Was "James the Lord's brother" Paul's thorn?

[John2]

I think the answer is in Gal 4:13-14, where Paul uses the same word he uses in 2 Cor. 12:9 to describe his physical condition ("weakness" in some translations).

Now you know that in weakness [astheneian] of the flesh I proclaimed the gospel the first time to you [Berean Literal], and you did not despise that which was a trial to you in my bodily condition, nor express contempt [NAS] ...

I think this is the same "weakness" that Paul talks about in 2 Cor. 12:7-10 (which he extends to include all of his sufferings).

So to keep me from becoming conceited, I was given a thorn in my flesh, a messenger of Satan, to torment me. Three times I pleaded with the Lord to take it away from me. But He said to me, “My grace is sufficient for you, for My power is perfected in weakness [astheneia]." Therefore I will boast all the more gladly in my weaknesses, so that the power of Christ may rest on me. That is why, for the sake of Christ, I delight in weaknesses, in insults, in hardships, in persecutions, in difficulties. For when I am weak, then I am strong.

And as noted here regarding the meaning of "messenger" in 12:7:

(ággelos) is used 176 times in the NT (usually of heavenly angels), but only the context determines whether a human or celestial messenger is intended.


https://biblehub.com/greek/32.htm

In this context I think the "messenger" is an angel given the association with Satan (as per Mt. 25:41:"Then He will say to those on His left, ‘Depart from Me, you who are cursed, into the eternal fire prepared for the devil and his angels'").

And I think Paul is the one who had the revelations he describes in 12:1-4. It strikes me as false modesty, since his whole thing is about God's power being "perfected in weakness."

If James if the one who had these revelations, how does that square with the idea that Paul thought of him as a messenger of Satan, when he says "I will boast about such a man" who had the revelations in 12:5-7? How can the same person be someone Paul would boast about and a messenger of Satan?

I will boast about such a man, but I will not boast about myself, except in my weaknesses ... But I refrain, so no one will credit me with more than he sees in me or hears from me, or because of these surpassingly great revelations.

Why would Paul worry about being credited for "these surpassingly great revelations" if he's not the one who had them? And what would he have to be "conceited" about if not "surpassingly great revelations" when that's the only thing he mentions in 12:1-6?

So it looks to me like Paul is trying to have his cake and eat it too here. He wants people to know in an indirect way that he had "surpassingly great revelations" (as per Gal 1:11-12: "For I certify to you, brothers, that the gospel I preached was ... received ... by revelation from Jesus Christ") and would boast about "such a man" who had them, but he also believed that God's power was "perfected in weakness" and prefers to boast "all the more gladly" about that.

[ABuddhist]

@ ABuddhist

Re: "Such a thing, though, is not said by Paul..."

What about Gal 1:16-19? That includes James the Lord's brother as belonging to the apostles, but as I read it, Paul also says that he discerned him to be qualitatively different, i.e. preaching a qualitatively different Gospel which did not exist anymore.

That reference to James as the "Lord's brother":

1. has been suggested to be an interpolation by scholars, including 1 arguing against mythicism (p. 76 of Jesus Not A Myth by A. D. Howell Smith);

2. is not explicitly saying that James was Jesus's brother but rather the Lord's brother - which could refer to YHWH;

3. even if accepted as referring to Jesus, could refer to non-physical brotherhood. Catholics (the largest sect of Christians) interpret it this way, and Hong Xiuquan claimed during the 19th century to be Jesus's brother based upon a visionary experience, but he persuaded enough people to believe him that he conquered 1/3 of China, more-or-less.

[gryan]

Hong Xiuquan claimed during the 19th century to be Jesus's brother based upon a visionary experience, but he persuaded enough people to believe him that he conquered 1/3 of China, more-or-less.

Amazing! I had not hear of that but here it is, on wikipedia:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hong_Xiuquan

I'm protestant, not Catholic.

Also, I'm schooled in the sort of exegesis that aims at discerning original meaning and authorial intent. What is your view of that way of reading Galatians vis a vis Mark?

[ABuddhist]

Also, I'm schooled in the sort of exegesis that aims at discerning original meaning and authorial intent. What is your view of that way of reading Galatians vis a vis Mark?

In all honesty, I an not sure what the original meaning may have been - as a nonmythicist, I think that it is possible that Jesus had a brother, but I just get exasperated when people think that the passage in Galatians settles both the historicity and the James as brother issues. I can certainly understand Mark's negative portrayal of James Jesus's brother as a pro-Pauline reaction to a version of Galatians identical to what we have. Again, though, the Pauline corpus is so prone to interpolations - even Marcion, their first compiler, claimed to be restoring corrupted texts from his teachers' corruptions - that such a text, even if inspiring GMark, may not have been original. I am not saying that I believe such a thesis, but I cannot dismiss it outright.

[davidmartin]

Paul's positive portrayal of weakness is opposed in the Odes pretty much consistently many times the odist expresses vulnerability but as an undesirable condition to be rectified by the Lord. If tension is found between Paul and James it's also found between Paul and the Odes
"The members of my body grew in strength
so they won’t be falling away from His power.
Instead, weaknesses fled and it stood for the Lord by His will
because His kingdom is upright
O Lord, because of those who are flawed don’t withdraw Your Word from me
and neither withhold Your perfection because of their works
The light shall not be conquered by darkness nor shall truth flee from falsehood.
Your own right hand is building up our salvation into victory"

[John T]

James is not the "thorn" in Paul's side but rather a lung disease Paul believes was given to him by Satan.

Paul believed he had superior knowledge of the Gospel (grace through faith) than the Jewish/Christians who sought grace through works (James). However, Paul was restricted in preaching this message to the masses because he was tormented by a physical aliment that prevented him from bellowing it out amidst the crowds in the public squares. For not only was Paul untrained in speech techniques (2 Cor 11:6) but his physical condition did not allow it. This thorn in the side is likely a lung disease, most likely tuberculosis.

Who wants to listen to someone spitting and coughing up blood while they are preaching the gospel?

The breath/lungs are considered spirit (Platonism). The disease of tuberculosis being evil would be construed as to have originated from an evil spirit. i.e. Satan.

[gryan]

If James if the one who had these revelations, how does that square with the idea that Paul thought of him as a messenger of Satan, when he says "I will boast about such a man" who had the revelations in 12:5-7? How can the same person be someone Paul would boast about and a messenger of Satan?

Which James?

My thesis is that there were two leaders in Jerusalem named "James". The key to understanding the Antioch incident is to differentiate these two Jameses. Parallels between Galatians and Mark provide vital clues to the ancient identifications that predate the argument for the perpetual virginity of Mary.

1. The recognized pillar named James -- James son of Alphaeus -- is the one who had a vision of the risen Lord similar enough to Paul's so that James extended the right hand of fellowship (Cor 15:7 and Gal 2:9). He was "great" and thus appropriately one of "the recognized ones." Jesus spoke of true greatness among his followers:

Mark 10:42
So Jesus called them (the 12) together and said, “You know that those recognized (οἱ δοκοῦντες) as rulers of the Gentiles lord it over them, and their great ones (οἱ μεγάλοι) exercise authority over them. 43But it shall not be this way among you. Instead, whoever wants to become great (μέγας) among you must be your servant, 44and whoever wants to be first must be the slave of all.

The "James" named first among "the recognized ones" (οἱ δοκοῦντες, James and Cephas and John, Gal 2:9) was first and great by the standard of Jesus. He was one of the 12 just like Cephas/Peter and John son of Zebedee.

2. The "brother of the Lord" named "James" was not one of the 12 and he was not one of the ones recognized to be pillars. Mark called him "Ἰακώβου τοῦ μικροῦ". In Greek, the opposite of opposite of μικρος is μεγας. James is called the micro James to differentiate him from the mega James. Mary the mother of Joses was also the mother of James the micro and of Jesus, in natural terms (Mark 15:47, 15:40 and 6:3). But she is not called the "mother" of Jesus by the narrator because Jesus said in effect: biological motherhood matters nothing in the Kingdom (Mark 3:35).

"The brother of the Lord" named James who Paul consulted with respect to his vision of the Lord may not have had similar enough vision to affirm Paul's. Paul wrote: "Of the apostles, I discerned no qualitatively different one except James the Lord's brother." Paul was calling him a false apostle.

So, two very different Jameses from Paul's point of view in Galatians. "Some from James" of Gal 2:12 were from the micro James who practiced circumcision, not from mega James who had a larger vision and who was represented in Acts 15 as deciding in favor of Paul's gentile mission without such extra burdens as circumcision.

@John2,
I'm repeating myself from earlier posts, but I'm practicing my argument. Thanks for engaging with me on this topic which is of great interest to me at this time.

What do you think of my method of differentiating two Jameses?

[gryan]

James is not the "thorn" in Paul's side but rather a lung disease Paul believes was given to him by Satan.

Paul believed he had superior knowledge of the Gospel (grace through faith) than the Jewish/Christians who sought grace through works (James).

@John T

One of my main questions is Which James? One of the 12, James son of Alphaeus? Or one of Jesus blood brothers?

Have you considered this question?

[gryan]

...If tension is found between Paul and James it's also found between Paul and the Odes
"The members of my body grew in strength
so they won’t be falling away from His power.
Instead, weaknesses fled and it stood for the Lord by His will
because His kingdom is upright
O Lord, because of those who are flawed don’t withdraw Your Word from me
and neither withhold Your perfection because of their works
The light shall not be conquered by darkness nor shall truth flee from falsehood.
Your own right hand is building up our salvation into victory"

Beautiful quotation. I like the contrast with "perfection" which is Paul's goal too.

I agree. I think Paul's paradoxical boast in weakness went against the ordinary Jewish common sense of his time with respect to "weakness".

My guess is that those who said "his body is weak and his speech counts for nothing" perceived Paul's oratory presentation to be effeminate and this not a model worthy of imitation.

[gryan]

Also, I'm schooled in the sort of exegesis that aims at discerning original meaning and authorial intent. What is your view of that way of reading Galatians vis a vis Mark?

... I just get exasperated when people think that the passage in Galatians settles both the historicity and the James as brother issues.

Yes, I understand your exasperation. As for me, historicity is not my main aim. I read Galatians because it is a formative text in the Christian tradition of which I am a participant. I want to know the roots of my religion. I want to be clear on my spiritual lineage.

It is with great interest that I read the scholarly attempt to identify Galatians which is attested in Marcion viewtopic.php?f=3&t=1836.

But I do not infer from this reconstruction that everything unattested is later interpolation. My research has convinced me that NT Galatians is a mostly coherent document as it stands. I know of three exceptions which I regard as interpolations:

1. "...the textual evidence indicates that the earliest form of the [non-Pauline] marginal note on
the text of Gal 4:25 reads τὸ γὰρ Σινᾶ ὄρος ἐστὶν ἐν τῇ Ἀραβίᾳ (“for Sinai is a mountain in
Arabia”). Critical editions should reflect that wording."
https://dukespace.lib.duke.edu/dspace/b ... _11426.pdf

2. As argued by Victorinus, Tertullian (against Marcion) and as assumed by Irenaeus and the old Latin text, I think οἷς οὐδὲ in Galatians 2:5 is a non-Pauline interpolation. There is only one Greek text with this reading: D. I understand this text evidence an ongoing living tradition, not a scribal error. But my primary basis for saying it is an interpolation is a source critical argument. I think the author of Acts was familiar with the positive reading of Galatians 2:5. The most relevant verses are these:

Gal 2:3-10
Yet not even Titus, who was with me, was compelled to be circumcised, even though he was a Greek. But because of false brothers διὰ... τοὺς... ψευδαδέλφους who came in secretly to spy on our freedom that we have in Christ Jesus, in order to enslave us, we gave place to them in subordination for a time, so that the truth of the gospel might continue towards you, but from [i.e. by the agency of] those recognized to be something--Whatever they once were does not concern me (God does not latch onto the outward face of a person), for the recognized ones did not consult me. 7On the contrary, ἰδόντες [seeing] that I have been entrusted with the gospel… 9 and γνόντες [knowing] the grace having been given to me, James [son of Alphaeus] and Cephas [Peter] and John [son of Zebedee], the ones recognized to be pillars, gave to me and Barnabas the right hand of fellowship, in order that we go to the Gentiles; but, they to the circumcision. 10 They asked only that we should be mindful of the poor, also the same thing that I was eager to do.

Compare Acts 16:1-4
Paul came to Derbe and then to Lystra, where he found a disciple named Timothy, the son of a believing Jewish woman and a Greek father. 2The brothers in Lystra and Iconium spoke well of him. 3Paul wanted Timothy to accompany him, so he took him and circumcised him because of the Jews διὰ τοὺς Ἰουδαίους in that area, for they all knew that his father was a Greek. 4As they went from town to town, they delivered the decisions handed down by the apostles and elders in Jerusalem for the people to obey.

I think the positive reading of Galatians was a source for Acts.


3. In the above translation, I have left out Gal 2:7b-8 which I also regard as a likely interpolation. The argument has been made convincingly by William O. Walker in Catholic Biblical Quarterly. Note how well "seeing" and "knowing" work together without the intervening material!

I'm curious for you thoughts on these three arguments.