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

[gryan]

Gal 1:6-7
Θαυμάζω ὅτι οὕτως ταχέως μετατίθεσθε ἀπὸ τοῦ καλέσαντος ὑμᾶς ἐν χάριτι Χριστοῦ εἰς
ἕτερον εὐαγγέλιον, ὃ οὐκ ἔστιν ἄλλο, εἰ μή τινές εἰσιν οἱ ταράσσοντες ὑμᾶς
καὶ θέλοντες μεταστρέψαι τὸ εὐαγγέλιον τοῦ Χριστοῦ.

Gal 1:19
ἕτερον δὲ τῶν ἀποστόλων οὐκ εἶδον εἰ μὴ Ἰάκωβον τὸν ἀδελφὸν τοῦ κυρίου.

Working Translation
Gal 1:6-7
I am amazed that so quickly you are deserting from the One having called you in the grace of Christ to
another gospel--Not that there is another [gospel], except there are some who are troubling you and are desiring to pervert the gospel of Christ.

Gal 1:19
But other than the apostles, I saw none, except [if you consider] James the Lord's brother [an apostle].
(I am trying to work along the lines of George Howard "Was James an apostle: a reflection on a new proposal for Gal 1:19" Novum testamentum, 1977. Howard pointed out that "έτερος [in this comparative sense] makes a comparison between persons or objects of the same class of things" and so the language does not exclude James from the title "apostle"; nevertheless, as used in my translation, it may distinguish two kinds or qualities within the "class" of "apostle"--the genuine kind and the false kind, Cf. "false apostles" in 2 Cor 11:13.)

Re: The parallelism of these words-- ἕτερον/another/other than, οὐκ/not/none, εἰ μὴ/except -- is ignored in standard interpretations (if there is any interpreter who does take notice this parallel, I'd like to know about it).

In my rereading, I take Paul's parallel language to suggest identification of James, the Lord's brother with "some who are troubling you..." In Paul's argument there is no other authentic Gospel and James, the Lord's brother is not an authentic apostle since he was part of the circumcision party--"some from James" (Gal 2:12) who pressured Cephas/Peter to abandon his practice of eating with uncircumcised Gentiles. (This fits well with my argument that James the Lord's brother of Gal 1:19 and Gal 2:12, ought not be confused with those who are "recognized to be pillars" -- James [son of Alphaeus] and Cephas/Peter and John [son of Zebedee]).

I am reading NT Galatian as a coherent document. I would welcome comments pertaining to the significance of the routinely ignored parallel language (ἕτερον/another/other than, οὐκ/not/none, εἰ μὴ/except).

Was the author of NT Galatians "Othering" James?

[gryan]

Gal 1:19
ἕτερον δὲ τῶν ἀποστόλων οὐκ εἶδον εἰ μὴ Ἰάκωβον τὸν ἀδελφὸν τοῦ κυρίου.

Working Translation

Gal 1:19
But other than the apostles, I saw none, except [if you consider] James the Lord's brother [an apostle].
(I am trying to work along the lines of George Howard "Was James an apostle: a reflection on a new proposal for Gal 1:19" Novum testamentum, 1977. Howard pointed out that "έτερος [in this comparative sense] makes a comparison between persons or objects of the same class of things" and so the language does not exclude James from the title "apostle"; nevertheless, as used in my translation, it may distinguish two kinds or qualities within the "class" of "apostle"--the genuine kind and the false kind, Cf. "false apostles" in 2 Cor 11:13.)

Re: two kinds or qualities within the "class" of "apostle", I'm comparing the "false apostles" vs "super apostles" of 2 Cor 11
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2_Corinthians_11

2 Cor `11:13
οἱ γὰρ τοιοῦτοι ψευδαπόστολοι, ἐργάται δόλιοι, μετασχηματιζόμενοι εἰς ἀποστόλους Χριστοῦ.
For such ones are false apostles, deceitful workers, masquerading as apostles of Christ.

2 Cor 11:5
λογίζομαι γὰρ μηδὲν ὑστερηκέναι τῶν ὑπερλίαν ἀποστόλων.
For I consider myself in no way inferior to those most eminent apostles


Cf Gal 1:19
ἕτερον δὲ τῶν ἀποστόλων οὐκ εἶδον εἰ μὴ Ἰάκωβον τὸν ἀδελφὸν τοῦ κυρίου.
Other than the apostles
(implying, "the most eminent apostles", τῶν ὑπερλίαν ἀποστόλων 2 Cor 11:5, i.e. "recognized pillars" of Gal 2, James son of Alphaeus, and Cephas...),
I saw none, except James the Lord's brother
(implying "false apostle", ψευδαπόστολοι 2 Cor 11:13, i.e. "false brothers", ψευδαδέλφους /"some from James" the Lord's brother Gal 2)

[mlinssen]

6 Θαυμάζω (I am astonished) ὅτι (that) οὕτως (so) ταχέως (quickly) μετατίθεσθε (you are deserting) ἀπὸ (from) τοῦ (the One) καλέσαντος (having called) ὑμᾶς (you) ἐν (in) χάριτι (the grace) Χριστοῦ (of Christ), εἰς (to) ἕτερον (a different) εὐαγγέλιον (gospel), 7 ὃ (which) οὐκ (not) ἔστιν (is) ἄλλο (another); εἰ (if) μή (not) τινές (some) εἰσιν (there are) οἱ (who) ταράσσοντες (are troubling) ὑμᾶς (you), καὶ (and) θέλοντες (are desiring) μεταστρέψαι (to pervert) τὸ (the) εὐαγγέλιον (gospel) τοῦ (-) Χριστοῦ (of Christ).

19 ἕτερον (Other) δὲ (however) τῶν (of the) ἀποστόλων (apostles) οὐκ (none) εἶδον (I saw), εἰ (if) μὴ (not) Ἰάκωβον (James), τὸν (the) ἀδελφὸν (brother) τοῦ (of the) Κυρίου (Lord). 20 ἃ (In what) δὲ (now) γράφω (I write) ὑμῖν (to you), ἰδοὺ (behold), ἐνώπιον (before) τοῦ (-) Θεοῦ (God) ὅτι (-), οὐ (not) ψεύδομαι (I lie).

Even Berean gets it wrong?

2087 /héteros ("another but distinct in kind") stands in contrast to 243 /állos ("another of the same kind"). 2087 /héteros ("another of a different quality") emphasizes it is qualitatively different from its counterpart (comparison).

[2087 (héteros) sometimes refers to "another" of a different class group or type (as in Plato; Oxy. papyri).]

From https://biblehub.com/greek/2087.htm

[gryan]

Even Berean gets it wrong?

2087 /héteros ("another but distinct in kind") stands in contrast to 243 /állos ("another of the same kind"). 2087 /héteros ("another of a different quality") emphasizes it is qualitatively different from its counterpart (comparison).

[2087 (héteros) sometimes refers to "another" of a different class group or type (as in Plato; Oxy. papyri).]

From https://biblehub.com/greek/2087.htm

Yes, you got it IMHO. Even Berean opts against this contrastive dictionary sense of héteros you have cited.

[gryan]

Gal 1:19
ἕτερον δὲ τῶν ἀποστόλων οὐκ εἶδον εἰ μὴ Ἰάκωβον τὸν ἀδελφὸν τοῦ κυρίου.

Revised working translation (Maybe the Borean literal did not get it "wrong" when the dictionary definition of ἕτερον-- [a different kind or quality-- is taken into account)

"Other [a different kind or quality] of the apostles I saw none if not James the Lord's brother."

Double negative emphasized. Thus, within the class of "apostle", ἕτερον frames the Lord's brother as a different kind or quality (as distinct from állos "another of the same kind").

[gryan]

There is something basically unsavory about "Othering" James, the Lord's brother. It would be nice to think of Paul as receiving the right hand of fellowship from the Lord's brother at the 14 year visit to Jerusalem, and thus, the prevailing reading of that formative event is appealing. But the more I look at the language parallels between Gal and 2 Cor 10-12, the more I am able see James the Lord's brother as Paul logical opponent. If Paul asked for a private meeting with "the recognized pillars", it is sensible to suppose that private meant the exclusion of James, the Lord's brother, known in later tradition as "James the Just". Paul's harsh language seems targeted to just such a supposedly "Just" person:

2 Cor 12:12-15
"But I will keep on doing what I am doing, in order to undercut those who want an opportunity to be regarded as our equals in the things of which they boast. 13For such men are false apostles, deceitful workers, masquerading as apostles of Christ. 14And no wonder, for Satan himself masquerades as an angel of light. 15It is not surprising, then, if his [Satan's] servants masquerade as servants of justice. Their end will correspond to their actions."

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

It is clearly in Paul's capacity to use "other" (ἕτερον) in the sense of implying that James the Lord's brother was not a genuine "apostle of Christ" but rather was one of Satan's servants masquerading as a servant of justice. If he had said it more directly, it would be easier to see that was what he was saying. But he pulls his punches. He lets the readers draw their own conclusions. As far as I know, none of Paul's later interpreters came straight out and said James the Lord's brother was one of Satans apostles. That's too harsh. Instead, Victorinus, insisted only that James was not an apostle and asserted that he may have been in heresy. And so subsequent debate was framed in terms of whether James the Lord's brother was or was not an apostle. Not whether he me might be a different kind of apostle--a false apostle--Satan's servant masquerading as being just.

IMHO, later literature portraying "James the Just" as the enemy of Paul makes better sense if it is understood as a reaction against Paul calling James Satan's servant. Does that logic make sense? (i.e. the origin of literature defending James as genuinely just and attacking Paul as James's enemy make better sense if Paul actually did intend for readers of Galatians to view James the Lord's brother as pseudo-just, as Satan's apostle). This supposedly anti-Paul lit (The Pseudo-Clementine letter of Peter to James) is unclear however since Paul is not explicitly named as James's "enemy." Readers have to draw their own conclusions in both directions.

[davidmartin]

I think there's no reason to assume a brother of Jesus would necessarily be representative of Jesus spiritually - that physical connection is downplayed in many places in the gospels. All that's said is a certain physical brother is now claiming to represent Jesus. We know already there were many James's so it could still entirely be the case that one James was close to Jesus (spiritually) but it doesn't have to have been his brother, the one Paul refers to

If it's the case Jesus was influential in his time and afterwards then it would make sense for a physical brother to appear saying whatever he personally believed in. I recon Paul is aware of this and kind of goes along with it but wishes to remain on good terms if possible. Paul's denial of previous association is therefore due to the perception James's group has that Paul is representing the original Jesus movement in opposition to James.
In simple terms the original movement was about a spiritual awakening to 'truth', James represents a more traditional re-interpretation of that and Paul is somewhere in between but closer to the original than James's group is

[gryan]

Gal 1:19
ἕτερον δὲ τῶν ἀποστόλων οὐκ εἶδον εἰ μὴ Ἰάκωβον τὸν ἀδελφὸν τοῦ κυρίου....

"Other [a different kind or quality] of the apostles I saw none if not James the Lord's brother."

Double negative emphasized. Thus, within the class of "apostle", ἕτερον frames the Lord's brother as a different kind or quality (as distinct from állos "another of the same kind").

Re: Cephas and James viewed as different kinds of apostles

2 Cor 15:5-8

He appeared to Cephas 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 in all the apostles. And last of all He appeared in me also, as to one of untimely birth.

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

I find it striking that Cephas and James (presumably "the Lord's brother" named James, given the parallel with Gal) are the only ones named (perhaps because he had met them personally) and that they seem to be representative of two kinds of apostles: "the 12" vis a vis "all the apostles". I'm working with the hypothesis that this telling represents an early stage in the relationship between James, Cephas and Paul when James and Paul were not yet at odds regarding circumcision of Gentile converts. After Paul "received" this tradition, and at the point when Paul put it in this written form, Paul may have been "still preaching circumcision" (whatever that might have meant, Gal 5:11).

In Gal 1, "the apostles" could be an umbrella term covering both Cephas's kind of "apostle", ie the 12, and James's kind, "all the apostles." Perhaps also, it was only later, around the time of the writing of Gal that the negative tone of the language found in 2 Cor emerged: super apostles vs false apostles.

[davidmartin]

Either Jesus originally wanted his gentile converts circumcised or he didn't. It's one or the other and would have already been made clear
I think that he did not and the strain that said otherwise was aberrant, as per numerous occasions where gentiles are welcomed by Jesus in the gospels
The idea that Paul was still preaching circumcision is due to Paul preaching a kind of law and subservience even though he rejected physical circumcision. He was being accused (by others not the James crowd) of still being enslaved to legalistic principles... thus he was preaching circumcision while denying the need for physical circumcision. This is pretty clear and obvious. As I have said before both Paul and the James crowd were trying to lord it over everyone else. The historical origins I think are not to be found here

[gryan]

Either Jesus originally wanted his gentile converts circumcised or he didn't. It's one or the other and would have already been made clear
I think that he did not and the strain that said otherwise was aberrant, as per numerous occasions where gentiles are welcomed by Jesus in the gospels

Re: "the strain that said otherwise was aberrant"

Thanks! I had not heard that argument before. I googled it and found this article that argued for something similar:

"The Pharisee Heresy: Circumcision for Gentiles in the Acts of the Apostles
Abstract
This narrative-critical study of Acts proposes that Luke has deliberately arranged events so that the discussion about circumcising baptised Gentiles is postponed for as long as possible. When the issue does surface, it is raised by a delegation of second-wave Christians from the sect of the Pharisees. These factors combined give the impression that circumcision of Gentiles, a matter long settled by Luke's own day, had never been original, favourable or sanctioned by God or the apostles. By portraying the movement to circumcise Gentiles as belated, extrinsic and pernicious, Luke's representation of difference in the church resembles that of later heresiologists."