Steven Carr

http://bible.org/seriespage/jude-int...nt-and-outline

This quotes Richard Bauckham as writing :-
Palestinian Jewish-Christian circles in the early church used the title ‘brother of the Lord’ not simply to identify the brothers, but as ascribing to them an authoritative status, and therefore the brothers themselves, not wishing to claim an authority based on mere blood-relationship to Jesus, avoided the term...'

It is amazing the insight Bauckham has into the minds of the brothers of Jesus.

He can sit down at his desk, think himself into their minds, and tell you their thought-processes regarding the pros and cons of using the phrase 'Brother of the Lord'

How can mythicists compare with the almost superhuman insight of mainstream Biblical scholars who have such gifts as being able to read minds of 2000 years ago?

Diogenes the Cynic

I think his conclusion would also fly in the face of a cultural context which would absolutely see sibling kinship as denoting authority. What is Baukham's basis for thinking that these particular brothers would take such an anachronistic and culturally incongruous view that a blood relationship would be meaningless? I think his position is not on;y unsupported, but actually highly implausible. It goes against the both the cultural assumptions of the time and against human nature. If there was any authority to be had, James and Jude would have been all over it like Jermaine and Tito.

Steven Carr

You are right of course.

I wonder why the author of Jude mentions he is the brother of James if not to lend authority to his words.

DCHindley

Richard Bauckham is engaging in a process of rationalization that is similar to that employed by many Christian writers from the mid 2nd century on: If you are not sure of the relationships between received traditions, you tend to create relationships in order to harmonize them, and in the process invent all sorts of excuses to justify the harmonizations.

The earliest authors of surviving Christian literature were aware of traditions that Jesus had brothers and sisters, and also of traditions about James the Just (mainly that he served some sort of priestly function and was martyred by other Jews on account of his teaching about "christ").

The name James (actually Iakob) was present in both traditions, and in a process of synthesis Jacob the Just becomes equated with Jacob the brother of Jesus. This is complicated by the fact that "brother" could also denote ethnic association (Jews commonly called each other "brothers" per Josephus, etc) and social bonds as well (members of secret societies and private guilds, etc).

The letter attributed to Jude, which is also a name included in the family tradition(s), is a whole other matter.

DCH

Steven Carr

The Epistle of James never refers to any relationship of James to Jesus.

Bauckham writes 'James did not need to distinguish himself from other Christian leaders named James: his name is sufficient self-identification'.

Amazing logic.

Who wrote the letter?

James.

But which James wrote it? James was a very common name.

Well, James, of course. His name is sufficient self-identification.

I can hardly believe that mainstream Biblical scholarship is in such a state that somebody like Richard Bauckham is actually respected in the field.

ynquirer

So says Mark 3:31-35

Diogenes the Cynic

Mark was written by an author who wanted to discredit the authority of the disciples.

ynquirer

And so – what?

What Mark said is one thing and what you have him mean is another, quite irrelevant to the topic. The question arisen by the OP deals with “the almost superhuman insight of mainstream Biblical scholars who have such gifts as being able to read minds of 2000 years ago.”

Simply stated, Bauckham has read Mark, while others have not.

Diogenes the Cynic

If that single quotation from Mark is his only evidence then he really hasn't made much of a case, particularly since Mark had an agenda to undermine the authority of the disciples.

Rick Sumner

I don't know that "undermine the authority of. . ." is necessarily the right phrase. It is Peter and Peter alone who identifies Jesus as the Messiah, after all.

To undermine their authority would, to Mark, mean suggesting that Jesus made the wrong choice. I don't think Mark would be so bold. He might question Jesus' reasoning (I'm not sure he does that either, but that's another issue), he might not understand the choice, but ultimately he stands behind it.

Certainly apostolic authority is implied in Mark 6:11-17. If Mark wants to undermine anyone's authority, it's hard to explain why he retains that passage. If Mark wished to pass authority to someone else that was the perfect opportunity. But he doesn't take it.

Regards,
Rick Sumner