." James, the Lord's brother was arguing for a different gospel. And Paul, in support of Peter and the pillars in their mission to the circumcised, submitted to this for a time.
The logic of this has implications for reading the flesh phrases of Galatians. This is where I personally get very uncomfortable, because the logic of my rereading is taking me in a direction that might be problematic for people today who could be offended on behalf of James the Lord's brother. The logic carried forward goes like this. Jesus and James were born of the same "woman" and under the same "law." But Jesus was born "according to the spirit" and James was born "according to the flesh." The "consult with flesh and blood" (which occurred when Paul saw James, the Lord's brother) was an encounter between the imperishable "Lord" and his "brother" in the perishable "flesh and blood" sense of the word "brother."
Using mirror reading, the main misconception is that Paul was "still preaching circumcision" (Gal 5:11). Paul's anger is not directed toward the intended audience--those addressed as "brothers"--rather, his anger is directed toward "some who are troubling you" (τινές εἰσιν οἱ ταράσσοντες ὑμᾶς, Gal 1:7 Cf "and the one who is troubling you will bear the penalty, whoever he is." Gal 5:17) This is very harsh language directed toward what person or group? Does it all go back to the time when he saw James, the Lord's brother? That seems to me to be the implication. I don't think Paul wants his comments to reflect on "James" the pillar, and this reading of Gal is consistent with the statement of "James" [who I am reading as "son of Alphaeus] in Acts; for, as Fellows states "at Acts 15,24 we read that this message of circumcision had not been endorsed by the apostles and elders, and had disturbed (ταράσσω) the Gentile believers. The implication is that the Gentile believers had thought that the Judaizers were representing the views of the church leaders, but they were not. In some ways this is a good parallel for the confusion that took place in Galatia, for which the same word, ταράσσω, is used (Gal 1,7; 5,10)." (PAUL, TIMOTHY, JERUSALEM AND THE CONFUSION IN GALATIA By: Fellows, Richard G. Source: Biblica, 99 no 4 2018, an excellent article with I am currently studying). I think that this portrait of James presented by the author of Acts is based on an interpretation of Paul's epistle to the Galatians which glosses over the very parts my rereading is drawing out. I actually want to say that is ok IMHO if that is what the author of Acts was doing. But my project is different, and it feels like it might be opening old wounds.
I think some people might find this emerging interpretation of Galatians offensive to their own current beliefs. It is not my goal to present such a reading that might people's push buttons. But here I am, at 3 am, writing this. I pray for wisdom in how to present my findings.