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

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: Is Paul "Othering" James in Galatians 1?

Post by gryan »

Gd1234 wrote: Mon Jul 12, 2021 4:26 pm
Richard Bauckham - Jude and the Relatives of Jesus in the Early Church (Academic Paperback)-T&T Clark Int'l (2004)
Which discusses various theories of jesus relatives.
Thanks! Bauckhams writings on Jude, James, and the women of named in the Gospels are on topic, learned, readable and recent. I will study them soon.
gryan
Posts: 1120
Joined: Fri Jun 01, 2018 4:11 am

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

Post by gryan »

Re: "James the Just" in gThomas, "the lesser James" in Mark and Salome

Bauckhams (in his book, Jude and the Relatives of Jesus in the Early Church, consulted via Googlebooks) correctly observes that gThomas is consistently opposed to loyalty to blood relatives, and yet he identifies "James the Just" as the brother of the Lord, which is strained.

Baukhams correctly observes that Mark is consistently opposed to loyalty to blood relatives, and yet he cannot allow that "Mary the mother of the lesser James and Joses" was a reference to those regarded in Jesus' hometown as his mother and brothers, which is strained.

Easier 1) to see James the Just in gThomas as one of the 12 named James, son of Alphaeus, perhaps. And 2) to see "the lesser James" of Mark as a blood brother of Jesus. The voice of the authoritative narrator in gMark 15:40 does not to give James and Mary the title brother and mother of Jesus. To name James as a brother of Jesus would contradict the saying of Jesus where the only criterion for the title of "brother" was membership in the apocalyptic family.

Salome is named in gMark and gThomas. I am inclined, tentatively, to identify these two references to Salome as one and the same person, and thus also, to date gMark and gThomas to around the same time period.
Gd1234
Posts: 18
Joined: Fri Jul 05, 2019 6:03 pm

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

Post by Gd1234 »

I enjoyed learning with you. I too desire to learn more about early Christianity.

I agree it teaches we should not put blood before our spiritual brothers

After Jesus died, if the early Jewish church decided to put jesus brother in charge, If it was strictly because he was a relative, then it would be against the gospel message. If it was because he was most qualified as someone having the holy spirit and walked with the Messiah, then its for a different reason. The line in thomas could be authentic, or could be glorifying james after his martyrdom. Whoever James was, he was respected by paul.

According to heggisippius, after james death, other relatives took his place. This is not denied by other church fathers who quoted him. I can't verify or deny its accuracy. We just try to understand what we have the best we can

Whether it was wise(or in the spirit of what Jesus intended) is not my judgement.

To them, the Messiah was prophet priest and king and Jesus was of David's line. However, if james was jesus brother and his family continued, i would hope there was more justification to the office including being born again, having the gift and also first hand knowledge of what jesus taught.
User avatar
mlinssen
Posts: 3431
Joined: Tue Aug 06, 2019 11:01 am
Location: The Netherlands
Contact:

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

Post by mlinssen »

gryan wrote: Tue Jul 13, 2021 2:49 am Re: "James the Just" in gThomas, "the lesser James" in Mark and Salome

Bauckhams (in his book, Jude and the Relatives of Jesus in the Early Church, consulted via Googlebooks) correctly observes that gThomas is consistently opposed to loyalty to blood relatives, and yet he identifies "James the Just" as the brother of the Lord, which is strained.
Emphasis mine

Thomas most certainly does not do so whatsoever. How on earth does Richard Bauckham twist and turn that?

12. said the(PL) Disciple to IS : we know : you will go from-the-hand-of us
who? is who/which will make-be great upward upon us
said IS to they : the place have you(PL) come therein you(PL) will go toward Jacob the Righteous this-one have the(F) heaven with the earth come-to-be because-of he

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

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

Post by gryan »

mlinssen wrote: Tue Jul 13, 2021 10:36 pm
gryan wrote: Tue Jul 13, 2021 2:49 am Re: "James the Just" in gThomas, "the lesser James" in Mark and Salome

Bauckhams (in his book, Jude and the Relatives of Jesus in the Early Church, consulted via Googlebooks) correctly observes that gThomas is consistently opposed to loyalty to blood relatives, and yet he identifies "James the Just" as the brother of the Lord, which is strained.
Emphasis mine

Thomas most certainly does not do so whatsoever. How on earth does Richard Bauckham twist and turn that?

12. said the(PL) Disciple to IS : we know : you will go from-the-hand-of us
who? is who/which will make-be great upward upon us
said IS to they : the place have you(PL) come therein you(PL) will go toward Jacob the Righteous this-one have the(F) heaven with the earth come-to-be because-of he

Bauckham cites this book as his authority on the question of "James the Just" as blood brother of the Lord, aka "James of Jerusalem." https://www.degruyter.com/document/doi/ ... 5-002/html
User avatar
mlinssen
Posts: 3431
Joined: Tue Aug 06, 2019 11:01 am
Location: The Netherlands
Contact:

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

Post by mlinssen »

gryan wrote: Wed Jul 14, 2021 6:08 am Bauckham cites this book as his authority on the question of "James the Just" as blood brother of the Lord, aka "James of Jerusalem." https://www.degruyter.com/document/doi/ ... 5-002/html
Thank you for the link gryan.
Can I just suffice with copying and pasting the Table of Contents of this marvellously great grand book?

The title is "Gospel of Thomas", and I presume that it is not just about "James the Just"

Code: Select all

Introduction                                                                          4196
II.  Text                                                                             4197
1.   The Coptic Text: Plates, Editions, Translations, Commentaries, and Concordances  4197
2.   The Greek Text                                                                   4201
3.   Relationship of the Greek to the Coptic Text                                     4201
4.   Testimonia                                                                       4204
III. Literary Criticism and Form Criticism                                            4205
IV.  Relationship to the Canonical Gospels                                            4213
V.   Origin: Date, Place, and Language of Composition                                 4224
VI.  Theology                                                                         4230
VII. Conclusion                                                                       4236
Bibliography                                                                          4237
1.   Bibliographies and Forschungsberichte                                            4237
2.   Plates, Editions, Translations, Commentaries, and Concordances                   4237
3.   Monographs                                                                       4240
4.   Articles                                                                         4241
5.   Dissertations                                                                    4251
Where do you suppose that "James the Just" is discussed? The real content seems to sit in between page 4213 and 4237, a whopping 24 pages - that's a quarter of my Commentary which treats only 15% of Thomas.
Then again my commentary to logion 12 comprises a mere 6 pages (89 through 94) so I guess anything can happen?

In all seriousness, this is biblical academics at its core: claim something, and point to the bibliography. Good luck with verifying any of that.
This is not research, this is not science - this is mere rhetorics
gThomas is consistently opposed to loyalty to blood relatives
None of that is true either, but I settled for one item at a time. What a load of crap, how about "25. said IS : love your brother in.the.manner of your(F) Soul make-be Guard [dop] he in.the.manner of the(F) pupil of your eye"?
gryan
Posts: 1120
Joined: Fri Jun 01, 2018 4:11 am

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

Post by gryan »

mlinssen wrote: Wed Jul 14, 2021 11:56 am
gryan wrote: Wed Jul 14, 2021 6:08 am
gThomas is consistently opposed to loyalty to blood relatives
None of that is true either, but I settled for one item at a time. What a load of crap, how about "25. said IS : love your brother in.the.manner of your(F) Soul make-be Guard [dop] he in.the.manner of the(F) pupil of your eye"?

Re: "love your brother..."

"Brother", in what sense? Blood, or spiritual kinship?

In Galatians, which is my main interest, the audience is addressed as "brothers". Clearly, Paul is not addressing his blood brothers here, but rather, his brothers in Christ. I think "James, the Lord's brother" refers to Jesus's natural brother named James (this is supported by Mark 6:3; and, furthermore, I think that in Mark 6:4 and 3:31-35, Jesus "others" his natural brothers). Given Thomas 101, 99 and 55, I interpret "love your brother" in gThomas 25 as a reference to spiritual brothers (which might include blood brothers, but not necessarily).
gryan
Posts: 1120
Joined: Fri Jun 01, 2018 4:11 am

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

Post by gryan »

Re: Translating Gal 1:19

ἕτερον δὲ τῶν ἀποστόλων οὐκ εἶδον, εἰ μὴ Ἰάκωβον τὸν ἀδελφὸν τοῦ Κυρίου.

Literally
But another of a different kind or quality (ἕτερον, https://biblehub.com/greek/2087.htm) of the apostles I saw none, except James the Lord's brother.

Interpretation: When Paul was with Cephas for 14 days, he saw "apostles" before him of an unspecified number, and among those apostles before him, he saw none who were "of a different kind" except, "James, the Lord's brother." Given Paul's prior use of the very same word, ἕτερον, in the disapproving sense, the use of this word in direct connection with the "Lord's brother" is enough to raise a red flag about Paul view of him. In Gal 1:6, Paul had written:

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

The disapproving sense of a "different Gospel" is paralleled in 2 Cor. 11:4 ,

"For if someone comes and proclaims a Jesus other than the One we proclaimed, or if you receive a different spirit than the One you received, or a different gospel (ἢ εὐαγγέλιον ἕτερον) than the one you accepted, you put up with it way too easily."

As in Galatians, so also in Corinthians, the focus shifts from the message--a different gospel-- to the messenger --a different apostle.

Galatians 1:7b-9,
"...Unless some are troubling you and trying to distort the gospel of Christ. But even if we or an angel from heaven should preach a gospel contrary to the one we preached to you, let him be anathama! As we have said before, so now I say again: If anyone is preaching to you a gospel contrary to the one you received, let him be anathama!"

Similarly, in 2 Cor. 11-15, Paul says:
"And what I am doing I will continue to do, in order to undermine the claim of those who would like to claim that in their boasted mission they work on the same terms as we do. For such men are false apostles, deceitful workmen, disguising themselves as apostles of Christ. And no wonder, for even Satan disguises himself as an angel of light. So it is no surprise if his servants, also, disguise themselves as servants of righteousness. Their end will correspond to their deeds."

Given that kind of rhetoric as a backdrop, it seems to me very conceivable that Paul was identifying "James the Lord's brother" as "different" in the negative sense of the term.

But the history of interpretation generally avoids this interpretation of the passage and does so with the seeming support of two main passages:

1 Cor 5:5b-7
He appeared to Cephasa and then to the Twelve. After that, He appeared to more than five hundred brothers at once, most of whom are still living, though some have fallen asleep. Then He appeared to James, then to all the apostles. 8And last of all He appeared to me also, as to one of untimely birth.

Acts 1
"..until the day He was taken up to heaven, after giving instructions through the Holy Spirit to the apostles He had chosen. 3After His suffering, He presented Himself to them with many convincing proofs that He was alive. He appeared to them over a span of forty days and spoke about the kingdom of God.
...[after the ascension of Jesus] they went to the upper room where they were staying: Peter and John, James and Andrew, Philip and Thomas, Bartholomew and Matthew, James son of Alphaeus, Simon the Zealot, and Judas of James. 14With one accord they all continued in prayer, along with the women and Mary the mother of Jesus, and with His brothers.

I will be arguing that both these passages reflect an ideal of Cephas and James the Lord's brother being "in one accord," an ideal which may well have been shared by Paul at his first visit to Jerusalem. However, I will argue that in Paul's second visit, Paul met with an exclusive group "recognized pillars" from among the 12--James, son of Alphaeus, Cephas/Peter, and John, son of Zebedee-- and that James, the Lord's brother was not invited to that exclusive gathering. Paul did not see James the Lord's brother at that visit, but only "some from James" who he calls "false brothers." Paul may not have known for sure whether they even represented accurately the view of James the Lord's brother. So Paul "others" James without directly saying that the Lord's brother was in heresy. He leaves that judgement up to the Lord.

The account in Acts deliberately obscures the identity of the "James" who speaks in Paul's defense in Acts 15. Nowhere in Luke-Acts is James explicitly identified as the name of one of Jesus' brothers. There are two mention of "James" in the apostles list other than James son of Zebedee: "James son of Alphaes" and obscurely, "Judas of James". So the James who speaks could, in the narrative world of Luke-Acts, be identified as the son of Alphaeus, or as that other obscurely mentioned James, who just happens to be connected with another apostle whose name is in the list of Jesus' brother in Mark. In my view, all of this obscurity is to preserve a sense of the apostles and blood brothers of Jesus being "in one accord" without directly and explicitly contradicting Galatians as I interpret it, with Paul "Othering" James the Lord's brother. In Acts, this James who was othered was not mentioned and not not mentioned.

In the western text of Gal 2, the reputed pillars are listed as "Peter and James and John" leading Augustine to assume that these were the three apostles in Jesus inner circle during the transfiguration. Jerome's Commentary on Galatians explicitly calls this view a mistake. In his Commentary, Jerome does not explicitly say that the pillar James was the son of Alphaeus, he does say explicitly that he stands by his interpretation in Perpetual Virginity of Mary (wherein he states that the James of Gal 1:19 and the James of 2:9 are the same person--a "brother" in the sense of cousin of the Lord known as "James the Less"/"the son of Alphaeus" https://www.newadvent.org/fathers/3007.htm). He knows it is exegetically difficult, nevertheless he relies on Hegesippus's identification of James the Lord's brother with James the pillar. This is an exegetical mix up that is carried on into the present. Current scholars correctly in my view call James the Lord's brother a blood brother, but make a mistake when they follow Jerome/Hegesippus in identifying James the pillar as the Lord's brother.

In my view, Galatians works best as a coherent document if there are two James, a view presumed in the western--Peter, James, and John--textual tradition. My reading agrees with the two Jameses presumption; except that, in my reading, the pillar James was not a son of Zebedee. That James the pillar was the son of Alphaeus is presumed in Jerome, and subsequent tradition influenced by Jerome. My reading agrees with this--James the pillar who spoke in defense of Paul in Acts 15 was the son of Alphaeus!

NT Galatians makes better sense as a coherent letter if James the Lord's brother in 1:19 is interpreted as an "apostle," but, in Paul's view, as "other"-- "different" (ἕτερον) in the negative sense, and not a pillar.
davidmartin
Posts: 1589
Joined: Fri Jul 12, 2019 2:51 pm

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

Post by davidmartin »

Because there was an offshoot sect under the banner of James and Peter - the Ebionites, they weren't part of the original movement but were syncretic and tried to absorb it. The original James was demoted, that is the James of Thomas aka 'the less'
gryan
Posts: 1120
Joined: Fri Jun 01, 2018 4:11 am

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

Post by gryan »

davidmartin wrote: Mon Jul 19, 2021 5:47 am Because there was an offshoot sect under the banner of James and Peter - the Ebionites, they weren't part of the original movement but were syncretic and tried to absorb it. The original James was demoted, that is the James of Thomas aka 'the less'
Bold and underline, mine (Just to be clear, I do not identify the "James the Just" of gThomas with the "James the less" of gMark).

gThomas mentions Simon Peter, Matthew and Thomas--all of whom are from gMark's 12. I think "James the Just" of gThomas was similarly one of gMark's 12 (unlike "James the less" of gMark, who was not one of the 12).

I think the name "James the Just" in gThomas was invented 1) to distinguish James the son of Alphaeus, from "James the less" in gMark, and 2) to distinguish the "recognized pillar" named James in Gal 2:9 from "the Lord's brother" named James in Gal 1:19 and 2:12. Note: These interpretations of gMark and Gal are mine alone. So we are departing from modern scholars and from traditional readings here.

"James the Just" of gThomas refers to the son of Alphaus of gMark (not to "James the less" of gMark) and to the recognized pillar of Gal. (not to the Lord's brother of Gal)

Hegesippus, the chronicler, turned it around and gave the title "James the Just" to the blood brother of the Lord (Gal. 1:19).

This, IMHO, has led to the modern misreading of gThomas where it is assumed erroneously that "James the just" must refer to the blood brother of Jesus! Thus, Gerd Ludemann could write this: "All these sayings came into being in Jewish-Christian circles where James [the blood brother of Jesus] later became 'the pope of Ebionite fantasy' (H. J. Schoeps)." (Jesus After 2000 Years, p. 596)
http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/t ... mas12.html

This misreads the context of gThomas. The proper context for gThomas is gMark and Galatians, properly interpreted, ie, interpreted my way.

In Gal. gMark and gThomas, true righteousness is exemplified by was the James who gave Paul the right hand of fellowship in Gal 2:9, aka James, son of Alphaeus. He understood that, as Gal 6:15 says, "...neither circumcision nor uncircumcision means anything. What counts is a new creation." Thus it could be said in gThomas saying 12 that it was for the sake of James the Just that "heaven and earth have come to exist."
Post Reply