Did Acts invent a James brother of Jesus who was ALSO a leader?

Discussion about the New Testament, apocrypha, gnostics, church fathers, Christian origins, historical Jesus or otherwise, etc.
Giuseppe
Posts: 13732
Joined: Mon Apr 27, 2015 5:37 am
Location: Italy

Re: Did Acts invent a James brother of Jesus who was ALSO a leader?

Post by Giuseppe »

Ben C. Smith wrote: Sun Dec 17, 2017 12:44 pm
Giuseppe wrote: Sun Dec 17, 2017 12:27 pm Personally, I think that Carrier is right when he says that Paul uses "brothers of the Lord" to distinguish Apostles from not-Apostles. It is the more clear reading of the text.
If "brothers of the Lord" = apostles, then the sense of the troubling verse would be:

1 Corinthians 9.5: 5 Do we not have a right to take along a sister wife, even as the rest of the apostles and the apostles and Cephas?

Which makes little sense.
I don't have said that. I have said that

"Brothers of the Lord" = not-apostles.
Nihil enim in speciem fallacius est quam prava religio. -Liv. xxxix. 16.
Giuseppe
Posts: 13732
Joined: Mon Apr 27, 2015 5:37 am
Location: Italy

Re: Did Acts invent a James brother of Jesus who was ALSO a leader?

Post by Giuseppe »

Ben C. Smith wrote: Sun Dec 17, 2017 12:42 pm
I believe you are overinterpreting.

First of all, the most one can get out of this verse by assuming such a close connection between seeing the Lord and being an apostle is that one category swallows the other whole. In other words, (A) all apostles having seen the Lord and (B) all people who have seen the Lord being apostles are not the same thing.
The 2 sets are really strictly equivalent:

Apostles means "who is sent by" (the Risen Christ).

Apostle = who sees the Risen Christ.

The sense would be that when the Risen Christ appears to someone (beyond of his previous condition), then that someone is "sent" to reveal the divine news to the world. He becomes Apostle in the same instanct he has the sacred duty of a public revelation of the message of the his Christ in him.

Paul becomes apostle when he sees Christ. He was a pesecutor and a second after...: an apostle.
Nihil enim in speciem fallacius est quam prava religio. -Liv. xxxix. 16.
User avatar
Ben C. Smith
Posts: 8994
Joined: Wed Apr 08, 2015 2:18 pm
Location: USA
Contact:

Re: Did Acts invent a James brother of Jesus who was ALSO a leader?

Post by Ben C. Smith »

Giuseppe wrote: Sun Dec 17, 2017 12:56 pm
Ben C. Smith wrote: Sun Dec 17, 2017 12:42 pm
I believe you are overinterpreting.

First of all, the most one can get out of this verse by assuming such a close connection between seeing the Lord and being an apostle is that one category swallows the other whole. In other words, (A) all apostles having seen the Lord and (B) all people who have seen the Lord being apostles are not the same thing.
The 2 sets are really strictly equivalent:

Apostles means "who is sent by" (the Risen Christ).

Apostle = who sees the Risen Christ.

The sense would be that when the Risen Christ appears to someone (beyond of his previous condition), then that someone is "sent" to reveal the divine news to the world. He becomes Apostle in the same instanct he has the sacred duty of a public revelation of the message of the his Christ in him.

Paul becomes apostle when he sees Christ. He was a pesecutor and a second after...: an apostle.
You are having to assume that all visionaries of the risen Christ are sent. No text says that, at least none that you have produced.
ΤΙ ΕΣΤΙΝ ΑΛΗΘΕΙΑ
User avatar
Ben C. Smith
Posts: 8994
Joined: Wed Apr 08, 2015 2:18 pm
Location: USA
Contact:

Re: Did Acts invent a James brother of Jesus who was ALSO a leader?

Post by Ben C. Smith »

Giuseppe wrote: Sun Dec 17, 2017 12:49 pm
Ben C. Smith wrote: Sun Dec 17, 2017 12:44 pm
Giuseppe wrote: Sun Dec 17, 2017 12:27 pm Personally, I think that Carrier is right when he says that Paul uses "brothers of the Lord" to distinguish Apostles from not-Apostles. It is the more clear reading of the text.
If "brothers of the Lord" = apostles, then the sense of the troubling verse would be:

1 Corinthians 9.5: 5 Do we not have a right to take along a sister wife, even as the rest of the apostles and the apostles and Cephas?

Which makes little sense.
I don't have said that. I have said that

"Brothers of the Lord" = not-apostles.
Ah, okay. I mistook your meaning. But then... not all nonapostles. Not just "brothers" or "believers" or whatnot. Because the verse makes no more sense on that assumption than on the first. "Brothers of the Lord" should be a special group in 1 Corinthians 9.5: not the apostles, and not brothers in general.
ΤΙ ΕΣΤΙΝ ΑΛΗΘΕΙΑ
User avatar
Joseph D. L.
Posts: 1405
Joined: Sat Nov 11, 2017 2:10 am

Re: Did Acts invent a James brother of Jesus who was ALSO a leader?

Post by Joseph D. L. »

Why not supported? If both the times Paul uses the construct ''Brother of the Lord'' he does so to distinguish apostles from mere baptized Christians, then surely the James of Gal 1:19 is not a leader or apostle (therefore he cannot be the James Pillar of Gal 2).
The question becomes, why would Paul use such a qualifier to distinguish between two different men, when both were respectively Apostles? James bar Zebedee was just as much an Apostle as James the Just, yet being he is singled out in Gal 1 as brother of the Lord according to you and Carrier.

Again, the tradition that there were multiple James (James bar Zebedee, James the Just, James the Lesser, and James bar Alphaeus) came about after the Pauline letters, which only ever mention one, single James.
At any case, I can understand which is your interpretation. You think that the ''Lord'' was John. Do you mean just John the Baptist? Or a John son of Judas the Galilean ?
John the Baptist appears to be a character from tradition, and may be based on Theudas. It's possible, but not something I've bothered with too much. But, yes, I do think that John was the Lord.

I mean, is it just a coincidence that there are two figures that both have mothers named Mary, a brother named James, and are distinguished with a title that exalts them to divinity?
According to Georges Ory, the Christ descended on John the Baptist in the Gospel read by Celsus.
That's what the Manichaens believed as well.
User avatar
Joseph D. L.
Posts: 1405
Joined: Sat Nov 11, 2017 2:10 am

Re: Did Acts invent a James brother of Jesus who was ALSO a leader?

Post by Joseph D. L. »

Jax wrote: Sun Dec 17, 2017 11:23 am
Joseph D. L. wrote: Sun Dec 17, 2017 2:46 am What's more, Galatians itself is a late work--roughly post-Kitos.
Hi Joseph D. L, I would be interested in seeing arguments for this if you would be kind enough to link me to them.

Thank you.

Jax
Don't have time to go in depth at the moment, but I will give a summation for now.

The Pauline/Marcionite theology seems to be a response to the policies enacted by Hadrian after Kitos, particularly the ban on circumcision. Why this is, I suspect, is because the writer (be it Paul, Marcion; Peregrinus or Aquila) did have some connection to Hadrian and wanted to enforce his rule onto Jews.

Next, and this is the big one, the theology of Marcion was inspired by the eclipse of 118 ad.

Full credit goes to Stuart Waugh for this. But everything is there: Christ being delivered up to the cross; Paul being reborn of a virgin; the god of war ruling over the Law... and that this just happened after the Kitos revolt makes it all the more conspicuous.

Anyway, here's a link to Stuart's blog about it: http://sgwau2cbeginnings.blogspot.com/2 ... 18-ce.html

Other than a few--and very minour--differences in opinion, I think this is the solution that answers everything.
User avatar
MrMacSon
Posts: 8798
Joined: Sat Oct 05, 2013 3:45 pm

Re: Did Acts invent a James brother of Jesus who was ALSO a leader?

Post by MrMacSon »

The name "James" in the New Testament is borne by several:
  1. James, the son of Zebedee — Apostle, brother of John, Apostle; also called "James the Greater".
  2. James, the son of Alpheus, Apostle — Matthew 10:3; Mark 3:18; Luke 6:15; Acts 1:13.
  3. James, the brother of the Lord — Matthew 13:55; Mark 6:3; Galatians 1:19. Without 'a shadow of doubt', he 'must be' identified with the James of Galatians 2:2 and 2:9; Acts 12:17, 15:13 sqq. and 21:18; and 1 Corinthians 15:7.
  4. James, the son of Mary, brother of Joseph (or Joses) — Mark 15:40 (where he is called ò mikros "the little", not the "less", as in the D.V., nor the "lesser"); Matthew 27:56. Probably the son of Cleophas or Clopas (John 19:25) where "Maria Cleophæ" is generally translated "Mary the wife of Cleophas", as married women are commonly distinguished by the addition of their husband's name.
  5. James, the brother of Jude — Jude 1:1. Most Catholic commentators identify Jude with the "Judas Jacobi", the "brother of James" (Luke 6:16; Acts 1:13), called thus because his brother James was better known than himself in the primitive Church.
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/08280a.htm
User avatar
Jax
Posts: 1443
Joined: Sun Aug 06, 2017 6:10 am

Re: Did Acts invent a James brother of Jesus who was ALSO a leader?

Post by Jax »

Joseph D. L. wrote: Sun Dec 17, 2017 5:47 pm
Jax wrote: Sun Dec 17, 2017 11:23 am
Joseph D. L. wrote: Sun Dec 17, 2017 2:46 am What's more, Galatians itself is a late work--roughly post-Kitos.
Hi Joseph D. L, I would be interested in seeing arguments for this if you would be kind enough to link me to them.

Thank you.

Jax
Don't have time to go in depth at the moment, but I will give a summation for now.

The Pauline/Marcionite theology seems to be a response to the policies enacted by Hadrian after Kitos, particularly the ban on circumcision. Why this is, I suspect, is because the writer (be it Paul, Marcion; Peregrinus or Aquila) did have some connection to Hadrian and wanted to enforce his rule onto Jews.

Next, and this is the big one, the theology of Marcion was inspired by the eclipse of 118 ad.

Full credit goes to Stuart Waugh for this. But everything is there: Christ being delivered up to the cross; Paul being reborn of a virgin; the god of war ruling over the Law... and that this just happened after the Kitos revolt makes it all the more conspicuous.

Anyway, here's a link to Stuart's blog about it: http://sgwau2cbeginnings.blogspot.com/2 ... 18-ce.html

Other than a few--and very minour--differences in opinion, I think this is the solution that answers everything.
Thank you. I look forward to reading the material in that link. :)
Giuseppe
Posts: 13732
Joined: Mon Apr 27, 2015 5:37 am
Location: Italy

Re: Did Acts invent a James brother of Jesus who was ALSO a leader?

Post by Giuseppe »

Ben C. Smith wrote: Sun Dec 17, 2017 1:55 pm
Giuseppe wrote: Sun Dec 17, 2017 12:56 pm
Ben C. Smith wrote: Sun Dec 17, 2017 12:42 pm
I believe you are overinterpreting.

First of all, the most one can get out of this verse by assuming such a close connection between seeing the Lord and being an apostle is that one category swallows the other whole. In other words, (A) all apostles having seen the Lord and (B) all people who have seen the Lord being apostles are not the same thing.
The 2 sets are really strictly equivalent:

Apostles means "who is sent by" (the Risen Christ).

Apostle = who sees the Risen Christ.

The sense would be that when the Risen Christ appears to someone (beyond of his previous condition), then that someone is "sent" to reveal the divine news to the world. He becomes Apostle in the same instanct he has the sacred duty of a public revelation of the message of the his Christ in him.

Paul becomes apostle when he sees Christ. He was a pesecutor and a second after...: an apostle.
You are having to assume that all visionaries of the risen Christ are sent. No text says that, at least none that you have produced.
It is not an assumption. It is the banal consequence of :

1) the meaning of Apostle (''who is sent by'')
2) what Paul himself says in 1 Cor 9:1
3) the fact that Paul was a persecutor an instanct before he became apostle.

The apostles were always moving themselves. They were sent always to preach what they were receiving by Jesus. This explains their absence in Jerusalem when Paul visited it the first time.
Nihil enim in speciem fallacius est quam prava religio. -Liv. xxxix. 16.
Giuseppe
Posts: 13732
Joined: Mon Apr 27, 2015 5:37 am
Location: Italy

Re: Did Acts invent a James brother of Jesus who was ALSO a leader?

Post by Giuseppe »

Ben C. Smith wrote: Sun Dec 17, 2017 1:55 pm
Giuseppe wrote: Sun Dec 17, 2017 12:49 pm
Ben C. Smith wrote: Sun Dec 17, 2017 12:44 pm
Giuseppe wrote: Sun Dec 17, 2017 12:27 pm Personally, I think that Carrier is right when he says that Paul uses "brothers of the Lord" to distinguish Apostles from not-Apostles. It is the more clear reading of the text.
If "brothers of the Lord" = apostles, then the sense of the troubling verse would be:

1 Corinthians 9.5: 5 Do we not have a right to take along a sister wife, even as the rest of the apostles and the apostles and Cephas?

Which makes little sense.
I don't have said that. I have said that

"Brothers of the Lord" = not-apostles.
Ah, okay. I mistook your meaning. But then... not all nonapostles. Not just "brothers" or "believers" or whatnot. Because the verse makes no more sense on that assumption than on the first. "Brothers of the Lord" should be a special group in 1 Corinthians 9.5: not the apostles, and not brothers in general.
I don't understand your point. Paul is saying :

1 Corinthians 9.5: 5 Do we not have a right to take along a sister wife, even as the rest of the not-apostles and the apostles and Cephas?

the sense is: if even the simple baptized Christians (the not-apostles) have the right,
if even the apostles like me have the right,
if even Cephas has the right,
why don't I have the right?
Nihil enim in speciem fallacius est quam prava religio. -Liv. xxxix. 16.
Post Reply