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

[Giuseppe]

Reading the absolutely persuasive article of Carrier contra Gullotta, my eye was derived to this point about James:

The James of Galatians 2 can’t be the brother of John (and therefore must instead be the James named in Galatians 1), because Acts says he was dead by then. This was attempted by Craig Evans on the fly in our Kennesaw debate (for which Evans demonstrably did not prepare; he was given, but apparently never read my book, even though he was paid quite a lot of money to debate the content of that book; the irony of Gullotta also not reading the book he claims to be responding to on this point is not lost on me). I’ve already explained what’s wrong with that argument. Basically, Acts is unreliable. Especially in chronology. When Acts contradicts Paul, sound historical method requires us to side with Paul. Because unlike the author of Acts, Paul is an eyewitness to what he reports.

This raises the strong suspect: was Acts deliberately making die in advance the James son of Zebedee (by hand of Herod), so that the survived James who met a so obedient Paul in Jerusalem could be identified more easily with the brother of Jesus (even if he is not so named)?

If this is the case, then Acts would give more reason to :

1) consider evident the presence of mythicist Christians (or more probably docetic Christians) in polemic with the proto-Catholic author of Acts,

2) consider the same Gal 1:19 as an anti-marcionite interpolation based on Acts (Detering's view).

[Giuseppe]

More correctly:

If this is the case, then Acts would give more reason to :

1) consider evident the presence of mythicist Christians (or more probably docetic Christians) in polemic with the proto-Catholic author of Acts,

2) consider the same Gal 1:19 as NOT an anti-marcionite interpolation based on Acts (Detering's view).

In other terms,

1) Gal 1:19 was original.
2) the James of Gal 1:19 was really different from the James Pillar of Gal 2
3) James Pillar of Gal 2 was made the ''James son of Zebedee'' in the Gospels, while the James Brother of Jesus in the Gospels was a different James
5) Acts, in polemic against Marcion, makes die in advance James son of Zebedee, so that the survived James could be identified with the only other James mentioned in the Gospels and in Galatians: the brother ''of Jesus'' (in the Gospels) and the Brother ''of the Lord'' (in Galatians).
6) So Marcion was forced to omit the James of Gal 1:19 from the his reconstruction of Galatians, since also he was moved to believe that the James of Gal 1:19 was the same James Pillar of Gal 2.
7) Hegesippus, contra Marcion, insists in inventing legend about James brother of Jesus and leader of Jerusalem.
8) Someone interpolated ''called Christ'' in Josephus, also in this case against the Marcion's negation that Jesus was the Christ of the Jews.
9) Origen read the interpolation in Josephus.
10) Eusebius based himself on both Origen and Hegesippus.

Clearly, the problem in this reconstruction is that Acts was written as appendix to a corrupted proto-Luke alias Mcn.

[Joseph D. L.]

I'm not convinced by this argumentation. For one, why should we presume that the James in Gal 1 is not the James in Gal 2? I could only gusss it is because we're thinking about this linearly: that one is Jesus's brother, while the other is bar Zebedee, the brother of John. But notice how Paul never refers to James and John as brothers. It's only ever the nebulous brother of the Lord application. Is it such a radical controversy to think that Jesus and John are one and the same? That John, who is not the Christ of Paul, was the original leader of the Community before it was assigned to his brother, James? Indeed, their title of Boanerges implies just that. This would definitely answer some lingering questions as to who is who in the New Testament, why characters are seemingly duplicated and appear with the same names; and would also help simplify how these characters could have real world, corporeal life, if the central figure they revolve around was not himself real and living. (In fact, that's one issue I've never seen addressed by mythicists).

Secondly, this also supposes that Acts of the Apostles (a late second, early third century text) was written prior to texts that are James focused, and put him as being appointed directly by Jesus/John to lead this community. Gospel of the Hebrews, Gospel of Thomas, Ascents of James, 1 and 2 Apocalypse of James, Apocryphon of James, and the Epistle of James... all signify the importance of James. (And I am one of those who believes that the beloved disciple who composed John, was either Marcion OR James).

It's striking how even those who acknowledge that Acts of the Apostles is largely fictional and a very late work, will still fall back on it for history. But it is not history; it is propaganda. So arguing that the two James' can't be the same due to the chronology of Acts, seems very short sighted and unimaginative.

There's also the tradition that both James and John were killed at roughly the same time, in accordance to Matthew 20.

What's more, Galatians itself is a late work--roughly post-Kitos.

If Carrier is trying to pin down an apologist with the fluid and unreliable nature of the New Testament, then that is one thing. But something tells me that he actually believes what he says. He is a poor representative for mythicists.

[Giuseppe]

For one, why should we presume that the James in Gal 1 is not the James in Gal 2?

My opinion: if he is the same James of Gal 2, then very probably Detering is right to consider an anti-marcionite interpolation the first visit of Paul in Jerusalem (designed to put Paul under James carnal Brother of Jesus).

While, if Carrier is right to distinguish the two James (and I think he is), then anything that the author of Acts would have had to do is to make die the James son of Zebedee and make survive the other James (of Gal 1:19) in the his same role of Pillar of the killed James son of Zebedee).
Clearly Acts is not History, but only fiction. I add only that Acts is not an innocent fiction.

[Joseph D. L.]

My opinion: if he is the same James of Gal 2, then very probably Detering is right to consider an anti-marcionite interpolation the first visit of Paul in Jerusalem (designed to put Paul under James carnal Brother of Jesus).

That may be possible, but there could also be an underlying motive at work that should be considered if it is authentic (which I think it is).

While, if Carrier is right to distinguish the two James (and I think he is), then anything that the author of Acts would have had to do is to make die the James son of Zebedee and make survive the other James (of Gal 1:19) in the his same role of Pillar of the killed James son of Zebedee).

But that is the agenda of the author(s) of Acts. Galatians should be thought of as being composed prior to Acts, and before any tradition of James being martyred came about. Again, Carrier is thinking along the history contained in Acts of the Apostles. That is the biggest hole that sadly so many otherwise perceptive men fall into. Acts should not even be given a second thought when interpreting the Pauline letters, because they have priority over Acts.

The tradition of a martyred James [and John] comes about in Matthew (and perhaps Mark's Boanerges is a carry over of this), which is patently designed as a reaction to the Gospel of Marcion, and probably inspired by the recent deaths of Julian and Pappus, and Acts is clearly following this tradition. Yet John (which I think preceded the Synoptics) never brings up James, the brother of the Lord distinction. In fact, never mentions James, which is odd if Apostle John is the presumed writer of this text. Yet this James/John relationship appears in pseudo-Gospel of Marcion, wherein the brother of the Lord distinction is also not present.

So either Galatians is referring to one James who is being divided into two or more figures by later traditions, or was condensing multiple figures into one; because the argument that these are two different James' is not supported by the text of Galatians, and Acts has zero worth as history. As it stands, I choose the former option.

Then you add the possibility that the journey up to Jerusalem in chp. 2 was actually a vision (which is heavily implied by the Apocalypse of Paul) and that Cephas, James AND John are actually dead, and you have yet another counter argument against Carrier.

[Giuseppe]

because the argument that these are two different James' is not supported by the text of Galatians

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).

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 ?

According to Georges Ory, the Christ descended on John the Baptist in the Gospel read by Celsus.

[Ken Olson]

I think the thesis that the church leader named James mentioned by Paul in Galatians 1.19 and 2.9, 12 (and presumably 1 Corinthians 15.7) is the same historical person as James son of Zebedee and that the author of Acts got his facts wrong is a plausible historical thesis. Not necessarily right, but plausible. A lot of ink has been spilled trying to work out the various Jameses and Marys on the assumption that the NT authors had them right and we just need to work them out. But I suspect the confusion already existed before the NT was written and some of the NT authors reflect it.

But I think the point of the OP needs to be clarified by using the language (in English translation at least) actually used by the authors. James the brother of Jesus is the reading found in Josephus' Antiquities 20.200. Galatians has James the brother of the Lord, which Carrier and others think may not indicate an actual blood relationship but a fictive kinship relationship (as Paul's other uses of the word brother do). IIRC, "brothers of the Lord" is not found in the NT other than in the two cases in Paul under dispute (Gal. 1.19 and 1 Cor. 9.5). The author of Acts does not say that the James mentioned on Acts 15 and 21 as anyone's brother. Again, IIRC, Luke-Acts does not name the brothers of Jesus; Mark and Matthew do.

In the late fourth century, Gregory of Nyssa does use "brothers of the Lord" of a fictive kinship relationship: "If we have become brothers of the Lord who became the First-Born among many brothers through a similar rebirth by water and the Spirit, certain characteristics in our lives should manifest a close relationship to him, the First-Born of creation, who was conformed to our life." (Gregory, On Perfection).

Best,

Ken

[Giuseppe]

I think the thesis that the church leader named James mentioned by Paul in Galatians 1.19 and 2.9, 12 (and presumably 1 Corinthians 15.7) is the same historical person as James son of Zebedee and that the author of Acts got his facts wrong is a plausible historical thesis. Not necessarily right, but plausible.

Hi Ken,
If I understand you well, you are historicist and you think that James the carnal brother of Jesus was shown as James son of Zebedee in the Gospels. Is this your view?

The author of Acts does not say that the James mentioned on Acts 15 and 21 as anyone's brother. Again, IIRC, Luke-Acts does not name the brothers of Jesus; Mark and Matthew do.

I follow obviously Carrier about Galatians (as I have specified in the first thread). I am assuming that Carrier is right and that therefore the James of Gal 1:19 is different from the James Pillar (only the latter being the son of Zebedee in the Gospels).

Stantibus sic rebus, I suspect that, even if ''the author of Acts does not say that the James mentioned on Acts 15 and 21 as anyone's brother'', he invented a premature death of the James son of Zebedee in Acts 12:1-19 so that the James introduced later in Acts 15 could be shown implicitly as the carnal brother of Jesus (and identified deliberately with the James of Gal 1:19, read - only now - along historicist lines, against Marcion). In other terms, the autor of Acts founded deliberately the legend of a James brother of Jesus and leader in Jerusalem.

Obviously, Luke-Acts doesn't name Brothers of Jesus since for me ''Luke'' is really the falsified Mcn (and surely Marcion didn't have carnal brothers for Jesus).

[Giuseppe]

Note that the author of Acts had to describe in any case the martyrdom of James son of Zebedee, since in Mark Jesus himself said to both the sons of Zebedee that they will drink the cup of martyrdom. Only, the author of Acts invented a premature death of James in order to introduce another James who was able to be identified by the readers with the James of Gal 1:19 (read along historicist lines).

[Giuseppe]

My theory may explain:

1) why the presumed ''error'' of Acts is there.
2) why Hegesippus read in Acts the idea that James was a brother of Jesus and also a leader of Jerusalem
3) why the Christian interpolator had to interpolate ''called Christ'' in Ant. 20:200: Marcion was denying carnal parentage for Jesus, and that Jesus was really the Christ of the Jews.
4) why Hegesippus called this James as ''the Just''
5) why a pseudo-''Paul'' called himself as ''the'' Ektroma in 1 Cor 15.
6) why Marcion's Galatians didn't have Gal 1:19.
7) why in Acts the James of Acts 15 is never called explicitly ''brother of Jesus''.