Biblical Criticism & History Forum - earlywritings.com

to hakeem,

I am not arguing about whether or not ex-President Trump had a brother

I was not arguing about that. You misread my post.

I am not arguing about whether or not ex-President Trump had a brother. I am specifically dealing with the claim made in Galatians 1.19 where an Epistle writer implied he only met Peter and another apostle James the Lord's brother,

It is impossible to corroborate the claim that there was an apostle called James the Lord's brother in Galatians 1.19 by using all the Epistles alone since there is no list of the Apostles in all the so-called Pauline letters.

NT lists of the Apostles are found in the Gospels and Acts of the Apostles and all of them do not show that there was an apostle, by any name, who was the brother of Jesus.

But Peter (called Cephas by Paul) is not said again to be an apostle: see Gal 2:7, 2:8, 2:11 & 2:14, and 1 Co 1:12, 1:32, 9:5 & 15:5
Why would it be different for James?

The 1st Apocalypse of James

It is the Lord who spoke with me: "See now the completion of my redemption. I have given you a sign of these things, James, my brother. For not without reason have I called you my brother, although you are not my brother materially.

In the 1st Apocalypse of James (3rd century), the author took in account the godly conception, and therefore wrote "you are not my brother materially"

You have proved my point. It is impossible to date any event with respect to James in the Pauline Epistles without using Acts of the Apostles and the Gospels. All the Epistles are historically and chronologically bankrupt.

You forgot to include Paul's letters, as I said earlier:

Cordially, Bernard

to gryan,

In contrast, L. Michael White's From Jesus to Christianity states: "The blowup with Peter was a total failure of political bravado, and Paul soon left Antioch as persona non grata, never again to return."

That's what my research concluded.

Carlson writes: "The most historically significant difference between this study’s critical text and the text of the Nestle-Aland edition is the change of a single letter at Gal 2:12. Rather than stating “when they came” (ἦλθον), referring to some people from James, the best attested reading states, “when he came” (ἦλθεν), referring to Cephas. Yet this tiny difference in the text results in a markedly different understanding of the Antioch incident. With the reading of the NestleAland text, on the one hand, Cephas came to Antioch, ate with the local gentiles, but then was intimidated into changing his mind. With this study’s critical text, on the other hand, Cephas came to Antioch with no intention of eating with the gentiles, and this is what Paul objected to." From Text of Galatians and its History by S. C. Carlson.

From http://www.laparola.net/greco/index.php

ἦλθεν is in the minority of texts, but in the earliest (p46, ‭א, B).
So the minority text would read:
RSV "For before certain men came from James, he ate with the Gentiles; but when he [they] came he drew back and separated himself, fearing the circumcision party."
That does not make sense to me: the arrival of James' men made Peter change his ways.
Why the change to "he": I assume not to make James part of "the circumcision party".

Cordially, Bernard

Bernard Muller wrote: ↑Tue Feb 09, 2021 11:44 am
Why the change to "he": I assume not to make James part of "the circumcision party".

The Antioch Crisis, with TWO Jameses and the textual variant ("when they he came"):

Paul was trying to convince the "pillars"--"James [the Less], Cephas, and John"--and in particular, "Cephas," not to be intimidated by
"the ones who came from James"/the "false brothers"/"the circumcision party" (who claimed as their authority, "James the brother of Lord", the son of "Mary, the mother of the Lord"). They didn't come to Antioch, and they didn't "win." Cephas was ok with Paul's confrontation.

This fits with the tradition that Paul and the "pillars" came to a basic agreement. How else would we have Acts of the Apostles and epistles titled "James" (assuming that the "brother of the Lord" was not the author) and "1, 2, 3, John" and "1, 2 Peter"?

I'm looking for coherent and authentic reading of what Paul and his first readers would have understood. Also, strange as this may sound, I've had a hard time getting the Antioch story until now. And I think the reason I'm getting into it is that there are actually other people who have thought about it in some detail. I find that difficult to find.

I know it is different from every published reading, but does it sound plausible?

to gryan,

The Antioch Crisis, with TWO Jameses and the textual variant ("when they he came"):

Paul was trying to convince the "pillars"--"James [the Less], Cephas, and John"--and in particular, "Cephas," not to be intimidated by
"the ones who came from James"/the "false brothers"/"the circumcision party" (who claimed as their authority, "James the brother of Lord", the son of "Mary, the mother of the Lord"). They didn't come to Antioch, and they didn't "win." Cephas was ok with Paul's confrontation.

This fits with the tradition that Paul and the "pillars" came to a basic agreement. How else would we have Acts of the Apostles and epistles titled "James" (assuming that the "brother of the Lord" was not the author) and "1, 2, 3, John" and "1, 2 Peter"?

I'm looking for coherent and authentic reading of what Paul and his first readers would have understood.

I know it is different, but does it sound plausible?

It cannot be James the less. As I explained before:
In Galatians, James is first mentioned as "brother of the Lord". So when Paul mentioned James again, with no other James in between (like James the less), the James of Gal 2:9 and Gal 2:12 have to be that James previously said to be brother of the Lord.
If Paul had James the pillar being James the less, he would have indicated so.

My example to hakeem:

This is the proper syntax, still in use today, like on a CNN today internet article:
Sen. Bill Cassidy, a Republican from Louisiana, was the only GOP senator to change his vote on the constitutionality of former President Trump's impeachment.
Cassidy previously voted in favor of GOP Sen. Rand Paul’s recent motion that impeachment after Trump left office is unconstitutional.
However, speaking to CNN earlier, Cassidy said he heard a “very good opening” by the House impeachment managers.


That shows that before James' men came to Antioch, Peter ate with the Gentiles. He did not refrain to eat with Gentiles as soon as he came to Antioch.

Cephas was ok with Paul's confrontation.

It does not look like that:

"the ones who came from James"/the "false brothers"/"the circumcision party"

Paul did not accuse James' men to be false brothers.

Cordially, Bernard

Bernard Muller wrote: ↑Tue Feb 09, 2021 3:34 pm
It cannot be James the less. As I explained before:
In Galatians, James is first mentioned as "brother of the Lord". So when Paul mentioned James again, with no other James in between (like James the less), the James of Gal 2:9 and Gal 2:12 have to be that James previously said to be brother of the Lord.
If Paul had James the pillar being James the less, he would have indicated so.

My example to hakeem:

Simple rule of writing: like at first in a text, seeing "ex-president Trump", and then further only "Trump". Nobody will think that "Trump" could be the ex-president's brother, or sister, or son, or daughter, or others named Trump with no blood relation with the ex-president.

Sorry, I'm not convinced.

Fact is, there is plenty of context to make a distinction. There are lots of Jamses! One is called "the brother of the Lord". Another is called one of the "pillars". That is different. Also, with Papias as key: One has Mary "mother of the Lord" as his mother, and the other has Mary, the mother of "a bishop" as his mother.

Also, Cephas / Peter had at least three associates named "James" all of them who lived in Jerusalem at one time or another. So there is reason to suspect a possible differentiation.

Also, 14 years has passed. That's long enough for someone named "James" to get martyred, as you well know. So if James the Lord's brother was named as such to differentiate him from one "James" who was associated with Cephas and John, then why not also to differentiate him from yet another "James" who was a known "bishop" --a "pillar"?

to gryan,
It does not look you read my earlier post. I don't blame you on that because we posted at the same time.

So I'll only answer new points you brought in:

Fact is, there is plenty of context to make a distinction. There are lots of Jamses! One is called "the brother of the Lord". Another is called one of the "pillars". That is different. Also, with Papias as key: One has Mary "mother of the Lord" as his mother, and the other has Mary, the mother of "a bishop" as his mother.

I don't see why a James, a brother of Jesus cannot become a pillar of the church of Jerusalem.

Papias wrote in the 2nd century. I doubt that Papias (or rather the pseudo-Papias writing later) would know who the different "Mary" were. And James as "bishop" appears in writing of the end of the 2nd century (Clement of Alexandria).
Once again, the passage has Jesus' brothers born from a mother other than Mary the mother of the Lord, seemingly to conform with the myth of Mary the perpetual virgin.

Cordially, Bernard

Bernard Muller wrote: ↑Tue Feb 09, 2021 6:16 pm
So I'll only answer new points you brought in:

Fact is, there is plenty of context to make a distinction. There are lots of Jamses! One is called "the brother of the Lord". Another is called one of the "pillars". That is different. Also, with Papias as key: One has Mary "mother of the Lord" as his mother, and the other has Mary, the mother of "a bishop" as his mother.

I don't see why a James, a brother of Jesus cannot become a pillar of the church of Jerusalem.

Against my pseudo-Papias evidence for a fledgling two Jameses hypothesis: In favor of the idea that a "brother of the Lord" became a "pillar", there is the soaring ancient evidence of Eusebius Hegesippus:

"But Hegesippus, who lived immediately after the apostles, gives the most accurate account in the fifth book of his Memoirs. He writes as follows:

4. “James, the brother of the Lord, succeeded to the government of the Church in conjunction with the apostles. He has been called the Just by all from the time of our Saviour to the present day; for there were many that bore the name of James.

5. He was holy from his mother’s womb; and he drank no wine nor strong drink, nor did he eat flesh. No razor came upon his head; he did not anoint himself with oil, and he did not use the bath."

https://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/npnf20 ... .xxiv.html

That gives me pause! How solid is this as evidence? Was Hegesippus quoted correctly by Eusebius? If so, could Hegesippus be, based on a misreading of Galatians, confusing James "the brother of the Lord" with "James the Less," a bishop? Who was the mother of this "James" who was "holy from his mother’s womb"? I guess I would take it as a clue if he was strongly opposed to seeing James "brother of the Lord" as a uterine brother of Jesus--if so, that could be a motive for misreading Galatians, and making it into history. As he says, "many bore the name of James". I'll need to read this: http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/t ... ippus.html

Here are some relevant quotations attributed to Hegesippus:

"There still survived of the kindred of the Lord the grandsons of Judas, who according to the flesh was called his brother. These were informed against, as belonging to the family of David, and Evocatus brought them before Domitian Caesar: for that emperor dreaded the advent of Christ, as Herod had done."

The same historian mentions others also, of the family of one of the reputed brothers of the Saviour, named Judas, as having survived until this same reign, after the testimony they bore for the faith of Christ in the time of Domitian, as already recorded.

He writes as follows: They came, then, and took the presidency of every church, as witnesses for Christ, and as being of the kindred of the Lord. And, after profound peace had been established in every church,

And after James the Just had suffered martyrdom, as had the Lord also and on the same account, again Symeon the son of Clopas, descended from the Lord's uncle, is made bishop, his election being promoted by all as being a kinsman of the Lord"
--------
Of particular interest: Hegesippus does call "Judas" brother of the Lord "according to the flesh". And he says that "Symeon the son of Clopas" was a descendant of "the Lord's uncle." So, he seems to allow for a uterine brother of Jesus "according to the flesh". He also seems to allow for a cousin who is not called "brother" of the Lord. Maybe he was comfortable assuming that Mary the mother of Jesus had multiple biological children. If so, that makes his testimony stand as evidence against my two Jameses hypothesis.

Am I reading Hegesippus right?

Bernard Muller wrote: I don't see why a James, a brother of Jesus cannot become a pillar of the church of Jerusalem.

Papias wrote in the 2nd century. I doubt that Papias (or rather the pseudo-Papias writing later) would know who the different "Mary" were. And James as "bishop" appears in writing of the end of the 2nd century (Clement of Alexandria).
Once again, the passage has Jesus' brothers born from a mother other than Mary the mother of the Lord, seemingly to conform with the myth of Mary the perpetual virgin.

Cordially, Bernard

You still have the same problem. There was no apostle with any name who was the Lord's brother even in the Gospels although they implied NT Jesus had at least four brothers and more than one sister.

Even if it is assumed the so-called Pauline Epistles were written before the Gospels then the fact that there is no apostle listed as a brother of Jesus by assumed later Gospel writers and that they implied Jesus had multiple brothers and sisters show that the Gospel writers were not conforming to the myth of Mary the perpetual virgin.

Also, the fact that the supposed fragment of Papias appears to support the perpetual virgin myth then this suggests it is a far later writing than proposed. The perpetual virgin myth was a very late doctrine of the Church.

Bernard Muller wrote: ↑Tue Feb 09, 2021 6:16 pm James as "bishop" appears in writing of the end of the 2nd century (Clement of Alexandria).

Yes! Clement of Alexandria provides an interesting point of departure!

Here is what he wrote, according to Eusebius:

"2. Then James, whom the ancients surnamed the Just on account of the excellence of his virtue, is recorded to have been the first to be made bishop of the church of Jerusalem. This James was called the brother of the Lord because he was known as a son of Joseph, and Joseph was supposed to be the father of Christ, because the Virgin, being betrothed to him, was found with child by the Holy Ghost before they came together, Matthew 1:18 as the account of the holy Gospels shows.

3. But Clement in the sixth book of his Hypotyposes writes thus: For they say that Peter and James and John after the ascension of our Saviour, as if also preferred by our Lord, strove not after honor, but chose James the Just bishop of Jerusalem.

4. But the same writer, in the seventh book of the same work, relates also the following things concerning him: The Lord after his resurrection imparted knowledge to James the Just and to John and Peter, and they imparted it to the rest of the apostles, and the rest of the apostles to the seventy, of whom Barnabas was one. But there were two Jameses: one called the Just, who was thrown from the pinnacle of the temple and was beaten to death with a club by a fuller, and another who was beheaded. Paul also makes mention of the same James the Just, where he writes, Other of the apostles saw I none, save James the Lord's brother. Galatians 1:19

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

Is there reason to doubt that Clement's interpretaion of Galaitans is correct? I think the answer is Yes! These are the clues: 1) He does not allow for "the brother of the Lord" or be a uterine brother. 2) He does not allow for Joseph to be the natural father of Jesus. Thus, 3) Equating "James the Just" with the "brother of the Lord" in Galatians seems to be based on an exegesis of Galatians which is constrained his historically dubious presuppositions.

I see room to argue, with pseudo-Papias as support, that there were THREE James's, which Clement shrunk down to two in order to shrink the TWO Jameses of Galatians down to one. These are the THREE, each with a mother named Mary: (1)James the brother of John, who was "beheaded"; (2)"James the Just" who was "bishop of Jerusalem"; and (3) James "brother of the Lord" whose mother was "Mary, mother of the Lord." For apologetic reasons, Clement failed to "see" what I am arguing is historically, and exegetically most coherent ie, "James the Just" [aka, the Less] was not James "the brother of the Lord"--These TWO James were two different men with two different mothers.

Thoughts?

gryan wrote: ↑Wed Feb 10, 2021 7:17 am

Bernard Muller wrote: ↑Tue Feb 09, 2021 6:16 pm James as "bishop" appears in writing of the end of the 2nd century (Clement of Alexandria).

Yes! Clement of Alexadria Clement of Alexandria provides an interesting piece of tradition!

Here is what he wrote, according to Eusebius:

"2. Then James, whom the ancients surnamed the Just on account of the excellence of his virtue, is recorded to have been the first to be made bishop of the church of Jerusalem. This James was called the brother of the Lord because he was known as a son of Joseph, and Joseph was supposed to be the father of Christ, because the Virgin, being betrothed to him, was found with child by the Holy Ghost before they came together, Matthew 1:18 as the account of the holy Gospels shows.

3. But Clement in the sixth book of his Hypotyposes writes thus: For they say that Peter and James and John after the ascension of our Saviour, as if also preferred by our Lord, strove not after honor, but chose James the Just bishop of Jerusalem.

4. But the same writer, in the seventh book of the same work, relates also the following things concerning him: The Lord after his resurrection imparted knowledge to James the Just and to John and Peter, and they imparted it to the rest of the apostles, and the rest of the apostles to the seventy, of whom Barnabas was one. But there were two Jameses: one called the Just, who was thrown from the pinnacle of the temple and was beaten to death with a club by a fuller, and another who was beheaded. Paul also makes mention of the same James the Just, where he writes, Other of the apostles saw I none, save James the Lord's brother. Galatians 1:19

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

Is there reason to doubt that Clement's interpretaion of Galaitans is correct? I think the answer is Yes! These are the clues: 1) he does not allow for "the brother of the Lord" or be a uterine brother. 2) he does not allow for Joseph to be the natural father of Jesus. 3) Equating "James the Just" with the "brother of the Lord" in Galatians seems to be based on an exegesis of Galatians which is constrained his historically dubious presuppositions.

I see room to argue, with pseudo-Papias as support, that there were THREE James's, each with a mother named Mary: (1)James the brother of John, who was "beheaded"; (2)"James the Just" who was "bishop of Jerusalem"; and (3) James "brother of the Lord" whose mother was "Mary, mother of the Lord." For apologetic reasons, Clement failed to distinguish (3) in what I am arguing is historically, and exegetically most coherent ie, James the Just and James the brother of the Lord were two different men with two different mothers.

Thoughts?

The story from Eusebius that there were two James is compatible with the list of apostles in the Gospels and Acts.

There were two apostles named James and none were identified as the brother of the Lord.

Mark 3

Matthew 10

The claim in Galatians that the Epistle writer met an apostle called James the Lord's brother is another indication that the Pauline writings were late and had no influence on the earlier Gospels.