No, simply that there were apostles before Paul.
He doesn't need to state it. It is very clear. The whole point of Galatians is the question on circumcision. Paul is putting forward his view over and against that of Peter and the other "pillars." So he begins his letter (after the salutation) that before he received the Jesus tradition from Peter, he received it from Christ himself. This is what legitimizes him as an apostle at all. Otherwise, why should those he writes to accept him over Peter?
Paul was a persecutor of Christians, he has to convince them that he is now a legitimate supporter. The notion that Peter knew Jesus and was a disciple never, ever comes up, and for good reason. Peter is a self appointed apostle and so is Paul and so is anyone else claiming to be an apostle. Disciples of an earthly Jesus is a later Christian development that you are reading into the epistles.
You believe Paul very selectively then, because Paul also states that Jesus died, that he passed on teachings, that he had a last supper, all things that you write off.
All in a mythical setting. But he doesn't describe his Jesus Christ as a teacher, nor a miracle worker, as do the gospel writers. And if there was a parallel sacrifice of a savour on earth, we don't know when it took place. The epistle writers are now only concerned with a spiritual Christ.
Anyway, the point is the same. Paul persecuted the earliest followers of Jesus, and therefore cannot claim to have been an original follower. Peter et al can.
Peter and James were apostles before Paul, and Paul admits that, but don't tell Paul he is not now an equal, he's a bit of a pit bull in regards to his authority.
That's my point. He defends his authority because he received his mission from Jesus first, before he was initiated by Peter, therefore he should be thought of as an apostle.
Where do you get the notion that he was initiated by Peter? Paul states that he went to Jerusalem where he got "acquainted" with Peter. It sounds like they shared a few brewsky. His point was that he was now member of the faithful and that Peter et al were no longer out to kill him for trying to destroy the church.
First of all, what he calls the "lord's supper" is the practice that the early christians carried on. Second, so what if the word is used differently in other contexts? Paradidomi in that context means betrayed or even "given over" (to authorities). The point is that Paul has Jesus sitting their eating with his disciples, just as we find in the gospels.
What we have is the gospel writers, which were writing later, borowing from Paul. They transform Paul's Supper into a Last Supper.
None of the gospels show an awareness of Paul's writings.
The author of Mark is writing an allegorical fiction of a Pauline tradition, which well explains why he portrays the disciples as dimwits, they just don't get it and Jesus has to keep explaining it to them.
In any case, I am not "reading back" into Paul. Rather the fact that Paul clearly discusses the twelve and Peter as the head of the twelve and the gospels do as well should make anyone who isn't a complete idiot think that they are talking about the same people.
The Peter that Paul writes of is a real person, the Peter that Mark recasts as a disciple is now a fictionalized version of Peter.
So why is James the only one ever referred to (even in Josephus) as Jesus' brother?
He's never referred to as Jesus' brother in the epistles. The Josephus reference is a later Christian tampering.
He doesn't have to. He is writing to christian communities who would have already known this. In addition, most people know their brothers, especially in cultures where family is everything.
According to the gospel account of Jesus, Jesus' family accounted for a big fat zero.
True enough. But we do have the gospels, early bioi of Jesus, which explain this. Thank goodness.
Thank goodness, If you say so.
No. It simply means that it was Peter first, then the whole group of the twelve.
There is the idea that the Twelve is a later Christian interpolation which makes sense considering the epistle writers, including Paul, make no other mention of the term.
The gospels weren't written, but the earliest parts of them were already around orally (if not in writing, as Q is dated to around this time)
Q appears to be of a Gallilean tradition that Paul never refers to, and Q does not hint of a crucifixion. The gospels combine these differeing traditions.
Actually, most translations do it my way. See Metzger or Fitzmeyer on this.
No doubt.
No one else is ever, ever referred to as the "brother of Jesus" the way James is. All the other uses of brethren and brother don't matter. Only James is "the brother of the Lord" because they were actually related.
Not so. Brother of the Lord, or Lords' brother is not to mean a literal brother of Jesus on a number of levels. The epistles rarely ever refer to a Jesus, 9.9 times out of ten they write of a Jesus Christ which is a title, or Christ Jesus, or Lord Jesus Christ. The gospels are writing of a Pauline tradition and don't even assign a role to Jesus' brother.
And what, from you analysis of the the gospel texts, leads you to believe that the gospels were aware of Paul's writing? The fact that Paul says things that happen in the gospels? But you already said they stole it all from the OT. Be consistent.
They took from Paul and they took from ancient Hebrew scriptures as did Paul.
The truth is that Paul was aware of the traditions concerning Jesus which he received directly from Peter. The gospels used similar traditions.
You can't assess that from a reading of the epistles.
James was not one of the twelve, and apparently received more authority after his death. If the gospels (as you suggested) were dependent on Paul, wouldn't they have made him more prominent?
Exactly my point. James is a very prominent disciple in the gospels, as are Peter and John. Jesus' brother plays no role in the gospels nor in Acts. Luke/Acts doesn't even name any of Jesus' brothers or sisters. The notion that Jesus' brother became a leader is a much later Christian development. James probably fell out of favour due to his strict adherence to Jewish tradition such as circumcision which was a biggy when trying to appeal to the gentiles. The church preferred to blot him out and have Jesus' brother take his place so that conversion could be a much easier endevour.
They don't, though, because they are aware (and show a desire to record history) that James did not become prominent until after Jesus died. And James is mentioned in Acts (15:13).
They show a desire to record a revisionist history. James, son of Zebedee is mentioned in Acts, but Acts never names Jesus' brother.
-------------------------------------
We can see the parallels here:
Galatians 2:
9 James, Peter and John, those reputed to be pillars, gave me and Barnabas the right hand of fellowship when they recognized the grace given to me. They agreed that we should go to the Gentiles, and they to the Jews.
Mark 9:
2 After six days Jesus took Peter,James, and John with him and led them up a high mountain, where they were all alone. There he was transfigured before them. 3 His clothes became dazzling white, whiter than anyone in the world could bleach them. 4 And there appeared before them Elijah and Moses, who were talking with Jesus.
Luke 5:
8 When Simon Peter saw this, he fell at Jesus' knees and said, "Go away from me, Lord; I am a sinful man!" 9 For he and all his companions were astonished at the catch of fish they had taken, 10
and so were James and John, the sons of Zebedee, Simon's partners.
There is no feasible way to confuse James, son of Zebedee with James, brother of Jesus. It's a much later church development that would have us believe that Jesus' brother rose to prominence.
