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

Discussion about the New Testament, apocrypha, gnostics, church fathers, Christian origins, historical Jesus or otherwise, etc.
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 »


53. said they to he viz. his(PL) Disciple : the circumcision make-be Benefit Or no
said he to they : was/were he make-be Benefit was/were their father will beget they from their(F) mother they been-circumcised
Rather the circumcision [al] true in Spirit did he find profit all [he]

Luke has no choice in the matter, the text by Thomas is devastatingly deterrent. Once again the dumb, ignorant disciples fulfil their role of satyr chorus, in this grand satyr play
davidmartin
Posts: 1589
Joined: Fri Jul 12, 2019 2:51 pm

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

Post by davidmartin »

gryan wrote: Tue Jul 06, 2021 4:36 pm
davidmartin wrote: Tue Jul 06, 2021 5:55 am 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."
Interesting Gryan i wasn't aware of that before but it is striking
There are things like the woman and the well narrative where the requirement is to worship 'in spirit and truth'. I think that's more the original line of thinking. Crudely put a female Samaritan is equivalent to an uncircumcised gentile. The existence of an early Christian branch that wanted to express itself in a way that was compatible with the Pharisee type evangelism of gentiles is hardly surprising - its to be expected if the movement was real/historical. But to then assume this branch were original... well, that is a very superficial approach and it doesn't make much sense of the historical record. I think sometimes the early church made us of this branch to argue against people like Marcion and it had a lasting impact even though some of the key claims of it were rejected
gryan
Posts: 1120
Joined: Fri Jun 01, 2018 4:11 am

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

Post by gryan »

Re: "the Pharisee type evangelism of gentiles is hardly surprising - its to be expected if the movement was real/historical."

Paul had been a Pharisee. The "if I am still preaching circumcision" (Gal 5) comment could, it seems to me, refer to a time early in his gospel-to-the-gentiles mission when he still thought of gentile conversion framed by Pharisee style proselytization--in terms of conformity with "the whole law" including circumcision and works of the law. Thus, Gal 2:15-16a

................................εἰδότες δὲ ὅτι οὐ δικαιοῦται ἄνθρωπος ἐξ ἔργων νόμου ἐὰν μὴ διὰ πίστεως
Χριστοῦ Ἰησοῦ
We are Jews by nature... knowing that someone is not justified by works of the law, except through the faithfulness
of Christ Jesus...

This statement my reflect this early stage in Paul's mission where the effort is to combine the faith of Christ with works of the law. "Some from James" of Gal 2:12 may have thought in terms of such a combination, i.e. it is possible to be saved through "works of the law", if only through the faith of Christ.

In GMatt, there is the idea of the Jesus calling for a faithfulness that is greater than that of the Pharisees, but without abolishing the law: "Do not think that I have come to abolish the law... So then, whoever (such as Paul?) breaks one of the least of these commandments and teaches others to do likewise will be called least (elachistos, superl. of elachus/little, also used as superl. to mikros) in the kingdom of heaven..." Matt 5:18f. This may be a counter-point against GMark with its reference to "James the lesser/mikros" 15:40, a reference that Matt quotes, but without the mikros (Matt 27:56)

Thus also in Acts, Paul is portrayed doing Jewish things like having Timothy circumcised in order to show that he is not trying to abolish the law.

Acts 16:3
"Paul wanted Timothy to accompany him, so he took him and circumcised him on account of the Jews in that area, for they all knew that his father was a Greek."
davidmartin
Posts: 1589
Joined: Fri Jul 12, 2019 2:51 pm

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

Post by davidmartin »

I doubt Paul was really a pharisee with all the bells and whistles. I think it was Ben who flagged up numerous quotes of the Hebrew scriptures as being very odd and out of kilter by Paul

I look at it this way - let's say the early Christian movement really did exist in Galilee and that area, and that it disagreed with the Pharisees (hardly a revolutionary view). Then it follows that the Pharisees might try to exert influence on that movement and bring it under their wing/control. That is what the 'James' sect is about. I doubt that this James was really a key member of the original movement, however there was another called James who was. But anyway, we have here the attempt to control the movement Paul is clashing with. Josephus tries to deny it, but the early Christian movement was fairly influential I think and they found it hard to suppress
Gd1234
Posts: 18
Joined: Fri Jul 05, 2019 6:03 pm

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

Post by Gd1234 »

There is a lot here that i don't know the answer to but here are my thoughts.

1. Paul can be very blunt when he wants to.. to imply that he was subtilling jabbing james is uncharacteristic of his treatment of Peter and others.
2. Neither james nor Paul were the original 12 apostles. They were both apostles in the sense that they both met jesus and were called to the office. James was more than an apostle. He was head of the church and jesus brother.

3. Paul was a missionary to the gentiles. Peter was to the jews. They were both trying to bring people to the messiah in different target markets

It was determined by James at the council the requirements to gentiles as more limited. This is based on leviticus 17. While paul desired to increase the commonness among the two groups, there were customary differences. James, as well as Paul, had to deal with the differences. My Interpretation of "from james" implied Jewish Christians from James church which had different cultural needs.


Im still.learning about circumcision in second temple judism. This article i found interesting

https://www.jewishencyclopedia.com/arti ... rcumcision


"The issue between the Zealot and Liberal parties regarding the circumcision of proselytes remained an open one in tannaitic times; R. Joshua asserting that the bath, or baptismal rite, rendered a person a full proselyte without circumcision, as Israel, when receiving the Law, required no initiation other than the purificative bath; while R. Eliezer makes circumcision a condition for the admission ofa proselyte, and declares the baptismal rite to be of no consequence"

Possibly there were Jewish Christian zealots who believed in circumcision of gentiles. If so, while james does not attack them. His decree for gentile twice does not make circumcision mandatory and the gospel message clearly focuses on baptism.
gryan
Posts: 1120
Joined: Fri Jun 01, 2018 4:11 am

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

Post by gryan »

Gd1234 wrote: Fri Jul 09, 2021 11:55 am
https://www.jewishencyclopedia.com/arti ... rcumcision


"The issue between the Zealot and Liberal parties regarding the circumcision of proselytes remained an open one in tannaitic times; R. Joshua asserting that the bath, or baptismal rite, rendered a person a full proselyte without circumcision, as Israel, when receiving the Law, required no initiation other than the purificative bath; while R. Eliezer makes circumcision a condition for the admission ofa proselyte, and declares the baptismal rite to be of no consequence"

Possibly there were Jewish Christian zealots who believed in circumcision of gentiles....
Interesting information! I had not considered literature like this on Jewish circumcision practices from the rabbinical Jewish point of view.

I'm pondering.
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 06, 2021 9:54 pm
53. said they to he viz. his(PL) Disciple : the circumcision make-be Benefit Or no
said he to they : was/were he make-be Benefit was/were their father will beget they from their(F) mother they been-circumcised
Rather the circumcision [al] true in Spirit did he find profit all [he]

Luke has no choice in the matter, the text by Thomas is devastatingly deterrent. Once again the dumb, ignorant disciples fulfil their role of satyr chorus, in this grand satyr play
In the thought world of GThomas, is there any reason to identify "James the Just" (saying 12) with the NT blood brother of Jesus named James?

I vote not. The evidence is found in GThomas saying 99 where Jesus does not give his natural "brothers and mother" any special status. It is not blood but doing the will of "the father" that counts as the criterion for being called a "brother." There is a close parallel in meaning with the synoptic gospels. In light of that close parallel and in light of my rereading of the NT record on the Jameses, I think "James the Just" in GThomas was James the son of Alphaeus, i.e. the James of the pillars and of Acts 15. In my rereading of the NT, the voice of Jesus in GThomas 53 is a good match with the James of Gal 2:9 who gave Paul the right hand of fellowship when faced directly with Titus an uncircumcised Greek in their circle, but not a good match with "some from James [the Lord's brother]" (Gal 2:12 aka, the "false brothers" of Gal 2:4 who came in from outside the private meeting, came in by stealth to to try to spy out the freedom of Paul and the pillars).

Given my rereading of the NT Jameses, is there any reason from within the thought world of GThomas (considered as distinct from Hegesippus and others writing after him) for me to think that the "James" called "the Just" in GThomas was the NT blood brother of Jesus, and not someone more like Thomas, one 12 disciples named James, most specifically James son of Alphaeus?
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: Sun Jul 11, 2021 3:40 am
mlinssen wrote: Tue Jul 06, 2021 9:54 pm
53. said they to he viz. his(PL) Disciple : the circumcision make-be Benefit Or no
said he to they : was/were he make-be Benefit was/were their father will beget they from their(F) mother they been-circumcised
Rather the circumcision [al] true in Spirit did he find profit all [he]

Luke has no choice in the matter, the text by Thomas is devastatingly deterrent. Once again the dumb, ignorant disciples fulfil their role of satyr chorus, in this grand satyr play
In the thought world of GThomas, is there any reason to identify "James the Just" (saying 12) with the NT blood brother of Jesus named James?

I vote not. The evidence is found in GThomas saying 99 where Jesus does not give his natural "brothers and mother" any special status. It is not blood but doing the will of "the father" that counts as the criterion for being called a "brother." There is a close parallel in meaning with the synoptic gospels. In light of that close parallel and in light of my rereading of the NT record on the Jameses, I think "James the Just" in GThomas was James the son of Alphaeus, i.e. the James of the pillars and of Acts 15. In my rereading of the NT, the voice of Jesus in GThomas 53 is a good match with the James of Gal 2:9 who gave Paul the right hand of fellowship when faced directly with Titus an uncircumcised Greek in their circle, but not a good match with "some from James [the Lord's brother]" (Gal 2:12 aka, the "false brothers" of Gal 2:4 who came in from outside the private meeting, came in by stealth to to try to spy out the freedom of Paul and the pillars).

Given my rereading of the NT Jameses, is there any reason from within the thought world of GThomas (considered as distinct from Hegesippus and others writing after him) for me to think that the "James" called "the Just" in GThomas was the NT blood brother of Jesus, and not someone more like Thomas, one 12 disciples named James, most specifically James son of Alphaeus?
Bold emphasis mine

Most certainly not. It could be up to debate whether Thomas preceded the canonicals or vice versa (although no one has contested my claim to the former as of yet, amply laid out in the three papers of my Absolute Thomasine Priority series), but the Coptic is unambiguous about logion 12 and Jacob the Righteous - and no one who suggests that it is James has come up with a reasonable explanation of the heaven and earth phrase.
Feel free to consult my Commentary on that, page 89ff:

https://www.academia.edu/46974146/Compl ... n_Content_

I pasted the content of most of that logion already in here:

viewtopic.php?p=123940#p123940
gryan
Posts: 1120
Joined: Fri Jun 01, 2018 4:11 am

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

Post by gryan »

Re: logion 12 and "a reasonable explanation of the heaven and earth phrase."

Logion 12
The disciples say to Jesus, "We know that Thou wilt leave us: who will <then> be the great<est> over us?" Jesus says to them: "Wherever you go, you will turn to James the Just, for whose sake heaven as well as earth was produced." DORESSE
http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/t ... mas12.html

Logion 53
His disciples said to him: "Is circumcision useful or not?" He said to them: "If it was useful, their father would beget them from their mother <already> circumcised. But <only> the true circumcision in the spirit gives all profit!" DORESSE

Gal 6:15
Neither circumcision nor uncircumcision means anything; what counts is the new creation.

Explanation: When James and the other pillars (aka James the Just, as distinct from "James, the lesser"--"the Lord's brother") gave Paul and Barnabus the right hand of fellowship, they were "new creation"--This new creation marked by the wisdom of Jesus in Logion 53. This "new creation" was being formed in the womb of God out of the split between Jerusalem above, the eternal abode of "the Lord" vs "the present Jerusalem" the temporary abode of the Lord's flesh and blood brother, also named James (from the Gal 4 allegory). Paul had been separated (ἀφορίσας) from his mother's womb to participate in this new creation with the likes of "James the Just, for whose sake heaven as well as earth was produced". But when Cephas "separated himself" (ἀφώριζεν) from this new creation fellowship under the influence of "some from James [the Lord's brother]" he was returning to "the present Jerusalem."
Gd1234
Posts: 18
Joined: Fri Jul 05, 2019 6:03 pm

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

Post by Gd1234 »

There's lot we'll never know.

A good book is...

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.

Basically Jesus's brothers were james , Joses Simon, judas. His sisters possibly were salome and Mary (from tradition)

One theory is that Alphaeus/clopas is Mary's second husband. Others believe clopas could be an inlaw or brother of Mary.

Josephus describes james martyrdom as the lords brother.

Church history teaches that Jesus relatives were the initial Jewish church leaders. I don't see any evidence to doubt it.

Some believe that his family came to faith after his resurrection, others believe that james of Alphaeus and judas ( not iscariot) might be his brothers
Others believe james was a brother in a religious sense.

While we don't know everything, we know more than most
Post Reply