Carrier and "experts" who argue for two Jameses in NT Galatians

[rgprice]

Re: Gal 1:19
ἕτερον δὲ τῶν ἀποστόλων οὐκ εἶδον, εἰ μὴ Ἰάκωβον τὸν ἀδελφὸν τοῦ Κυρίου.

According to L. PAUL TRUDINGER (in an exegetical article cited favorably by Carrier) Paul's meaning in Gal. i 19 is:

"Other than the apostles I saw none except James, the Lord's brother."

In this reading, Paul did see apostles plural, which is consistent with Acts 9: 26-27,

But what would be the point of that statement? There are two problems here. Paul never says anything else about "the apostles". So who are these "apostles"? Paul mentions various individuals, but he never refers to some group of people identified as "the apostles". Secondly, why even say "I saw none" if you are essentially saying that you saw everyone? Its like saying, "other than seeing everyone, I saw no one, except..."

In this reading, Paul does not regard James, the Lord's brother as one of the "apostles."

----------

In my own ongoing re-reading of NT Galatians (as I see it this morning), "James the Lord's brother" (Gal 1) is the "James" in the phrase "the men from James" (Gal 2) who is associated with "the circumcision" who intimidated Cephus, but is not the to be confused with the "James" of the "esteemed pillars" ("James, Cephas and John"). Also, "the false brothers" (Gal 2) are interpreted as "the men from James". So they came in from outside the inner circle, and were not invited in by any of the pillars. I also think that by his way of speaking, Paul is writing against the argument made by some that "James, the Lord's brother" was an apostle. Paul regarded him both as a "pseudo-Apostle" and as "the Lord's brother" in the sphere of "flesh and blood" (a phrase that for Paul, in 1 Cor 15, carries a connotation of "perishable" rather than "imperishable.")

In this scenario, the reading of Gal 1:19 proposed by TRUDINGER (and Carrier) is a pretty good fit!

Rubbish. Did Paul really write such a confusing mess? Paul really mentioned a literal brother of Jesus one time and never anywhere else every expanded on anything about the family of Jesus? And Paul included a confusing reference to James again when talking about Peter, never making clear which of the two he was talking about?

That's just nonsense. This reading has Paul write something so confusing that it essentially was misread by everyone and significantly altered the entire concept of who the leadership of the church was. Was Paul really such a horrible and clueless writer?

No, Paul isn't talking about two Jameses and confusing everyone in the process. Paul talked about one James, and someone else introduced a second James. Paul's assessment of James is consistent in Gal 2.

6 But from those who were of considerable repute (what they were makes no difference to me; God shows no favoritism)—well, those who were of repute contributed nothing to me.
...
recognizing the grace that had been given to me, James and Cephas and John, who were reputed to be pillars
...
11 But when Cephas came to Antioch, I opposed him to his face, because he stood condemned. 12 For prior to the coming of some men from James, he used to eat with the Gentiles; but when they came, he began to withdraw and separate himself, fearing those from the circumcision.

Paul intends to impugn the reputation of all the "supposed" pillars. He questioned the reputations of Peter and James and John to begin with, and he further denigrates them again. It's not as if Paul has claimed that James is great in one place and then contradicts it in another. He's explaining the to Galatians that they, the pillars, are all hypocrites.

I think the answer to my rhetorical question is Yes. The author of Acts did have some reason to follow the author of GLuke who choose to erase GMark's explicit naming of "James" as one of the "brothers" in the group called "the mother and brothers of Jesus" (Acts 1, Cf Luke 8).

But that part of GLuke is actually Marcion's Gospel. The final author of Luke simply didn't revise much of Marcion's Gospel, he just wrote a beginning and ending. But Acts he wrote using mostly his own words. Why would he follow Marcion's Gospel in an effort to refute Marcion?

[gryan]

Re: Gal 1:19
ἕτερον δὲ τῶν ἀποστόλων οὐκ εἶδον, εἰ μὴ Ἰάκωβον τὸν ἀδελφὸν τοῦ Κυρίου.

According to L. PAUL TRUDINGER (in an exegetical article cited favorably by Carrier) Paul's meaning in Gal. i 19 is:

"Other than the apostles I saw none except James, the Lord's brother."

Re: Problems with the TRUDINGER interpretation of Gal 1:19 (which not only create problems for Carrier's reading, but also cuts against my own interpretation put forward earlier today).

As the sun rises and begins to set, my interpretation of Gal 1:19 is changing. Why?
Here is a very careful, and in my view, convincing critique the TRUDINGER interpretation of Gal 1:19 by Tim O’Neill – Blog Author, HISTORY FOR ATHEISTS. This is an extended quotation:

"Carrier tries to further sustain his idea that “brother/ of the Lord” refers to ordinary, non-apostolic Christian believers by reference to the grammar of Galatians 1:17-19, asking:

“Why didn’t Paul just say ‘of them that were apostles before me [1.17] I met none except Peter and James [1.18-19]’?” (pp. 588-89)

Here he refers to an argument by L. Paul Trudinger ( ἝΤΕΡΟΝ ΔΕ ΤΩΝ ΑΠΟΣΤΟΛΩΝ ΟΥΚ ΕΙΔΟΝ, ΕΙ ΜΗ ΙΑΚΩΒΟΝ: A Note on Galatians I 19.” Novum Testamentum, vol. 17, no. 3, 1975, pp. 200–202), who analyses the grammar of this sentence and concludes that the best reading is in fact “Other than the apostles I saw none except James, the Lord’s brother” (Trudinger, p. 201). Obviously this reading helps Carrier, because it means the sentence is excluding James from the category of “the apostles”, bolstering Carrier’s reading of “brother” as meaning “a non-apostolic Christian”. Trudinger’s interpretation has been criticised, however, by George Howard ( “Was James an Apostle?: A Reflection on a New Proposal for Gal. I 19.” Novum Testamentum, vol. 19, no. 1, 1977, pp. 63–64), who argues that the extra-Biblical examples used by Trudinger to support his reading are not valid:

“ἕτερος in each instance makes a comparison between persons or objects of the same class of things. Thus while the Corcyraeans might have been forced against their will ‘to make friends other than those they now had’, the ἑτέρους belong to the same species of beings as the former, that is, both are friends. Again, while Ether is described as ‘being an element other than the four’, still it is an element along with the four.” (Howard, p. 63)

So what Howard is saying here is that the grammar has Paul making a distinction between James and the other apostles, but still includes James in the category of “apostle”. Carrier dismisses this in a footnote, arguing it “is refuted by the fact that both the apostles and James are of the same class (they are all Christians, which is precisely Paul’s point)” (p. 590, n. 101). He elaborates on this in one of his many blog posts that try to pick a fight with Bart Ehrman:

“Ironically, in his attempt to answer Trudinger, George Howard, the only person to answer Trudinger in the peer reviewed literature (OHJ, p. 590, n. 101), observed that the examples Trudinger referenced still involve ‘a comparison between persons or objects of the same class of things,’ such as new friends and old friends belonging to the general class of friends, and indestructible elements and destructible elements belonging to the general class of elements. But that actually means Cephas and James belong to the same class (Brothers of the Lord, since Jesus is ‘the firstborn of many brethren…’), which entails the distinction is between Apostolic and non-Apostolic Brothers of the Lord, just as Trudinger’s examples show a contrast being made between destructible and indestructible elements and old and new friends. Howard’s objection thus actually confirms the very reading I’m pointing to. It thus does not in fact argue against Trudinger at all—who would agree both Cephas and this James belonged to the same class of things: Christians.” (“Ehrman and James the Brother of the Lord”)

Unfortunately for Carrier, this line of argument does not work. His authority here, Trudinger, quotes Lightfoot on the syntax:

” ἕτερον [“other”] is linked with εἰ μὴ [“if not”] and cannot be separated from it without harshness, and that ἕτερον [“other”] carries τῶν ἀποστόλων [“of the apostles”] with it” (Trudinger p. 200, citing J.B. Lightfoot, St Paul’s Epistle to the Galatians, p. 228).

So Trudinger’s argument depends on the “class of things” in question being “the apostles”, not “brothers of the Lord”/Christians. This means Howard’s objection to Trudinger’s reading stands. This also means the reading that Carrier’s argument depends upon, where James is explicitly excluded from the category of “apostles” (i.e. “Other than the apostles I saw none except James, the Lord’s brother), has a major problem. Howard concludes: “Some ambiguity may still remain, as Lightfoot and Burton explain …. however the ambiguity that does remain lies within the force of εἰ μὴ [“if not”], not ” ἕτερον [“other”]” (Howard, p. 64).

Carrier’s attempt to argue that the James of Galatians 1:19 is simply a “brother of the Lord”; i.e. an ordinary, non-apostolic Christian, therefore has major problems on several fronts...

Incidentally, Carrier also claims in his rather snotty response to Daniel Gullotta’s critique that “Trudinger argued that the James in Galatians 1 is not the apostolic James in Galatians 2.” This is complete nonsense. Trudinger argues that Galatians 1:17-19 means Paul did not regard James as an apostle, but he makes absolutely no mention of Galatians 2 and definitely does not argue that there are two different Jameses in Galatians 1 and 2. Carrier is imagining he has allies that do not exist."

[hakeem]

The detail about Damascus surely comes from Galatians. The rest is very hard to say, given the fact that Luke was clearly manipulating his source and not necessarily following it. One can presume that if Gal 1:18-24 were written based on Acts, that the interpolator would have made it match Acts more closely, so that seems out, however it could still have been written after Acts by someone who hadn't read Acts. The fact that Paul said he only met Peter and James is contradicted by Acts saying he met with "the disciples".

What you say is really bizarre. There is absolutely no details about Damascus in the so-called Pauline Epistles. The author of Acts did not use Galatians at all since the author of Acts identified his character as some-one named Saul.

In Acts of the Apostle the resurrected Jesus spoke to SAUL after he was blinded by a bright light. It was SAUL who was the persecutor in Acts--not Paul.

Acts 9.4---
And he fell to the earth, and heard a voice saying unto him, SAUL, SAUL, why persecutest thou me?

Acts 22:7
------And I fell unto the ground, and heard a voice saying unto me, SAUL, SAUL, why persecutest thou me?

-Acts 26.14 ------I heard a voice speaking unto me, and saying in the Hebrew tongue, SAUL, SAUL, why persecutest thou me? it is hard for thee to kick against the pricks.

It is extremely clear to me that Acts of the Apostle was manipulated and the name Paul inserted some time later when the so-called Pauline Epistles

The story of SAUL in Acts predates the writing of the so-called Pauline Epistles.

In the Epistles the author calls himself an apostle but in Acts there is no apostle called Saul.

The apostle called Paul is a late invention unknown to the author of Acts.

[MrMacSon]

Re: Gal 1:19
ἕτερον δὲ τῶν ἀποστόλων οὐκ εἶδον, εἰ μὴ Ἰάκωβον τὸν ἀδελφὸν τοῦ Κυρίου.

According to L. PAUL TRUDINGER (in an exegetical article cited favorably by Carrier) Paul's meaning in Gal. i 19 is:

"Other than the apostles I saw none except James, the Lord's brother."

Re: Problems with the TRUDINGER interpretation of Gal 1:19 (which not only create problems for Carrier's reading, but also cuts against my own interpretation put forward earlier today).

As the sun rises and begins to set, my interpretation of Gal 1:19 is changing. Why?
Here is a very careful, and in my view, convincing critique the TRUDINGER interpretation of Gal 1:19 by Tim O’Neill – Blog Author, HISTORY FOR ATHEISTS. This is an extended quotation:

"Carrier tries to further sustain his idea that “brother/ of the Lord” refers to ordinary, non-apostolic Christian believers by reference to the grammar of Galatians 1:17-19, asking:

“Why didn’t Paul just say ‘of them that were apostles before me [1.17] I met none except Peter and James [1.18-19]’?” (pp. 588-89)

Here he refers to an argument by L. Paul Trudinger ( ἝΤΕΡΟΝ ΔΕ ΤΩΝ ΑΠΟΣΤΟΛΩΝ ΟΥΚ ΕΙΔΟΝ, ΕΙ ΜΗ ΙΑΚΩΒΟΝ: A Note on Galatians I 19.” Novum Testamentum, vol. 17, no. 3, 1975, pp. 200–202), who analyses the grammar of this sentence and concludes that the best reading is in fact “Other than the apostles I saw none except James, the Lord’s brother” (Trudinger, p. 201). Obviously this reading helps Carrier, because it means the sentence is excluding James from the category of “the apostles”, bolstering Carrier’s reading of “brother” as meaning “a non-apostolic Christian”. Trudinger’s interpretation has been criticised, however, by George Howard ( “Was James an Apostle?: A Reflection on a New Proposal for Gal. I 19.” Novum Testamentum, vol. 19, no. 1, 1977, pp. 63–64), who argues that the extra-Biblical examples used by Trudinger to support his reading are not valid:

“ἕτερος in each instance makes a comparison between persons or objects of the same class of things. Thus while the Corcyraeans might have been forced against their will ‘to make friends other than those they now had’, the ἑτέρους belong to the same species of beings as the former, that is, both are friends. Again, while Ether is described as ‘being an element other than the four’, still it is an element along with the four.” (Howard, p. 63)

So what Howard is saying here is that the grammar has Paul making a distinction between James and the other apostles, but still includes James in the category of “apostle”. Carrier dismisses this in a footnote, arguing it “is refuted by the fact that both the apostles and James are of the same class (they are all Christians, which is precisely Paul’s point)” (p. 590, n. 101). He elaborates on this in one of his many blog posts that try to pick a fight with Bart Ehrman:

“Ironically, in his attempt to answer Trudinger, George Howard, the only person to answer Trudinger in the peer reviewed literature (OHJ, p. 590, n. 101), observed that the examples Trudinger referenced still involve ‘a comparison between persons or objects of the same class of things,’ such as new friends and old friends belonging to the general class of friends, and indestructible elements and destructible elements belonging to the general class of elements. But that actually means Cephas and James belong to the same class (Brothers of the Lord, since Jesus is ‘the firstborn of many brethren…’), which entails the distinction is between Apostolic and non-Apostolic Brothers of the Lord, just as Trudinger’s examples show a contrast being made between destructible and indestructible elements and old and new friends. Howard’s objection thus actually confirms the very reading I’m pointing to. It thus does not in fact argue against Trudinger at all—who would agree both Cephas and this James belonged to the same class of things: Christians.” (“Ehrman and James the Brother of the Lord”)

Unfortunately for Carrier, this line of argument does not work. His authority here, Trudinger, quotes Lightfoot on the syntax:

” ἕτερον [“other”] is linked with εἰ μὴ [“if not”] and cannot be separated from it without harshness, and that ἕτερον [“other”] carries τῶν ἀποστόλων [“of the apostles”] with it” (Trudinger p. 200, citing J.B. Lightfoot, St Paul’s Epistle to the Galatians, p. 228).

So Trudinger’s argument depends on the “class of things” in question being “the apostles”, not “brothers of the Lord”/Christians. This means Howard’s objection to Trudinger’s reading stands. This also means the reading that Carrier’s argument depends upon, where James is explicitly excluded from the category of “apostles” (i.e. “Other than the apostles I saw none except James, the Lord’s brother), has a major problem. Howard concludes: “Some ambiguity may still remain, as Lightfoot and Burton explain …. however the ambiguity that does remain lies within the force of εἰ μὴ [“if not”], not ” ἕτερον [“other”]” (Howard, p. 64).

Carrier’s attempt to argue that the James of Galatians 1:19 is simply a “brother of the Lord”; i.e. an ordinary, non-apostolic Christian, therefore has major problems on several fronts...

Incidentally, Carrier also claims in his rather snotty response to Daniel Gullotta’s critique that “Trudinger argued that the James in Galatians 1 is not the apostolic James in Galatians 2.” This is complete nonsense. Trudinger argues that Galatians 1:17-19 means Paul did not regard James as an apostle, but he makes absolutely no mention of Galatians 2 and definitely does not argue that there are two different Jameses in Galatians 1 and 2. Carrier is imagining he has allies that do not exist."

The bottom line, with Galatians 1:19 having become a key linchpin for those arguing the historicity of Jesus, is that more and more esoteric but futile arguments have been developed around its significance and veracity yet it's actually a very tenuous linchpin for the historicity of Jesus.

[rgprice]

@gryan

Carrier's argument is unworkable. Its a mistake to try and make sense of this passage or to rely too heavily on the text of Paul's letters. You have to acknowledge the very real prospect that they have been fairly heavily interpolated, almost entirely with a mind toward conforming them to anti-Marcionite claims. I know Carrier doesn't want to try on "interpolation" claims, I don't like it either, but you have to deal with reality.

This is why I didn't spend much time trying to parse this passage in DtG and instead simply looked at the other data outside of this passage. You won't get anywhere trying to just parse a manipulated text.

Is it really reasonable to think that Paul mentioned a literal relative of Jesus one time in an off-hand comment, and then never said anything about any family members of Jesus ever again? And that the writer of Acts, didn't mention Jesus' brother either?

And if Jesus had an actual brother named James, who, as Carrier proposes, was not James the Just, leader of the Jerusalem church, but rather just some guy from Galilee, then why was he in Jerusalem?

It just goes off into an entire area of nothing but wild speculation. Of course, we can then question that Jesus was really from Galilee, so maybe Jesus was really from Jerusalem, and thus that's why his brother was there. I mean all manner of things can be proposed when you start throwing various things out.

But the facts we have are these:
1) Tertullian made no comment about the brother of Jesus in he critique of Marcion's letters, and it seems that he would have if the passage had been present in Marcion's letters. This seems to affirm that the passage didn't exist in Marcion's version of the letter.
2) The writer of Acts never mentions James the brother of Jesus.
3) Paul makes no other mentions of any family members of Jesus.
4) Paul gives no indication that he is talking about two different Jameses elsewhere in Galatians.
5) There are no other traditions that put Paul in contact with James the brother of Jesus prior to the late second century.

[MrMacSon]

Is the relationship b/w Galatians and Acts

1. Galatians -> Acts? or
2. Acts -> Galatians?

Frank R. McGuire argued that Galatians was a response to Acts -

Frank R. McGuire, in 'Did Paul Write Galatians?', Hibbert Journal, 1967, 66 (61): 52ff, proposed, reiterated, or noted -

• Galatians is a response to Acts.

• more than one „Paul“ had a hand in the writing of Galatians.

• "The author of Gal. 1:18-24 did not bother to coordinate the second chapter with his own account; perhaps he hoped to displace the earlier Pauline version of Paul’s first apostolic contact with the church at Jerusalem. To differentiate between the two visits now recorded, a still later „Paul“ inserts the word „again“ so conspicuously absent from Tertullian’s reading of Gal. ii, 1. Perhaps from the same hand comes such incongruities as Peter at the head of a mission to the circumcised (ii, 7-8),* anticipating the arrangement to which Peter becomes a party in the verse that follows.
  
  "While the narrative of Galatians is more plausible if stripped of known or demonstrable interpolations, the second chapter is still basically nonsensical. It does not become less so in light of Acts-Luke’s fifteenth chapter, the reader’s acquaintance with which is tacitly presumed throughout, it simply makes the unintelligibility more understandable."

• "the underlying implication [of Galatians], as Paley observed [in Horae Paulinae], is that Paul’s own commission was „inferior and deputed“. Accordingly, the first chapter of Galatians emphasizes the divine origin of his apostleship while the second emphasizes Paul’s independence of Jerusalem."

McGuire noted Paley had concluded the author of Acts had not read Galatians as he (and we) know it today, "otherwise he would not have omitted the Arabian interlude and various meetings between Paul and Peter."

McGuire noted -

Christianity was not 1st century, messianic Judaism hellenised by Paul or anyone else, Bauer contended, but an originally Greek religion judaised in the second century. Acts, with its „apostolic decree“ and the like, is an expression of this quasi-Jewish movement and Galatians a literary reaction.

or, 3. Did their final, orthdox versions depend on each other?

[hakeem]

Is the relationship b/w Galatians and Acts

1. Galatians -> Acts? or
2. Acts -> Galatians?

Before we get carried away with arguments for two Jameses in NT Galatians it must first be remembered that neither the Epistles to the Galatians nor the Acts of the Apostles are historical writings about their Lord Jesus and the Apostles.

Both Acts of the Apostles and the Epistles to the Galatians are utter fiction.

Now, if the author of Acts read the Epistle to the Galatians which is about an apostle called Paul and then fabricated a story about Saul who was not an apostle then such an author would be the most incompetent writer in all history.

Acts of the Apostles is a open fable about the post-resurrection activities of the apostles after they received the promised Holy Ghost in Jerusalem.

We have the names of the Apostles who were supposedly filled with the Holy Ghost on the day of Pentecost in Jerusalem but as usual there is no mention whatsoever of Paul.

In Galatians, the supposed author called himself an apostle but no NT author lists a character called Paul as an apostle of Jesus of Nazareth,

NT Jesus handpicked his twelve apostles when he was in Galilee.

In Acts, there was a "vacancy" for an apostle left vacant by Judas the betrayer so the author of Acts has a perfect opportunity to "legitimately" install Paul as an apostle.

Surely, the author of Acts if having read about the apostle Paul in Galatians is going to fill that position by Paul?

Again, the author of Acts, instead of claiming Paul was made an apostle to fill the vacancy he claimed it was some character called Matthias who was installed.

In the entire NT, only Acts of the Apostles mentions this newly installed apostle called Matthias.

Where did this name "Matthias" come from?

Matthias was the name of the father of Josephus.

Acts of the Apostles used the works of Josephus to fabricate his post-resurrection story of Saul.

Where did the name Saul come from?

Again, Saul is a name found multiple times in the works of Josephus.

Saul was a persecutor of Jews in the works of Josephus.

Antiquities of the Jews 20.9.4

Costobarus also, and Saulus, did themselves get together a multitude of wicked wretches, and this because they were of the royal family; and so they obtained favor among them, because of their kindred to Agrippa; but still they used violence with the people, and were very ready to plunder those that were weaker than themselves. And from that time it principally came to pass that our city was greatly disordered, and that all things grew worse and worse among us.

Now look at Acts---Saul is become a persecutor of believers.

Acts 8. 3

---- As for Saul, he made havock of the church, entering into every house, and haling men and women committed them to prison.

Acts 9 1

And Saul, yet breathing out threatenings and slaughter against the disciples of the Lord, went unto the high priest,

2 And desired of him letters to Damascus to the synagogues, that if he found any of this way, whether they were men or women, he might bring them bound unto Jerusalem.

Saul in Acts is essentially Saul in Josephus.

There are many more examples where it is clearly seen that the author of Acts was not using Galatians at all but relying on the works of Josephus for his manufactured Acts of the Apostles and Saul.

It was later, the author of Galatians "stole" the identity of Saul claiming he was a persecutor of believers in Jerusalem when no such Jewish believers ever existed at all in Judea.

The Pauline writers are trapped in their lies.

No Jewish writer in all of antiquity records any new Jewish religion where thousands of Jews were worshiping a man from Galilee as a God named Jesus of Nazareth.

[hakeem]

It is virtually certain that the author of Acts knew nothing of an apostle called Paul or used the Epistle to the Galatians.

In the so-called Pauline Epistle the author called himself an apostle.

Please, carefully examine the very first verse of Galatians.

Galatians 1:1

Paul, an apostle, (not of men, neither by man, but by Jesus Christ, and God the Father, who raised him from the dead;)

Now, examine Acts of the Apostles.

One cannot be an apostle of Jesus unless he was with Jesus from the time of his baptism by John up to his ascension after the resurrection.

Acts 1 :21

Wherefore of these men which have companied with us all the time that the Lord Jesus went in and out among us,

22 Beginning from the baptism of John, unto that same day that he was taken up from us, must one be ordained to be a witness with us of his resurrection.

Not even Saul in Acts was qualified to be called an apostle and was not called an apostle by the author since he was not with Jesus from baptism to ascension.

In the so-called Pauline Epistles, the author did not even claim he knew of his Jesus while he was alive.

It is clear that the author of Acts knew nothing of an apostle called Paul who could have only been qualified to be an apostle if he was with Jesus from baptism to ascension and among the chosen apostles.

The author of Acts wrote about a character called Saul and then later the name was changed to Paul and made an apostle after the Epistles were written.

[gryan]

In this reading, Paul does not regard James, the Lord's brother as one of the "apostles."

----------

In my own ongoing re-reading of NT Galatians (as I see it this morning), "James the Lord's brother" (Gal 1) is the "James" in the phrase "the men from James" (Gal 2) who is associated with "the circumcision" who intimidated Cephus, but is not the to be confused with the "James" of the "esteemed pillars" ("James, Cephas and John"). Also, "the false brothers" (Gal 2) are interpreted as "the men from James". So they came in from outside the inner circle, and were not invited in by any of the pillars. I also think that by his way of speaking, Paul is writing against the argument made by some that "James, the Lord's brother" was an apostle. Paul regarded him both as a "pseudo-Apostle" and as "the Lord's brother" in the sphere of "flesh and blood" (a phrase that for Paul, in 1 Cor 15, carries a connotation of "perishable" rather than "imperishable.")

Rubbish. Did Paul really write such a confusing mess? Paul really mentioned a literal brother of Jesus one time and never anywhere else every expanded on anything about the family of Jesus? And Paul included a confusing reference to James again when talking about Peter, never making clear which of the two he was talking about?

That's just nonsense. This reading has Paul write something so confusing that it essentially was misread by everyone and significantly altered the entire concept of who the leadership of the church was. Was Paul really such a horrible and clueless writer?

No, Paul isn't talking about two Jameses and confusing everyone in the process. Paul talked about one James, and someone else introduced a second James.

@rgprice, Carrier and I all agree that there are two Jameses in NT Galatians, although for different reasons. On this point, it is us against, to my knowledge, all modern published NT scholars. IMHO that may soon change. Evidence is too compelling for those who chose to study it.

My project is to try to read NT Galatians as a coherent text. I think Paul did in fact write confusingly for readers who were not originally intended. His discourse was highly contextual, and so later, out of original context, it was easily misread, especially by people that found it embarrassing.

I think all the flesh phrases from Galatians 1:16 to 4:15 were misread in part to to avoid perceiving literary echos of Galatians in Hebrews, particularly is it relates to the image of Jesus "in the days of his flesh":

From Hebrews Ch 2

10For it was fitting to Him, for whom are all things and by whom are all things, having brought many sons to glory, to make perfect the author of their salvation through sufferings. 11For both the One sanctifying and those being sanctified are all of one, for which reason He is not ashamed to call them brothers, 12saying:

“I will declare Your name to My brothers;

in the midst of the congregation I will sing Your praises.”d

13And again:

“I will be trusting in Him.”

And again:

“Behold, I and the children whom God has given Me.”

14Therefore, since the children have partaken of blood and of flesh, He also likewise took part in the same things, so that through His death He might destroy the one holding the power of death, that is, the devil, 15and might set free those who all their time to live were subject to slavery through fear of death.

16For surely He helps not the angels, but He helps the seed of Abraham. 17Therefore it behooved Him to be made like the brothers in all things, so that He might become a merciful and faithful high priest in things relating to God, in order to make propitiation for the sins of the people. 18For in that He Himself has suffered, having been tempted, He is able to help those being tempted.

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

This highly metaphorical image of what it means to be "called" a "brother" of Jesus in the sphere of "blood and flesh" seems to me to echo the arguably literal language in 1) in Gal 1: "...I did not immediately consult with flesh and blood... I saw no other apostles except [or "only"] James the Lord's brother..." and 2) Gal 4 "God sent his son, born [lit. having come into being] of a woman, born [lit. having come into being] under the law..."

Is it just me, or is there some kind of an echo here?

[rgprice]

I'm pretty sure that "born of a woman, born under the law" is also an anti-Marcionite interpolation. Unfortunately, Tertullian provides us with a confusing comment on the passage. He comments on Gal 4:4 with no mention of, "born of a woman, born under the law", but had also just talked about erasures of Marcion, to which he noted that it wasn't worth commenting on what Marcion had erased, so its hard to know if he didn't comment on "born of a woman, born under the law" because of what he had just said or what.

Anyway, it reads to me like a direct anti-Marcionite interpolation. We have to acknowledge that Galatians was seen as the most important Pauline letter by Marcion and also by opponents of Marcion, who viewed Galatians as the text it was most important to refute.

"born of a woman, born under the law" is a very gratuitous statement.

4 But when the set time had fully come, God sent his Son, born of a woman, born under the law, to redeem those under the law, that we might receive adoption to sonship.

vs

4 But when the set time had fully come, God sent his Son to redeem those under the law, that we might receive adoption to sonship.

I mean be serious, we all know that the last sentence is far more reasonable.

I think very seriously that Galatians was worked over by a redactor and is full of interpolations. Primary among them: Gal 1:19-20, Gal 2:8, Gal 4:4 "born of a woman, born under the law".