Hegesippus vis-a-vis "James son of Alphaeus" and "Judas of James" in Luke-Acts

Discussion about the New Testament, apocrypha, gnostics, church fathers, Christian origins, historical Jesus or otherwise, etc.
gryan
Posts: 1120
Joined: Fri Jun 01, 2018 4:11 am

Re: Hegesippus vis-a-vis "James son of Alphaeus" and "Judas of James" in Luke-Acts

Post by gryan »

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...
Wow. Small world! Ken, I very much appreciate the detail and depth of understanding reflected in your comments!

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.
gryan
Posts: 1120
Joined: Fri Jun 01, 2018 4:11 am

Re: Hegesippus vis-a-vis "James son of Alphaeus" and "Judas of James" in Luke-Acts

Post by gryan »

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...
Wow. Small world! Ken, I very much appreciate the detail and depth of understanding reflected in your comments!

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."

I'm considering the argument, based on mirror reading, that 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 thus also my 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.
User avatar
Ken Olson
Posts: 1277
Joined: Fri May 09, 2014 9:26 am

Re: Hegesippus vis-a-vis "James son of Alphaeus" and "Judas of James" in Luke-Acts

Post by Ken Olson »

gryan,

I see that you are committed to your reading, so I will just add a word of caution to the one I already gave about interpreting James or Galatians through the lens of later Christian traditions or later interpreters, in this case Victorinus specifically. When Victorinus wrote in the fourth century, Paul's letters had been accepted as scripture for some time. The effect of this is that Victorinus knows accepts that Paul's positions were not the contestable propositions they were in his own time: they were facts, and being facts Victorinus could deduce other facts from them. He gives the letter a strictly binary, black and white reading. There is the orthodox position and the heretical and sinful position, leaving very little room for nuance or for recognition of the complexity of the situation, nor does Victorinus make any effort to reconstruct the actual positions of the Jewish Christians.

Victorinus deduces that there must be a good James who agreed completely (accepting Paul as an equal with Peter and entrusted with one and the same gospel as he was) with Paul with Paul and bad James in 2.12 who sent certain men that caused Peter and the other jews to withdraw from table fellowship with the Gentiles in Antioch. Then he identifies the James mentioned in Gal 1.19 with the bad James, either because of the hesitation in the letter in identifying James as an apostle or because he was aware of some Jewish Christian sects or literature in his own time that identified James with Jewish Christianity. (Victorinus calls James the progenitor of the heretical Symmachians). But it seems likely that he deduced all this based on how his binary moral universe operated rather than because ehe had any historical tradition (or historical sensibility as a reader).

Quotations from: Marius Victorinus Commentary on Galatians (Oxford Early Christian Studies, 2005) Stephen Andrew Cooper

Victorinus Gal 1.19:
Therefore, Paul denies here that James is an apostle by saying: But
I saw no one else of the apostles. Because when he said he saw no one
else of the apostles except James, the reason was also included why he
saw James: the Lord’s brother, the one regarded as his brother
according to the flesh.76 Now, when he called him his brother, he
denied that James is an apostle
. This man too deserved an honorary
visit. Yet Paul could not have learned anything from James (obviously,
because he has a different conception of the gospel), nor on
the other hand from Peter. He was unable to learn from either man,
whether because he remained with Peter for just a few days, or
because James is not an apostle and may also be in heresy.77 But
Paul did include that he also saw James. Therefore, I saw the new
thing that James was bandying about and preaching; but because
that blasphemy was known to me and rejected by me, so too it ought
to be rejected by you, you Galatians
! You people are unable to say,
‘Paul, you would78 deny that James is an apostle, and accordingly
you reject the things which we practice, because you did not see
James.’ So this is why Paul included that he saw James too. That’s
no mistake. Which James? The Lord’s brother, he says, the author of
your way of thinking. Thus he had no sway over me. I did not follow
him, but I knew his way of thinking. So since there is no big
unknown to me, and James had no power to persuade me, consequently,
it is in vain that you follow him.
(Cooper, 266).
The letter itself says nothing about what Paul and James the brother of the Lord may or may not have discussed, only that Paul saw him when he visited Jerusalem. Victorinus deduces for himself what they must have spoken about.

Victorinus on Gal. 2.2-9:
Rather more to the contrary, because they had seen that the gospel of
the uncircumcision was entrusted to me just as the gospel of the circumcision
was to Peter ([for]112 the one who worked for Peter in his
apostleship of the circumcision worked for me among the Gentiles),
Peter, James [not in MSS, but added by Cooper],113 and John, who
were deemed to be pillars, gave me
their right hands, having recognized the grace which was given to me (2:
7–9). The order of the verse: Rather more to the contrary, the chief
men Peter, John, and James, who were deemed to be pillars, gave me
their right hands. This means they bestowed their consent, because
they saw that the gospel of the uncircumcision had been entrusted to
me—that is, had been entrusted to me to spread throughout the
Gentile world in the same way that the gospel of the circumcision
had been entrusted to Peter to preach throughout the Jewish communities.
Now, the reason it was entrusted to Paul for the Gentiles
has been included: For the one who worked for Peter in his apostleship
of the circumcision worked for me among the Gentiles. That is, the God
who worked it out that Peter would preach to the Jews is one and the
same God who worked it out for me that I would preach to the
Gentiles. With the recognition of the grace granted me—that I also
have been made an apostle, in equal fashion, by the grace of God
, for
the Gentile world—compelled then by this grace, Peter, James, and
John (these men, says Paul, explaining who and what sort of men
they were: who were deemed to be pillars, meaning those who uphold
the church as pillars hold up the roof and the rest
), so men of this
sort, or such a number of them, gave me their right hands. This
means that they joined together in friendship, peace, and resolve;
they declared they had one gospel. This having been established,
you Galatians are therefore sinning. You are not following my

gospel
; and as you are busy adding what has not been approved by
anyone, you are not following the gospel of Peter, James,114 and
John, who are the pillars of the church
. Paul drives home this point
throughout the whole narrative: the Galatians are sinning by adding
the observance of the Jewish Law, sabbath, and circumcision to faith
in Christ. (Cooper 274-274).
The text of the letter does not say that Peter John and James recognized that Paul had been made an apostle by the grace of God in equal fashion, nor that they declared that the gospel Peter was entrusted with for the circumcised and the gospel Paul was entrusted with for the uncircumcised were one gospel, though Paul may well have meant for his Galatian readers to infer that. Victorinus may be functioning as an ideal reader for Paul here. Also, Victorinus distances the three Pillars who he claims accepted Paul as an equal preaching one and the same gospel from the group of which Paul says: “those who were supposed to be acknowledged leaders – what they actually were makes no difference to me,” though these two groups are at least closely linked if not identical in the letter.

Victorinus on Gal 2.11-14:
But when Peter came to Antioch, I opposed him to his face, because he
had been reprimanded (2: 11). Not only was my gospel approved, says
Paul, on the part of the apostles who were in Jerusalem; not only was
I charged to be mindful of the poor (a light, albeit necessary obligation
that we fulfilled,120 something I was very concerned to do), but
also I did not keep quiet about Peter’s sin, he says. In this, Paul
shows his freedom and boldness concerning his gospel—if indeed he
reprimanded something being done in a contrary fashion by Peter.
There is also the point that Peter, having been reprimanded, would
in turn more readily burst out to reprimand Paul.121 If there were
any fault in me, if I were not carrying on properly with the gospel,
Peter would uncover the fact and, having suffered a reproach himself,
not spare me.
122 When Peter came to Antioch, says Paul, I did
not address him at church and among the congregation, rather
I opposed him to his face—that is, I spoke out against him publicly.
Where did Paul get this confidence? Paul alone did not reprimand
him; rather, after Peter had been reprimanded by everyone, Paul
criticized and accused him, because he had been reprimanded. In the
judgement of the congregation Peter sinned and was therefore accused
.
123 And if there were some sin in me, the congregation would
in an equal manner be reprimanding me just as they did him.

For before certain people from James came, Peter was eating with
Gentiles; but once they came, Peter withdrew, fearing those who were of
the circumcision. And the other Jews also went along with him, with the
result that even Barnabas went along with their pretence (2: 12–13).
Paul forthrightly explains what sort of sin it was Peter had committed.
At this point, perhaps, he could have omitted telling what the
sin was he claims to have reprimanded in Peter. It was sufficient that
Peter had been set straight by the congregation’s reprimand and by
Paul’s public accusation.
But because it is beneficial and really
necessary for the letter, he therefore relates the story in order to
drive two points home. First, that no fault was found with Paul’s
own gospel
; and that although Paul reprimanded Peter, he heard
nothing in the way of a reprimand from Peter
. Now, secondly, there
is that matter which I said was really necessary. Because the Galatians,
disregarding the gospel
and even the rule of the gospel,124
were supposing that additions were to be made to their way of life, to
the effect that they should observe the sabbath and circumcision and
live just like Jews. Because the Galatians were doing this, the letter
was written to them. Whence the point is well made that the very
thing reprimanded in Peter by Paul was what the congregation
reprimanded as well. From there it follows that the Galatians too
are sinning.

Now, Paul has included in the narrative how Peter allowed this, or
what guilt he incurred. For earlier, he says, before certain people from
James came, Peter was eating with Gentiles, holding fast to the full
gospel and its rule: that the gospel about Christ be preached equally
to Jews and Gentiles; and that the food laws of the Jews not be
observed but one live simply, according to the manner of the Gentiles.
Peter was doing this earlier, Paul says, before there came
certain people from James. For the brother of the Lord, James,
who is the progenitor of the Symmachians
,125 was the first at
Jerusalem to maintain that this was to be taken upon himself:
both to preach Christ and to live like the Jews, doing all the things which the
Law of the Jews teaches—meaning the things which the Jews understood
were to be observed for themselves.
Victorinus goes way beyond the evidence of the letter here. Paul says he opposed Peter (Cephas) to his face. He does not report that he was successful, or that Peter or any of the other Jews changed their minds, or that Peter did not condemn him, or, for that matter, that anyone at all took Paul’s side on the occasion. It seems likely that if Paul had been successful, he would have said so. Victorinus is essentially making up an ideal scenario.

Best,

Ken
gryan
Posts: 1120
Joined: Fri Jun 01, 2018 4:11 am

Re: Hegesippus vis-a-vis "James son of Alphaeus" and "Judas of James" in Luke-Acts

Post by gryan »

Ken, thanks for taking a look at Victorinas's commentary with me.

I notice with interest that Cooper did us the dubious service of restoring the name "James" to the list of three pillars in Victorinus's quotation of Galatians.

I propose a thought experiment: What happens to the discourse unit if the name of "James" is left out of the list of pillars?

Gal 1:15-19 and 2:1-13

15But when God, the One having selected me from my mother’s womb and having called me by His grace, was pleased 16to reveal His Son in me so that I might preach Him among the Gentiles, I did not immediately consult with flesh and blood, 17nor did I [immediately] go up to Jerusalem to the apostles before me, but I [immediately] departed into Arabia and returned again to Damascus.
18Then after three years I went up to Jerusalem to make acquaintance with Cephas, and I remained with him fifteen days. 19But other than the apostles I saw none [in the class of an apostle], except [if you consider] James, the Lord’s brother [an apostle]...
1Then after fourteen years I went up again to Jerusalem with Barnabas, having taken with me Titus also. 2Now I went up according to a revelation and set before them the gospel that I proclaim among the Gentiles; but apart individually to those of repute, lest hardly I might be running or have run in vain. 3But not even Titus who was with me, being a Greek, was compelled to be circumcised, 4This issue arose because some false brothers had come in under false pretenses to spy on our freedom in Christ Jesus, in order to enslave us. 5to whom we did not yield in subjection for an time, so that truth of the gospel would be preserved with you.
6I say this because it makes no difference to me what they were--God does not judge by outward appearances---for the reputed did not consult me. 7But on the contrary, having seen that I have been entrusted with the gospel of the uncircumcision just as Peter of the circumcision— 8for the One having worked in Peter for apostleship of the circumcision, did also in me toward the Gentiles— 9and having recognized the grace having been given to me, Cephas and John, those reputed to be pillars, gave to me and Barnabas the right hand of fellowship, that we should go to the Gentiles, but they to the circumcision, 10only that we should be mindful of the poor, also the same thing that I was eager to do.
11But when Cephas came to Antioch, I opposed him to his face because he stood condemned. 12For before certain ones came from James, he had been eating with the Gentiles. But when they [he] came, he was drawing back and was separating himself, being afraid of those of the circumcision. 13And also the rest of the Jews acted hypocritically with him, so that, by their hypocrisy, even Barnabas was carried away.

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

As far as I can tell, the discourse unit works just fine without the name "James" in the pillars list.

That thought experiment was a lot of hard mental work for us, but I think it is likely necessary for the purpose of reconstructing the prior knowledge of the implied audience. I imagine Paul knew his audience would know that 1) among the esteemed pillars there was a "James", and 2) unlike "James" the pillar, "James, the Lord's brother" was a leading advocate for the circumcision of Gentile converts.

In tense social situations, one of the easiest things to remember is who is "in" and who is "out". Given tension between "those reputed to be pillars" and "those of the circumcision," it would have been very easy for the Galatians to remember which camp "the Lord's brother" was in, and which camp he was not in.

Then, after this sense of the discourse unit is established, when "James" is added to the list of the pillars, I suggest a further thought experiment: switch the order around, like Victorinus did in his comment on 2:10: "John, Peter, and James"

That order reflects the chronological order of the speeches given by Peter and James respectively in Acts (with John acting in his typical role as nonspeaking partner), where both speak against the party that wants to require Gentile converts to be circumcised.

Given that in Gal, the "men from James" are clearly "those of the circumcision" then it is easy to imagine James the Lord's brother being in sympathy with the circumcision party in Acts. And, given the polarization of camps, it is easy to imagine (obvious?) that the "James" who speaks in Acts is another James. The speaker is probably not the "James" mentioned with "Judas of James" (who may well be James, the brother of Jesus, although he was not named as such in Luke-Acts) but rather, a named member of the 12 who is still standing after the death of Zebadee--the speaker is probably James, son of Alphaeus.

Convincing? Or at least coherently imaginable?
User avatar
Ken Olson
Posts: 1277
Joined: Fri May 09, 2014 9:26 am

Re: Hegesippus vis-a-vis "James son of Alphaeus" and "Judas of James" in Luke-Acts

Post by Ken Olson »

gryan wrote: Sat Apr 24, 2021 10:33 pm As far as I can tell, the discourse unit works just fine without the name "James" in the pillars list.
I don’t see how the thought experiment gets you anywhere. The discourse would work fine without the name Cephas in the pillars list as well. So what? (Well, I suppose that in the latter case, you could use it to revive the theory that Cephas and Peter were different people).
That thought experiment was a lot of hard mental work for us, but I think it is likely necessary for the purpose of reconstructing the prior knowledge of the implied audience. I imagine Paul knew his audience would know that 1) among the esteemed pillars there was a "James", and 2) unlike "James" the pillar, "James, the Lord's brother" was a leading advocate for the circumcision of Gentile converts.
I can imagine quite a bit (to coin a phrase). You are imagining that there were people that had prior knowledge that your theory of two Jameses was correct. This does nothing to add supporting evidence for your theory.
In tense social situations, one of the easiest things to remember is who is "in" and who is "out". Given tension between "those reputed to be pillars" and "those of the circumcision," it would have been very easy for the Galatians to remember which camp "the Lord's brother" was in, and which camp he was not in.
You haven’t shown that there was any tension between the three acknowledged pillars and the circumcision, which, by the way, means the Jews (which the three pillars, as well as Paul and Barnabas, were). I think you read the word that way in 2.7, 8 and 9, but differently in 2.12. Why? The only evidence we have for tensions is that there were people Paul calls false brethren (suggesting tensions between them and Paul) and that Titus was not forced to be circumcised. Did the Jerusalem church have the legal authority to force circumcision on an unwilling Gentile? Probably not. They refrained from committing what would probably have been a crime, though perhaps some of the members felt they should do it. Then they agreed that Paul could carry his gospel to the nations. There’s no mention of any agreement on table fellowship between Jews and Gentiles (which may not even have been an issue in the Jerusalem church before Paul and Barnabas showed up with Titus)

You haven’t responded to my earlier observation that 2.9 may have been no more than an agreement to disagree, that is, that Paul could go preach his good news to the nations (or maybe to sheep or rocks, for all they cared), and they would preach their good news to the Jews. They couldn’t legally stop him from doing so, and they may have been quite happy to receive his donations. The agreement did not bind the Jerusalem church to accepting table fellowship with Gentiles, or, really, anything else.
Then, after this sense of the discourse unit is established, when "James" is added to the list of the pillars, I suggest a further thought experiment: switch the order around, like Victorinus did in his comment on 2:10: "John, Peter, and James"

That order reflects the chronological order of the speeches given by Peter and James respectively in Acts (with John acting in his typical role as nonspeaking partner), where both speak against the party that wants to require Gentile converts to be circumcised.
Two comments here:

(1) I think you rigged the rules of the game so that you cannot lose. If you take John out of the mix as a non-speaking partner there are only two possible orders (1) Peter-James and (2) James-Peter. One is the order in the text of Galatians. You point out that if we experimentally changed the order, it would then be the same order as the order in Acts 15. This is underwhelming as evidence of anything.

(2) I thought you were saying earlier that you jut wanted to explain Galatians 1 and 2 as a unit of discourse (without considering Acts), but now it’s clear you are interested in reconciling Galatians 2 with Acts 15.
Given that in Gal, the "men from James" are clearly "those of the circumcision" then it is easy to imagine James the Lord's brother being in sympathy with the circumcision party in Acts. And, given the polarization of camps, it is easy to imagine (obvious?) that the "James" who speaks in Acts is another James. The speaker is probably not the "James" mentioned with "Judas of James" (who may well be James, the brother of Jesus, although he was not named as such in Luke-Acts) but rather, a named member of the 12 who is still standing after the death of Zebadee--the speaker is probably James, son of Alphaeus.
The men from James were almost certainly Jews, and the circumcision is another way of saying Jews (is it used only by Christians? I don’t know the answer to that) so I agree with your reading of Galatians that far. But you have not yet shown that the James mentioned in Gal. 2.9 was somehow opposed to 'the circumcision'. You also haven’t given evidence against the possibility (which I think is the one held by the majority of commentators) that the author of Acts has idealized the major leaders of the early church by portraying them as more approving of Gentile Christianity that they in fact might have been.
Convincing? Or at least coherently imaginable?
I vote a firm no on convincing and a very hesitant yes on coherently imaginable.

Best,

Ken
gryan
Posts: 1120
Joined: Fri Jun 01, 2018 4:11 am

Re: Hegesippus vis-a-vis "James son of Alphaeus" and "Judas of James" in Luke-Acts

Post by gryan »

Ken, Thank you for your comments, which I have read closely. I'm pondering.
User avatar
Ken Olson
Posts: 1277
Joined: Fri May 09, 2014 9:26 am

Re: Hegesippus vis-a-vis "James son of Alphaeus" and "Judas of James" in Luke-Acts

Post by Ken Olson »

The case for Paul referring to two different Jameses in Galatians based on internal evidence from the epistle depends on showing that the James mentioned in Gal. 2.9:
when James and Cephas and John, who were acknowledged pillars, recognized the grace that had been given to me, they gave to Barnabas and me the right hand of fellowship, agreeing that we should go to the Gentiles and they to the circumcised.
cannot be the same person as the James mentioned in Gal. 2.12:
for until certain people came from James, he used to eat with the Gentiles. But after they came, he drew back and kept himself separate for fear of the circumcision faction.
I think the idea that the two statements are incompatible depends on how one reads Gal. 2.3-5:
3 But even Titus, who was with me, was not compelled to be circumcised, though he was a Greek. 4 But because of false believers[a] secretly brought in, who slipped in to spy on the freedom we have in Christ Jesus, so that they might enslave us— 5 we did not submit to them even for a moment, so that the truth of the gospel might always remain with you.
If “Titus … was not compelled to be circumcised” means that the Jerusalem church, under the leadership of the three acknowledged pillars (including James), admitted Titus to table fellowship, including possibly celebration of the eucharist, without insisting on his being circumcised, then that would seem to conflict with Gal. 2.12. If, however, it means simply that Titus was not circumcised by force or threat of force, there is no conflict with Gal. 2.12.

The text of Galatians says nothing of Titus having been admitted to table fellowship in Jerusalem, so it does not support that interpretation. Further, if Titus had been accepted to table fellowship, it would have supported the argument Paul is making in Galatians a great deal, so that his failure to mention it would be very odd. (Similarly, Paul’s failure to mention that he persuaded Peter of to his position in Gal. 2.11, when he opposed him to his face, or even that he received significant support from the Jewish Christians in Antioch, suggests that he did not. It would have been very useful in the argument he is making to the Galatians to be able to claim those things).

I would add that we have a (controversial) text relating to forced circumcision in Hippolytus, Refutation of All Heresies, 9.26, in his description of the Essenes:
But the adherents of another party, if they happen to hear any one maintaining a discussion concerning God and His laws— supposing such to be an uncircumcised person, they will closely watch him and when they meet a person of this description in any place alone, they will threaten to slay him if he refuses to undergo the rite of circumcision. Now, if the latter does not wish to comply with this request, an Essene spares not, but even slaughters. And it is from this occurrence that they have received their appellation, being denominated (by some) Zelotae, but by others Sicarii.
https://www.newadvent.org/fathers/050109.htm

Hippolytus’ source for his material about the Essenes is of course, disputed. A few scholars have suggested he and Josephus had a common source for their material about the Essenes. It is more commonly held that Hippolytus or his source added traditions to Josephus’ account.

Best,

Ken
gryan
Posts: 1120
Joined: Fri Jun 01, 2018 4:11 am

Re: Hegesippus vis-a-vis "James son of Alphaeus" and "Judas of James" in Luke-Acts

Post by gryan »

Ken,

Thanks for those further thoughts.

On reading Victorinus: He refers to James the Lord's brother as being a progenitor for the Symmachians. For more on them, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Symmachus_(translator)

I would suppose that that is not his own invention, but that he was passing on a tradition of interpretation. This two Jameses tradition was bashed by Jerome, but Jerome was biased by his emphasis on the perpetual Virginity of Mary, and with it, the identification of gMark's "James the less" with "James, son of Alphaeus."

What I'm arguing is for an interpretation of the canonical data in line with Victorinus, and saying that there is a line of plausibility.

I think Paul literally and historically met two Jameses, "the brother of the Lord", and also a "son of Alphaeus" who was an esteemed pillar in the same sense that Peter and James were--he was one of the 12. I also think that Paul wanted to deflect blame in the direction of the Lord's brother in order to create a bond with the "esteemed pillars." On the other hand, there is an element of ambiguity. He himself refused to blame James directly, but left that up to the ultimate judge. I think that the authors of the Gospels all knew this as historical, but chose to mute the judgment against James because they wanted to give the impression that he could have repented and come into line with the vision of Galatians where Paul and Peter both have missions, and are both preaching the same gospel.

I think that the language of Galatians is too brief and unintentionally ambiguous to be interpreted apart from an exegetical tradition. I think Victorinus's tradition of two Jameses in Galatains is older and more historically authentic than Jerome's invention of "a brother of the Lord" who was also "a son of Alphaeus" (in the Syoptic gospels), and thus also in Galatians, a "brother of the Lord" who becomes an one of Paul's "esteemed pillars."
gryan
Posts: 1120
Joined: Fri Jun 01, 2018 4:11 am

Re: Hegesippus vis-a-vis "James son of Alphaeus" and "Judas of James" in Luke-Acts

Post by gryan »

Re: The when and where of "certain ones came from James." (Gal 2:12a, "πρὸ τοῦ γὰρ ἐλθεῖν τινας ἀπὸ Ἰακώβου μετὰ τῶν ἐθνῶν συνήσθιεν·")

Arguing for the textual variant, "when they he came" (ὅτε δὲ ἦλθον ἦλθεν), Carlson wrote: "Though the textual difference is merely that of a single letter, this variant has significant ramifications for Paul’s biography. The reading with the singular ἦλθεν results in a markedly different understanding of the incident. What triggered the incident was not the coming of people from James (that happened earlier)..." Thus, as observed by Ken Olson, the textual variant opens the question of when and where the "coming of certain ones from James" happened.

Assuming Carlson's textual variant was in fact the authorial original, I am trying to build an argument that "the coming of certain ones from James" alludes to the what happened in Jerusalem: "...some pseudo-brothers had infiltrated our ranks to spy on the freedom we have in Christ Jesus and to make us slaves." (Gal 2:4)

Does it help my case if I note this underlined verbal similarity in the Greek between "the coming of certain ones" and "who came in by stealth"?

ψευδαδέλφους, οἵτινες παρεισῆλθον
ἐλθεῖν τινας ἀπὸ Ἰακώβου

I'm not sure 1) how to describe this similarity and 2) how to weigh its significance for my argument.
gryan
Posts: 1120
Joined: Fri Jun 01, 2018 4:11 am

Re: Hegesippus vis-a-vis "James son of Alphaeus" and "Judas of James" in Luke-Acts

Post by gryan »

gryan wrote: Mon May 10, 2021 8:22 am Re: The when and where of "certain ones came from James." (Gal 2:12a, "πρὸ τοῦ γὰρ ἐλθεῖν τινας ἀπὸ Ἰακώβου μετὰ τῶν ἐθνῶν συνήσθιεν·")

Arguing for the textual variant, "when they he came" (ὅτε δὲ ἦλθον ἦλθεν), Carlson wrote: "Though the textual difference is merely that of a single letter, this variant has significant ramifications for Paul’s biography. The reading with the singular ἦλθεν results in a markedly different understanding of the incident. What triggered the incident was not the coming of people from James (that happened earlier)..." Thus, as observed by Ken Olson, the textual variant opens the question of when and where the "coming of certain ones from James" happened.

Assuming Carlson's textual variant was in fact the authorial original, I am trying to build an argument that "the coming of certain ones from James" alludes to the what happened in Jerusalem: "...some pseudo-brothers had infiltrated our ranks to spy on the freedom we have in Christ Jesus and to make us slaves." (Gal 2:4)

Does it help my case if I note this underlined verbal similarity in the Greek between "the coming of certain ones" and "who came in by stealth"?

ψευδαδέλφους, οἵτινες παρεισῆλθον
ἐλθεῖν τινας ἀπὸ Ἰακώβου

I'm not sure 1) how to describe this similarity and 2) how to weigh its significance for my argument.
Also, Paul uses similar language in:

Gal 1:7,
εἰ μή τινές εἰσιν οἱ ταράσσοντες ὑμᾶς
...unless there are some who are troubling you.

Gal 5:10
ὁ δὲ ταράσσων ὑμᾶς βαστάσει τὸ κρίμα, ὅστις ἐὰν ᾖ.
The one troubling you will bear the judgement, whoever he might be.
Post Reply