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 »

gryan wrote: Fri Jul 16, 2021 11:16 pm 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.
RE: translating Gal 1:19
δὲ τῶν ἀποστόλων οὐκ εἶδον, εἰ μὴ Ἰάκωβον τὸν ἀδελφὸν τοῦ Κυρίου.

ἕτερον, "different" is in the accusative case, and it is the direct object of the verb εἶδον, "I saw."
ἕτερον is a substantive and it is singuar: a different one.
Like ἕτερον, "James" and "brother" are accusative, singular. James the brother is marked as different.

Working translation
"Of the apostles, I saw no different one, except James the Lord's brother."

By calling James, the Lord's brother "different" he was not saying he was outside the class of apostle. He was saying that all the apostles he saw were the same, except for James, who was different.

Given what Paul wrote earlier about a "different (ἕτερον) Gospel", for Paul to use the very same form of the word ἕτερον in connection with James the Lord's brother is to shine a light of suspicion and judgement upon the "flesh and blood" brother of Jesus.

In the next trip to Jerusalem, when Paul, Barnabus and Titus met privately with "James and Cephas and John, those recognized to be pillars", it is clear that all three of these pillars are the same. They acted in unison vis a vis the "false brothers". James the pillar was not different from Cephas and John who had been part of the original 12 apostles. They all saw Paul's gift and supported his mission to the Gentiles, just as they all claimed a gift of mission to "the circumcision". The sameness of the three pillars stands in contrast to the language of difference used to describe James the Lord's brother.

This contrast of the sameness of the pillars vs the difference of James the Lord's brother supports my thesis that unlike James the Lord's brother, James the pillar had been one of the original 12--he was James, son of Alphaeus.
gryan
Posts: 1120
Joined: Fri Jun 01, 2018 4:11 am

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

Post by gryan »

gryan wrote: Wed Jul 28, 2021 4:06 am RE: translating Gal 1:19
δὲ τῶν ἀποστόλων οὐκ εἶδον, εἰ μὴ Ἰάκωβον τὸν ἀδελφὸν τοῦ Κυρίου.

ἕτερον, "different" is in the accusative case, and it is the direct object of the verb εἶδον, "I saw."
ἕτερον is a substantive and it is singuar: a different one.
Like ἕτερον, "James" and "brother" are accusative, singular. James the brother is marked as different.

Working translation
"Of the apostles, I saw no different one, except James the Lord's brother."
Re: "the apostles before me" Gal 1:17

When Paul saw Cephas it was not an exclusive meeting between Paul, Cephas and the Lord's brother. In this rereading of Gal 1:19, Paul saw Cephas and multiple apostles (James, son of Alphaeus, and John, son of Zebedee of the synoptics reflected in the James/Cephas/John of Gal 2:9 are additional likely candidates), and of these "apostles", the only one who was "different" in the sense of "a different Gospel" was "the Lord's brother" (Cf. 1 Cor. 9:5) named James (Cf Mark 6:3 and 15:40). An additional layer of immediate context that supports this notion of "the Lord's brother" as "different" from the other apostles he met is that (in my interpretation), although Paul did not immediately "consult with flesh and blood", after three years, he did indeed "consult" with "the different one". When he saw James who was the "Lord's brother" in the "flesh and blood" sense of the word "brother", Paul did "consult with flesh and blood".
gryan
Posts: 1120
Joined: Fri Jun 01, 2018 4:11 am

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

Post by gryan »

Re: "Of the apostles..."

Paul's unusual accusative/direct object (ἕτερον) + genitive construction, "of the apostles", has a peculiar nominative+genitive construction parallel in Matthew.

Matt 8:21
ἕτερος (nominative) δὲ τῶν μαθητῶν (genitive) εἶπεν αὐτῷ Κύριε, ἐπίτρεψόν μοι πρῶτον ἀπελθεῖν καὶ θάψαι τὸν πατέρα μου.
Another of the disciples said to him, "Lord, let me first go and bury my father" (NET).

Gal 1:19 with Matt as model
ἕτερον (accusative/direct object) δὲ τῶν ἀποστόλων (genitive) οὐκ εἶδον, εἰ μὴ Ἰάκωβον τὸν ἀδελφὸν τοῦ Κυρίου.
But I saw none of the other apostles, except James the Lord's brother (NET).

It seems to me that Matthew's usage supports the usual "other apostles" interpretation of the meaning Galatians 1:19 (and subverts my "Othering" hypothesis).

I'm not convinced this similarity kills my hypothesis (since some significant differences remain), but it is giving me pause.
User avatar
mlinssen
Posts: 3431
Joined: Tue Aug 06, 2019 11:01 am
Location: The Netherlands
Contact:

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

Post by mlinssen »

gryan wrote: Sat Aug 14, 2021 12:38 pm Re: "Of the apostles..."

Paul's unusual accusative/direct object (ἕτερον) + genitive construction, "of the apostles", has a peculiar nominative+genitive construction parallel in Matthew.

Matt 8:21
ἕτερος (nominative) δὲ τῶν μαθητῶν (genitive) εἶπεν αὐτῷ Κύριε, ἐπίτρεψόν μοι πρῶτον ἀπελθεῖν καὶ θάψαι τὸν πατέρα μου.
Another of the disciples said to him, "Lord, let me first go and bury my father" (NET).

Gal 1:19 with Matt as model
ἕτερον (accusative/direct object) δὲ τῶν ἀποστόλων (genitive) οὐκ εἶδον, εἰ μὴ Ἰάκωβον τὸν ἀδελφὸν τοῦ Κυρίου.
But I saw none of the other apostles, except James the Lord's brother (NET).

It seems to me that Matthew's usage supports the usual "other apostles" interpretation of the meaning Galatians 1:19 (and subverts my "Othering" hypothesis).

I'm not convinced this similarity kills my hypothesis (since some significant differences remain), but it is giving me pause.
I think the first few italics wil help out:

http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/tex ... %3Dceterus

The Latin intended to say ceterum: cētĕra, cētĕro , cētĕrum , v. ceterus, II.
Don't click the ceterum entry in Tufts, it'll lead to an error.
I've copied it here, but of a mess

cētĕrus (caet- ), a, um

I.nom. sing. masc. not in use; the sing., in gen., rare; in Cic. perh. only three times), adj. pronom. stem ki, and compar. ending; cf. ἕτερος, the other, that which exists besides, can be added to what is already named of a like kind with it; the other part (while reliquus is that which yet remains of an object, the rest; “e. g. stipendium pendere et cetera indigna pati,” and endured other indignities of the kind, Liv. 21, 20, 6. On the other hand: “jam vero reliqua—not cetera —quarta pars mundi ea et ipsa totā naturā fervida est, et ceteris naturis omnibus salutarem impertit et vitalem calorem,” Cic. N. D. 2, 10, 27; cf. Hand, Turs. II. p. 33; Doed. Syn. 1, p. 83. Still these ideas, esp. after the Aug. per., are often confounded, and the Engl., the remainder, the rest, and the adverb. phrase for the rest, etc., can be used interchangeably for both words).

1. Sing.
a. Masc.: “si vestem et ceterum ornatum muliebrem pretii majoris habeat,” Cic. Inv. 1, 31, 51 (also in Quint. 5, 11, 28); Nep. Dat. 3, 1: “laeta et imperatori ceteroque exercitui,” Liv. 28, 4, 1: “vestitu calciatuque et cetero habitu,” Suet. Calig. 52: illos milites subduxit, exercitum ceterum servavit, Cato ap. Gell. 3, 7, 19: “cohortes veteranas in fronte, post eas ceterum exercitum in subsidiis locat,” Sall. C. 59, 5: “a cetero exercitu,” Curt. 5, 9, 11; Tac. Agr. 17; Suet. Galb. 20 fin.: “de cetero numero candidatorum,” id. Caes. 41.—
b. Fem.: “cetera jurisdictio,” Cic. Att. 6, 2, 5: “vita,” Sall. C. 52, 31: “aetas,” Verg. G. 3, 62: “nox,” Ov. M. 12, 579: “silva,” id. ib. 8, 750: “turba,” id. ib. 3, 236; 12, 286; Hor. S. 2, 8, 26: “classis,” Liv. 35, 26, 9: “deprecatio,” id. 42, 48, 3; 21, 7, 7: “inter ceteram planitiem mons,” Sall. J. 92, 5: “Graeciam,” Nep. Paus. 2, 4: “aciem,” Liv. 6, 8, 6: “multitudinem,” id. 35, 30, 8: “(super) turbam,” Suet. Calig. 26: “manum procerum,” Tac. Or. 37: “pro ceterā ejus audaciā atque amentiā,” Cic. Verr. 2, 1, 2, § 6: “pluviā (aquā) utebantur,” Sall. J. 89, 6: “ceterā (ex) copiā militum,” Liv. 35, 30, 9; Plin. Ep. 2, 16, 1: “ceterā (pro) reverentiā,” id. ib. 3, 8, 1: “ceterā (cum) turbā,” Suet. Claud. 12 al.

c. Neutr.: “cum a pecu cetero absunt,” Plaut. Bacch. 5, 2, 20: “non abhorret a cetero scelere,” Liv. 1, 48, 5; Suet. Aug. 24: “cetero (e) genere hominum,” id. ib. 57: “quanto violentior cetero mari Oceanus,” Tac. A. 2, 24 al.—Subst.: cētĕ-rum , i, n., the rest: “elocuta sum convivas, ceterum cura tu,” Plaut. Men. 1, 4, 6: “ceterum omne incensum est,” Liv. 22, 20, 6; so, “de cetero,” as for the rest, Cic. Fin. 1, 7, 26; Curt. 4, 1, 14 al.; “and in ceterum,” for the rest, for the future, Sen. Ep. 78, 15.


2. Plur., the rest, the others (freq. in all periods and species of composition): “de reliquis nihil melius ipso est: ceteri et cetera ejus modi, ut, etc.,” Cic. Fam. 4, 4, 5: “multae sunt insidiae bonis nosti cetera,” id. Planc. 24, 59; id. Fat. 13, 29: “cetera de genere hoc, adeo sunt multa, etc.,” Hor. S. 1, 1, 13; Lucr. 5, 38: “ut omittam cetera,” Cic. Cat. 3, 8, 18: “ibi Amineum... Lucanum serito, ceterae vites in quemvis agrum conveniunt,” Cato, R. R. 6, 4: “quam fortunatus ceteris sim rebus, absque una hac foret,” Ter. Hec. 4, 2, 25: nam ceteri fere, qui artem orandi litteris tradiderunt, ita sunt exorsi, quasi, etc., Quint. prooem. § 4; id. 10, 1, 80: “ceterae partes loquentem adjuvant, hae ipsae loquuntur,” id. 11, 3, 85: “sane ceterarum rerum pater familias et prudens et attentus, unā in re paulo minus consideratus,” Cic. Quint. 3, 11: “hanc inter ceteras vocem,” Quint. 9, 4, 55: de justitiā, fortitudine, temperantiā ceterisque similibus, id. prooem. § 12; 3, 5, 5; “2, 4, 38: ego ceteris laetus, hoc uno torqueor,” Curt. 6, 5, 3.

b. Et cetera ceteraque or cetera, and so forth, καὶ τὰ ἑξῆς, when one refers to a well-known object with only a few words, or mentions only a few from a great number of objects, Cic. de Or. 2, 32, 141: “ut illud Scipionis, Agas asellum et cetera,” id. ib. 2, 64, 258; id. Top. 6, 30; 11, 48; id. Tusc. 2, 17, 39; id. Att. 2, 19, 3: “et similiter cetera,” Quint. 4, 1, 14: “vina ceteraque,” Cic. Verr. 2, 1, 36, § 91; Curt. 3, 4, 10: “solem, lunam, mare, cetera,” Lucr. 2, 1085: “fundum, aedes, parietem, supellectilem, penus, cetera,” Cic. Top. 5. 27.—

II. Hence, the advv.,

A. cē-tĕrum (orig. acc. respectiv.), lit. that which relates to the other, the rest (besides what has been mentioned).
1. For the rest, in other respects, otherwise (in good prose): “nihil, nisi ut ametis impero: Ceterum quantum lubet me poscitote aurum, ego dabo,” Plaut. Bacch. 4, 4, 52: tu aurum rogato: ceterum (for the rest, in respect to the rest) verbum sat est, id. ib. 4, 8, 37: precator, qui mihi sic oret: nunc amitte quaeso hunc; “ceterum Posthac si quicquam, nil precor,” Ter. Phorm. 1, 2, 91: “ego me in Cumano et Pompeiano, praeterquam quod sine te, ceterum satis commode oblectabam,” Cic. Q. Fr. 2, 12 (14), 1: “foedera alia aliis legibus, ceterum eodem modo omnia fiunt,” Liv. 1, 24, 3; cf. Sall. J. 2, 4; 75, 3; Nep. Eum. 8, 5; Curt. 4, 1, 18.—Rarely after the verb: argentum accepi; “nil curavi ceterum,” Plaut. Capt. 5, 3, 12: numquid me vis ceterum? id. Ep. 4, 2, 76.

2. = alioquin, introducing a conclusion contrary to fact (mostly post-class.), otherwise, else, in the opposite event, = Gr. ἄλλως: non enim cogitaras; “ceterum Idem hoc melius invenisses,” Ter. Eun. 3, 1, 62: “ita et anima... solam vim ejus exprimere non valuit,... ceterum non esset anima, sed spiritus,” Tert. adv. Marc. 2, 9; App. M. 7, p. 200, 33; Dig. 4, 4, 7, § 2 al.

3. In passing to another thought, besides, for the rest; very freq. (esp. in the histt.; usu. placed at the beginning of a new clause; “only in the comic poets in the middle): Filium tuom te meliust repetere, Ceterum uxorem abduce ex aedibus,” Plaut. Truc. 4, 3, 73; Ter. Hec. 3, 3, 31; Sall. J. 4, 1; 20, 8; 29, 2; Quint. 6, 1, 8; 8, 6, 51; 9, 2, 14 al.; Suet. Caes. 4; 16; id. Tib. 42; id. Claud. 1; Curt. 3, 1, 4; 3, 3, 7; 3, 6, 13; Col. 8, 8, 5: “dehinc ceterum valete,” Plaut. Poen. prol. 125; cf. id. ib. 91.

4. With a restricting force, commonly contrasted with quidem or a neg. phrase; often to be translated by but, yet, notwithstanding, still, on the other hand (esp. freq. since the Aug. per.): “cum haud cuiquam in dubio esset, bellum ab Tarquiniis imminere, id quidem spe omnium serius fuit: ceterum, id quod non timebant, per dolum ac proditionem prope libertas amissa est,” Liv. 2, 3, 1; Plin. Pan. 5, 4; Flor. 3, 1, 11; Suet. Aug. 8; 66; id. Tib. 61 fin.; id. Gram. 4 al.: “eos multum laboris suscipere, ceterum ex omnibus maxume tutos esse,” Sall. J. 14, 12: “avidus potentiae, honoris, divitiarum, ceterum vitia sua callide occultans,” id. ib. 15, 3; 52, 1; 83, 1; id. C. 51, 26: “eo rem se vetustate oblitteratam, ceterum suae memoriae infixam adferre,” Liv. 3, 71, 6: “id quamquam, nihil portendentibus diis, ceterum neglegentia humana acciderat, tamen, etc.,” id. 28, 11, 7; 9, 21, 1; 21, 6, 1 Weissenb. ad loc.: “ut quisquis factus est princeps, extemplo fama ejus, incertum bona an mala, ceterum aeterna est,” Plin. Pan. 55, 9: “pauca repetundarum crimina, ceterum magicas superstitiones objectabat,” Tac. A. 12, 59; cf. Liv. 3, 40, 11.

B. cē-tĕra (properly acc. plur.), = τἆλλα, τὰ λοιπά, as for the rest, otherwise; with adjj., and (in poets) with verbs (not found in Cic. or Quint.).
(α). With adj.: “Bocchus praeter nomen cetera ignarus populi Romani,” Sall. J. 19, 7: “hastile cetera teres praeterquam ad extremum,” Liv. 21, 8, 10: “excepto quod non simul esses, cetera laetus,” Hor. Ep. 1, 10, 50 (cf. the passage cited under ceterum, II. A. 1. fin., Cic. Q. Fr. 2, 12 (14), 1): “cetera Graius,” Verg. A. 3, 594 (so prob. also Hor. Ep. 1, 10, 3, where others read ad cetera): “virum cetera egregium secuta,” Liv. 1, 35, 6: “vir cetera sanctissimus,” Vell. 2, 46, 2 Ruhnk.; Plin. 8, 15, 16, § 40; 12, 6, 13, § 25; 22, 25, 64, § 133; Tac. G. 29.

(β). With verbs: cetera, quos peperisti, ne cures, Enn. ap. Serv. ad Verg. A. 9, 656: “quiescas cetera,” Plaut. Mil. 3, 3, 53: “cetera parce, puer, bello,” Verg. A. 9, 656; cf. Sil. 17, 286: “cetera non latet hostis,” id. 2, 332; Mart. 13, 84.

C. cētĕrō , peculiar to the Nat. Hist. of Pliny, for the rest, in other respects, otherwise: “cetero viri quam feminae majus,” Plin. 11, 37, 49, § 133; so id. 3, 11, 16, § 105; 6, 26, 30, § 122; 8, 3, 4, § 7; “10, 1, 1, § 1 al.: est et alia iritis cetero similis, at praedura,” id. 37, 9, 52, § 138.— “Of time: palumbes incubat femina post meridiana in matutinum, cetero mas,” id. 10, 58, 79, § 159.

An elaboration: in Matthew 8, the verses talk of a scribe saying something. And then we get 8:21

Ceterum, this-time (one) of-the disciples, tells him: etc. It's a better version of the and .. and ... and that frustrates everyone who has to tell a story of sequential events that have little relation to one another
alius autem de discipulis eius ait illi Domine permitte me primum ire et sepelire patrem meum
That's a verbatim translation of the poor Greek which is a literal translation of impovered Latin

Galatians?
alium autem apostolorum vidi neminem nisi Iacobum fratrem Domini
Again, a piss-poor translation of the poor Greek. The Greek δὲ once again becomes autem, and ἕτερος becomes alius

What do I think it should be, and originally was in the minds of the author?

Ceterum de discipulis eius ait illi Domine permitte me primum ire et sepelire patrem meum (2A3 of Tufts' definition)

Ceterum apostolorum vidi neminem nisi Iacobum fratrem Domini (2A1 of Tufts' definition)

The first word is associated with the subject and becomes ἕτερος, the second is direct object and becomes ἕτερον

The NT isn't just poor Greek, it is written by Romans who spoke Greek. Just as my English is alright but not particularly rich in vocabulary, the Greek of the Roman authors was just barely passing. Look at NA28, and you'll see that most grammatical horrors got fixed later, but those mostly pertains to verbs. Constructions like these got left intact

I got the Latin from http://www.latinvulgate.com/verse.aspx?t=1&b=9 - I hope that's not the real deal LOL, it's even more cringing than the Koine
gryan
Posts: 1120
Joined: Fri Jun 01, 2018 4:11 am

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

Post by gryan »

@mlinssen

Let me get this straight: You are suggesting that 1) the author/s of both Matt and Gal were thinking their thoughts originally in Latin, and then writing these thoughts in poor Greek, and 2) the Latin of the Vulgate does not do a very accurate job of reading the original Latin thoughts of the author/s, and so 3) based on Latin/Greek dictionaries, although it makes you cringe to see the results, you might well be better than the Vulgate at reading the original Latin thoughts of these authors.

Correct?

PS. I don't agree with your method, and I find your idea the author's linguistic situation unlikely; nevertheless, I appreciate your effort. And it is certainly interesting to think about the Latin to Greek, Greek to Latin interchange.

PPS. Here is a critical collection of texts of the Vetus Latina (the old Latin in theory predating the Vulgate)
For Gal 1:19 Present: 51 54 58 61 67 75 76 77 78 88 89 135 MAR AMst HI AU PEL THr
alium autem apostolorum ⟨67⟩ THrvar ] alium autem ex apostolis AMstR,
alium apostolorum AUvar, alium apostolorum autem THred
uidi neminem AUvar ] neminem uidi 89 MAR HIvar, non uidi AUed THr
nisi iacobum fratrem domini

PPPS. These are the Vulgate to English (Douay-Rheims) online resources I use:
For Gal 1:19
http://www.latinvulgate.com/verse.aspx?t=1&b=9
For Matt 8:21
http://www.latinvulgate.com/verse.aspx?t=1&b=1&c=8
For the declension of alius
https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/alius

PPPPS. As for the meaning of Gal 1:19 in Latin, I rely on excellent, recent scholarly English translations of Jerome's and Victorinus's commentaries on Galatians. Both Victorinus and Jerome were commenting on the Latin NT, but both sometimes preferred the underlying Greek when they thought it was somehow better than the Latin. For various reasons, including a concern for showing that the Lord's brother was not a same womb brother, I think Jerome's reading of the verse is mistaken. I think Victorinus's reading is closer to the original Greek meaning. Victorinus was writing a generation before Jerome, and his view was that "James, the Lord's brother" was Jesus' brother "according to the flesh." He also said that James, the Lord's brother may have been in in heresy. By contrast to the Lord's brother, Victorinus identified James the pillar of Gal 2 as a model of faith worthy of imitation; and as such, Victorinus seems, not only to me, but to the English translator, appears to be assuming that the Jameses of 1:19/2:12 vs 2:9 were two different people. Jerome denounced Victorinus's view of James the Lord's brother in his essay, The Perpetual Virginity of Mary. Here is a quotation from Jerome: "But as regards Victorinus, I assert what has already been proved from the Gospel [of Mark and Matthew]— that he [Paul] spoke of the brethren of the Lord not as being sons of Mary, but brethren in the sense I have explained, that is to say, brethren in point of kinship not by nature." https://www.newadvent.org/fathers/3007.htm Unlike Victorinus, Jerome clearly identifies James the Lord's brother and James the pillar as one and the same person and, citing Hegesippus as an authority, emphasizes his virtuous character.

PPPPPS. I think the grammar and word choices of Matt 8:21 may be an intentional literary allusion to Gal 1:19; and so also, a reference to James the Lord's blood brother. I think it is interesting to read the passage as if it had been between an encounter between Jesus and James or another of "the Lord's brothers":
"And a different one of His disciples said to Him, “Lord, allow me first to go and to bury my father.
But Jesus said to him, 'Follow Me, and leave the dead to bury their own dead.'"

PPPPPPS. Lukes version of the same exchage echos Paul's use of the accusaive ἕτερον (which I read as basically a label for James the Lord's brother in Gal 1:19), but unlike Paul/Matt, Luke's version does not connect ἕτερον with a genitive construction: https://biblehub.com/interlinear/luke/9-59.htm
Also of interest, the word "Lord" which appears in Matt (and which I found awkward when I was reading it as coming from his blood brother) does not appear in the NA28 of Luke.
User avatar
mlinssen
Posts: 3431
Joined: Tue Aug 06, 2019 11:01 am
Location: The Netherlands
Contact:

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

Post by mlinssen »

It's a bit of a brain fart really, the incredible amount and place of Latin loanwords has been bothering me for a few weeks now.
The flagellum used for Jesus is of course extraordinary, every language that I know (close to a dozen) has its own word for the instrument.
On top of that, every occurrence of its prediction uses the Greek mastogai, and priority theme is mind boggling: did the prediction come earlier and was the event itself interpolated by Latin speaking people? Or was the event itself earlier and did the predictions get added later on? The latter seems to be more likely scenario, but that would mean that the gospel core was written by Romans

The modius used to hide the lamp, and its harmonisation attempt to do so in Luke's second version of that, is ludicrous of course. It is plausible that they looked for a "vessel" that had a size that could accommodate a lamp or candle, assuming Lukan priority there, but boy oh boy, why pick an 8.5 litre Roman measure?

The birds pitching their tent in the tree of the mustard seed - that could be a desperate attempt to Tanakh-ise the parable, but for crying out loud, how unfortunate can an allegory be?

So I'm a bit shooting from the hip lately, seeing ghosts here and there, and I thought the ceterum was a nice fit. And I was disappointed to see the alius autem, had expected a plain ceterum on both counts

So, thence that. I'll tackle your response next
User avatar
mlinssen
Posts: 3431
Joined: Tue Aug 06, 2019 11:01 am
Location: The Netherlands
Contact:

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

Post by mlinssen »

gryan wrote: Mon Aug 16, 2021 12:46 pm PPPPPS. I think the grammar and word choices of Matt 8:21 may be an intentional literary allusion to Gal 1:19; and so also, a reference to James the Lord's blood brother. I think it is interesting to read the passage as if it had been between an encounter between Jesus and James or another of "the Lord's brothers":
"And a different one of His disciples said to Him, “Lord, allow me first to go and to bury my father.
But Jesus said to him, 'Follow Me, and leave the dead to bury their own dead.'"

PPPPPPS. Lukes version of the same exchage echos Paul's use of the accusaive ἕτερον (which I read as basically a label for James the Lord's brother in Gal 1:19), but unlike Paul/Matt, Luke's version does not connect ἕτερον with a genitive construction: https://biblehub.com/interlinear/luke/9-59.htm
Also of interest, the word "Lord" which appears in Matt (and which I found awkward when I was reading it as coming from his blood brother) does not appear in the NA28 of Luke.
The funny thing is, there's no need to say "And a different one of His disciples", because there's no-one of them in the verses. Just "one of his disciples" should do. Chapter 8 starts with the leper, follows up with the centurion. Then Peter's mother is healed of fever, Jesus drives out demons so Matthew can once again fulfake (sic) his prophesies, and then comes the scribe, which ends with Thomas logion 86

And then comes the eteros de, and either something got cut out or verse 21 is supposed to follow up on Peter's mother

What say you?
User avatar
mlinssen
Posts: 3431
Joined: Tue Aug 06, 2019 11:01 am
Location: The Netherlands
Contact:

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

Post by mlinssen »

NA28 has 2 variants, a fun one and a LOL one

Ouk eidon says eidon oudena in D, F and G, and ouk eidon oudena in P51 - hesitantly

Whatever the syntax and semantics, it is clear that Paul Is trying to sneak Jacob in here, casually dropping that he's the brother of Jesus - which is strengthened by the highly dubious statement that follows: "I ain't lying"

Which begs the question: if Paul the gospels, why didn't they bother about Jacob "the Righteous"? In Mark Jesus even has real siblings

Peter and Cephas change places in verse 18, in a great number of MSS - that, on a side note
gryan
Posts: 1120
Joined: Fri Jun 01, 2018 4:11 am

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

Post by gryan »

mlinssen wrote: Tue Aug 17, 2021 8:51 am NA28 has 2 variants, a fun one and a LOL one

Ouk eidon says eidon oudena in D, F and G, and ouk eidon oudena in P51 - hesitantly
Those textual variants go directly against my reading the verse, and support the prevailing view that other than Cephas and James, the Lord's brother, Paul saw "no one".
mlinssen wrote: Tue Aug 17, 2021 8:51 am Whatever the syntax and semantics, it is clear that Paul Is trying to sneak Jacob in here, casually dropping that he's the brother of Jesus - which is strengthened by the highly dubious statement that follows: "I ain't lying"
My rereading of the text of the opposite of a Hermeneutic of suspicion: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hermeneutics_of_suspicion

I pretty much take everything Paul says at face value. I think this is the only way to get at what the text originally meant for Paul and his intended readers who looked up to him as their evangelist.
mlinssen wrote: Tue Aug 17, 2021 8:51 am Which begs the question: if Paul the gospels, why didn't they bother about Jacob "the Righteous"? In Mark Jesus even has real siblings
My hypothesis of the moment is that "James the Righteous" of GHebrews and GThomas didn't exist as a concept until after Galatians 2:9/2 Cor 15:7/GMark 16:1/Acts 15 were in circulation as scripture. The problem with these texts is that except for Gal 2:9 which includes James as one of "those recognized to be pillars", "James" is just called "James" plane and simple. I read James the Righteous as a reference mainly to this James who had no epithet of his own.

I do not think GHebrews and GThomas thought of James the brother of Jesus in Mark 6:3 aka "James the Less" and "James the Lord's brother" of Gal 1:19 as being "James the Just." I'll take that a step farther and say that the epithet "James the Just" may have been invented to identify the simple James of the NT--so as not to confuse him with "James the Less" and "James the Lord's brother."

Only later did Hegesippus, Origen and Jerome fuse these two Jameses.

I'm not trying to convince you to agree with me--only trying to clarify what I'm finding in the primary texts.
User avatar
mlinssen
Posts: 3431
Joined: Tue Aug 06, 2019 11:01 am
Location: The Netherlands
Contact:

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

Post by mlinssen »

gryan wrote: Tue Aug 17, 2021 1:44 pm I'm not trying to convince you to agree with me--only trying to clarify what I'm finding in the primary texts.
Agreement or disagreement is not a goal in my view, arguments and motivation are. If you can argue that the sun is cold in a convincing way, you have my vote - simple as that

Hermeneutics of suspicion are what Thomas wants the reader to engage with, but that involves interpretation. Just taking the literal text is harder to refute LOL.
Taking Paul at face value is a good starting point, it is in fact a good starting point for most every text. Make it a rule and then motivate the exceptions, or vice versa

Jacob the Righteous didn't get any attention in the NT, it is the only character from Thomas that doesn't get addressed in Mark. The wondrous Levi in 2:14 gets substituted with Jacob in Bezae and another handful.
Or is he there anyway?

Ἰάκωβον ο τοῦ Ἁλφαίου is what Washingtoniensis plus a few others have: Jacob the Alpha-ian, the primary Jacob, the one designated as alleged replacement of Jesus?

The problem with your hypothesis is that its result equals that of mine: Thomas made up "Jacob the Righteous" and its only pointer is the Righteous Jacob of the Tanakh, nothing in the NT serves as input there.
And another issue is that "Righteous" deserves motivation, one way or the other

The easiest theory really is that they ignored the epithet in Thomas just as they ignored the awkward "breaking of eyes" that went along with Johannes the Immerser there - and didn't come to regret that until centuries after. As haphazard a job they did with the Immersing that came with John, they didn't dare touch the Righteousness (which is a bit of cosmic karma!)
Post Reply