GakuseiDon wrote: ↑Tue Nov 23, 2021 12:44 pm
gryan wrote: ↑Tue Nov 23, 2021 7:45 amOn a related note: About a year ago, I asked Ehrman on his blog if he agrees with me that it is exegetically possible that Paul DID consult with "flesh and blood" when he visited James in his status as the Lord's "flesh-and-blood" brother. He agreed that this is possibly what Paul meant.
If my thesis is correct that the Lord's flesh-and-blood brother is the person who Paul was specifically referring to when he said, "I did not immediately consult with
flesh and blood", then it would not be a "contradiction" for Paul to go
immediately to Damascus to speak with a disciple named Ananias.
That's a fascinating insight, gryan! But did they use "flesh and blood" in that way back then to indicate a blood relation? It does seem like applying a modern English reading to a translation of an ancient phrase.
To apply modern English to an ancient phrase would be anachronistic, of course. That would be little like interpreting Galatians by the words of Origen who said this:
From Origen, Against Celsus 1.47b-d
Paul, a genuine disciple of Jesus, says that he regarded this James as a brother of the Lord, not so much
on account of their relationship by blood (δια το προς
αιματος συγγενες), or of their being brought up together, as because of his virtue and doctrine.
----------------
Here Origen is explicitly describing James's "brother" relationship as a "blood relationship." His language seems to be informed by making a connection between "James the Lord's brother" and "consult with flesh and blood". It is to be noted also that "consult" implies an attitude of deference for someone worthy of respect. But I don't relay on that for my interpretation.
It would also be anachronistic to rely on a parallel usage of the phrase "flesh and blood" in GMatt:
Matt 16
15“But what about you?” Jesus asked. “Who do you say I am?”
16Simon Peter answered, “You are the Christ, the Son of the living God.”
17Jesus replied, “Blessed are you, Simon son of Jonah!
For this was not revealed to you by flesh and blood, but by My Father in heaven. 18And I tell you that you are Peter, and on this rock I will build My church...
---------------------------
Note that this saying contrasts two possible sources of "revelation": "flesh and blood" vs "My father in heaven." The contrast is between natural family linage and divine linage. In a natural family view, "James the Lord's brother" (perhaps eldest brother, since he is listed first in gMark) would be next in the royal line after the death of Jesus. But in the Kingdom of God, the paternal line is reckoned in heavenly terms. This gets closer to Paul's meaning, IMHO.
There is also the literary echo of "flesh and blood"/"brother" in Hebrews to be considered:
Hebrews 2
11For both the One who sanctifies and those who are sanctified are of the same family. So Jesus is not ashamed to call them
brothers. 12He says:
“I will proclaim Your name to
My brothers;
I will sing Your praises in the assembly.”
13And again:
“I will put My trust in Him.”
And once again:
“Here am I, and the children God has given Me.”
14Now since the children have
blood and flesh, He too shared in their humanity, so that by His death He might destroy him who holds the power of death, that is, the devil, 15and free those who all their lives were held in slavery by their fear of death.
16For surely it is not the angels He helps, but the descendants of Abraham. 17For this reason
He had to be made like His brothers in every...
---------------
This is IMHO a literary echo the specific "flesh and blood"="brother relationship" used by Paul to describe the relationship between of Jesus and James (according to my reading of Gal). Hebrews generalizes this "blood and flesh"=brother idea to describe Jesus becoming like flesh and blood children of Abraham in every way as a brother. This is a complicated metaphor, but I think the language comes from the author of Hebrews having read Gal as I do, i.e. "flesh and blood"="brother relationship".
That said, it seems to me that the best place to get a sense of what Paul himself meant by "flesh and blood" is his own usage:
1 Cor 15:50
Now I declare to you, brothers, that flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God, nor does the perishable inherit the imperishable.
-------------------
If Paul was referring to James the Lord's brother as "flesh and blood" in the 1 Cor sense, as I think he was, he was implying a contrast between the perishable bond of blood brother relations and the imperishable bond of "brother" relations in the kingdom of God. And it is based on the literary context in Galatians read as a literary unity (chiastic structure, grammar and sense etc) that this is what I think Paul was doing. Paul is saying that James the Lord's brother is a brother in the perishable sense (i.e. "according to the flesh"), in contrast to the those in the audience who are brothers of Jesus in the imperishable sense (i.e. "brothers in the pattern of Isaac, children of promise", Gal 4:21-31).
Initially, Paul "consulted" with James in that he showed respect for his wisdom and presented himself as subordinate member in a consultation; however, in retrospect, he had come to view James's blood relationship with Jesus as perishable one rather than an eternal one.
As I read Galatians, Paul was setting up a contrast of two models: The place to look for the ongoing model of "the life of Jesus" worthy of imitation was not in his "flesh and blood" brother of Jesus but, "in the flesh" of the co-crucified apostle who had, after his third heaven ascent experienced a "thorn in the flesh". Metaphorically, I interpret the blindness of Saul in Acts as Paul's "thorn in the flesh/eyes." The Paul of Galatians/Corinthians claimed to enflesh the meaning of the revealed teaching of the Lord which was given to him in direct, healing response to his prayer for deliverance from the "thorn": "My grace suffices you, for the power is perfected in weakness."
Thoughts?