James 1.1 and 2.1.

[andrewcriddle]

I have admitted and still admit that there is no smoking gun aimed against this reconstruction, which is very close to what I consider to be the mainstream option.

But what do you think of this alternative?

1. James is the leader of a special group called "the brothers of the Lord." He is not related physically to Jesus, nor does he believe Jesus to be the Messiah. It is known as a conscious datum (and not merely by the lack of evidence to the contrary) that he does not believe in Jesus. He wields tremendous influence among Jewish sectarians (your Josephan Fourth Philosophy).
2. The urge to make James a Christian in the tradition would have been intense, I imagine, given Paul's dealings with him and the reach of his influence. So some tradent(s) baptized him posthumously as a believer.
3. At roughly the same time, some other tradent(s) thought that "brother of the Lord" meant "physical brother of Jesus," and brought Jesus into James' family accordingly.
4. The above two moves were not made across the entire tradition equally and immediately. Some tradents (Luke, the authors of James and Jude, and Thomas) remained either uninformed or unconvinced that James was Jesus' physical brother, while other tradents (Matthew, Mark, John) remained uninformed or unconvinced that James was a believer and had to make out that the James in the triumvirate of Peter, James, and John was not actually the brother of Jesus; he was some other James (the son of Zebedee).

I imagine you will find my interpretation of "brother of the Lord" difficult, and that you will want to interpret Mark as standing, through Peter, closer to the original tradition than this theory would imply. Is that correct? Is there anything else?

This scenario would explain why, in your words, Luke "chose not to mention" that James was Jesus' brother: Luke was either not aware or not convinced that he was. Either his copy of Galatians lacked 1.18 (like some ancient copies apparently did) or Luke interpreted that line in the same way that my tentative reconstruction does; and it would be easy to assume that Jesus' brother James in Mark was a different James, since that was a pretty common name, especially given that Mark 15.40 calls him "James the Less" instead of something uniquely designating James of Jerusalem (James the Just or what have you).

ETA: In short, it seems possible to me that the authors/editors of our extant texts were not always sure which figures were the same and which were different, and they theorized on the matter as best they could given their biases, the same as we do given ours.

I have difficulty in regarding 1 Corinthians 9:5

Do we not have the right to take along a believing wife, as do the other apostles and the brothers of the Lord and Cephas?

as referring to a non-Christian group of "brothers of the Lord" .

Andrew Criddle

What I wonder is whether we are applying both the term ("Christian") and the concept too rigidly too early. We pay lip service to the idea that there was no necessarily great divide between Christianity and Judaism as early as Paul, but then I am not sure that we always follow through on that insight. Doubtless this is at least partly because Paul himself makes such a huge deal of Jesus Messiah/Christ. But would other members of Judaic sects have done the same? Would they have even cared that much? We wind up treating Paul as from one religion and mainstream Jews as from another, but what if, to apply a purely Christian analogy, Judaism at large plays the role of Christianity, James' sect plays the role of Lutheranism, and Paul's sect plays the role of breakaway Anabaptists or whatnot? Not a perfect analogy, but I am seeking something that makes Paul's particular messianic concerns as unimportant and possibly even weird to James as the Anabaptists' insistence on adult baptism was to the first Lutherans, even though both groups stood under the same overarching Protestant umbrella (and, indeed, the Anabaptists would not even have existed without Lutherans having broken ground first).

In fact, what if that triumvirate of James, Cephas, and John was ecumenical? What if the threesome represented, not a single sect, but rather three separate sects united under one banner for various purposes? In that case Cephas perhaps represented a position more sympathetic to Paul than James did. (I have no idea about John. Does anybody?)

Bear in mind that I am likely to be completely wrong about this. But I want to grasp fully exactly why. What prevents it?

One issue is that IIUC you are suggesting that the "brothers of the Lord" are sectarian Palestinian Jews. The "brothers of the Lord" in 1 Corinthians appear to be involved in missionary activity outside Palestine. (This is the point about being entitled to expenses for taking a wife along with you.) The whole issue in 1 Corinthians 9 about the entitlements of those who preach the Gospel implies IMHO that Paul regards the "brothers of the Lord" as being, like him and Cephas and the other apostles, preachers of the Gospel.

Andrew Criddle

[Ben C. Smith]

I have admitted and still admit that there is no smoking gun aimed against this reconstruction, which is very close to what I consider to be the mainstream option.

But what do you think of this alternative?

1. James is the leader of a special group called "the brothers of the Lord." He is not related physically to Jesus, nor does he believe Jesus to be the Messiah. It is known as a conscious datum (and not merely by the lack of evidence to the contrary) that he does not believe in Jesus. He wields tremendous influence among Jewish sectarians (your Josephan Fourth Philosophy).
2. The urge to make James a Christian in the tradition would have been intense, I imagine, given Paul's dealings with him and the reach of his influence. So some tradent(s) baptized him posthumously as a believer.
3. At roughly the same time, some other tradent(s) thought that "brother of the Lord" meant "physical brother of Jesus," and brought Jesus into James' family accordingly.
4. The above two moves were not made across the entire tradition equally and immediately. Some tradents (Luke, the authors of James and Jude, and Thomas) remained either uninformed or unconvinced that James was Jesus' physical brother, while other tradents (Matthew, Mark, John) remained uninformed or unconvinced that James was a believer and had to make out that the James in the triumvirate of Peter, James, and John was not actually the brother of Jesus; he was some other James (the son of Zebedee).

I imagine you will find my interpretation of "brother of the Lord" difficult, and that you will want to interpret Mark as standing, through Peter, closer to the original tradition than this theory would imply. Is that correct? Is there anything else?

This scenario would explain why, in your words, Luke "chose not to mention" that James was Jesus' brother: Luke was either not aware or not convinced that he was. Either his copy of Galatians lacked 1.18 (like some ancient copies apparently did) or Luke interpreted that line in the same way that my tentative reconstruction does; and it would be easy to assume that Jesus' brother James in Mark was a different James, since that was a pretty common name, especially given that Mark 15.40 calls him "James the Less" instead of something uniquely designating James of Jerusalem (James the Just or what have you).

ETA: In short, it seems possible to me that the authors/editors of our extant texts were not always sure which figures were the same and which were different, and they theorized on the matter as best they could given their biases, the same as we do given ours.

I have difficulty in regarding 1 Corinthians 9:5

Do we not have the right to take along a believing wife, as do the other apostles and the brothers of the Lord and Cephas?

as referring to a non-Christian group of "brothers of the Lord" .

Andrew Criddle

What I wonder is whether we are applying both the term ("Christian") and the concept too rigidly too early. We pay lip service to the idea that there was no necessarily great divide between Christianity and Judaism as early as Paul, but then I am not sure that we always follow through on that insight. Doubtless this is at least partly because Paul himself makes such a huge deal of Jesus Messiah/Christ. But would other members of Judaic sects have done the same? Would they have even cared that much? We wind up treating Paul as from one religion and mainstream Jews as from another, but what if, to apply a purely Christian analogy, Judaism at large plays the role of Christianity, James' sect plays the role of Lutheranism, and Paul's sect plays the role of breakaway Anabaptists or whatnot? Not a perfect analogy, but I am seeking something that makes Paul's particular messianic concerns as unimportant and possibly even weird to James as the Anabaptists' insistence on adult baptism was to the first Lutherans, even though both groups stood under the same overarching Protestant umbrella (and, indeed, the Anabaptists would not even have existed without Lutherans having broken ground first).

In fact, what if that triumvirate of James, Cephas, and John was ecumenical? What if the threesome represented, not a single sect, but rather three separate sects united under one banner for various purposes? In that case Cephas perhaps represented a position more sympathetic to Paul than James did. (I have no idea about John. Does anybody?)

Bear in mind that I am likely to be completely wrong about this. But I want to grasp fully exactly why. What prevents it?

One issue is that IIUC you are suggesting that the "brothers of the Lord" are sectarian Palestinian Jews. The "brothers of the Lord" in 1 Corinthians appear to be involved in missionary activity outside Palestine. (This is the point about being entitled to expenses for taking a wife along with you.) The whole issue in 1 Corinthians 9 about the entitlements of those who preach the Gospel implies IMHO that Paul regards the "brothers of the Lord" as being, like him and Cephas and the other apostles, preachers of the Gospel.

The "brothers of the Lord" would not be equivalent to sectarian Jews in my view; they would be a missionary subgroup of a Jewish sect. Paul's complaint would be similar to a Baptist missionary asking, "Why can we not use bicycles? Mormons do it, and it works for them."

[andrewcriddle]

One issue is that IIUC you are suggesting that the "brothers of the Lord" are sectarian Palestinian Jews. The "brothers of the Lord" in 1 Corinthians appear to be involved in missionary activity outside Palestine. (This is the point about being entitled to expenses for taking a wife along with you.) The whole issue in 1 Corinthians 9 about the entitlements of those who preach the Gospel implies IMHO that Paul regards the "brothers of the Lord" as being, like him and Cephas and the other apostles, preachers of the Gospel.

The "brothers of the Lord" would not be equivalent to sectarian Jews in my view; they would be a missionary subgroup of a Jewish sect. Paul's complaint would be similar to a Baptist missionary asking, "Why can we not use bicycles? Mormons do it, and it works for them."

In 1 Corinthians 9:5

Do we not have the right to take along a believing wife, as do the other apostles and the brothers of the Lord and Cephas?

the other apostles and Cephas seem in terms of Paul's usage elsewhere to be believers in Jesus as the resurrected Messiah. This makes it probable IMHO that the "brothers of the Lord" hold similar beliefs.

(Does your argument require that 1 Corinthians 15:3-9 is mostly or entirely an interpolation ?)

Andrew Criddle

[Ben C. Smith]

Does your argument require that 1 Corinthians 15:3-9 is mostly or entirely an interpolation?

Oh, yes. Very much so. If it is not, then the approach I am exploring here dies a sudden and violent death.

[Ken Olson]

Liberty or freedom (eleutheria) is not an especially common word in the NT ... When Paul uses it, he seems to mean especially freedom from the Mosaic law, for example in his account of the Antioch incident, in which the “circumcision faction” apparently discovered that Jews were eating with uncircumcised Gentiles at the church in Antioch:

2.4 But because of false brethren secretly brought in, who slipped in to spy out our freedom which we have in Christ Jesus, that they might bring us into bondage

If, as it seems from your statement here, you think Galatians 2.4 is about Paul's story of the kerfuffle in Antioch over table regulations --- would you explain further why you think this is the case?

Right. I didn't really make clear what the relationship of Gal. 2.4 to the Antioch incident in Gal. 2.11-14 actually was when I said "for example." I wasn't trying to make a claim about the relative chronology of the Jerusalem meeting in Gal. 2.1-10 and and the Antioch kerfuffle in Gal.11-14. So let me defend the claim that the "freedom in Christ" in 2.4 includes (at least) freedom from the ritual aspects of the Mosaic law in 2.1-10 and that this freedom from the ritual aspects of the Mosaic law is consistent with what he says elsewhere in the epistle.

Pauls says he went up to Jerusalem because of a revelation in v. 3, but the issue was the "gospel that I proclaim among the Gentiles," (v. 2). He seems to count the fact that Titus, who was a Greek was not compelled to be circumcised as a victory in v. 3. It would seem that the false brethren were opposed to Paul's gospel and the "freedom we have in Christ." Paul then describes how God gave him the gospel for the uncircumcised. Given what he's just said about Titus and what he says elsewhere in the epistle, I take this freedom to mean he thinks Gentiles can be "in Christ" (leaving aside what that means for the moment) as Gentiles -- they do not not need to be circumcised or, by extension, follow the rest of the Mosaic/Jewish law such as the dietary requirements and observe the sabbath and other holy days. While I've seen people who go the other way, I actually assume the Antioch incident was later and that Paul thought Peter was backsliding on what had been agreed in v. 9 (accepting uncircumcised Gentiles as brothers in Christ) and that he had implicitly accepted before the certain people arrived from James in v. 12.

[robert j]

Right. I didn't really make clear what the relationship of Gal. 2.4 to the Antioch incident in Gal. 2.11-14 actually was when I said "for example."

Thanks for the clarification.

I think this part of Paul’s story about the visit to Jerusalem is his strongest point in the pericope – that is, that the leadership group did not require that the Gentile Titus be circumcised. This in light of the primary issue in the entire epistle that some among the Gentile Galatians were considering getting circumcised. A turn of events that apparently set Paul’s hair on fire.

I’ve always thought of Galatians 2.4 as the “peeping-tom verse”. In Paul’s story, he identified Titus as a Greek. But for the Jerusalemites, this would only be enough to raise suspicion. After all, Titus was a co-worker of Paul, a known Jew, and it would seem that Titus would be a fellow believer in the God of the Jews. Certainly in those days there were a fair number of ethnic Greeks that had converted and undergone circumcision.

How, in Paul’s story, would the Jerusalemites know for sure that Titus wasn’t circumcised?

They had to peek. In Galatians 2.4, I think, Paul was implying those so-called “false brothers” peeked-in on Paul and Titus when they were getting dressed or undressed or washing or otherwise with their togas down.

[John2]

Just a question re: "who is called (ho legomenos) Christ" in Ant. 20.9.1. How common is "ho legomenos" in ancient writings? I know people like to point out Mt. 1:16, but I'm wondering about outside of Christian writings.

[Ben C. Smith]

Just a question re: "who is called (ho legomenos) Christ" in Ant. 20.9.1. How common is "ho legomenos" in ancient writings? I know people like to point out Mt. 1:16, but I'm wondering about outside of Christian writings.

Pretty common. The TLG just gave me 494 hits for that phrase, and that is just the nominative. I did not check the accusative, the dative, or the genitive, nor anything in the plural. Just the nominative singular.

[gmx]

Just thinking this through, in my naive way.

If James is from a pre-Christian community, as per Ben's hypothesis, and therefore very early, and therefore pre-orthodoxy...

• is James a genuine letter?
• and if so, from who to whom?
• why would such an early / pre-orthodox epistle gain such late attestation / acceptance? ie What's its damage?
• what unique doctrinal positions does the epistle espouse that make it useful / justifiable for the formative orthodox church to adopt at such a late stage?

[Ben C. Smith]

Just thinking this through, in my naive way.

If James is from a pre-Christian community, as per Ben's hypothesis, and therefore very early, and therefore pre-orthodoxy...

Just to be clear, this thesis does not require the epistle of James to be early. It requires the person known as James to be early, and it posits that he was not a believer. The epistle could be either genuine or the product of an admirer who likewise was not a believer.

is James a genuine letter?

I do not know. I wish I could figure out a way to decide.

and if so, from who to whom?

If it is genuine, then under the conditions of the thesis I am positing that it came from the James with whom Paul claims to have had dealings in Galatians.

why would such an early / pre-orthodox epistle gain such late attestation / acceptance? ie What's its damage?

Because it was not Christian. It would have influenced Christian thought, in much the same way that James influenced Christian thought, without actually being able to be considered Christian or authoritative. A possible analogy is how Martin Luther influenced all subsequent Protestant thought, even among groups (such as the Anabaptists) who would consider him little better than the Catholics.

what unique doctrinal positions does the epistle espouse that make it useful / justifiable for the formative orthodox church to adopt at such a late stage?

It is not so much what it contained as what it would imply. If this letter were genuinely Jacobian, and if the James in question were the James with whom Paul dealt in Galatians, then why the heck was the great apostle Paul subjecting his gospel to this nonbeliever? No, the thinking would go, James must have been a believer. The (late first or early second century) Christians thinking along these lines would be making exactly the same mistake as modern exegetes (ex hypothesi) who import later ideas about how separate Christianity was from Judaism into this earlier time.

On a separate but related topic, Andrew has certainly felt the force of what to me seems like the most potent argument so far against this thesis: it requires at least three controversial positions all to be true. 1 Corinthians 15.7 has to be part of an interpolation; Josephus' statement about James in Antiquities 20.9.1 §200-203 ought likewise to include an interpolation; and "brother of the Lord" in Galatians 1.19 has either to be an interpolation, to be part of an interpolation, or to mean something other than a physical brother. On the one hand, none of these positions is original to me, and all are possible; on the other hand, it is disconcerting that they all have to land the right way for me, no exceptions.