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.
User avatar
Ken Olson
Posts: 1277
Joined: Fri May 09, 2014 9:26 am

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

Post by Ken Olson »

Giuseppe asked:
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?
I'm an historicist in the sense that at present, I think it more likely than not (but not certain) that the Jesus mentioned by Paul and the gospel authors was a real person who had lived in the past, however much unhistorical material developed about him.

No, that's not what I think about James, I'm not even sure what that means. In what I posted, I was seriously entertaining the idea that James the brother of the Lord mentioned by Paul was not a blood relative of Jesus but a brother of the Lord in a figurative sense such as that used by Gregory of Nyssa. If that is the case, the James mentioned in Galatians and Corinthians (I was not making your distinction between the Jameses of Gal 1 and 2) could be the same person as James the son of Zebedee and that the author of Acts was wrong in distinguishing James son of Zebedee from the James who was a leader of the Jeruslaem church in Gal 2 and Acts 15. At the moment, I'm just claiming that's an historically plausible theory, not that it is actually the case.

Best,

Ken
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 »

Ken Olson wrote: Sun Dec 17, 2017 9:38 am If that is the case, the James mentioned in Galatians and Corinthians (I was not making your distinction between the Jameses of Gal 1 and 2) could be the same person as James the son of Zebedee
Carrier is reluctant to accept this conclusion (for his own words), since James (surely, the James Pillar) is mentioned in the list of apparitions of 1 Cor 15, and therefore to have seen the Risen Christ makes him an apostle in his own right, hence not the James of Gal 1:19 (who is distinct from the apostle Peter just by calling the former ''the Brother of the Lord'', meaning that he is not an apostle even if he was the carnal brother of Jesus).
Nihil enim in speciem fallacius est quam prava religio. -Liv. xxxix. 16.
User avatar
Ken Olson
Posts: 1277
Joined: Fri May 09, 2014 9:26 am

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

Post by Ken Olson »

Your argument seems to be based on the premise that Paul uses the term Apostle to describe anyone who has seen the risen Jesus. I would need to see a fuller argument for that. It seems to me that the most plain reading of Paul in 1 Cor. 15 (which I take to be authentic) is that not all Jesus' appearances result in apostolic commissions. Jesus appeared to more than 500 of the brethren at one time and later to all the apostles. Did all the 500+ brethren become apostles? What would make us conclude that?

I'm not clear on why Carrier thinks (in the comments to the linked article) the three pillars in Gal 2, including James, are certainly apostles.
The Pillars, Cephas, James and John, correspond too obviously with the top three “disciples” narrated in the Synoptic Gospels. And there they are certainly Apostles; and that James is the brother of John, not of Jesus. No brother of Jesus is numbered among the Apostles in any of the Gospels.
Why would Carrier presuppose the gospel usage of Apostles for Paul when he thinks the gospel authors got so much else wrong? He also says:
It’s not impossible (“Brother of the Lord” could be some special policed title that regular baptized Christians were not allowed to use even though in fact they are brothers of the Lord; but there is no evidence of that, any more than there is evidence of Paul meaning biological brothers by it).
We have only the two uses for the term "brother/s of the Lord," so it's hard to formulate rules for how Paul uses it. In both cases in Paul, they seem to be distinct from apostles. But, yes, I think it's plausible that "brothers of the Lord" in Paul may also be distinct from brothers in the sense of (baptized?) members of the church.
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 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
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 »

Ken Olson wrote: Sun Dec 17, 2017 8:53 amIn 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).
1 Corinthians 9.5 would be the key here. On its own, "James the brother of the Lord" in Galatians 1.19 might simply be a fancy way of saying "James the brother" (compare "Quartus the brother" in Romans 16.23). A "brother" here would simply mean a fellow believer, exactly as it does in that quote from Gregory of Nyssa.

But can "brother (of the Lord)" mean that in 1 Corinthians 9.5?

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 brothers of the Lord, and Cephas?

The "brothers of the Lord" sure sound to me like a separate group here, and not just believers in general. Long ago G. A. Wells pointed out the similarity between this apparently more restricted usage and that found in Matthew's last chapter:

Matthew 28.10: 10 Then Jesus said to them, "Do not be afraid; go and take word to My brethren to leave for Galilee, and there they shall see Me."

If Jesus is not here referring to his flesh-and-blood brothers (which seems unlikely to me), then he apparently is referring to the remaining (eleven) disciples/apostles (28.16); that is, a select group. If the "brothers of the Lord" were a particular group of early preachers (this being a natural way to read 1 Corinthians 9.5), then it stands to reason that the James of 1.19 numbered among them, and it would be natural for later evangelists like Matthew to limit their number to the Twelve (or the Eleven) alone, as seems to have happened at least to some extent with the term "apostle" (not limited in the Pauline epistles, but partly limited in some later works).

Or so it seems to me. But I have doubts both about the originality of Galatians 1.19, based on the Marcionite recension and that textual variant in Galatians 2.1, and about James (the Just, of Jerusalem) being a literal brother (or even relative) of Jesus.
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.
I agree with this completely. We are not seeing the entire picture of how things developed. The confusion was already happening by the time the gospels were penned.
ΤΙ ΕΣΤΙΝ ΑΛΗΘΕΙΑ
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 »

Ken Olson wrote: Sun Dec 17, 2017 10:59 am Your argument seems to be based on the premise that Paul uses the term Apostle to describe anyone who has seen the risen Jesus. I would need to see a fuller argument for that. It seems to me that the most plain reading of Paul in 1 Cor. 15 (which I take to be authentic) is that not all Jesus' appearances result in apostolic commissions. Jesus appeared to more than 500 of the brethren at one time and later to all the apostles. Did all the 500+ brethren become apostles? What would make us conclude that?
Yes. The 500 brothers become apostles in their own right just in the same instanct they "see" the Risen Christ. So Paul:
Am I not free? Am I not an apostle? Have I not seen Jesus our Lord? Are you not the result of my work in the Lord?
(1 Cor 9:1)
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 »

Ken Olson wrote: Sun Dec 17, 2017 10:59 am
Why would Carrier presuppose the gospel usage of Apostles for Paul when he thinks the gospel authors got so much else wrong?
there is no need of the gospel usage of Apostles since according to the same definition of Apostle mentioned by Paul in 1 Cor 9:1 , Peter and James and the 12 and the 500 btothers and Paul are all Apostles in their own right: they have "seen" the Risen Christ. Therefore become 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 »

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.
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 12:19 pm
Ken Olson wrote: Sun Dec 17, 2017 10:59 am Your argument seems to be based on the premise that Paul uses the term Apostle to describe anyone who has seen the risen Jesus. I would need to see a fuller argument for that. It seems to me that the most plain reading of Paul in 1 Cor. 15 (which I take to be authentic) is that not all Jesus' appearances result in apostolic commissions. Jesus appeared to more than 500 of the brethren at one time and later to all the apostles. Did all the 500+ brethren become apostles? What would make us conclude that?
Yes. The 500 brothers become apostles in their own right just in the same instanct they "see" the Risen Christ. So Paul:
Am I not free? Am I not an apostle? Have I not seen Jesus our Lord? Are you not the result of my work in the Lord?
(1 Cor 9:1)
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.

Second, are we entitled to assume such a close connection between these statements in the first place? What about the first one on the list, "am I not free?" Applying the same logic to freedom that you are applying to visions of the Lord Jesus, we would have to assume that all people who are free are also apostles. But:

Romans 8.2: 2 For the law of the Spirit of life in Christ Jesus has set you free from the law of sin and of death.

Galatians 4.31: 31 So then, brethren, we are not children of a bondwoman, but of the free woman.

Galatians 5.1: 1 It was for freedom that Christ set us free; therefore keep standing firm and do not be subject again to a yoke of slavery.

Galatians 5.13: 13 For you were called to freedom, brethren; only do not turn your freedom into an opportunity for the flesh, but through love serve one another.

Third, what about the last statement on the list? If everyone who has seen the Lord is an apostle, then can everyone who has seen the Lord lay claim to the Corinthians (or anybody else) as the result of his/her work in the Lord?

I think these may be four independent statements which Paul is applying to himself. He is free, he is an apostle, he has seen the Lord, and he can claim the Corinthians as the result of his work. Verse 2 would be parenthetical, in a sense; nobody has ever questioned Paul's freedom, his vision, or his work in Corinth, but apparently someone has questioned his apostleship, so he defends that one statement in particular.

And, even if they are not independent statements, apostleship takes center stage, starting in verse 2, so the other statements would be describing apostleship: apostles are free, apostles have seen the Lord, and apostles produce results. Logically, the converse of a true statement is not necessarily true; so just because all apostles have seen the Lord does not mean that all people who have seen the Lord are apostles. Similarly, all cats are mammals, but not all mammals are cats.
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 12:27 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.
ΤΙ ΕΣΤΙΝ ΑΛΗΘΕΙΑ
Post Reply