With regard to historical-critical research, what is the point of distinguishing canonical and non-canonical writings? Works that fall into both categories remain historical documents. From a historical-critical point of view, the religiously based inside/outside distinction is methodologically irrelevant.
I would say that we have strong evidence for a historical Jesus in Gal 1:19 where a certain James is distinguished from John and Peter by being the adelphos of the Lord. I have cited this text before and have not yet received a paraphrase that is superior to the traditional understanding that an actual sibling of the Lord is what is meant. So if someone can clearly state how they are interpreting the phrase in question, we could compare it with the traditional, literal interpretation of the word as found in this context.
I would say that we have strong evidence for a historical Jesus in Gal 1:19 where a certain James is distinguished from John and Peter by being the adelphos of the Lord. I have cited this text before and have not yet received a paraphrase that is superior to the traditional understanding that an actual sibling of the Lord is what is meant. So if someone can clearly state how they are interpreting the phrase in question, we could compare it with the traditional, literal interpretation of the word as found in this context.
