Biblical Criticism & History Forum - earlywritings.com

The Text
(From Pseudo-Papias, the first part of Fragment X)

(1)Maria mater Domini:
(2)Maria Cleophae, sive Alphei uxor, quae fuit mater Jacobi episcopi et apostolic et Symonis et Thadei et cujusdam Joseph:
(3)Maria Salome uxor Zebedei mater Joannis evangelistae et Jacobi:
begins against Jerome and ends in support of Jerome.

Gospel Context

(1)"Mary the mother of the Lord"
Based on the "Mary" the mother of Jesus according to Mark 6:3--"Isn't this [Jesus] Mary's son and the brother of James, Joseph, Judas and Simon? Aren't his sisters here with us?"

(2) "Mary the wife of Cleophas or Alphæus, who was the mother of James the bishop and apostle..."
Based on the "James the son of Alphaeus" of Mark 3:18, and the "Mary the mother of James the less" of Mark 15:40
As identical to Mary of Clopas in John 19:25 Mary of Clopas

(3) Mary Salome, wife of Zebedee, mother of John the evangelist and James..."
"John," the third of the "pillars"--"James, Cephas and John"
Based on the "Salome" of Mark 15:40
As identical with "the mother of Zebedee’s sons" in Matt 20:20
Notably, John's brother, James son of Zebedee had been martyred earlier according to Acts 12:2
Salome

Hypothetical fit for Galatians

Gal 1:19
"James the brother of the Lord" (Vg. "Jacobum fratrem Domini")
Was the son of "Mary" (1) "the mother of the Lord" ("Maria mater Domini")

Gal 2:9
"James," the first of the "pillars"--"James, Cephas and John"
Was the son of "Mary" (2) "the wife of Cleophas or Alphæus, who was the mother of James the bishop and apostle..."

"John," the third of the "pillars"--"James, Cephas and John"
Was the son of "Mary" (3) "Salome, wife of Zebedee, mother of John the evangelist..."

Hypothesis: These lines from Pseudo-Papias are functional by design, having been written to DIFFERENTIATE TWO MEN named "James" in Galatians:

1) "James, the Lord's brother" of Gal 1:19 was a son of "Mary, the mother of the Lord," and as such, he was accurately identified as Jesus's brother "according to the flesh" by Gaius Marius Victorinus--a view rejected by Jerome(!)
2) "James" the "pillar" of Gal 2:9 was "the bishop and apostle" also know as "James the Less."

Thoughts?

In Galatians, James is first mentioned as "brother of the Lord". So when Paul mentioned James again, with no other James in between, the James of Gal 2:9 and Gal 2:12 have to be that James previously said to be brother of the Lord.

Why Paul would identify James as brother of the Lord in Gal 1:19?
Not to have this James confused with James the brother of John, who was still alive then. According to Acts 12:1-3a, he was executed by Agrippa I, when that James was the prime target of Agrippa & probably the chiefs priests also, likely due to his preaching. That also denotes the brother of John being an important member of the church of Jerusalem.
According to my dating, the event of Gal 1:19 occurred in 38, the one of Gal 2:9 in 52, the one of Gal 2:12, later in 52.
James, the brother of John, was executed in 42.

Cordially, Bernard

Bernard Muller wrote: ↑Mon Feb 08, 2021 8:59 am In Galatians, James is first mentioned as "brother of the Lord". So when Paul mentioned James again, with no other James in between, the James of Gal 2:9 and Gal 2:12 have to be that James previously said to be brother of the Lord.

Why Paul would identify James as brother of the Lord in Gal 1:19?
Not to have this James confused with James the brother of John, who was still alive then. According to Acts 12:1-3a, he was executed by Agrippa I, when that James was the prime target of Agrippa & probably the chiefs priests also, likely due to his preaching. That also denotes the brother of John being an important member of the church of Jerusalem.
According to my dating, the event of Gal 1:19 occurred in 38, the one of Gal 2:9 in 52, the one of Gal 2:12, later in 52.
James, the brother of John, was executed in 42.

Cordially, Bernard

Your post confirms my position that the so-called Pauline Epistle must have been written after the Gospels and Acts of the Apostles since it is virtually impossible to determine who James' the Lord brother was by using even all the Epistles.

It is impossible to date any event with respect to the James character in the Epistles without making references to Acts of the Apostles or the Gospels.

Bernard Muller wrote: ↑Mon Feb 08, 2021 8:59 am In Galatians, James is first mentioned as "brother of the Lord". So when Paul mentioned James again, with no other James in between, the James of Gal 2:9 and Gal 2:12 have to be that James previously said to be brother of the Lord?

Yes, the assumption that the James of Gal 2:9 and the James Gal 2:12 are one and the same man has been shared by most interpreters, but not all! The notable exceptions to this rule are Augustine and Ambrosiaster who allow for two men named "James."

Augustine, identified the "James, Cephas and John" of Gal 2:9 as the apostles "Peter, James and John" who had witnessed the Transfiguration (Mk 9:2). https://sites.google.com/site/aquinasst ... alatians-2

Of James "the brother of the Lord" of Gal 1:16, Augustine wrote this: "It must be understood that James was a brother of the Lord or as the son of Joseph, the fruit of a previous marriage, or as a relative of Mary, the mother of Jesus."https://sites.google.com/site/aquinasst ... alatians-1

Of the "pillars" Ambrosiaster wrote: "Paul says that his gift, which he had received from God, was certified by the apostles who know more than the others did (which is why Paul calls them "pillars" on account of their firmness), who had always been with the Lord in private moments, and who had been worthy to behold his glory on the mount."
https://www.google.com/books/edition/Co ... &bsq=james

But of "the brother of the Lord" (Gal 1:16) Ambrosiaster wrote: "He too had been an unbeliever at first, as the Evangelist says: Even his brothers did not believe in him... This James was the son of Joseph, which is why he is called the brother of the Lord... There are some people mad enough to make the ungodly claim, that these men were born of Mary..."

Bernard Muller wrote: ↑Mon Feb 08, 2021 8:59 amWhy Paul would identify James as brother of the Lord in Gal 1:19?
Not to have this James confused with James the brother of John, who was still alive then. According to Acts 12:1-3a, he was executed by Agrippa I, when that James was the prime target of Agrippa & probably the chiefs priests also, likely due to his preaching. That also denotes the brother of John being an important member of the church of Jerusalem.
According to my dating, the event of Gal 1:19 occurred in 38, the one of Gal 2:9 in 52, the one of Gal 2:12, later in 52.
James, the brother of John, was executed in 42.

Yes, Paul may have specified "James" as "the brother of the Lord" to make it clear that this was not "James" the brother of John. But it does not follow that the next James mentioned must be "brother of the Lord" too.

Neither Augustine nor Ambrosiaster assume that the two James's of Galatians are the same man, because context does not require it. "Brother of the Lord" gives one specific context to the first James. And then, when the second James is mentioned, it is in the context of being an esteemed "pillar"--one of a group of three. This context is different enough to give one pause, especially if you read "brother of the Lord" as uterine brother, and you further know from reading John 7:5, what seems implied in Mark: "Even his brothers did not believe in him." Such rapid change from "unbeliever" to "pillar" is of course possible, but it need not be assumed.

Given that the trio of "James, Cephas and John" of Gal 2:9 is not unlike the trio of "Peter, James and John" of the Trasfiguration, it is indeed significant to notice that the "James" of Galatians 2:9 could not be the same James, since James the brother of John had been killed, according to Acts. This was the mistake of Augustine and Ambrosiaster--a mistake remedied in Pseudo-Papias.

I wonder if that is as convincing an argument for anyone else as it is for me.

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

The TWO James hypothesis has significant implications when the name James is mentioned a third time in Gal 2:1-12,
"When Cephas came to Antioch, however, I opposed him to his face, because he stood to be condemned. For before certain men came from James, he used to eat with the Gentiles."

Which "James" were "certain men from James" claiming as their authority? If it was "James, the brother of the Lord" who was their authority (as I think it was), then the great divide is not between and among the three "pillars." Paul's complaint about Peter is not that he is intimidated by the other "pillars." Rather, the battle line is drawn between those who claim to come from "James the brother of the Lord" on one side; and on the other side of the battle line, everyone else!

And so, when Paul refers to "James, Cephas, and John" as "so called pillars," he is challenging all of them to stand up against the intimidation of those who were claiming "James [the Lords brother]" according to the flesh as their authority.

Thoughts?

to Gryan,
Augustine & Ambrosiaster, in the 4th century, were Christian apologists who did not want Mary, by then claimed to be a perpetual virgin, to have given birth to Jesus' brothers.

There was no rapid change. James was an unbeliever in Jesus during his public life, then progressively became a pillar of the Jerusalem church some 15-20 years later. At the time, the church of Jerusalem believed Jesus was forever dead, but during his life, was a prophet who preached the kingdom of God on earth is near and to be in it, you have to righteous, Jew and poor: things that James could easily accept.
All of that is explained on my website.

At Antioch, James (through his men) prevailed, and all the leaders of that church of Antioch (and Peter) surrendered to James' demands (about dealing with Gentiles), leaving Paul alone.

When Paul refers to "James, Cephas, and John" as "so called pillars", it is before the events in Antioch. Paul did not relate of any challenge then according to Galatians. But later, at Antioch, he will challenge Peter about his u-turn regarding relation with Gentiles.

Cordially, Bernard

Bernard Muller wrote: ↑Mon Feb 08, 2021 2:29 pm
At the time, the church of Jerusalem believed Jesus was forever dead, but during his life, was a prophet who preached the kingdom of God on earth is near and to be in it, you have to righteous, Jew and poor: things that James could easily accept.

RE: Gal 2:10, "They only asked us to remember the poor, the very thing I was eager to do."

In your interpretation of events, who were these "poor" that Paul claims to have been eager to remember?

to Hakeem,

Your post confirms my position that the so-called Pauline Epistle must have been written after the Gospels and Acts of the Apostles since it is virtually impossible to determine who James' the Lord brother was by using even all the Epistles.

Only by looking at Galatians, James' the Lord's brother (Gal 1:19), that James is Jesus' brother because "Lord is defined as Jesus in Gal 1:3, and there is no other "Lord" (such as meaning God) between 1:3 and 1:19.
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.

It is impossible to date any event with respect to the James character in the Epistles without making references to Acts of the Apostles or the Gospels.

However my main source of reference for that dating are Paul's letters, then Acts, and sometimes the gospels, Josephus, secular data (such as years when emperors and kings ruled), etc.

I don't make any secret of that and I explained how I do the dating in my website, in great details.

Cordially, Bernard

to gryan,

RE: Gal 2:10, "They only asked us to remember the poor, the very thing I was eager to do."

In your interpretation of events, who were these "poor" that Paul claims to have been eager to remember?

These "poor" included members of the church of Jerusalem, in order to pay for rent and food.

Rom 15:26 For Macedo'nia and Acha'ia have been pleased to make some contribution for the poor among the saints [holy ones] at Jerusalem;

Cordially, Bernard

hakeem wrote:Your post confirms my position that the so-called Pauline Epistle must have been written after the Gospels and Acts of the Apostles since it is virtually impossible to determine who James' the Lord brother was by using even all the Epistles.

Bernard Muller wrote:Only by looking at Galatians, James' the Lord's brother (Gal 1:19), that James is Jesus' brother because "Lord is defined as Jesus in Gal 1:3, and there is no other "Lord" (such as meaning God) between 1:3 and 1:19.
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.

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.

Even outside the NT multiple Christian writings state that the apostle James called the Lord's brother was not the brother of Jesus.

In fact, in Christian writings, even Jesus himself denied the apostle James was his brother.

The 1st Apocalypse of James

The claim in Galatians 1.19 that the Epistle writer met an apostle who was the Lord's brother is an invention--a complete made up story.

hakeem wrote:It is impossible to date any event with respect to the James character in the Epistles without making references to Acts of the Apostles or the Gospels.

Bernard Muller wrote:However my main source of reference for that dating are Paul's letters, then Acts, and sometimes the gospels, Josephus, secular data (such as years when emperors and kings ruled), etc.

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.

Bernard Muller wrote: ↑Mon Feb 08, 2021 2:29 pm At Antioch, James (through his men) prevailed, and all the leaders of that church of Antioch (and Peter) surrendered to James' demands (about dealing with Gentiles), leaving Paul alone.

When Paul refers to "James, Cephas, and John" as "so called pillars", it is before the events in Antioch. Paul did not relate of any challenge then according to Galatians. But later, at Antioch, he will challenge Peter about his u-turn regarding relation with Gentiles.

"The final outcome of the incident remains uncertain; indeed the issue of Biblical law in Christianity remains disputed. The Catholic Encyclopedia states: "St. Paul's account of the incident leaves no doubt that St. Peter saw the justice of the rebuke." 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." Incident at Antioch

The prevailing range of interpretations described above are all based on the standard text, but this text is dubious.

S. C. Carlson's reading of the text of Gal 2:12 paints a very (!) different picture:

Gal 2:11-12
"When Cephas arrived to Antioch, however, I opposed him to his face, because he stood to be condemned (For before certain men came from James, he used to eat with the Gentiles). But when he (ἦλθεν) arrived, he began to draw back and separate himself, for fear of those in the circumcision group."

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.

My reconstruction of events is based on Carlson's critical text and it goes a large step farther. In my TWO Jameses/Pesudo-Papias reconstruction, "certain men from James" refers back to the incident in Jerusalem when according to Gal 2:4 "some false brothers had come in under false pretenses to spy on our freedom in Christ Jesus, in order to enslave us."

In this rereading, "James, the brother of the Lord" is not one of the "pillars," nor is he part of the esteemed leadership team. He is however, among "the poor" of Jerusalem, and Paul is eager to remember him as such. Those claiming to be "from James", the "false brothers", those "of the circumcision group" were all outsiders in relation to the inner circle of "pillars."

Thoughts?