Originally Posted by PhilosopherJay

The above title should read "Ehrman's "Brother of the Lord" Explanation is Incomplete" I hope Toto will change it. Thanks.

Hi All,

Bart Ehrman in "Did Jesus Exists" devotes nearly two chapters (pages 146-156) to the phrase "James, Brother of the Lord." He says, (pg. 146), "the fact that Paul knew Jesus' closest disciple and his own brother throws a real monkey wrench into the mythicist view that Jesus never lived."

In order to prove that Paul knew that James was Jesus' brother, Ehrman argues against the view that the phrase "Brother of the Lord" could have meant anything other than a flesh and blood family relationship. I think Ehrman makes a so-so case for this. Basically he says that we do not know of any group named "Brothers of the Lord." He thereupon dismisses the idea that there was any such group and concludes that the phrase means a family relationship.

I would like to argue that even if Ehrman is correct, there is much reason to believe that Galatians still does not attest to Paul's direct knowledge of this relationship.

What we have to examine is how the phrase is used in context. I will argue that the phrase is used not to give us information about the brotherhood of Jesus and James, but to distinguish James the brother of Jesus from the multitude of other James' that we find in the literature.

Ehrman does not mention that there are Five James associated with Jesus. There is

1) James Zebedee, brother of John (Matthew: 4.21) "James the son of Zeb'edee and John his brother, in the boat with Zeb'edee their father," (Also Mark 1.19, 1.29, 3.17, 5.37. 9.2. 10.35, 13.1, 14.32, Luke 5.10, 6.12, 8.40, 9.28, 9.51)
2) James Alphaeus (Matt 10.2) "The names of the twelve apostles are these: first, Simon, who is called Peter, and Andrew his brother; James the son of Zeb'edee, and John his brother; 10.3 Philip and Bartholomew; Thomas and Matthew the tax collector; James the son of Alphaeus," (Also Mark 3.17, Luke 6.12
3) Jesus' brother James (Matt: 13.55) "Is not this the carpenter's son? Is not his mother called Mary? And are not his brothers James and Joseph and Simon and Judas?" (Also Mark 6.1, 15.40, 16.1, Luke 24.10)
4) James, the father of Judas (Luke 6.16)
5) James the Righteous Gospel of Thomas 12) The disciples said to Jesus, "We know that You will depart from us. Who is to be our leader?" Jesus said to them, "Wherever you are, you are to go to James the righteous, for whose sake heaven and earth came into being."

Ehrman leaves out that none of the four texts (Gospels of Mark, Matthew, Luke and Thomas) bothers to mention that Jesus had a brother who became a Jesus Cult leader after he died.) The Gospel of John mentions neither of the two James as disciples. He does mention nine disciples: Peter Andrew (identified as Peter's brother) the sons of Zebedee Philip, Nathanael Thomas also called Didymus (11:16, 20:24, 21:2), Judas Iscariot and Judas (not Iscariot) (14:22)

Keeping this in mind, we find the phrase "Brother of the Lord" could very well mean a flesh and blood relationship, as Ehrman claims/proves, without the Pauline author having known about one.

Let us say that the original text just said that Paul had met an apostle named James in Jerusalem. The first thing that any good informed gospel reading Christian would have wanted to know about this James is which James was he. Was it the disciple James Zebedee or James Alphaeus? Was it the brother of Jesus? Did James, the father of Judas ironically become the leader, or was it James the Righteous that the Gospel of Thomas had written about?

Any scribe, copyist or writer would almost necessarily have to choose one to avoid confusion on the part of a Christian reader. The scribe, copyist or writer could have just arbitrarily picked James, the brother, without knowing anything beyond what is in the synoptic gospels.

Even if Ehrman is correct and "Brother of the Lord" stands for a family relationship, he has not shown that a person named Paul knew this fact. It is just as likely or more so that the writer, scribe or copyist is clarifying which James is meant.

It is important to understand that the phrase is not used in the text to inform us of James' relationship with Jesus. Paul does not say that he met a man named James who claimed to be Jesus' brother. Rather, the phrase is used to distinguish this particular James from other James in the Jesus texts.

I propose that when the text was originally written there was no need to distinguish any James. Only later, after the synoptic gospels and the Gospel of Thomas were in circulation would it have become necessary to interpolate the phrase "Brother of the Lord" to clarify which James was being referred to.

Just as the phrase is almost certainly an interpolation in Josephus' "Antiquities," it is most likely an interpolation in "Galatians."

Warmly,

Jay Raskin

Originally Posted by aa5874

You have failed to address the obvious errors of facts and logic in "Did Jesus Exist?".

1. You have failed to Expose that Bart Ehrman NEVER established that the epistle to the Galatians was composed before the death of Nero c 68 CE.

Ehrman MUST know or should have known that Presumptions about the date of authorship of Galatians are worthless.

If Galatians was first written in the 2nd century then we are NOT dealing with history we are dealing with fiction.

The Pauline writings are QUESTIONED for their historical accuracy and date of authorship.

2. You failed to Expose that Ehrman has NEVER established the Credibilty and historical reliability of the Galatians.

No author of the very NT corroborated the Pauline story in Galatians.

The author of Acts Contradicted the Galatians letter writer.

Either Acts and/or Galatians is Fiction.

3. You have failed to Expose that Ehrman has NEVER established that Galatians was an Heretical document.

Jesus of Galatians could NOT possibly be a human being or else it would have been a KNOWN Heretical Text and most likely would NOT be canonised..

Jesus of the NT was a God with Flesh [God Incarnate].

Listen to the same Galatians writer. The writer MUST, MUST claim Jesus was NOT a human being in order to be Canonised.

Galatians 1:1-12 KJVGalatians 1.19 is really irrelevant.

The Galatians Jesus was NOT a human being and Ehrman cannot ever establish that Galatians was composed before the death of Nero and cannot establish that the Galatians writer is Credible.

Originally Posted by PhilosopherJay

There was a need to distinguish the James that Paul met among the very many James associated with Jesus.

Originally Posted by Juststeve

Jay:

I suggest that there are two questions to consider. 1) Do we credit Paul's claim that he met someone named James in Jerusalem? If the answer to that question is no then there is little reason to go further. 2) If he met a James then why did he refer to him as the Brother of the Lord? Isn't the most probable source of Paul's knowledge of a family relationship, if that's what Paul meant, from James himself. Wouldn't we expect that James, if he was the brother of Jesus, would have told Paul that was who he was? Seems so to me.

Steve

Originally Posted by Vorkosigan

It's a title

Originally Posted by Philosopher Jay

There was a need to distinguish the James that Paul met among the very many James associated with Jesus. Ehrman assumes that the statement is a reflection of the fact that Paul knew that James was a Brother of the Lord.
My belief is that it is in the text to explain which James it was that Paul met.

The attacks on James by Paul makes it extemely unlikely that the phrase "Brother of the Lord" was in the original text. How could Paul get away with attacking the Lord's Brothers without it being an attack on Jesus.