Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Malachi151 · 01-22-2007, 12:28 PM

What are all the arguments in this case. So far, the only person I have seen argue strongly that Paul didn't think that James was the literal brother of Jesus is Earl Doherty, and this point, despite everything else, seems to be a pretty damning one. Robert M. Price seems to think that James was the literal bother of Jesus according to Paul, as do most others.

Toto · 01-22-2007, 12:54 PM

Where do you think Price says this?

Sweet Brother of God

Quote:

Was James literally, physically the brother of Jesus of Nazareth? This point has always been controversial for various reasons. Mark 6:3 seems to assume simply that Jesus had blood brothers and sisters who were his physical kin in the same way as his parents, Mary and "the carpenter" (according to some manuscripts, as also in Matthew 13:55). But second-century ascetic piety, which deemed sexual intercourse to be sinful even between husband and wife, came to believe that Mary and Joseph can never have had intercourse hence cannot have had children of their own. This implied that, while Jesus was miraculously conceived with no human father, the other children mentioned in Mark 6:3 must have been either his cousins or his half-siblings. ...

On the other hand, it seems just as likely that "brother(s) of the Lord" referred originally to a group or class of missionary itinerants, as in Matthew 25:40 and 3 John 1:3, 5 8, and that the epithet thus no more implied physical relation to Jesus than Paul and Apollos, as "colleagues of the Lord" (1 Corinthians 3:9), would have had offices next to the Almighty's. It is not unlikely that "brother(s) of the Lord" came later to be historicized, misunderstood in literal fashion in order to satisfy the same biographical curiosity that eventually filled the apocryphal Infancy Gospels with details of the childhood and home life of Jesus (though, as we have seen, all this would soon clash with the perpetual virginity doctrine). In the same way, Jesus may have first been called "the Nazorean," meaning "member of the Nazorean sect” (cf. Acts 24:5), but that identifier was later interpreted as a reference to his having lived in Nazareth. (He may first have been called a carpenter by way of a proverbial metaphor for a skilled scripture exegete, later to be counted as a literal woodworker.) “The (first) Apocalypse of James” explicitly repudiates any physical connotation of "brother" ("For not without reason have I called you my brother, although you are not my brother materially"). We see the same tendency to historicize in the case of Thomas, called Jesus' "twin" in “The Gospel of Thomas,” because he, the ideal disciple, has attained spiritual equality/identity with Jesus (in saying 13). Elsewhere he seems to be portrayed as the literal, physical double of his Master. So "the brother of the Lord" need not denote blood kinship. After all, the Taiping messiah Hong Xiuquan in nineteenth-century China called himself the Younger Brother of Jesus, but no one thought he was claiming to be eighteen hundred years old.

. . .

ModernHeretic · 01-22-2007, 01:12 PM

Apparently Origen didn't think so:

Quote:

Origen, Against Celsus 1.47
For in the 18th book of his Antiquities of the Jews, Josephus bears witness to John as having been a Baptist, and as promising purification to those who underwent the rite. Now this writer [Josephus], although not believing in Jesus as the Christ, in seeking after the cause of the fall of Jerusalem and the destruction of the temple, whereas he ought to have said that the conspiracy against Jesus was the cause of these calamities befalling the people, since they put to death Christ, who was a prophet, says nevertheless-being, although against his will, not far from the truth-that these disasters happened to the Jews as a punishment for the death of James the Just, who was a brother of Jesus called Christ [adelphon Iesou tou legomenou Christou],--the Jews having put him to death, although he was a man most distinguished for his justice. Paul, a genuine disciple of Jesus, says that he regarded this James as a brother of the Lord, not so much on account of their relationship by blood, or of their being brought up together, as because of his virtue and doctrine. If, then, he says that it was on account of James that the desolation of Jerusalem was made to overtake the Jews, how should it not be more in accordance with reason to say that it happened on account (of the death) of Jesus Christ, of whose divinity so many Churches are witnesses, composed of those who have been convened from a flood of sins, and who have joined themselves to the Creator, and who refer all their actions to His good pleasure.

Malachi151 · 01-22-2007, 01:23 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

Where do you think Price says this?

Sweet Brother of God

Perhaps it was an earlier position of his:

http://depts.drew.edu/jhc/rp1cor15.html

Quote:

The sheer fact of James' blood relation to Jesus is by itself so powerful, so sufficient a credential that when we find another, a resurrection appearance, placed alongside it in the tradition, we must immediately suspect a secondary layer of tradition. And fortunately we have a striking historical analogy that will help us understand the Tendenz at work in such embellishment. James' claim was precisely parallel to that of Ali, the son-in-law and nephew of the Prophet Muhammad. Ali's "partisans" (Arabic: Shi'ites) advanced his claim to the Caliphate upon the death of Muhammad on the theory that the prophetic succession should follow the line of physical descent.49 Later legend claims that Ali was entitled to the position on the strength of his piety and charisma,50 a tacit concession that blood relation was no longer deemed adequate for spiritual leadership (cf Mark 3:31-35). Finally he is made, in retrospect, the recipient of new angelic revelations like those of the Prophet himself, taking down the dictation of the Mushaf Fatima, one of the Shi'ite holy books.

Toto · 01-22-2007, 01:35 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Robert Price

The sheer fact of James' blood relation to Jesus is by itself so powerful, so sufficient a credential that when we find another, a resurrection appearance, placed alongside it in the tradition, we must immediately suspect a secondary layer of tradition.

I interpret this as a comment on the text, not history, primarily because I know that Price, as a follower of Derrida, analyzes texts and does not generally make claims about historical truth based on the texts.

Price is saying that in the context of the text, a claim of a blood relationship to Jesus is such a powerful claim to authority, that one should not have to back it up with an additional claim of an appearance from Jesus - therefore he sees this claim of an appearance to James to be a later comment, not a reflection of the earliest stage of Christianity (as claimed in the introduction by A.M. Hunter.)

Malachi151 · 01-22-2007, 01:41 PM

Right, but it assumes that Paul, or whoever the writer was, viewed James as a blood brother. Again, this was 95, perhaps his position has changed.

jakejonesiv · 01-22-2007, 01:44 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Malachi151

What are all the arguments in this case. So far, the only person I have seen argue strongly that Paul didn't think that James was the literal brother of Jesus is Earl Doherty, and this point, despite everything else, seems to be a pretty damning one. Robert M. Price seems to think that James was the literal bother of Jesus according to Paul, as do most others.

Hi Malachi151,

This merely illustrates have far critical studies have fallen back inthe twentieth and twenty-first centuries. :frown:

The solution to this was old news even 100 years ago.

Quote:

The Pauline mention of James as "Brother of the Lord" is perhaps only an after-insertion in the Epistle to the Galatians in order therebto have the bodily relationship between James and Jesus conffirmed by Paul himself.*
...
*This is actually the view of the Dutch school of theologians.

Arthur Drews, The Christ Myth, C. Deslisle Burns translator, page 174.

This observation is confirmed in the present day by H. Detering; that the alleged First Trip to Jerusalem (Gal 1:18-24) is an interpolation, and is contradictory. THE ORIGINAL VERSION OF THE EPISTLE
TO THE GALATIANS – EXPLANATIONS, Page 21.

If you like Doherty's The Jesus Puzzle you should get a copy of Drews The Christ Myth (or via: amazon.co.uk). The Burns translation is decent and is available from Amazon.com. I will direct your attention to the chapter, "The Pauline Jesus". You will find that Drews was scarcely behind Doherty in insight concerning the silences in Paul of HJ, and in some ways was considerably ahead as here, and 1 Cor. 11:23 ff (page 175).

Jake Jones IV

Malachi151 · 01-22-2007, 01:46 PM

Thanks. The "I swear to you that this is true" statement that follows this line has always made me suspicious, its almost like a neon sign saying "LIE"!

Toto · 01-22-2007, 01:50 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Malachi151

Right, but it assumes that Paul, or whoever the writer was, viewed James as a blood brother. Again, this was 95, perhaps his position has changed.

It assumes that someone, somewhere, thought that James was Jesus' blood brother, which is true. But Price clearly does not assume that Paul wrote that passage, and thinks that whoever wrote it had a political-theological purpose, rather than a historical one.

From the article in Free Inquiry that I linked,

Quote:

Both versions are factional propaganda, and it is impossible to recover the facts of the matter. Indeed, the historical James confronts us with much the same enigma as the historical Jesus.

jakejonesiv · 01-22-2007, 01:53 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Malachi151

Thanks. The "I swear to you that this is true" statement that follows this line has always made me suspicious, its almost like a neon sign saying "LIE"!

Bingo! Gal 1:20.

Jake

01-22-2007, 12:28 PM	#1
Malachi151 Veteran Member Join Date: Jul 2003 Location: Colorado Posts: 8,674	Did Paul think that James was the literal brother of Jesus? What are all the arguments in this case. So far, the only person I have seen argue strongly that Paul didn't think that James was the literal brother of Jesus is Earl Doherty, and this point, despite everything else, seems to be a pretty damning one. Robert M. Price seems to think that James was the literal bother of Jesus according to Paul, as do most others.

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

01-22-2007, 01:41 PM	#6
Malachi151 Veteran Member Join Date: Jul 2003 Location: Colorado Posts: 8,674	Right, but it assumes that Paul, or whoever the writer was, viewed James as a blood brother. Again, this was 95, perhaps his position has changed.

01-22-2007, 01:46 PM	#8
Malachi151 Veteran Member Join Date: Jul 2003 Location: Colorado Posts: 8,674	Thanks. The "I swear to you that this is true" statement that follows this line has always made me suspicious, its almost like a neon sign saying "LIE"!

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.