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

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

Post by gryan »

Re: Seeking the identity of the "James" who spoke in Acts 15

After the beheading of James, brother of John (presumably Zebadee) there remained two Jameses still alive in the narrative world of Luke-Acts, both mentioned in the apostle lists (12 of Luke/11 in Acts) one was an apostle--James son of Alphaeus-- and one was linked to the apostle Judas, in that he was called, "Judas of James". And so, in the three mentions of a "James" (Acts 12:17, 15:13 and Acts 21:18) it is possible that the "James" who spoke of was "son of Alphaeus", but it is also possible that it was the "James" linked to "Judas of James."

I am interested in "proving" that the James of the three "esteemed pillars" (Gal 2:12) and the James who spoke in Acts 15 are one and the same, James son of Alphaeus. And that "James the Lord's brother" (Gal 1), likely also the James mentioned in relation to "Judas of James", was part of the circumcision party who wanted to compel circumcision of Gentile converts.

As part of my "proof" I need to do a close reading of Hegesippus Eusebius, Ecclesiastical History, 2.23.3-7. "He writes as follows: 'James, the brother of the Lord, succeeded to the government of the Church the assembly in conjunction with the apostles' (διαδέχεται τὴν ἐκκλησίαν μετὰ τῶν ἀποστόλων ὁ ἀδελφὸς τοῦ κυρίου Ἰάκωβος). He has been called the Just by all from the time of our Saviour to the present day; for there were many that bore the name of James."

I'm thinking the author of Acts knew that the "esteemed pillar" of Gal was the speaker of Acts 15--James, the son of Alphaeus-- but he left the identity somewhat ambiguous because he did not want to suggest a real division between James the apostle and James the Just. This gives room for Hegesippus to tell a story of a James the Just who is not opposed to circumcision of Gentile converts.

Also, I don't see that Hegesippus said anything to directly contradict my reading of the James of Acts 15 being James, son of Alphaeus. James the Just worked "in the assembly with the apostles" is all Hegesippus says.

Am I missing something?
Last edited by gryan on Fri Apr 23, 2021 6:40 am, edited 2 times in total.
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: Fri Apr 23, 2021 3:53 am Re: Seeking the identity of the "James" who spoke in Acts 15

I'm thinking the author of Acts knew that the "esteemed pillar" of Gal was the speaker of Acts 15--James, the son of Alphaeus-- but he left the identity somewhat ambiguous because he did not want to suggest a real division between James the apostle and James the Just. This gives room for Hegesippus to tell a story of a James the Just who is not opposed to circumcision of Gentile converts.

Also, I don't see that Hegesippus said anything to directly contradict my reading of the James of Acts 15 being James, son of Alphaeus. James the Just worked "in the assembly with the apostles" is all Hegesippus says.

Am I missing something?
There is also this bit to consider:

Eusebius, Ecclesiastical History, 2.1.3-5. But Clement in the sixth book of his Hypotyposes writes thus: “For they say that Peter and James and John after the ascension of our Saviour, as if also preferred by our Lord, strove not after honor, but chose James the Just bishop of Jerusalem.” But the same writer, in the seventh book of the same work, relates also the following things concerning him: “The Lord after his resurrection imparted knowledge to James the Just and to John and Peter, and they imparted it to the rest of the apostles, and the rest of the apostles to the seventy, of whom Barnabas was one. But there were two Jameses: one called the Just, who was thrown from the pinnacle of the temple and was beaten to death with a club by a fuller, and another who was beheaded.”

Does that need to contradict my reading of Acts? James the speaker of Acts 15 could still be an apostle, son of Alphaeus, and James the Just could be in the background agreeing to all that was said and written in the letter.
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: Fri Apr 23, 2021 3:53 am Re: Seeking the identity of the "James" who spoke in Acts 15

After the beheading of James, brother of John (presumably Zebadee) there remained two Jameses still alive in the narrative world of Luke-Acts, both mentioned in the apostle lists (12 of Luke/11 in Acts) one was an apostle--James son of Alphaeus-- and one was liked to the apostle Judas, who was called, Judas of James. And so, in the three mentions of a "James" (Acts 12:17, 15:13 and Acts 21:18) it is possible that the "James" who spoke of was "son of Alphaeus", but it is also possible that it was the person linked to "Judas of James."
Yes, it is possible. You have a thesis. I like that you're limiting the discussion to Luke-Acts here.
I am interested in "proving" that the James of the three "esteemed pillars" (Gal 2:12) and the James who spoke in Acts 15 are one and the same, James son of Alphaeus. And that "James the Lord's brother" (Gal 1), likely also the James mentioned in relation to "Judas of James", was part of the circumcision party who wanted to compel circumcision of Gentile converts.
Good. You want to prove your thesis. I think that majority opinion of critical scholars is already with you on identifying the James of Gal 2.12 with the one who speaks in Acts 15 (though the latter might have idealized James a bit in light of exagerrating the harmony of the early church). The two different Jameses in Galatians theory is going to be more difficult to prove. Why do you need two different Jameses and what in Paul's letter suggests that he means to distinguish between the two? Or is it information from outside the letter that makes you want to do that?
As part of my "proof" I need to do a close reading of Hegesippus Eusebius, Ecclesiastical History, 2.23.3-7. "He writes as follows: 'James, the brother of the Lord, succeeded to the government of the Church the assembly in conjunction with the apostles' (διαδέχεται τὴν ἐκκλησίαν μετὰ τῶν ἀποστόλων ὁ ἀδελφὸς τοῦ κυρίου Ἰάκωβος). He has been called the Just by all from the time of our Saviour to the present day; for there were many that bore the name of James."
Why would you take Hegesippus's account as reliable? Doesn't it stand out as late and legendary? More specifically, doesn't he appear to be mistaken that James was called the Just *by all* *from the time of our savior to the present day*? There is no James referred to as *the Just* in the New Testament.
I'm thinking the author of Acts knew that the "esteemed pillar" of Gal was the speaker of Acts 15--James, the son of Alphaeus-- but he left the identity somewhat ambiguous because he did not want to suggest a real division between James the apostle and James the Just. This gives room for Hegesippus to tell a story of a James the Just who is not opposed to circumcision of Gentile converts.
Are you saying that he knew Paul's letters to the Galatians? Also, what is your evidence for real division between James the Apostle (the son of Zebedee?) and James the Just (the brother of the Lord?). How did you identify the two Jameses (in Galatians) and why do you think there's real division between them?

I take it you want to suggest that one James in Galatians was the one in Acts 15 and approved of the Gentile mission and the other was of the circumcision faction. How are you going to show that? And how will you show the theory that there is only one James in Galatians and that Luke idealized him and exaggerated his favorable attitude toward Gentiles in Acts 15 is mistaken, or at least weaker than your theory?
Also, I don't see that Hegesippus said anything to directly contradict my reading of the James of Acts 15 being James, son of Alphaeus. James the Just worked "in the assembly with the apostles" is all Hegesippus says.
Is not contradicting Hegesippus a solid basis for a theory? (I would think a solid historical thesis probably would contradict Hegesippus at some points, though it might be supported by him at others).

Best,

Ken

P.S. Have you read John Barclay's paper on Mirror Reading Galatians? I think it's extremely useful in helping to think through the issues involved in trying to extract historical information from the letter.

https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.117 ... 8701003105
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: Fri Apr 23, 2021 4:12 am Eusebius, Ecclesiastical History, 2.1.3-5. But Clement in the sixth book of his Hypotyposes writes thus: “For they say that Peter and James and John after the ascension of our Saviour, as if also preferred by our Lord, strove not after honor, but chose James the Just bishop of Jerusalem.” But the same writer, in the seventh book of the same work, relates also the following things concerning him: “The Lord after his resurrection imparted knowledge to James the Just and to John and Peter, and they imparted it to the rest of the apostles, and the rest of the apostles to the seventy, of whom Barnabas was one. But there were two Jameses: one called the Just, who was thrown from the pinnacle of the temple and was beaten to death with a club by a fuller, and another who was beheaded.”

Does that need to contradict my reading of Acts? James the speaker of Acts 15 could still be an apostle, son of Alphaeus, and James the Just could be in the background agreeing to all that was said and written in the letter.
Are you saying there was a James who was called the Just there all along in the background but never mentioned in the New Testament? That's possible, but does it seem to you like a theory capable of convincing others?

Best,

Ken
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,

It seems like the premise behind your theory is that you have a number of accurate reports of the facts from Paul in Galatians, Luke-Acts, and the fragments of Clement and Hegesippus quoted in Eusebius' Ecclesiastical History, and if you just distinguish between the Jameses correctly they will all work out harmoniously without any contradictions. Am I wrong about that? Why does that seem to be a more likely possibility to you than the possibility that one or more of those authors was not concerned with or did not have access to reliable information and just related a story that promoted a particular vision of what the early church had been like, whether it was historically accurate or not?

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 Olson wrote: Fri Apr 23, 2021 4:50 am The two different Jameses in Galatians theory is going to be more difficult to prove. Why do you need two different Jameses and what in Paul's letter suggests that he means to distinguish between the two? Or is it information from outside the letter that makes you want to do that?
RE: Did “James, the Lord’s brother” become a “reputed pillar”?
A case for two Jameses (Gal 1:19, 2:9 and 2:12)
(This re-reading is influenced by Victorinus’s commentary on Galatians)

I'm trying to interpret Galatians 1:13 (But when God... was pleased to reveal his Son in me...) to 2:12f (when he came...) as a coherent sand-alone discourse unit. The advantage of this reading over the prevailing interpretations is that it makes better sense of this discourse unit as unified narrative (with straightforward chronology) and in the context of the Epistle as a whole (without needing to appeal to Acts to fill gaps).

In it, there are three encounters between Paul and Cephas:
1) after 3 yr. in Jerusalem,
2) after 14 yr in Jerusalem,
3) in Antioch. As a reader of Gal as a stand alone document, I know of only these there encounters, and I assume they are told in chronological order.

There are also three mentions of the name, “James”:
1) In the first mention, "James" is identified as "the Lord's brother" and a close reading of the grammatical context may suggest that he is in a category comparatively separate, and not exactly equal with "the apostles." (Paraphrased: Other than the apostles, I saw none, unless you call James, the Lord's brother an apostle),
For this exegesis, see:
a) H Eteron de tōn apostolōn ouk eidos, ei iakōbon: a note on Galatians 1:19 By: Trudinger, L Paul. Source: Novum testamentum, 17 no 3 Jul 1975, p 200-202.
b) Was James an apostle: a reflection on a new proposal for Gal 1:19 By: Howard, George. Source: Novum testamentum, 19 no 1 Jan 1977, p 63-64.

2) The next mention of a "James" portrays an "esteemed pillar"--one of three who act as a unit in a) agreeing that not even Titus should be compelled to be circumcised, and b) giving Paul and Barnabas (not also Titus?) the right hand of fellowship.

3) The third mention of a "James" depicts "men from James" who are apparently of the "circumcision" party and who have intimidated Cephas so that he withdraw drew from table fellowship with Gentliles (like Titus). That does not sound like the "esteemed pillar" I know from prior immediate context!
So, "when he came” (see text note below) to Antioch, Cehpas had already decided to withdraw from table fellowship with the uncircumcised (such as Titus), and Paul knew what was happening because he and Barnabas were already part of the process. Here is how he knew: When the so called 'false brothers" arrived, trying to compel Titus to be circumcised, "James, Cephas and John, the esteemed pillars" were unified with Paul and Barnabas against this outside pressure to Titus to be circumcised. But that was not all that happened.

In Antioch, "when he [Cephas] came", Paul confronted Cephas about an issue that he had held his tongue on while in Jerusalem because of his policy of "with the Jews, I become as a Jew...". But in Antioch Paul wants Cephus to do unto others, and "with the lawbreakers, become like a lawbreaker..."

In the process, he mentions some "men from James" who are in the circumcision party. How might this make sense in Gal, understood as a coherent discourse? I propose that "James" the "pillar" was one of "the apostles" proper, and that he ought not be confused with "the Lord's brother", also named "James". When Paul asked for a private meeting with "esteemed pillars" in Jerusalem, that privacy was meant to exclude "James, the Lord's brother" who was not an "esteemed pillar". However, when the "false brothers" infiltrated, they are able to assert the views of "James" the flesh-and-blood brother of Jesus (Jesus and James were children of the same "woman," nurtured under the same "law", but one was "born of the spirit" and the other was born "according to the flesh."). Although unable to compel the circumcision of Titus, the "false brothers" intimidated Cephas and the Jews including Barnabas to withdraw from table fellowship with the uncircumcised, Titus. These men were "from James” [ie, from "the Lord’s brother"]-- not from one of the three unified pillars who gave Paul and Barnabas the right hand of fellowship, agreeing that Gentiles need not be circumcised to be saved.

Text note: "when they he came". Carlson writes persuasively "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) but the coming of Cephas himself, just as Gal 2:11 explicitly states. Instead of being intimidated at Antioch into changing his mind, Cephas came to Antioch with no intention of eating with the gentiles." https://dukespace.lib.duke.edu/dspace/b ... _11426.pdf
User avatar
Ben C. Smith
Posts: 8994
Joined: Wed Apr 08, 2015 2:18 pm
Location: USA
Contact:

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

Post by Ben C. Smith »

gryan wrote: Fri Apr 23, 2021 3:53 amAlso, I don't see that Hegesippus said anything to directly contradict my reading of the James of Acts 15 being James, son of Alphaeus. James the Just worked "in the assembly with the apostles" is all Hegesippus says.

Am I missing something?
I do not know whether you are missing anything, but Hegesippus seems to call this same James the Just a bishop, for whom a successor had to be found after his martyrdom:

Eusebius, History of the Church 4.22.4: 4 The same author also describes the beginnings of the heresies which arose in his time in the following words, “After James the Just had suffered martyrdom for the same reason as the Lord, his cousin Symeon, the son of Clopas, was appointed bishop, whom they all proposed because he was a cousin of the Lord. Therefore they called the church a virgin, for it was not yet corrupted by vain discourses.” / 4 Ὁ δ᾿ αὐτὸς καὶ τῶν κατ᾿ αὐτὸν αἱρέσεων τὰς ἀρχὰς ὑποτίθεται διὰ τούτων, «Καὶ μετὰ τὸ μαρτυρῆσαι Ἰάκωβον τὸν δίκαιον, ὡς καὶ ὁ κύριος ἐπὶ τῷ αὐτῷ λόγῳ, πάλιν ὁ ἐκ θείου αὐτοῦ Συμεὼν ὁ τοῦ Κλωπᾶ καθίσταται ἐπίσκοπος, ὃν προέθεντο πάντες, ὄντα ἀνεψιὸν τοῦ κυρίου δεύτερον. διὰ τοῦτο ἐκάλουν τὴν ἐκκλησίαν παρθένον, οὔπω γὰρ ἔφθαρτο ἀκοαῖς ματαίαις.»

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 »

Ben C. Smith wrote: Fri Apr 23, 2021 6:12 am
gryan wrote: Fri Apr 23, 2021 3:53 amAlso, I don't see that Hegesippus said anything to directly contradict my reading of the James of Acts 15 being James, son of Alphaeus. James the Just worked "in the assembly with the apostles" is all Hegesippus says.

Am I missing something?
I do not know whether you are missing anything, but Hegesippus seems to call this same James the Just a bishop, for whom a successor had to be found after his martyrdom:

Eusebius, History of the Church 4.22.4: 4 The same author also describes the beginnings of the heresies which arose in his time in the following words, “After James the Just had suffered martyrdom for the same reason as the Lord, his cousin Symeon, the son of Clopas, was appointed bishop, whom they all proposed because he was a cousin of the Lord. Therefore they called the church a virgin, for it was not yet corrupted by vain discourses.” / 4 Ὁ δ᾿ αὐτὸς καὶ τῶν κατ᾿ αὐτὸν αἱρέσεων τὰς ἀρχὰς ὑποτίθεται διὰ τούτων, «Καὶ μετὰ τὸ μαρτυρῆσαι Ἰάκωβον τὸν δίκαιον, ὡς καὶ ὁ κύριος ἐπὶ τῷ αὐτῷ λόγῳ, πάλιν ὁ ἐκ θείου αὐτοῦ Συμεὼν ὁ τοῦ Κλωπᾶ καθίσταται ἐπίσκοπος, ὃν προέθεντο πάντες, ὄντα ἀνεψιὸν τοῦ κυρίου δεύτερον. διὰ τοῦτο ἐκάλουν τὴν ἐκκλησίαν παρθένον, οὔπω γὰρ ἔφθαρτο ἀκοαῖς ματαίαις.»

What an interesting coincidence (assuming Alphesus=Clopas)!

Also, there is this:

"In two small but potentially important works ascribed by some to Hippolytus, On the Twelve Apostles of Christ and On the Seventy Apostles of Christ, he relates the following:

And James the son of Alphaeus, when preaching in Jerusalem was stoned to death by the Jews, and was buried there beside the temple.[16]

It is important to remember that James, the brother of Jesus had the same death; he was stoned to death by the Jews too. This testimony of "Hippolytus", if authentic, would increase the plausibility that James the son of Alphaeus is the same person as James the brother of Jesus."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James,_son_of_Alphaeus

Or, to fit my thesis, it may be that the two Jameses ("son of Alphesus=Clopas" and the "brother of Jesus.") have been combined into one character in the interest of erasing the memory of conflict between these two historical Jameses.
John2
Posts: 4309
Joined: Fri May 16, 2014 4:42 pm

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

Post by John2 »

Ken wrote:

Why would you take Hegesippus's account as reliable? Doesn't it stand out as late and legendary? More specifically, doesn't he appear to be mistaken that James was called the Just *by all* *from the time of our savior to the present day*? There is no James referred to as *the Just* in the New Testament.

James is called "the Just" in the gospel of the Hebrews (according to Jerome's citation) and Eusebius says that Hegesippus used it, so from his perspective James was called "the Just" since the time of Jesus.
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: Fri Apr 23, 2021 5:08 am RE: Did “James, the Lord’s brother” become a “reputed pillar”?
A case for two Jameses (Gal 1:19, 2:9 and 2:12)
(This re-reading is influenced by Victorinus’s commentary on Galatians)

I'm trying to interpret Galatians 1:13 (But when God... was pleased to reveal his Son in me...) to 2:12f (when he came...) as a coherent sand-alone discourse unit.
If that is what you are trying to do, I think I can help. It seems to me that there are several places where your reading is weak or faces severe difficulties and I can suggest stronger alternatives.
The advantage of this reading over the prevailing interpretations is that it makes better sense of this discourse unit as unified narrative (with straightforward chronology) and in the context of the Epistle as a whole (without needing to appeal to Acts to fill gaps)
Your reading faces severe difficulties, particularly with the chronology you give below.
In it, there are three encounters between Paul and Cephas:
1) after 3 yr. in Jerusalem,
2) after 14 yr in Jerusalem,
3) in Antioch. As a reader of Gal as a stand alone document, I know of only these there encounters, and I assume they are told in chronological order
.
This is contestable, but I agree with you on all of it (leaving aside the question of whether the visit after 14 years was counted from Paul’s conversion or from the previous Jerusalem visit). However, I think your single meeting of Paul and Cephas in Antioch is inconsistent with your reading in other ways (and contradicts Stephen Carlson’s reading, as will be shown below).
There are also three mentions of the name, “James”:
1) In the first mention, "James" is identified as "the Lord's brother" and a close reading of the grammatical context may suggest that he is in a category comparatively separate, and not exactly equal with "the apostles." (Paraphrased: Other than the apostles, I saw none, unless you call James, the Lord's brother an apostle),
Again, this is contestable but I agree with you.
2) The next mention of a "James" portrays an "esteemed pillar"--one of three who act as a unit in a) agreeing that not even Titus should be compelled to be circumcised, and b) giving Paul and Barnabas (not also Titus?) the right hand of fellowship
I think you gloss over some of the most important features of Galatians here. The entire letter after the opening salutation communicates Paul’s sense of outrage and betrayal:

I am astonished that you are so quickly deserting the one who called you in the grace of Christ and are turning to a different gospel (Gal. 1.6)

.
This is almost unparalleled in antiquity where even hostile letters were usually complimentary and observed formal politeness (as in Congress or Parliament, where people say, “I would remind the distinguished member from X’ when criticizing them). At the time Paul wrote the letter, he was angry and feeling betrayed by his converts and by the Jerusalem church.

You put ‘esteemed pillars’ in quotation marks, but it’s not clear if the quotation marks are merely formal, because you’re quoting Paul, or scare quotes, because you mean to put the esteem in which Paul held the pillars in question. So let’s look at the whole passage:

2 Then after fourteen years I went up again to Jerusalem with Barnabas, taking Titus along with me. 2 I went up in response to a revelation. Then I laid before them (though only in a private meeting with the acknowledged leaders) the gospel that I proclaim among the Gentiles, in order to make sure that I was not running, or had not run, in vain. 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 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. 6 And from those who were supposed to be acknowledged leaders (what they actually were makes no difference to me; God shows no partiality)—those leaders contributed nothing to me. 7 On the contrary, when they saw that I had been entrusted with the gospel for the uncircumcised, just as Peter had been entrusted with the gospel for the circumcised 8 (for he who worked through Peter making him an apostle to the circumcised also worked through me in sending me to the Gentiles), 9 and 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. 10 They asked only one thing, that we remember the poor, which was actually what I was eager to do (Gal. 2.1-10).

As when he put whether James ought to be counted as an apostle in question in Gal 1.19, or, actually, more so, Paul puts the reputation the pillars had with other people in question. He certainly does not think they have authority over him, and when he says “we did not submit to them” the “we” presumably meaning Paul, Barnabas, and Titus.

Mark Goodacre has pointed to me that out to me that Paul’s saying that Titus was not compelled to be circumcised does not necessarily mean that Titus was not circumcised; there remains possibility that he was voluntarily circumcised.

Most importantly, though, I think many scholars, particularly religious conservatives, have tended to take “the right hand of good fellowship” and the agreement that “we should go to the gentiles and they to the circumcised” as more than it was. While some have taken it that the Jerusalem pillars accepted Paul as an apostle on equal terms with themselves and his mission to the Gentiles on equal terms with theirs to the Jews, it is not at all clear that it implies anything of the sort. It may have been more of an agreement to disagree. Paul can go preach what he likes to Gentiles (they are not the Jerusalem pillars' concern), but the Jews are their business, not his. It by no means commits them to accepting Gentiles as equals in the people of God with Jews or to accepting table fellowship between Jews and Gentiles (at least not in Jerusalem, where they are).
3) The third mention of a "James" depicts "men from James" who are apparently of the "circumcision" party and who have intimidated Cephas so that he withdraw drew from table fellowship with Gentliles (like Titus). That does not sound like the "esteemed pillar"
This is where you go off the rails. Paul has made it clear that the so-called pillars who are acknowledged by others make no difference to him. And it seems very strange to think that in a letter in which Paul castigates his converts for turning away from his gospel, in which he relates that he upbraided Peter to his face for his hypocrisy, and even his partner Barnabas has been led astray by the opposition, that Paul considered James, whose position in Jerusalem he denigrated, to have remained faithful to some deal that Paul imagined they had. Paul makes no effort to distinguish between the two Jameses you claim to have found in the text. You just can’t believe that the same James who extended Paul the right hand of good fellowship and agreed Paul could go to the gentiles did not condone table fellowship between Jews and Gentiles. But it’s pretty easy to believe that and the majority of interpreters do.
I know from prior immediate context!
Nope.
So, "when he came” (see text note below) to Antioch, Cehpas had already decided to withdraw from table fellowship with the uncircumcised (such as Titus), and Paul knew what was happening because he and Barnabas were already part of the process. Here is how he knew: When the so called 'false brothers" arrived, trying to compel Titus to be circumcised, "James, Cephas and John, the esteemed pillars" were unified with Paul and Barnabas against this outside pressure to Titus to be circumcised. But that was not all that happened.

In Antioch, "when he [Cephas] came", Paul confronted Cephas about an issue that he had held his tongue on while in Jerusalem because of his policy of "with the Jews, I become as a Jew...". But in Antioch Paul wants Cephus to do unto others, and "with the lawbreakers, become like a lawbreaker..."

In the process, he mentions some "men from James" who are in the circumcision party. How might this make sense in Gal, understood as a coherent discourse? I propose that "James" the "pillar" was one of "the apostles" proper, and that he ought not be confused with "the Lord's brother", also named "James". When Paul asked for a private meeting with "esteemed pillars" in Jerusalem, that privacy was meant to exclude "James, the Lord's brother" who was not an "esteemed pillar". However, when the "false brothers" infiltrated, they are able to assert the views of "James" the flesh-and-blood brother of Jesus (Jesus and James were children of the same "woman," nurtured under the same "law", but one was "born of the spirit" and the other was born "according to the flesh."). Although unable to compel the circumcision of Titus, the "false brothers" intimidated Cephas and the Jews including Barnabas to withdraw from table fellowship with the uncircumcised, Titus. These men were "from James” [ie, from "the Lord’s brother"]-- not from one of the three unified pillars who gave Paul and Barnabas the right hand of fellowship, agreeing that Gentiles need not be circumcised to be saved.

Text note: "when they he came". Carlson writes persuasively "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) but the coming of Cephas himself, just as Gal 2:11 explicitly states. Instead of being intimidated at Antioch into changing his mind, Cephas came to Antioch with no intention of eating with the gentiles." https://dukespace.lib.duke.edu/dspace/b ... _11426.pdf
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, and that’s the explanation we find in his dissertation:

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) but the coming of Cephas himself, just as Gal 2:11 explicitly states. Instead of being intimidated at Antioch into changing his mind, Cephas came to Antioch with no intention of eating with the gentiles. This is what Paul found objectionable. After all, Paul had been in Antioch for some time after the meeting in Jerusalem before Cephas arrived (v.11). During this time, it is reasonable to suppose that Paul with his colleague Barnabas had been eating with the gentile Christians. All along, Paul thought he had an understanding with Cephas, James, and John back in Jerusalem that—with their acknowledgment of his gospel to the uncircumcision—his uncircumcised gentiles would be welcomed into the community (v.9). The issue of table fellowship had already come up in Antioch when those from James came while Cephas was still eating with the gentiles there (v.12a), so Paul believed the meeting in Jerusalem must have resolved that issue. When Cephas came to Antioch, however, he refused to engage in table fellowship with Paul’s gentiles but withdrew and separated himself (v.12b). To make matters worse, even Barnabas went along with Cephas (v.13). Paul had to object, immediately. His apostolic mission of bringing the gospel to the gentiles was at stake. (Carlson, The Text of Galatians, 163-164).

On Carlson’s reading, Paul begins to narrate Peter’s (second) visit to Antioch in Gal. 2.11, shifts without warning into describing Peter’s earlier first visit to Antioch during which he was eating with Gentiles until certain the men from James arrived (and apparently continued eating with the Gentiles on that occasion) in Gal.2.12a, and then resumes narrating the second visit in which Peter arrived already having decided to withdraw from table fellowship with Gentiles and leads the other Jews, including Barnabas, astray. Apparently the men from James had no immediate effect on Peter or Barnabas and the other Jews in Antioch, but Peter decided in the interim between the two visits that he would cease to eat with Gentiles and the other Jews and Barnabas then followed his example.

11 But when Cephas came to Antioch, I opposed him to his face, because he stood self-condemned; 12a for until certain people came from James, he used to eat with the Gentiles. 12b But after he came, he drew back and kept himself separate for fear of the circumcision faction. 13 And the other Jews joined him in this hypocrisy, so that even Barnabas was led astray by their hypocrisy. (Gal.2.11-12)

I think Carlson’s reading is extraordinarily awkward (and unlikely), and you have implicitly rejected it because you say you know of only one visit to Antioch where Peter and Paul met. This leaves you with no explanation of when and where Gal. 2.12 a is supposed to have occurred.

Neither Jameses nor Antioch visits should be multiplied unnecessarily. Since Paul does not make an effort to distinguish between the two Jameses and between the two Antioch visits, which at the very least would have been helpful to his readers, and we can understand the text as referring to a single James and a single visit to Antioch, I think we should assume that he was referring to a single James and a single Antioch visit until we have (much) better evidence to convince us otherwise.

Best,

Ken
Post Reply