Switch89

I have a theory that being a "brother of the Lord" was a
rank in the early church. My evidence? Take a look at
1 Corinthians 9:5. It says,

"Don't we have the right to take a believing wife
along with us, as do the other apostles and the Lord's
brothers and Cephas?"

Notice the sentence structure: first is the apostles,
which were those who had been 'sent' by Jesus, next
are the Lord's brothers, and finally there is Cephas,
who, as you know, was the "rock" the church was built
upon and is rumored to have been the first pope. Since
two out of the three mentioned here seem to hold
offices within the church, it seems natural to me to
hold that "brother of the Lord" was also an office.

aa5874

There is really no need to develop any theories. It can be shown that the church writers and the letter writer wanted to present James as a human brother of Jesus who was born of a virgin.

There is the forged passage in Antiquities of the Jews 20.9.1, where a James is called the brother of a Jesus Christ.

And Church History 2.1

Switch89

"There is really no need to develop any theories. It can be shown that the church writers and the letter writer wanted to present James as a human brother of Jesus who was born of a virgin."

How?

aa5874

By the same way as you when you used 1 Corinthians 9.5.


If you read Church History 2.1, you will see that a James is said to be the [b]son of Joseph, the supposed father of Jesus Christ.

If you read Antiquities of the Jews 20.9.1, you will see that a James is said to have a brother called Jesus Christ

These passagers show that the letter writer and church writers wanted to present James as a human brother of Jesus.

Switch89

Eusebius wrote in the fourth century, but we have a writer named Origen who wrote even earlier and claimed that James was not a literal flesh-and-blood brother of Jesus:

"Now this James was he whom that genuine disciple of Jesus, Paul, said he had seen as the Lord’s brother; [Gal. i. 19.] which relation implies not so much nearness of blood, or the sameness of education, as it does the agreement of manners and preaching. If therefore he says the desolation of Jerusalem befell the Jews for the sake of James, with how much greater reason might he have said, that it happened for the sake of Jesus."

250 CE. Origen Contra Cels. lib. i. p. 35, 36.

As for the passage in Antiqities, I would refer you to Ken Olson's article on the forgery of the Testimonium Flavium by Eusebius. He makes lots of persuasive arguments against the James passage, and they are too complex to quote or explain here.

aa5874

I do not find the passage you quoted from Against Celsus shows that Origen is denying that James was a literal brother of Jesus.

No where does Origen deny that James was presented as the brother of Jesus Christ.

And further Origen was writing about 200 years after the so-called meeting of Paul and James as described in the letter of the writer called Paul.

Again, this is Eusebius in Church History 2.1 Eusebius implies that it was known 200 years before Origen that James was the brother of Jesus Christ and quoted Antiquities 20.9.1 to bolster his claim.

Perhaps you can give some more of his arguments and we will see if they really are persuasive or just speculative.

ApostateAbe

My theory is that "brother" actually means "brother." If you have a "James, brother of the Lord," and you have another James listed among the brothers of Jesus in the gospels, then you can sort of match them up. Really, if Paul meant anything else by "brother," then his immediate readers would have been confused. It is like me saying, "Jeb, brother of former President Bush," and not giving any more detail, when who I really mean is Jeb Jones, one of George's good friends. Don't trade a theory that has evidence and apparent likelihood for a theory that has neither.

Switch89

Who says that the early christians wouldn't have known what Paul meant by "brother of the Lord"? They should have known what it meant if I am right.

Secondly, we tend to use the word "brother" much less often to refer to anything other than a flesh and blood relationship, so your analogy is invalid. Paul almost always uses the word "brother" in a spiritual/communal sense (Check your Strong's Exhaustive Concordance). "Brother(s) of the Lord" is interesting because it rarely appears in the Pauline epistles. In fact, I believe Galatians 1:19 and 1 Cor. 9 are the only two. Now the latter, I believe, indicates that "brother of the Lord" was a rank in the church.

I'd also like to point out something Richard Carrier once said: James is not "Brother of Jesus" he is the "Brother of the Lord". The Lord is not a biological category, so this also seems to point in the direction of a spiritual relationship.

Finally, how do you know that the James Paul talks about is the gospel James? You could reply, "Because the gospel James (one of them, at least) is listed as the brother of Jesus". But this begs the question because the issue here is whether the gospel James is the same as the Pauline James. We can't say they are the same because they are both "brothers" (one of Jesus and another of "The Lord") because one could be a brother in the spiritual sense and another in the fleshly sense. Also, I'd like to note that I take the gospels as allegorical fiction, so any reference to James there as being a sibling of Jesus is not going to change my position.

ApostateAbe

For me, Biblical interpretation isn't about certainty, but about likelihood. Paul apparently used the phrase, "the Lord's brother," to clarify which James he was talking about. If you think of the gospels as allegorical fiction, then you seem to have no choice but to assign a metaphorical meaning for "brother" in that verse. I personally think that the theory that the gospels are allegorical fiction is ridiculous, and I strongly suggest that you start over and take a good look at the evidence for the theories that the respected authorities in critical New Testament studies accept. If you continue with an unlikely theory, then you will manage to fit everything into it (albeit with plenty stretching and squeezing), and you may fool yourself into thinking it all fits together wonderfully.

Switch89

I suppose I can agree that biblical interpretation may be a matter of probability. But in that case we would have to look at all of Paul's writings and determine an overall probability of whether he spoke of a historical Jesus by looking at passages like these and determining probability on a case by case basis.

On the gospels as allegorical/symbolic fiction: I don't think it is unlikely at all. Not given the fact that mystery cults used to do employ myths to convery spiritual truths. Michael Turton's commentary on the gospel of Mark, especially chapter 15, makes a good case for this:
http://www.michaelturton.com/Mark/GMark15.html