Biblical Criticism & History Forum - earlywritings.com

Carrier has argued for two Jameses in Galatians (in Gal 1 "James, the brother of the Lord" vs in Gal 2 "James, Cephas and John, the reputed pillars"):

"So it’s not likely even on the historicity thesis that the James in Gal. 1 is the same as in Gal. 2 (and many experts concur, as I cite)."
https://www.richardcarrier.info/archives/11516

"The James “the brother of the Lord” encounter in Gal. 1 occurs in the 30s A.D. according to Paul, well before the year 44 execution Acts suggests for the other James. Paul’s grammar entails that that James (the one in Gal. 1) was not an Apostle (an argument Evans never responded to), and thus certainly not the same James that’s in Gal. 2 (nor the son of Zebedee)." https://www.richardcarrier.info/archive ... ment-17460

Carrier claims that there are "many experts who concur", but he does not cite them online, as far as I can tell. He cites experts who support his view that "Paul's grammar entails" that the James of Gal 1 was not an apostle. But that is only a small part of his argument for two Jameses.

Does anyone know of any published "expert" who makes such an argument for two Jameses in Galatians (whether cited by Carrier or not)? I know of none.

Given that the first mention of James, and the entire trip to Jerusalem, didn't exist in Marcion's letters, I'm now (edit: corrected not to now) inclined to think that its all a later interpolation.

As I go into in Deciphering the Gospels, the fact is that Acts of the Apostles does NOT reflect this prior trip nor the idea that there was any brother of Jesus named James. It looks to me like when Acts was written, Galatians 1:18-24 didn't exist. I suspect Gal 1:18-24 was added as late as the mid-second century, perhaps when the first edition of the NT was being assembled.

"20 I assure you before God that what I am writing you is no lie."

Reaaaaalllllyyy??????

So, this is why in DtG I ended up not saying definitively that this James wasn't intended to be "the Lord's brother," because its possible that the writer of the passage did make him the Lord's brother, its just a fraudulent interpolation is the issue. Acts is the witness. The writer of Acts provides no brother of Jesus named James that Paul meets with. However, I didn't offer interpolation in Galatians as a possible solution in DtG. I was much more apprehensive about claiming that there were interpolations in Paul's letters in that book.

Carrier seems to think that the "James" and "John" ( of "James, Cephas, and John, the reputed pillars") of Gal 2 were the brothers Zebedee, and thus--unlike "the brother of the Lord"--they were both "apostles."

" The cosmic myth originated almost certainly in Jerusalem (judging by Galatians 1-2) and was constructed by the founders (Cephas, James, and John, possibly a few others...." https://www.richardcarrier.info/archives/11435

I guess that is the crux of his argument for two Jameses in Galatians. But I don't know of any experts who would concur with the particulars of that argument. I 'don't concur.

In my re-reading, the "James" of Gal 2 ("James, Cephas and John") was same "James" as the "James" of Acts 15--"James son of Alphaeus". (I accept the text critical view that Marcion's "Peter and James and John" was a later textual variant).

I don't necessarily agree with Carrier on that. I think most people, including him, have read way too much into a lot of the later harmonization and reconciliation that took place.

I see most all of this as emanating out of Ephesus, Paul's base of operations, and likely were Paul's letter collection was started, where the Gospel of Mark was written, Marcion's Gospel was written, and the Gospel of John was written. Nearby is where Revelation was written.

I think there is a lot of confusion over what the "Jerusalem church" was and what those people had to do with Paul or Jesus. Still too much dependence on Acts, which situations everything as coming out of Jerusalem. But that's second century propaganda.

There is an assumption that "Jesus" was the central issue. I don't think that was the case.

We know precious little about Peter or about what the issue was that Paul discussed with the Jerusalem church. The issue appears to have been circumcision. I also think, BTW, that Gal 2:8 is a later interpolation: 8 "(for He who was at work for Peter in his apostleship to the circumcised was at work for me also to the Gentiles)" I see this as a later addition intended to refute Marcion's claim that Paul was the only apostle to whom Jesus was revealed. This adds Peter to the list. 1 Cor 15 5-11 is also an interpolation for the same reason.

The issue was that Paul was converting people without circumcising them. He went to the Jerusalem church to get approval of his conversions without circumcision.

Did the Jerusalem church even care about "Jesus Christ"? We don't actually know. People assume so, but that's a bad assumption based on later literary developments.

1 Corinthians is really the only thing that tells us that Peter had anything to do with Christ, and even then it takes some inference. There is indeed nothing that ties any other apostle to "Jesus", only to "Christ" or "the Lord". But did those people associate "the Lord" with Jesus? We can only assume.

Quite obviously, many Jews would have worshiped "the Lord" or even "the Messiah". Who named the Lord Jesus aside from Paul? We have no idea. My point is that there are a lot of loaded assumptions that go into most people's assessment of what was going on, including Carrier's.

We have no idea if Peter or James or Apollos taught that "the Lord" had been crucified, or "Jesus", if they equated "the Lord" to "Jesus" how they conceived of "the Lord" or Christ or Jesus, etc.

Paul's language about the Lord, Christ, and Jesus is pretty specific and also pretty unique. In my reckoning, virtually every work of the NT ultimately derives from Paul, all borrowing his language, etc. How broadly shared that language actually was outside of Paul is not really known. We don't even know if Paul's account of the Jerusalem meeting is legit. He was trying to impress upon the Galatians that his teachings had been approved, and then tells that Peter was a hypocrite. This is his explanation for why it seemed that his teachings had NOT actually been approved and weren't supported by others.

So Paul is claiming that he met with the leaders of the Jerusalem church and that they agreed with his teachings, but apparently the Galatians had heard otherwise. There is no evidence in my mind showing that the "Jerusalem church" knew anything about Jesus at all. Maybe they did, maybe they didn't.

James and Cephas and John, who were reputed to be pillars, gave to me and Barnabas the right hand of fellowship, so that we might go to the Gentiles, and they to the circumcised. They only asked us to remember the poor—the very thing I also was eager to do.

We really have no idea what the common theological framework was between these figures. Did they all distinguish between "God" and "the Lord"? Was the common framework a belief in the coming End of Days? What was the purpose of Peter's ministry to the circumcised? People assume that it was to tell them about Jesus, but this is quite doubtful. It seems to have involved baptism. It seems that the main objective of the ministry would be to get donations for the poor, as Paul repeatedly outlines, and to baptize people to prepare them for the coming of the Lord. What the "coming of the Lord" meant to Peter, James and John I cannot say, but preparation for the "coming of the Lord" would not have been out of place or unusual among Jews at this time. It certainly didn't require any association with "Jesus" -- the coming Lord Yahweh would be assumed.

So, in my mind, its quite possible that the "Jerusalem church" merely sought to #1) help the poor, #2) were preparing for the "coming of the Lord" (whatever that meant), and #3) might have been a group of Jews who saw a distinction between "God" and "the Lord", seeing "God" as the universal Creator and "the Lord" as Yahweh of the Jews. Maybe they also identified "Jesus" with "the Lord" or "the Suffering Servant", but I don't find that necessary given information we have.

rgprice wrote:
I see most all of this as emanating out of Ephesus, Paul's base of operations, and likely were Paul's letter collection was started, where the Gospel of Mark was written, Marcion's Gospel was written, and the Gospel of John was written. Nearby is where Revelation was written.

I don't see how the so-called Paul was based in Ephesus when it is claimed the Ephesians letter was a forgery. It doesn't make sense to forge a letter under the name of Paul where he is based.

rgprice wrote:I think there is a lot of confusion over what the "Jerusalem church" was and what those people had to do with Paul or Jesus. Still too much dependence on Acts, which situations everything as coming out of Jerusalem. But that's second century propaganda.

There was no Jerusalem Church. The supposed Paul wrote no letters to the Jerusalem Church about his revelations from his Lord and Savior Jesus. Even, the resurrected Jesus knew nothing of the Jerusalem Church and asked the author of Revelation to write to the seven Churches in Asia.

Revelation 1:11

The early Jesus cult of Christians were not located in Jerusalem. The seven Churches of the Jesus cult were in Asia.

All NT claims about a Jerusalem Church are bogus and after the writing of the Apocalypse.

rgprice wrote: Quite obviously, many Jews would have worshiped "the Lord" or even "the Messiah". Who named the Lord Jesus aside from Paul? We have no idea. My point is that there are a lot of loaded assumptions that go into most people's assessment of what was going on, including Carrier's.

There is no historical evidence whatsoever that there were Jews who worshiped a Messiah named Jesus. Simon Barchocheba was regarded as the Messianic ruler of the Jews c 133 CE and he was not worshiped as a God. Jews have no history of worshiping men as Gods as can be seen in the writings of Philo.

In fact, Christians claimed the Jewish Temple and Jerusalem were destroyed because the Jews rejected their Lord Jesus as a Messiah and killed him.

rgprice wrote:Paul's language about the Lord, Christ, and Jesus is pretty specific and also pretty unique. In my reckoning, virtually every work of the NT ultimately derives from Paul, all borrowing his language, etc. How broadly shared that language actually was outside of Paul is not really known. We don't even know if Paul's account of the Jerusalem meeting is legit. He was trying to impress upon the Galatians that his teachings had been approved, and then tells that Peter was a hypocrite. This is his explanation for why it seemed that his teachings had NOT actually been approved and weren't supported by others.

It is virtually impossible of gMark to have used the so-called Pauline Epistles to manufacture the Jesus story.

The Markan Jesus is a magician and leader of a band of fishermen and poor people in Galilee who preached about repentance and the imminent coming of the kingdom of God.

The Markan Jesus even refused to disclose from whom he got his authority to preach the Gospel unlike the so-called Paul.

Mark 11:29-31

The Markan Jesus had no real interest in the salvation of Jews.

The Markan Jesus was about fulfilment of prophecy ---not in starting a new religion.

About syntax concerning James in Galatians:
In any language, in a book, letter, etc., after a new entity (such as James iakōbos) has been identified (such as James, the Lord's brother: 1:19) among others of the same (common) name (such as James, the son of Zededee, still alive then), the next time this entity is referred to, only that entity name, without further identification, is required and expected (such as James in 2:9 & 2:12).
The same goes for "Lord". "Lord" is identified as being Jesus Christ in 1:3, so the next "Lord", which appears in 1:19, does not require further identification (and here means also Jesus Christ).

Note: in 1:18-19: Then after three years I went up to Jerusalem to visit Cephas, and remained with him fifteen days. But I saw none of the other apostles except James the Lord's brother., there is an assertion that James the Lord's brother and Cephas are considered by Paul being apostles.

Cordially, Bernard

rgprice wrote: ↑Wed Mar 17, 2021 9:07 am
Given that the first mention of James, and the entire trip to Jerusalem, didn't exist in Marcion's letters, I'm now (edit: corrected not to now) inclined to think that its all a later interpolation.

As I go into in Deciphering the Gospels, the fact is that Acts of the Apostles does NOT reflect this prior trip nor the idea that there was any brother of Jesus named James. It looks to me like when Acts was written, Galatians 1:18-24 didn't exist. I suspect Gal 1:18-24 was added as late as the mid-second century, perhaps when the first edition of the NT was being assembled.

Peter Kirby has addressed Galatians 1:18-24 -


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 -


Also, Jason D. BeDuhn, in The First New Testament: Marcion’s Scriptural Canon, states that Galatians 1:18-24, “is unattested” (p. 262).

eta:
G. D. Kilpatrick - in, Peter, Jerusalem and Galatians 1:13-2:14, Novum Testamentum, Vol. 25, Fasc. 4 (Oct., 1983), pp. 318-326 - examined Gal 1:13-2:14, noting these verses have a large number of unusual features. He said "we can only conclude that a real difference of language exists between Gal 1:13-2:14 and the Pauline epistles as a whole."

rgprice wrote: ↑Wed Mar 17, 2021 10:42 am I also think, BTW, that Gal 2:8 is a later interpolation: 8 "(for He who was at work for Peter in his apostleship to the circumcised was at work for me also to the Gentiles)" I see this as a later addition intended to refute Marcion's claim that Paul was the only apostle to whom Jesus was revealed. This adds Peter to the list. 1 Cor 15 5-11 is also an interpolation for the same reason.

Yes, others have argued Gal 2:7-8 are interpolated -

1. William O Walker Jr, 'Galatians 2:7b-8 as a Non-Pauline Interpolation', The Catholic Biblical Quarterly, Vol. 65, No. 4, Oct 2003, pp. 568-587.
   .
2. Ernst Barnikol, Der nichtpaulinische Ursprung des Parallelismus der Apostel Petrus und Paulus (Galater 2 7-8) (Forschungen zur Entstehung des Urchristentums des Neuen Testament und der Kirche 5; Kiel: Muhlau, 1931)
   
   • Translated into English by Darrell J. Doherty with B. Keith Brewer as
     
     Ernst Barnikol, 'The Non-Pauline Origin of the Parallelism of the Apostles Peter and Paul', J. Higher Criticism 5/2 (Fall 1998), 285-300.
   Barnikol referred to Gal 2:7b-8 as a textual problem representing apostolic parallelism in the second century, and offered insights into the [likely] history of the origin of it.

rgprice wrote: ↑Wed Mar 17, 2021 10:42 am
We have no idea if Peter or James or Apollos taught that "the Lord" had been crucified, or "Jesus", if they equated "the Lord" to "Jesus" how they conceived of "the Lord" or Christ or Jesus, etc.

Paul's language about the Lord, Christ, and Jesus is pretty specific and also pretty unique. In my reckoning, virtually every work of the NT ultimately derives from Paul, all borrowing his language, etc. How broadly shared that language actually was outside of Paul is not really known. We don't even know if Paul's account of the Jerusalem meeting is legit. He was trying to impress upon the Galatians that his teachings had been approved, and then tells that Peter was a hypocrite. This is his explanation for why it seemed that his teachings had NOT actually been approved and weren't supported by others.

So Paul is claiming that he met with the leaders of the Jerusalem church and that they agreed with his teachings, but apparently the Galatians had heard otherwise. There is no evidence in my mind showing that the "Jerusalem church" knew anything about Jesus at all. Maybe they did, maybe they didn't.

James and Cephas and John, who were reputed to be pillars, gave to me and Barnabas the right hand of fellowship, so that we might go to the Gentiles, and they to the circumcised. They only asked us to remember the poor—the very thing I also was eager to do.

We really have no idea what the common theological framework was between these figures. Did they all distinguish between "God" and "the Lord"? Was the common framework a belief in the coming End of Days? What was the purpose of Peter's ministry to the circumcised? People assume that it was to tell them about Jesus, but this is quite doubtful. It seems to have involved baptism. It seems that the main objective of the ministry would be to get donations for the poor, as Paul repeatedly outlines, and to baptize people to prepare them for the coming of the Lord. What the "coming of the Lord" meant to Peter, James and John I cannot say, but preparation for the "coming of the Lord" would not have been out of place or unusual among Jews at this time. It certainly didn't require any association with "Jesus" -- the coming Lord Yahweh would be assumed.
.

• Yep.

rgprice wrote: ↑Wed Mar 17, 2021 10:42 am
We know precious little about Peter or about what the issue was that Paul discussed with the Jerusalem church ...

We have no idea if Peter or James or Apollos taught that "the Lord" had been crucified, or "Jesus", if they equated "the Lord" to "Jesus" how they conceived of "the Lord" or Christ or Jesus, etc.
.

R Joseph Hoffmann has noted that too

all excerpts below from https://www.academia.edu/29038347/A_New ... on_Studies