PhilosopherJay

Hi All,

According the the thread on the New Carrier Article article Article to be published in Journal of Early Christian Studies, the one reference to James the Brother of Lord is an interpolation.
Since we have the exact same evidence that the one reference in Paul's letters, 1 Corinthians 1:19 to James, the brother of the lord is also an interpolation, should we not conclude 1) that is also an interpolation, and 2) the interpolations were both done at the same time by the same person for the same reason.

If James brother, of Damneus has been changed to James, "brother of the lord," how can we not conclude that "James, brother of John," has not been changed to "James, brother of the lord" in 1 Galatians 1:19.

Just as context shows that James, brother of Damneus is meant in Josephus, it is clear that James, brother of John is meant in 1 Galatians 1:19. In Galatians 2:9, we get "and when they perceived the grace that was given unto me, James and Cephas and John, they who were reputed to be pillars, gave to me and Barnabas the right hands of fellowship." Every reference to James and John and Cephas/Peter in the NT gospels are to James and John Zebedee.

The Manuscript Evidence
The earliest manuscript evidence is P46. This is generally placed some time in the 3rd Century, although some have placed it earlier and some later.

From P46 in Perspective:
Ancient References:
The only other text to contain the phrase before Eusebius' "Church History" (circa 325) is Origen (circa 250):

Since Eusebius may have a theological-political agenda for saying that James is the brother of the lord and all of Origen's writings passed through Eusebius, we cannot discount the idea that he too forged Origen's reference to James, the brother of the lord. This makes sense if we see his hand behind the TF and "James, brother of the lord" passages in Josephus.

Is Eusebius behind all these interpolations?

This can be easily disproved by radiocarbon dating P46 to before 300 CE.
Since, I believe, only about a square centimeter (the size of a dime) is needed for radiocarbon dating, and there are thousands of empty spaces this size on the 86 leaves of text, it seems to me that the owners of the Chester Beatty papyrus, the University of Michigan, are morally obligated to have the papyrus tested. The empty square centimeters of papyrus on P46 are without historical or scientific interest except as ways to date the manuscript and perhaps significantly impact our knowledge of history.

Warmly,

Jay Raskin

anethema

tteo he one thing ive seen on this forum besides vitriolic disagreement is the combination of geo-political history and theology. there are a great many magnificent treatises on the geo-politiclal history of the first cen. tacitus, suetonius albeit 2nd cen , got much correct geopolitically. there is no history written (extant) which is concurrent, besides cited scraps. on theology there is a wealth. oh i forgot there is josephus who we have been mismembering for 2000 yrs. the theology seems to me to have the upper hand in extant discussion. to qoute daniel dennett about theology - " if somethings not worth doing its not worth doing well" . it seems to me that on a forum called criticism & history that theology is doing very well.

anethema

mr. raskin, i warmly regard your contributions. but in my mind your equating eusibiuses works with any kind of valid "history" is afool's errand. it is me rewriting what someone in 17th century england wrote about captain kidd. no matter what actually happened with the "bills of attainder" he was found guilty and executed. thats history. not what eusibius said about or qouted from origen.

Duke Leto

OK, good sir!

Capitalizing words at the beginning of sentences is a GOOD thing. It means we know you're beginning a sentence! Ending sentences with a period is also good, although punctuation in general is a subject you may need to reexamine. Apostrophes? They do exist! Especially in contractions! And I can't stress enough the importance of SPELLING!

I say this because someone who has presumably read Dennett and is quoting him really ought to be able to string together a post that doesn't look like it was written by a non-English speaker hiding out in Ohio. Especially if you are insulting other people's intelligence, which I believe is what you were doing.

OK, thanks! :wave:

anethema

Hi Duke Leto, I am lazy obviously. Please do not hold it against me. Or do.

Duke Leto

I'd guessed. Tactical advice in Flamology. Too lazy for grammar when berating people for intellectual laziness? Not a sound debating strategy.

anethema

My quest if it can be called that, is not to insult anybody's intelligence. I merely want to express the difference between history and theology. The mix here seems to be between different sects of unbelievers. My punctuation IS a result of my laziness, my spelling might
be something else.

Duke Leto

tteo got my attention. Not sure what that was going to be. Eusebius got pretty mangled but you probably don't see the name much.

Other then that you've actually done pretty good.

There are quite a lot of people with quite a lot of axes to grind in varying ologies, but almost all of them take some time to compose what they write. Come in writing lazily and they will ignore the content of what you write. I almost did but I've decided to take a liking to you.

Toto

anathema - Eusebius wrote a book called "Church History." It might be entirely fictional, but it is commonly referred to as "Church History."

I don't think that Jay is treating it as anything other than what it is - a historical product of Eusebius' creativity.

aa5874

Again, you have overlooked the fundamental problem of your hypothesis. Once the writings attributed to Eusebius are not credible then the very writings may themselves have been manipulated.

The very same way that you can suppose that Galatians 1.19 is an interpolation it is the very same that writings attributed to Eusebius were corrupted.

When was "Church History" written??? When were the Pauline writings composed???



You must first establish that Eusbius did indeed write "Church History" and must first find an original dated copy of "Church History" and the dating must be by C14.

No manuscript of Church History has been recovered and dated by paleography or C14 to the 4th century.

No manuscript of the Pauline writings have been recovered and dated to the 1st century and before c 59-62 CE by paleography or C14.

In effect, YOU presently cannot show that:

1. Eusebius wrote ALL of "Church History".

2.All of "Church History" is from the 4th century.

3. There were Pauline writings before c 60 CE without Galatians 1.19.


And in addition, C14 dating has an inherent problem--it does NOT date the time of writing, it dates the medium.

Essentially, C 14 tell us when the medium was available to be used--that is, when the plant or animal lived from which the writing medium was derived.