Freethought & Rationalism Archive

spin · 05-03-2012, 10:33 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TedM

Ok spin. At the risk of getting caught up again with time consuming exchanges, I'll respond to your message..

Quote:

Originally Posted by spin

Quote:

Originally Posted by TedM

The reference in Gal 1:19 distinguishes James in a way that the writer does NOT do with John or Cephas, or anybody else in the entire book. This begs the question: what was the distinction? Most logically, it is that of a biological relationship.

Now tell us all, Teddest of Ms, where do you find Paul using αδελφος to indicate a biological relationship amid the more than 80 exemplars of the word in his letters? What you find is that Paul overburdeningly uses αδελφος to indicate not a biological connection, but a religious one. Your "most logically" has no basis whatsoever.

My 'most logically' had nothing to do with how Paul uses the word in his other writings, though that is a worthy point to discuss, and I will. My 'most logically' had with what I said following using the term:

Quote:

This begs the question: what was the distinction? Most logically, it is that of a biological relationship. If it is being a member of a brotherhood, one can hardly imagine that Cephas and John were not also members, but Paul writes about each of them without making that distinction. We also have a reason for the distinction--there was another prominent James in the Gospels and Acts-John's biological brother. So whenever anybody referenced James it would have made sense to indicate which James in some way.

The above addresses the question of why Paul might have applied the phrase to James and not John or Cephas.

If you say so.

Quote:

Originally Posted by TedM

Ok, onto Paul's use elsewhere: First, the usage of the same word to mean a spiritual brother in Christ does not increase the likelihood that the word means a spiritual brother of the Lord.

Who is talking about a spiritual brother of christ? Paul talks of believers as "brothers". Don't insinuate "of christ" into the story. All you are doing is retrojecting the later, slacker, pagan use of κυριος as a label, rather than as a title, for Jesus.

Quote:

Originally Posted by TedM

Are you suggesting that there is another word Paul would have used had he been referring to a biological relationship? The same word is used throughout the NT to mean a biological relationship. So, it is of no value to point out that Paul uses the same word to only mean a spiritual relationship.

In clear biological situations Paul tends to qualify the terms with "according to the flesh", eg Jesus is the "seed of David according to the flesh", Rom 1:3; and the Jews are Paul's brothers, his kinsmen "according to the flesh", Rom 9:3. He is pressed to add the qualification to stress what he is talking about, ie seed of David in the worldly sense, brothers, kinsmen in the worldly sense.

Quote:

Originally Posted by TedM

What you are not pointing out is the difference in the phrase. In ALL of the other cases where Paul uses the term he is clearly referring to a spiritual relationship between fellow believers in Christ--that is the relationship they have to each other: 'our brethren', 'my brethren', or just 'brethren'. As far as the relationship to God, believers are not 'brothers', they are sons. God is father. So, the term 'brother of the Lord' is highly unusual and would not apply to a fellow believer. If it did Paul would have used it more than 2 times. So, the appeal to Paul's use of the word elsewhere is of no value. The reasonable conclusion is that Paul was using it to distinguish James from other fellow believers. But he also does this in 1 Cor. without making a clear distinction. He presupposes that his readers KNOW that he is referring to something other than a spiritual relationship between fellow believers.

Absent knowledge of a special group that were considered 'brothers' and not 'sons' of God, it is most reasonable to assume a biological relationship.

This is an extended argument from silence which in no sense deals with the fact that Paul almost invariably uses the term αδελφος not as a biological reference but as a religious community reference.

Quote:

Originally Posted by TedM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TedM

If it is being a member of a brotherhood, one can hardly imagine that Cephas and John were not also members, but Paul writes about each of them without making that distinction.

You're basing this assertion on what??

The context, spin.

The context does not help you deviate the usual meaning of Paul's αδελφος. THe following string of assertions doesn't help your case...

Quote:

Originally Posted by TedM

Paul just got done mentioning Cephas when he mentioned James, the Lord's brother. Why in the world would he have done that if not to make a distinction for James that was unnecessary for Cephas?:

Perhaps because Cephas was not a member. Why on earth would you insist that he should be?

Quote:

Originally Posted by TedM

Quote:

18 Then three years later I went up to Jerusalem to [j]become acquainted with Cephas, and stayed with him fifteen days. 19 But I did not see any other of the apostles except [k] James, the Lord’s brother.

We must conclude that Cephas was not the Lord's brother but James was. Yet, Cephas was one of the 3 pillars!

That exclamation is supposed to be used wisely. Instead you are merely asserting once again that Cephas needs to be a brother of the lord.

Quote:

Originally Posted by TedM

And, from 1 Cor 9 we conclude that apostles and Cephas were not considered brothers of the Lord:

Quote:

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?

Who gets to be not a son but a brother of the Lord if not apostles and Cephas?

Yet again making the same assertion based on lack of information, when such a lack is not unusual.

Quote:

Originally Posted by TedM

This 'special group' was special indeed! But how? Wouldn't the most logical reason be the simplest explanation that distinguishes one group of believers from another: a biological relationship?

If Paul tended to use the term αδελφος the way you want him to have done, you might have the basis for a case. As is, all you are doing is asserting that Cephas should have been a member of such a group, when we have no idea of the politics of the situation.

Quote:

Originally Posted by TedM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TedM

We also have a reason for the distinction--there was another prominent James in the Gospels and Acts-John's biological brother. So whenever anybody referenced James it would have made sense to indicate which James in some way.

The fact that there is no James mentioned in Acts that is a brother of the lord works against the term being biological.

Something is missing in Acts.

What is missing is not something you can decide on though.

Quote:

Originally Posted by TedM

James appears out of nowhere, so the introduction has been lost to history. However, Acts does mention Jesus' brothers: Again, it doesn't say 'fellow brothers, or my brothers, or the brethren':

Quote:

These all with one mind were continually devoting themselves to prayer, along with the women, and Mary the mother of Jesus, and with His brothers.

That just makes it stranger that Acts says nothing about James the leader being the brother of Jesus, when Acts is not acerse to the idea of dealing with the brothers of Jesus.

Quote:

Originally Posted by TedM

Quote:

Originally Posted by spin

In fact, when the gospels mention Jesus' family rejecting him and being rejected by him, there is no knowledge that this James would pick himself up and become the head of the Jerusalem community.

They don't talk about the future leader at all. They talk about Peter a lot but nothing on James.

The "on this rock" business is clearly oriented towards Peter's future. The silence about James is telling.

Quote:

Originally Posted by TedM

One might think this is as intentional as Act not introducing James. Something was going on which clouds the issue as far as the gospels and Acts are concerned. But they all say Jesus had brothers, and a couple mention a James.

Quote:

We have to wait for Hegesippus to give us the James in Gal. 1:19 as the biological brother of Jesus.

Or Josephus.

And I have gone over scribal additions to Josephus numerous times. The "brother of Jesus called christ one James by name" in AJ 20.200 has word order in Greek that doesn't fit the context. Jesus has not just been mentioned as the syntax suggests and too much is made of this one liner to fit the discourse of Josephus about Ananus.

Quote:

Originally Posted by TedM

Quote:

Originally Posted by spin

Quote:

Originally Posted by TedM

...If it was because there really was a 'brothers of the Lord' group than was not biologically related to Jesus, then we must ask whether it is reasonable to conclude that such a powerful label given to the very earliest Christian leaders could have been dropped as it pertained to Peter and John and transitioned into a biological meaning for James and Jude, without ANY inkling of such a tradition ever having existed, or such transition having occurred? And why--why would they do this for James and not the others? Seems an unlikely scenario.

That wouldn't be conclusion driven bias, would it? You talk of Peter as though you know that Paul used Cephas to mean Peter. You can't conceive of the notion that such a term as "brother of the lord" could refer to a group within the Jerusalem church that did not include all the apostles. Given the few times that Paul uses the term, you don't have enough to make any generalizations such as that he wouldn't use it for John.

If there was such a group of elevated status in Jerusalem before the Jewish war as Paul indicates, then the war which had such devastating effects on the society could easily have put an end to the group.

You have 'sons' of God, not brothers.

That wouldn't be another of those assertions of yours based on nothing, would it?

Quote:

Originally Posted by TedM

You have Paul using the term for James and unspecified non-apostles. You have Paul clearly not applying the term to the other apostles, Cephas, or John. You have Jewish traditions in Hegessippus and Josephus that say Jesus had a brother named James. You have the gospels and Acts all saying Jesus had brothers, whether they were directly brothers or cousins. You have the reasonable idea that the first Church leader was related to their crucified leader--to carry on the torch. And, you have the common sense usage of 'brother' to mean a biological relationship.

Sorry, you just don't get this. Paul time after time uses αδελφος to indicate a co-believer. You are arguing without any substantive usage by Paul that co9ntrarily he must mean "biological brother" here.

Against that you have a theoretical group that didn't include the apostles or Cephas, who had advanced beyond being sons of God to being 'brothers of the Lord' in a spiritual sense, who were so spiritually special and important that Paul and everyone else failed to discuss their importance or even allude to it.

Quote:

Originally Posted by TedM

Big picture? They were relatives.

You don't seem to be interested in what Paul says. Your conclusions are too dominating.

The big picture here is that the past has been obfuscated by later interpretations and reconsiderations of it. You aren't prepared to read Paul for what he says, but for what later tradition tells you.

(Do try not to fuck up the quoting process as you did last post, putting responses as though they were temporally before what they were responding to. When you try to cite them it all ends up confused.)

aa5874 · 05-04-2012, 12:03 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TedM

I agree with you. The reference in Gal 1:19 distinguishes James in a way that the writer does NOT do with John or Cephas, or anybody else in the entire book. This begs the question: what was the distinction? Most logically, it is that of a biological relationship....

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

Even Apologetic sources REJECT your claim.

Examine the Apocalypse of JAMES.

Quote:

It is the Lord who spoke with me: "See now the completion of my redemption. I have given you a sign of these things, James, my brother. For not without reason have I called you my brother, although you are not my brother materially....

Quote:

Originally Posted by TedM

......... Gnostic dialogue. It is of little historical value IMO other than to reflect gnostic thinking a century or more after James lived, though some snippets of truth may remain. The 'brother' comment reflects gnostic belief: Jesus was not material so he could not possibly have had biological brothers. It therefore is worthless as far as finding the truth is concerned...

Again, you PRESUME your own history of James and Paul WITHOUT evidence.

Your PRESUMPTIONS are worthless.

This is extremely disturbing. It appears that the dated evidence does NOT matter to you. There is NO DATED Non-apologetic source that can show that either Paul and James actually lived.

Quote:

Originally Posted by TedM

I'm not an expert but last I read no expert would agree with you that Galatians was originally written in the 3rd century. This means you are way out of the box on this. Not saying you are wrong, but the experts seem fairly unanimous in saying that Galatians was the first work written by a real person, Paul, in the very earliest days of Christianity--ie around 40-50 AD...

Well, if you are NOT saying I am wrong then what is your point??? I am telling you that you are WRONG to accept FLAWED baseless opinion derived from IMAGINARY evidence.

You Appeal to authority when you are wrong. You MUST take responsibilty for what you write and stop blaming other people.

You ought to know so-called Christians of antiquity have provided bogus information if Jesus was Only a man.

If Jesus was ONLY a man then he could NOT have resurrected.

Why do you trust a writer that made claims that MUST be false???

If Jesus was ONLY a man then he could NOT be God's OWN Son.

Why do you trust a writer that made claims that MUST be false???

Quote:

Originally Posted by TedM

...As far as being reliable historically, the experts conclude that it is highly reliable whereas the gnostic text you quote above is highly unreliable.

I won't get into any more discussion with you on this because I think you have requirements that make progress impossible.

We already know what some Experts believe, but I am asking you for the DATED evidence.

You very well know that it was Experts themselves that have deduced that the Pauline writings have been manipulated.

Quote:

Originally Posted by TedM

...I won't get into any more discussion with you on this because I think you have requirements that make progress impossible.

I require that you PRESENT the sources of antiquity YOUR Jesus.

If you do not provide your sources then you will be considered to be NOT credible.

Iskander · 05-04-2012, 02:38 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by graymouser

Quote:

Originally Posted by EarlDoherty

Illogical nonsense, Mr. Mouse.

I would have thought, as someone with pretensions of being a scholar, that you wouldn't run around on message boards making clumsy attempts at calling people names. (And FWIW, a mouser is a cat, and the Gray Mouser is quite an interesting character.)

Prepositions can be important. For instance, in one of my favorite fantasy stories - "Lean Times in Lankhmar" by Fritz Leiber, one of the classic tales of Fafhrd and the Gray Mouser - the Gods of Lankhmar are starkly different from the Gods in Lankhmar. More importantly, the genitive in Greek is not demonstrated by a preposition, even though you continue to insist that this somehow is relevant. A technically accurate translation would be to use "the Lord's brother" for Gal 1:19 and "brothers in [the] Lord" for Phil 1:14.

But they have nothing to do with each other because the use of τον αδελφον του κυριου of Galatians is to distinguish one James from another, while the εν κυριω of Philippians is to characterize των αδελφων. You don't even address that, you just wave your hands and talk about prepositions as if you didn't know Greek.

I read it when it was called The Jesus Puzzle, and found it interesting but remained agnostic, later deciding that mythicism is a trap. I have Jesus: Neither God Nor Man but haven't given it a solid read. If you insist I'll look at note 28 but I have no intent of flattering you by giving you a full rebuttal.

You seem to be incensed that someone is actually challenging your claims, which are unfortunately as flimsy as they come.

You keep talking about the epistles of James and Jude. James is dated as no earlier than the Gospel of Mark, and quite possibly later. Jude is dated as no earlier than the Gospel of John. Both are pseudonymous, and as such probably tell us less about the Christian church before 70 CE than the Gospel of Mark does. Yet you go after it like a dog after a bone - why?

And you keep using the term "the same phrase" which simply isn't true. No native speaker of Greek would have thought "τον αδελφον του κυριου" and "των αδελφων εν κυριω" are even basically the same phrase.

No. Again, 1 Cor 9:5 is being used to designate a subset of believers who have some special moral authority by calling them "οι αδελφοι του κυριου". Phil 1:14 is not using "εν κυριω" to differentiate a specific subset of believers - thus it is totally unrelated to either Gal 1:19 or 1 Cor 9:5 in sense.

αδελφος is the Greek word for brother, in the sense of sibling. This is not even vaguely controversial, and if you want to make a claim against every Greek lexicon ever published, that in the 1st century it only carried the specialized meaning of a fellow believer, then that's your burden to carry.

No, that was the specialized, secondary sense in which the epistle writers used the term αδελφος. As a computer programmer I use the term "function" to refer to a specific type of subroutine that I write, which returns a typed value. If I say the word "bodily function," I'm not using the specialized sense. Nothing about using a secondary sense of a word precludes someone from using it in the primary, everyday sense.

The whole reason we're having this debate is that it's quite obvious that Paul means something different by his use of the inflectional forms of αδελφος in Gal 1:19 and 1 Cor 9:5, as the sense Paul normally uses doesn't work here. It makes no sense to make "the brothers of the Lord" a special moral authority if "brothers" simply means all fellow-believers.

No, they wouldn't, and for very obvious reasons of context that you ignore while talking about ME bleating.

In the American justice system - at least in theory - one or two anomalies can bring down an otherwise powerful case. It's why we have a standard of "reasonable doubt." I don't like how the system works in practice, but in theory I think this is a very fine standard. For what it's worth, though, your theory is riddled in anomalies, and the base case is interesting but hardly "very powerful." You get even more bogged down in κατα σαρκα than you do in your problem of αδελφοι, but that's probably for a separate topic.

I've been posting here because I'm bothered by how much of a mythicist echo chamber this board can be, and as an atheist who formerly had strong mythicist sympathies (I have your books, after all), I think some of the misconceptions running rampant here are worth challenging.

But it's telling that you think that a theory with known and well-discussed holes in it, with some patchwork explanations, should carry the day. It certainly explains why you don't advance your theories in scholarship, where they'd be ripped to shreds on your handling of problems like Gal 1:19 and κατα σαρκα.

I took mythicism very seriously for a number of years. I never found a mythicist explanation that was fully intellectually satisfying, although I sort of took it "on faith" that the main character of the Gospels didn't exist. Now, on a review of the evidence, I've had to say that the mythicist case is the less probable by a long shot.

Quote:

P.S. I hope you won’t mind that I do my best to bow out here and stop wasting my time. My response to Bart Ehrman’s book on Vridar (instalment 9 coming up, I believe), and elsewhere in future publication, should be taking up that time and will prove far more productive.

Sure, have fun. I have to say I'm a bit disappointed, though. I had thought more highly of you when I read The Jesus Puzzle, and I'd hoped that you'd have something a little better than all this vituperation to offer.

[

Quote:

And you keep using the term "the same phrase" which simply isn't true. No native speaker of Greek would have thought "τον αδελφον του κυριου" and "των αδελφων εν κυριω" are even basically the same phrase.

It is not the same phrase :it says James is the biological brother . As for context , the Gospels state clearly that Jesus had brothers (Matthew 12:46; 13:55; Mark 3:31; Luke 8:19; John 7:3).

Galatians 1:19 is very unimportant and that some group should keep using it in support of some Nobel-prize statement only makes that group one to be ignored as worthless of attention.

There is an interesting discussion here that the experts might enjoy.
http://www.ibiblio.org/bgreek/forum/...php?f=50&t=522

TedM · 05-04-2012, 04:17 AM

Quote:

Who is talking about a spiritual brother of christ? Paul talks of believers as "brothers".

Galatians 3:26
For you are all sons of God through faith in Christ Jesus.

Colossians 1:2
To the saints and faithful brethren in Christ who are at Colossae: Grace to you and peace from God our Father.

You have to answer the question of 'WHO's brother?' to make any sense of this. You can't just stop at the biological/spiritual issue. If you hear me say 'hey brother' to someone you have NO IDEA if that person is my biological brother or I mean it metaphorically as my fellow human being. You have to know who the mother or father is: is it our shared human mother/father, or is it mother nature or God our father?

In the 80+ times Paul refers to fellow believers as brothers/brethren he does not refer to them as "brothers of the Lord" most likely because he did not see them (or himself) as God's brother physically or spiritually. They were all spiritual brothers to each other because they were all sons of God. If Lord means God, it makes it harder to explain how someone can be both the son and brother of God. It is more helpful to you if "Lord" means Christ here since Christ was the son of God. But if Lord means Christ that gets even closer to the biological relationship argument, doesnt' it, since ALL are supposed to be Jesus' brother metaphorically, yet Paul only uses the term twice and clearly is excluding almost ALL believers?

Quote:

In clear biological situations Paul tends to qualify the terms with "according to the flesh", eg Jesus is the "seed of David according to the flesh", Rom 1:3; and the Jews are Paul's brothers, his kinsmen "according to the flesh", Rom 9:3. He is pressed to add the qualification to stress what he is talking about, ie seed of David in the worldly sense, brothers, kinsmen in the worldly sense.

It is 'clear' because he is making a distinction. Paul doesn't want his readers to think 'brother' means 'fellow believer' in certain situations, so he uses qualifiers for clarity. The comparable situation here would be if there were two subsets of believers: biological brothers of Jesus, and a spiritual 'brothers of the Lord'. Then we would expect a clarification. So, your comparison is flawed. IF there was only one group --the biological brothers of Jesus--and James was one of them Paul would have absolutely no need to qualify his term in 1 Cor 9 or Gal 1:19.

Quote:

This is an extended argument from silence which in no sense deals with the fact that Paul almost invariably uses the term αδελφος not as a biological reference but as a religious community reference.

You are stuck on this. I can't help you. The term is not helpful because the same term would be used for a biological reference. In this conversation we are talking about brothers both spiritually and biologically but we aren't using a different English word for both. "Brother" is being used for both. You simply aren't interacting with this fact nor the sons of God relationship of believers. I'm not saying there could not have been a group. I'm saying that the term Paul uses is in no way helpful as an argument for a spiritual reference.

I'm not saying (as you say later) that Paul MUST mean a biological relationship. I'm saying that is the most reasonable conclusion.

Quote:

As is, all you are doing is asserting that Cephas should have been a member of such a group, when we have no idea of the politics of the situation.

Cephas and the apostles were NOT 'members', that is fairly clear. ALL fellow believers were sons. Do you not see how limiting that is for your case? How can ONE group be both a son of God and brother of the Lord, without ALL being that? It's an awkward combination if meant metaphorically.

Quote:

That just makes it stranger that Acts says nothing about James the leader being the brother of Jesus,

Acts isn't helpful for understanding how James became the leader and what his history was. That probably existed in the original manuscripts but was lost or excised. Later Catholics who preferred Peter's authority to that of James had reason to remove the original introduction which might have shed light on who James was and why some people were considered to be 'brothers of the Lord'.

Quote:

And I have gone over scribal additions to Josephus numerous times.
The "brother of Jesus called christ one James by name" in AJ 20.200 has word order in Greek that doesn't fit the context. Jesus has not just been mentioned as the syntax suggests and too much is made of this one liner to fit the discourse of Josephus about Ananus.

So you say.

Quote:

The big picture here is that the past has been obfuscated by later interpretations and reconsiderations of it. You aren't prepared to read Paul for what he says, but for what later tradition tells you.

I am prepared to read Paul for what he says. You are the one who is not doing this. The phrase Paul uses doesn't help us by itself. Neither does the Greek word you keep harping on that he uses. What helps us are the other considerations:

1. The uniqueness of the phrase and the context surrounding the uniqueness leads us to conclude that he is not simply referring to any fellow believer. Paul clearly excludes the apostles (except for one named James) and Cephas from the group. He is referring to a subset of believers.

2. Paul's understanding of ALL fellow believers as sons of God argues against a spiritual brotherly relationship to God in Gal 1:19. This argues against the word 'Lord' meaning 'God', if 'brother' is meant spiritually.

3. Paul's exclusion of apostles and Cephas argues against 'Lord' meaning Christ (if 'brother is meant spiritually) because ALL fellow believers are sons of God, and since Christ as also a son of God ALL believers would be brothers of Christ.

4. Given Paul's great interest in the relationship believers have to each other and to God and Christ's role in creating that relationship, there would be a much higher expectation for Paul to comment on his unique use of the 'brother of the Lord' and what that meant to him IF it was not meant biologically. If meant biologically there is nothing to explain.

5. Since there were not two groups of brothers of the Lord to distinguish between--one biological and the other spiritual--we should not expect Paul to clarify by adding 'according to the flesh', etc.. as he does when he references his fellow brothers vs kinsmen (2 groups).

6. The later clearer tradition of brothers/cousins of Jesus, including one named James (whether the leader or not) should definitely be considered.

7. The lack of any reference anywhere to a special group called 'brothers of the Lord' other than biological brothers should be considered.

ALL of these things taken together are the big picture spin. It doesn't prove I'm right, but for me it is strong collective 'evidence' that the reference is to biological brothers of Jesus. Those that don't think Jesus existed would be better off arguing that the phrase was interpolated, though that is problematic also.

Grog · 05-04-2012, 06:45 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Solo

Quote:

Originally Posted by graymouser

With a basic understanding of textual criticism, it should be fairly obvious where Ehrman is heading with this. We can't be certain exactly that our oldest and "best" manuscripts of any ancient text are even vaguely related to the autographs. What we can do is to compare what we have and use different text-critical methods to try and weed out what probably isn't original, and say that what we have left at the end is the closest we can reasonably get. This seems like a cheap attempt at point-scoring without actually engaging with textual criticism as it's practiced by scholars of the New Testament.

Dear greymouse: you need to understand the rules of the NT exegesis game. Even the most unlikely impersonations of Paul will be defended as "scripture" unless there is a physical variant of the passage which attests to the fraud.

The church landed on a set of doctrines to go by in the fourth century, but it looks like the principal texts were fixed to conform to the core patterns of the emerging Catholic faith during the second century, after which they were guarded against gross manipulations. Older non-conforming texts would be destroyed to enforce the canonical versions. Therefore the chance of finding the original Pauline corpus, before the interpolations to make the epistles conform to the base theological parameters of the proto-orthodox faith is very, very small.

Ehrman is being disingenuous arguing in DJE that the historical study of the New Testament should not be governed by special rules. In fact, his book is an unintended parody of pleading special considerations. For example he chastises Doherty, for dismissing 1 Thess 2:14-16 as an interpolation saying: "Here we find again, textual studies driven by convenience: if a passage contradicts your views, simply claim it wasn't written by the author." Not only is this a cheap shot, since evidently Doherty was not the first one who thought Paul was being impersonated, but Ehrman pretends not to know the real exegetical issues around these verses. Paul never speaks ill of Jews as people, he never inculpates Jews for killing "Lord Jesus" (he says the 'archontes' would have never killed the Lord of glory if they had wisdom - such as he has). Ehrman never pauses to reflect that Paul, as the Saul of Acts which he considers historical, was one of the Jews who who himself was driving brothers out (Acts 8:1). So obviously not only this passage does not fit what Paul taught, but it clashes head on with another historical verity in another sacred script.

Earlier in the book, Ehrman admits that a number of scholars doubt this passage is from the hand of Paul, citing the "wrath of God" (in 16) as pointing to the destruction of Jerusalem in 70 CE, i.e. after Paul's death. He himself does not doubt doubt any of the verse because, you guessed it - there is no "hard evidence" that Paul did not write it.

Best,
Jiri

Even when Ehrman concedes that there are scholars who doubt the authenticity of 1 Thess 2:14-16, he is disingenuous in his presentation of their arguments. He makes it seem as though the only reason for doubting this passage is the very last phrase, when, in fact, there are several reasons cited in the literature. The best and most thorough critique is Pearson's which anybody discussing this should be familiar with.

aa5874 · 05-04-2012, 08:02 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TedM

It is 'clear' because he is making a distinction. Paul doesn't want his readers to think 'brother' means 'fellow believer' in certain situations, so he uses qualifiers for clarity. The comparable situation here would be if there were two subsets of believers: biological brothers of Jesus, and a spiritual 'brothers of the Lord'. Then we would expect a clarification. So, your comparison is flawed. IF there was only one group --the biological brothers of Jesus--and James was one of them Paul would have absolutely no need to qualify his term in 1 Cor 9 or Gal 1:19....

Again, you are NOT making sense. ZERO Apologetic sources in ALL antiquity did NOT ever argue that Jesus was human with a human father.

It is MOST ABSURD to isolate ONE verse of the Entire Canon which does NOT support a human Jesus and claim Jesus was human.

It is completely unheard of where ONE passage is used to corroborate its own veracity and all other sources which CONTRADICT it be ignored.

BC&H is being manipulated to promote "kangaroo methodologies".

What you proposing is far-fetched--highly illogical.

You have NOT even established the actual existence of James and Paul in the 1st century.

Please, you CANNOT use a questionable source as its own corroboration.

You MUST corroborate GalatianS 1.19 by some external credible source of antiquity.

People who use Galatians alone to corroborate itself come across as INERRANTISTS.

It is SO obvious that Galatians 1.19 is irrelevant to the NATURE of Jesus in the NT since in the very Gospels it is IMPLIED Jesus had Siblings but he was STILL claimed to be the Son of a Ghost.

Matthew 1:18 KJV

Quote:

Now the birth of Jesus Christ was on this wise:...... his mother Mary........ was found with child of the Holy Ghost.

Matthew 13:55 KJV

Quote:

Is not this the carpenter's son? is not his mother called Mary? and his brethren, James, and Joses, and Simon, and Judas?

The NATURE of Jesus in the NT is DIVINE or of a Holy Ghost regarldless of whether or NOT he had siblings.

The author of gMatthew IMPLIED Jesus had siblings but also CLAIMED Jesus was FATHERED by a Holy Ghost.

spin · 05-04-2012, 05:49 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TedM

Quote:

Who is talking about a spiritual brother of christ? Paul talks of believers as "brothers".

Galatians 3:26
For you are all sons of God through faith in Christ Jesus.

No help.

Quote:

Colossians 1:2
To the saints and faithful brethren in Christ who are at Colossae: Grace to you and peace from God our Father.

Paul didn't write Colossians.

Quote:

Originally Posted by TedM

You have to answer the question of 'WHO's brother?' to make any sense of this.

?

Quote:

Originally Posted by TedM

You can't just stop at the biological/spiritual issue. If you hear me say 'hey brother' to someone you have NO IDEA if that person is my biological brother or I mean it metaphorically as my fellow human being.

If it was Paul, you'd have a pretty good idea.

Quote:

Originally Posted by TedM

You have to know who the mother or father is: is it our shared human mother/father, or is it mother nature or God our father?

In the 80+ times Paul refers to fellow believers as brothers/brethren he does not refer to them as "brothers of the Lord" most likely because he did not see them (or himself) as God's brother physically or spiritually. They were all spiritual brothers to each other because they were all sons of God. If Lord means God, it makes it harder to explain how someone can be both the son and brother of God.

I thought you were trying to understand the notion of "brother" as "believer". You can't just drop it and switch back to thinking some other sense of "brother". That's what you are doing here above. In brother doesn't imply biology as Paul generally uses it, reverting to biological concepts in your thought gets you nowhere.

Quote:

Originally Posted by TedM

It is more helpful to you if "Lord" means Christ here since Christ was the son of God.

That has no logic. Why is it more "helpful"? Your chain of sentences don't seem to be staying on the rails.

(And while we are here, in what sense was Jesus the son of god? Did god have gonads?)

Quote:

Originally Posted by TedM

But if Lord means Christ that gets even closer to the biological relationship argument, doesnt' it, since ALL are supposed to be Jesus' brother metaphorically, yet Paul only uses the term twice and clearly is excluding almost ALL believers?

The same inability to come to terms with the notion of "brother" as "member of the religious community". The term "brother of the lord" in such a case would be "believer" honored by the epithet "of the lord".

Quote:

Originally Posted by TedM

Quote:

In clear biological situations Paul tends to qualify the terms with "according to the flesh", eg Jesus is the "seed of David according to the flesh", Rom 1:3; and the Jews are Paul's brothers, his kinsmen "according to the flesh", Rom 9:3. He is pressed to add the qualification to stress what he is talking about, ie seed of David in the worldly sense, brothers, kinsmen in the worldly sense.

It is 'clear' because he is making a distinction. Paul doesn't want his readers to think 'brother' means 'fellow believer' in certain situations, so he uses qualifiers for clarity.

Yup. He doesn't want his readers to think 'brother' means 'fellow believer' in certain situations, so he uses qualifiers. It follows that when he doesn't use qualifiers he's probably not thinking biologically.

Quote:

Originally Posted by TedM

The comparable situation here would be if there were two subsets of believers: biological brothers of Jesus, and a spiritual 'brothers of the Lord'. Then we would expect a clarification. So, your comparison is flawed. IF there was only one group --the biological brothers of Jesus--and James was one of them Paul would have absolutely no need to qualify his term in 1 Cor 9 or Gal 1:19.

Again there doesn't seem to be much logic here. Brothers are not biological in Paul's usage unless qualified seems to be what is happening.

Quote:

Originally Posted by TedM

Quote:

This is an extended argument from silence which in no sense deals with the fact that Paul almost invariably uses the term αδελφος not as a biological reference but as a religious community reference.

You are stuck on this. I can't help you. The term is not helpful because the same term would be used for a biological reference.

At least when qualified. Biology is not looked on well by Paul.

Quote:

Originally Posted by TedM

In this conversation we are talking about brothers both spiritually and biologically but we aren't using a different English word for both. "Brother" is being used for both. You simply aren't interacting with this fact nor the sons of God relationship of believers. I'm not saying there could not have been a group. I'm saying that the term Paul uses is in no way helpful as an argument for a spiritual reference.

We are talking about brothers socio-politically, as co-religionists and, for a subset--those "of the lord"--, a group of co-religionists with a high status in the community, as James and the other brothers clearly had.

Quote:

Originally Posted by TedM

I'm not saying (as you say later) that Paul MUST mean a biological relationship. I'm saying that is the most reasonable conclusion.

If you deny Paul's usual usage of "brother" and accept that no-one was interested in the fact that a James the brother of Jesus became an important figure in the religion, though no-one seemed at all interested.

Quote:

Originally Posted by TedM

Quote:

As is, all you are doing is asserting that Cephas should have been a member of such a group, when we have no idea of the politics of the situation.

Cephas and the apostles were NOT 'members', that is fairly clear. ALL fellow believers were sons.

Though obviously not sons in any biological sense.

Quote:

Originally Posted by TedM

Do you not see how limiting that is for your case? How can ONE group be both a son of God and brother of the Lord, without ALL being that? It's an awkward combination if meant metaphorically.

You're still too attached to the biological notion of "brother", even while trying to consider metaphor. You need to consider "brother" in a socio-political context regarding the religious community. In such a context there can be subgroups. Apostles is one. What about leaders who don't go out and proselytize?

Quote:

Originally Posted by TedM

Quote:

That just makes it stranger that Acts says nothing about James the leader being the brother of Jesus,

Acts isn't helpful for understanding how James became the leader and what his history was. That probably existed in the original manuscripts but was lost or excised. Later Catholics who preferred Peter's authority to that of James had reason to remove the original introduction which might have shed light on who James was and why some people were considered to be 'brothers of the Lord'.

You can guess about what did or didn't exist in Acts, but it is a waste of breath as you can never know. What existed in Jerusalem before the war was mostly obliterated. Attempts at generalizations based on the later status quo (such as how to read Gal 1:19) are doomed to failure.

Quote:

Originally Posted by TedM

Quote:

And I have gone over scribal additions to Josephus numerous times.
The "brother of Jesus called christ one James by name" in AJ 20.200 has word order in Greek that doesn't fit the context. Jesus has not just been mentioned as the syntax suggests and too much is made of this one liner to fit the discourse of Josephus about Ananus.

So you say.

Until you can deal with the issue, there's no using Josephus regarding Jesus. He was preserved by christians and we know he was altered by christians regarding Jesus.

Quote:

Originally Posted by TedM

Quote:

The big picture here is that the past has been obfuscated by later interpretations and reconsiderations of it. You aren't prepared to read Paul for what he says, but for what later tradition tells you.

I am prepared to read Paul for what he says.

To quote Talking Heads, "Still waiting...."

Quote:

Originally Posted by TedM

You are the one who is not doing this. The phrase Paul uses doesn't help us by itself. Neither does the Greek word you keep harping on that he uses. What helps us are the other considerations:

1. The uniqueness of the phrase and the context surrounding the uniqueness leads us to conclude that he is not simply referring to any fellow believer. Paul clearly excludes the apostles (except for one named James) and Cephas from the group. He is referring to a subset of believers.

2. Paul's understanding of ALL fellow believers as sons of God argues against a spiritual brotherly relationship to God in Gal 1:19. This argues against the word 'Lord' meaning 'God', if 'brother' is meant spiritually.

There you go again constructing a metaphorical biological brother. In any ancient confraternity there were brothers of higher status. Paul indicates that "brothers of the lord" had higher status than ordinary brothers.

Quote:

Originally Posted by TedM

3. Paul's exclusion of apostles and Cephas argues against 'Lord' meaning Christ (if 'brother is meant spiritually) because ALL fellow believers are sons of God, and since Christ as also a son of God ALL believers would be brothers of Christ.

Same error as above.

Quote:

Originally Posted by TedM

4. Given Paul's great interest in the relationship believers have to each other and to God and Christ's role in creating that relationship, there would be a much higher expectation for Paul to comment on his unique use of the 'brother of the Lord' and what that meant to him IF it was not meant biologically. If meant biologically there is nothing to explain.

Mindreading.

Quote:

Originally Posted by TedM

5. Since there were not two groups of brothers of the Lord to distinguish between--one biological and the other spiritual--we should not expect Paul to clarify by adding 'according to the flesh', etc.. as he does when he references his fellow brothers vs kinsmen (2 groups).

I am amazed at this incoherence. Seriously, think about what you've done, conjuring up the necessity for a biological group of brothers of the lord to complement a "spiritual" group of brothers out of your own willfulness. You overlay your own meanings onto what is presented to you and not strangely fail to comprehend it.

Quote:

Originally Posted by TedM

6. The later clearer tradition of brothers/cousins of Jesus, including one named James (whether the leader or not) should definitely be considered.

And eliminated as having been rejected by Jesus, as having rejected Jesus and as not being represented in the church in Acts (other than a token conversion at teh beginning and then nothing).

Quote:

Originally Posted by TedM

7. The lack of any reference anywhere to a special group called 'brothers of the Lord' other than biological brothers should be considered.

An attempted argument from silence while overlooking the significance of of what Paul actually says about brothers of the lord, who are clearly of higher status than ordinary brothers.

Quote:

Originally Posted by TedM

ALL of these things taken together are the big picture spin.

The big picture I get from your writhings now and in the past, TedM, is your desire to defend the status quo.

Quote:

Originally Posted by TedM

It doesn't prove I'm right, but for me it is strong collective 'evidence' that the reference is to biological brothers of Jesus. Those that don't think Jesus existed would be better off arguing that the phrase was interpolated, though that is problematic also.

Talking to me TedM, there has been no discourse of an interpolation. (Yes, I know that others have engaged in such discourse, but it's irrelevant here.) I understand your desire to see the text as the faith sees it, but you haven't dealt with the fact that Paul almost universally uses "brother" to mean a "co-religionist", as in a member of a confraternity of believers. In such a situation "brother" has no sense of biology, either real or family metaphorical. Confraternities are well-known for their internal distinction of status, from ordinary members to ranking members. The distinction between "brother" and "brother of the lord" points to a distinction of prestige. Paul needs to deal with the issue. Brothers of the lord can have believing wives, as can apostles. He doesn't need to deal with ordinary brothers. James is the first pillar of the Jerusalem community. It's obvious that all "brothers of the lord" had prestige. Choosing to ignore this and going against Pauline usage of "brother" only leads you to the tired old conclusions that have obfuscated early christianity.

TedM · 05-04-2012, 07:44 PM

Spin, you seem to be interpreting the term "brothers of the Lord" as meaning "God's special group of brothers within a religious community", instead of "God's brothers". Correct? Please clarify before I answer much further.

As far as having a biological component to the spiritual use of 'brothers', I agree that one isn't necessary, but it would not at all be unusual, and I wonder how you might interpret the following?:

Quote:

Rom 8:28 And we know that God causes all things to work together for good to those who love God, to those who are called according to His purpose. 29 For those whom He foreknew, He also predestined to become conformed to the image of His Son, so that He would be the firstborn among many brethren;

This seems to me to quite clearly show that Paul saw the obvious connection of sons of God being brothers to each other as well as to God's own firstborn Son BECAUSE God is the father! The biological metaphor seems to be validated in this verse.

In any case I will now re-examine your comments in light of just the simple idea of brothers as representing the idea of fellow members with something in common, such as my be used by a fraternity or a racial group. I don't think your comments will change much in my thinking because I find it difficult to interpret "brothers of the Lord" while ignoring the meaning of the word "OF" as you are doing. You are implying no relationship between the brothers and the Lord in doing so. How odd that would be! 'Brothers IN the Lord' works, but not OF the Lord.

The "fellow believers" would reference each other by saying "my brother", or "my brethren", or "our brother", etc.. as Paul does. How would the brothers of the Lord reference each other? "My fellow brother of the Lord?" "My Lord's brother"? How awkward is that? And why would the phrase "brothers of the Lord" be chosen in the first place if it did not imply a relationship between those chosen and the Lord--as equals, as brothers are? What does it mean spin? It can't mean 'brothers belonging to the Lord' like "fraternity's brothers" might mean "brothers belonging to a fraternity" because ALL fellow believers belong to the Lord. It makes no sense at all.

Sheshbazzar · 05-04-2012, 08:00 PM

Even if the writer did mean 'brother' as a sibling, it wouldn't at all change the fact that the tale that it is included in is a fabricated and utterly hokey fictional account.

A report of an imaginary brother for the imaginary Jeebus adds no more credibility to the Gospel tale than the report of him casting out demons or flying off into the clouds.
And remember this tale comes from the very same 'witness' that claims that he carried on conversations with a Zombie, (Acts 26:13-18) and that this visionary Zombie taught him his gospel -was it in this short conversation? How many hours did Zombie Jeebus talk with Paul? When? Paul in all of the rest of his religious diarrhea of the mouth never says.
Add to that the lack of credibility of Paul's other claims about persecuting the faith and hunting down and believers putting them in prison, even fetching them all the way from Damascus in Syria, and the story has holes big enough to drive a semi through.

Its an entertaining tale, but borders somewhere between insanity and sheer stupidity. People believe a lot of weird shit. Doesn't make it true.

Diogenes the Cynic · 05-04-2012, 08:23 PM

Paul doesn't really include it in a "tale," he talks about it in the context of seeing real people. He says that one of them (alone of all of them) was "the Lord's brother." A sibling relationship would be the normal plain reading of the Greek, and there is no compelling reason (that I can see) to doubt this reading.

Yes, Paul calls believers, collectively "bothers," and refers repeatedly to them with appellations such as "our brother," "a brother," "my brother," and "beloved brother," but he only calls one person ἀδελφὸν τοῦ κυρίου ("brother of the Lord", and that's James, and it's not in the congregational context of his uses of the word to address fellow believers. James is the only "brother" who Paul does not claim as "ours," or "my," but as "the Lord's brother. Not only that, but he does it in a context which implies that even Cephas and John are excluded from this distinction.

Paul's congregational uses of adelphos/adelphoi cannot be used to inform Gal. 1:19.

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

05-04-2012, 08:00 PM	#129
Sheshbazzar Veteran Member Join Date: Sep 2003 Location: On the path of knowledge Posts: 8,889	Even if the writer did mean 'brother' as a sibling, it wouldn't at all change the fact that the tale that it is included in is a fabricated and utterly hokey fictional account. A report of an imaginary brother for the imaginary Jeebus adds no more credibility to the Gospel tale than the report of him casting out demons or flying off into the clouds. And remember this tale comes from the very same 'witness' that claims that he carried on conversations with a Zombie, (Acts 26:13-18) and that this visionary Zombie taught him his gospel -was it in this short conversation? How many hours did Zombie Jeebus talk with Paul? When? Paul in all of the rest of his religious diarrhea of the mouth never says. Add to that the lack of credibility of Paul's other claims about persecuting the faith and hunting down and believers putting them in prison, even fetching them all the way from Damascus in Syria, and the story has holes big enough to drive a semi through. Its an entertaining tale, but borders somewhere between insanity and sheer stupidity. People believe a lot of weird shit. Doesn't make it true.

05-04-2012, 08:23 PM	#130
Diogenes the Cynic Moderator - Join Date: Sep 2004 Location: Twin Cities, Minnesota Posts: 4,639	Paul doesn't really include it in a "tale," he talks about it in the context of seeing real people. He says that one of them (alone of all of them) was "the Lord's brother." A sibling relationship would be the normal plain reading of the Greek, and there is no compelling reason (that I can see) to doubt this reading. Yes, Paul calls believers, collectively "bothers," and refers repeatedly to them with appellations such as "our brother," "a brother," "my brother," and "beloved brother," but he only calls one person ἀδελφὸν τοῦ κυρίου ("brother of the Lord", and that's James, and it's not in the congregational context of his uses of the word to address fellow believers. James is the only "brother" who Paul does not claim as "ours," or "my," but as "the Lord's brother. Not only that, but he does it in a context which implies that even Cephas and John are excluded from this distinction. Paul's congregational uses of adelphos/adelphoi cannot be used to inform Gal. 1:19.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.