AtheistGamer

As far as I can tell Galations 1:19 is a massive roadblock to mythicism because it has Paul saying that he met Jesus' brother. Mythicists claim that paul meant brother in the metaphorical sense and not the literal sense. So I'm trying to see what the best translation of this verse is.

The original greek says...

ἕτερον δὲ τῶν ἀποστόλων οὐκ εἶδον, εἰ μὴ Ἰάκωβον τὸν ἀδελφὸν τοῦ κυρίου

tov/tou is supposed to be "the". However as I understand the accents make all the difference.

As far as I can tell the end of the passage translates into "James the brother the lord". But what is the difference between TOV with a dash over the "O" and TOU with a dash over the "U"?

As far as I can tell Galations 1:19 is a massive roadblock to mythicism because it has Paul saying that he met Jesus' brother. Mythicists claim that paul meant brother in the metaphorical sense and not the literal sense. So I'm trying to see what the best translation of this verse is.

aa5874

It cannot even be shown that a character called Paul did live in the 1st century before the Fall of the Temple.

NOW, Paul and the PAULINE writings are COMPLETELY without corroboration outside of apologetic sources and even apologetic sources have provided information that have placed Paul living AFTER gLuke was written.

Apologetic sources have therefore placed Paul AFTER the Fall of the Temple.

Apologetic sources have also provided information that the character called James did NOT have a brother who was the son of the supposed Virgin Mary.

Apologetic sources have therefore CONTRADICTED the Pauline writer.

It is extremely significant that it was APOLOGETIC sources that have DENIED the veracity of Paul.

And, a Pauline writer, in the very same Galatians at the VERY first verse have ALREADY claimed that he did NOT get his from any man but from Jesus who was RAISED from the dead.

Galatians 1:1 - The Pauline writers do support JESUS the Myth who was raised from the dead.

Galatians 1.19 is irrelevant.

Galatians 1.19 is not the ONLY source for Jesus in the Pauline writings.

Jesus was mentioned OVER 200 times in the Pauline writings.

According to the Pauline writings, Jesus the Creator of heaven and earth was raised from the dead, ascended to heaven and was expected to return to earth a second time.

The MYTH of JESUS has been corroborated by the Pauline writings.

God Fearing Atheist

The difference is grammatical case. τον is the accusative article and του the genitive, and their substantives have the endings that agree with those cases (-ον and -ου respectively). Because the genitive case is the case of possession, του κυριου would then be translated as "of the lord."

The accents don't really matter here apart from proper Greek orthography, and have to do with boring stuff involving syllables and vowel length.

ApostateAbe

The issue has often been discussed, but I don't think any discussion about the article tov/tou has been covered. I don't know Greek, so I can't comment on it, but it seems to be a good inquiry.

I have often brought up this subject, and it is a bit encouraging to find that such a line of evidence may have struck someone as important and compelling. I think many people are tempted to just dismiss it as unimportant, because it is only a few words, and it could have been a redaction or something, or maybe it carries a meaning that we just don't know. But, I see it as one of a handful of lines of evidence that strongly favors the historical models of Jesus. Such details should be treated very seriously, exactly because they are short and seemingly unimportant to Paul or whoever wrote it. When historical evidence is generally scarce and buried in myth and BS, then the few remaining tidbits of evidence are greatly magnified in importance. Paul is speaking of real people that he met, not of mystical visions or rumors.

Paul often uses the word "brother" in a religious metaphorical sense, as in a fellow Christian, which has allowed some to conclude that Paul is following the same pattern in this passage. But, Paul uses the word in a special sense--brother of the Lord, not just any brother. He does not say brother of Jesus, which has led some to speculate that maybe brother of the Lord actually means a high-status Christian, sort of like an apostle. It probably wouldn't be the same as an apostle. Paul uses the phrase one other time, in 1 Corinthians 9:5 ("Do we not have a right to take along a believing wife, even as the rest of the apostles and the brothers of the Lord and Cephas?"), like they are two different groups of men. If that is the meaning, then all knowledge of such a group of men have been lost.

If we had Galatians 1:19 and nothing else in Christian history, then the dismissals and the alternative explanations may be acceptable, and maybe mythicism could still be left on the table as a possible model. But, that short phrase in Galatians 1:19 is actually just a key component of a network of evidence about James that extends into the synoptic gospels and Josephus.

There is "James" being listed as one of the four literal brothers of Jesus in the gospels of both Mark and Matthew (Mark 6:3 and Matthew 13:55-56).

Josephus, in 90 CE, also has a little blurb about him: "...the brother of Jesus, who was called Christ, whose name was James..." Some have thought that this could be an interpolation, perhaps by the same scribes who interpolated the Testimonium Flavianum. Possible, but Origen makes mention of Josephus' testimony to James being the brother of Jesus, which means that it would still be a reflection of Christian belief between the second and third century.

The evidence taken together seems to indicate very strongly that the Christians of the time believed that Jesus had a brother named James, and Paul met him. If there was a group of high-status Christians called the "brothers of the Lord" who were not the literal brothers of Jesus, then there was somehow a misunderstanding in the myths of the early church that transformed those men into the literal brothers of Jesus.

Toto

Roadblock is much too strong a term for this slender reed of evidence, however it is interpreted.

In the first place, Paul's letters are not self-authenticating. We don't know much about Paul, or how his letters were collected or preserved. We don't know how genuine this letter is, or whether that phrase was added later.

In the second place, Paul does not say that he met "Jesus' brother" - he says he saw the "brother of the Lord." There has been endless speculation as to what that means. Some people with PhD's in New Testament related areas have speculated that there was a group called the Brothers of the Lord, which did not consist of biological brothers of Jesus of Nazareth, but of people who considered themselves especially godly.

Weighing against James being Jesus' biological brother is the thinly veiled contempt which Paul shows to James and Peter, and his claim that he got his gospel from no man.

aa5874

It is not true at all that "James" mentioned in Mark and Matthew were LITERALLY or ACTUALLY the brother of Jesus when you CANNOT even determine whether JESUS did LITERALLY or ACTUALLY did EXIST.

Mark 6.3 and Matthew 13.55-56 are QUESTIONS about the brethren of Jesus but the authors did NOT answer the question and there are more than one apostle called James in gMark or gMatthew.

All the passages where Jesus was called Christ in Josephus, Antiquities of the Jews 18.3.3 and 20.9.1, are forgeries.

Josephus FOUGHT with JEWS who expected the Messiah at around 70 CE based on Hebrew Scripture.

The evidence seems to show that Galatians 1.19 is of very little value since Galatians 1.1, the very first verse, show that Jesus was claimed to have been NOT a man and was raised from the dead.

maryhelena

Evidence? We don't know what the early christians believed - its all interpretation. 'Paul' says there were others before him. Taking him on his word - we are dealing with two strands of early christian history - or more correctly, pre-cristian history. Paul says he got his insights from no man - Paul has his own take on things. What the other take on things was, the take of those who came before him, he does not seem to want to be too much bothered with. Paul's insights are spiritual - his vision on the Damascus road. Paul has a new intellectual take on things. So, perhaps the best that can be said is that, because christianity got up and running with Paul, that somehow some meeting ground was found, some accommodation was made with those who came before him - or perhaps at least some of them - as he mentions James, the Lord's brother, and those who were thought to be pillars.

To imagine that we are talking re different spiritual interpretations is illogical - why should one person's vision, speculation, be worth more than the next persons? Speculation needs to be grounded - and that requires a historical, a physical component. Paul has not met the Lord to which the pillars and James are linked. He is dead. If this Lord was human, a historical man, then chances are he had brothers, that he had siblings. That's pretty much the general take on things. Paul cannot change what came before him - cannot change the pre-christian history. What he can do is attempt to move the focus away from the physical, from the human man, and concentrate on his very own spiritual take on things, his very own spiritual construct of a spiritual as opposed to a physical salvation figure.

Paul shows no interest in the early life of a historical man. To endeavor to equate Paul's spiritual construct, his salvation figure, with a historical man, to make an exact equation, is, in actuality, to attempt to undo the very work that Paul has done. Paul cannot deny the pre-christian history - but he can change its course towards the spiritual construct he is developing.

A mythicist position does not, cannot logically, deny the existence of a historical man that was relevant to pre-christian history. All a mythicist position is about is that Jesus of Nazareth is a mythological creation, a symbol, a figurative man. That storyline comes from Paul and his vision, his own take on things, historical things, that happened prior to his own time.

To assume that the historical man that was relevant to pre-christian history, relevant to the pre-Paul 'pillars', is an earthly, historical, other half of Paul's own heavenly, spiritual, Jesus Christ salvation figure - is to assume something for which there can never be any historical evidence.

Hoffmann makes an interesting point: regarding early christianity and the Jesus figure: "his humanity necessary as a theological premise". Early christians did not need a historical Jesus - what they needed was a theological premise, a spiritual construct, that demonstrated a humanity not realized a humanity.


Both the spiritual half, and the 'earthly' half of the Jesus construct are theological constructs - not one part of the construct being historical and the other part theology. The whole construct is theological, salvation theology.

The real history is, if you like, underneath all of that. And that history can well accommodate a historical man that was relevant to pre-christian history - and a historical man that Paul sought to put on the back burner in order to focus on his very own spiritual construct, his Jesus Christ as salvation figure. No historical man, however great, can carry that impossible load.


Perhaps not so much an indifference but a conscious, purposeful, turning away from the physical, from the pre-christian history, to the new spirituality of Paul and its potential for intellectual evolution - a new focus.

AtheistGamer

Thank you for your help. I really wish a mythicist would come in this thread and argue that Gal 1:19 doesn't say brother of the lord. Instead they seem intent on making Gal 1:19 irrelevent with the following arguments.

1. Paul never existed.

2. There was a group of supersages called brothers of the lord.

3. Paul says he got his gospel from no man and that undercuts Gal 1:19 somehow.

I suspect the reasons for these arguments are because Gal 1:19 *does* say brother of the lord, and they know it.

To all the people offering up these arguments...

I didn't come here to argue mythicism. I simply wanted an objective answer to the question of whether or not Gal 1:19 says brother in the metaphorical sense or in the literal sense. Thanks.

aa5874

But, did you not claim that Galatians 1.19 is a massive roadblock to mythicism..."?

Well, Galatians 1.19 has been made worthless as a roadblock by Galatians 1.1.

Do you think that a statement that "I saw Harry Potter's mother, or father is a roadblock to accepting the Harry Potter character as fiction as claimed by the author?

The Pauline writer, you must know, did NOT write the words for a "roadblock" to mythicism he wrote words that have OPENED the floodgates to mythicism.

"Paul" claimed he SAW Jesus in a non-historical state, after he was supposed to be dead, after he was raised from the dead.

Galatians 1.19 is irrelevant.

Toto

But it does say "brother" (ἀδελφὸν) of the Lord, so no one is going to make that argument. And there is no grammatical way to tell if it is meant literally or metaphorically.

Almost all of the time that Paul uses the word "brother" it refers to a fellow believer.

I think all of the options have been rehashed. This is claimed as evidence by historicists, but is hardly definitive. What more do you want?