outhouse

through careful study


its tough, we factually have cross cultural mythology that did grow surronding the jesus legend whether he has historicity or not, is besides the point that mythology was created through theology

aa5874

Of course your objection depends on the date of Galatians, the historical reliability of Galatians, or if it was an heretical document.

If it was established that Galatians was composed in the 2nd century or later, that the contents are not historical and Paul was Not a heretic then Ehrman's explanation would not even matter.


Ehrman's explanation to which you have objected ASSUMES Galatians was composed Before the death of Nero, and that Paul actually Met the Apostle James.

Your statement only makes sense when you establish the events in Galatians are history.

Again, your scenario only makes sense if this happened and if Jeb and George did exist.

Surely you must admit that if you said YOU saw William, the brother of Andrew [the 17th President of the USA ], then we would NOT even bother to reply.

PhilosopherJay

Hi Toto,

Yes, I am saying that there are excellent reasons to believe this could not have been in the original text.

First, it would be needed to distinguish between the multitude of James characters mentioned in Christian Gospels. The author must be writing for someone who has read the Christian Gospels and knows that there are multiple James and one is the brother of Jesus. If the author thought that the letter readers knew that James was the brother of the Lord, there would be no need to mention it. If he thought that the letter readers did not know that James was the Brother of the Lord, it would be necessary to explain to them that Jesus had a brother and to explain how he ended up as a Jesus Cult leader in Jerusalem.

Secondly, there is the fact that meeting with Jesus' brother is placed as almost an afterthought to meeting Cephas.
Certainly the fact of meeting Jesus' brother should have been a bigger point than meeting an apostle.

Thirdly, and most importantly, a few sentences later, at Galatians 2.9, we read, "and when James and Cephas and John, who seemed to be pillars, perceived the grace that was given to me, they gave the right hand of fellowship to Barnabas and me,"

Whenever the disciple John Zebedee is mentioned in the gospels and associated with someone, it is always with James or James and Peter or Peter. This happens in all 16 cases where the disciple John is associated with someone. There is no instance of a brother of Jesus being associated with John.

Matt:
4.21 And going on from there he saw two other brothers, James the son of Zebedee and John his brother,

10.2 The names of the twelve apostles are these: first, Simon, who is called Peter, and Andrew his brother; James the son of Zebedee, and John his brother;

17.1 And after six days Jesus took with him Peter and James and John his brother, and led them up a high mountain apart

Mark:
1.19And going on a little farther, he saw James the son of Zebedee and John his brother,

1.29And immediately he left the synagogue, and entered the house of Simon and Andrew, with James and John.

3.14And he appointed twelve, to be with him, and to be sent out to preach 3.15and have authority to cast out demons: 3.16Simon whom he surnamed Peter; 3.17James the son of Zebedee and John the brother of James, whom he surnamed Bo-aner'ges, that is, sons of thunder;

5.37And he allowed no one to follow him except Peter and James and John the brother of James.

9.2And after six days Jesus took with him Peter and James and John, and led them up a high mountain apart by themselves; and he was transfigured before them

10.35And James and John, the sons of Zebedee, came forward to him, and said to him, "Teacher, we want you to do for us whatever we ask of you."

13.3And as he sat on the Mount of Olives opposite the temple, Peter and James and John and Andrew asked him privately, 13.4 "Tell us, when will this be, and what will be the sign when these things are all to be accomplished?

14.33And he took with him Peter and James and John, and began to be greatly distressed and troubled.

Luke
6.12 In these days he went out to the mountain to pray; and all night he continued in prayer to God. 6.13 And when it was day, he called his disciples, and chose from them twelve, whom he named apostles; 6.14 Simon, whom he named Peter, and Andrew his brother, and James and John

8.51 And when he came to the house, he permitted no one to enter with him, except Peter and John and James,

9.28 Now about eight days after these sayings he took with him Peter and John and James, and went up on the mountain to pray

9.54 And when his disciples James and John saw it, they said, "Lord, do you want us to bid fire come down from heaven and consume them?"

22.8 So Jesus sent Peter and John, saying, "Go and prepare the passover for us, that we may eat it."

It is perfectly clear that in the original text, the author was referring to Peter and James and John Zebedee. These were the pillars of the Jesus Cult.

Because the use of the phrase "James and Cephas and John, who seemed to be pillars," matches the information we are getting from the gospels, it is clear that the James in Galatians was meant to be the brother of John Zebedee.

It is most probable that the original phrase in 1 Galatians 1.18 was this:

It is possible that a scribe wrote James, the brother of Jesus instead of John as a simple mistake. Another scribe probably thought saying "Brother of the Lord" was equivalent to saying "brother of Jesus."

Warmly,

Jay Raskin

PhilosopherJay

Hi avi,

I think you're right that the whole trip to Jerusalem was edited in later then the rest of the epistle. The "Brother of the Lord" was another interpolation in that interpolation.

The fact is that in most of the epistles, we are not getting information found in the gospels. If they were all composed post gospel, we would expect to be getting constant information from and references to the gospels. This section in Galatians is one of the few times we are getting gospel reference material. When it does happen we have good reason to suspect it is post-gospel, just as we have good reason to suspect that in the vast majority of the epistles where it does not occur, they are most probably pre-gospel.

Warmly,

Jay Raskin

stephan huller

FWIW the cult of the family of Jesus has something to do with Hegesippus. He created the myth of a family of Jesus being the line of bishops at Jerusalem albeit written from Rome at the end of the second century. This isn't a historical notion and is somehow also connected with the Epistle to Judas (Jude). Judas is the twin of Jesus and Jacob is the twin of the semi-angelic Esau. I think the Latin Epistle of Titus references a 'Judas Jacobi' from memory. A lot of this stuff comes down to garbled legendary folktales.

In Jewish mysticism Jacob sits at the top of the heavenly ladder and = Metatron the second god.

outhouse

really, doesnt this just prove the lack of historicity in anything pre 30 years of age for the jesus concept.?

people at a later date attributing mythology that matches whats needed for OT prophecy, based on certain oral traditions from specific small sects?

stephan huller

If the name had nothing to do with the concept of twins I might have to accept that it is historical. Anything to do with the cult of twin brothers in Christianity should raise red flags.

Twins - Judas Thoma, Jacob
Brothers - Peter-Andrew, Jacob-John, there is also a tradition Bartholomew-Philip
Paired Disciples - Peter-Paul, Peter-Mark

aa5874

What?? Not the original text??? Excellent reasons??? You just said your objection to Ehrman's explanation did NOT depend on the dating and Credibility of Galatians.

But Now they are in fact Excellent Reasons.

You actually think Ehrman is using a Later DATED Interpolated Galatians.


Your objection to Ehrman' explanation is DIRECTLY based on Ehrman's use of a supposed later interpolated Galatians which makes Galatians 1.19 NOT Credible.

But, no author of the NT or Apologetic source acknowledged that any apostle named James was the human brother of Jesus.

If it is assumed that the Canonised Gospels were written after Galatians we STILL see that none of the Gospel authors claimed any apostle called James was the human brother of Jesus.

If we look Outside the Canon, it is the very same thing. Apologetic sources that mentioned Galatians 1.19 do NOT claim the Apostle James was the human brother of Jesus.

It makes ZERO sense that a LATER interpolator would insert that Paul met the Lord's brother in Galatians 1.19 which was NOT ever acknowledge at any time in the Church.

It is NOT a fact that it is an afterthought---that is your opinion.

The fact is that we don't really know who was this Apostle James the Lord's brother in Galatians. When did the Galatians writer meet James the Lord's brother in the 2nd, 3rd or 4th century???

Please, do NOT forget the Galatians story about going to Jerusalem and the time he saw the Apostle James are NOT at all corroborated in the NT.

Please, do NOT forget that Paul may have been accused of Lying.

Surely we cannot presume the Paul writer cannot lie and presume he did NOT invent stories when we know that events in Galatians Must have been fabricated.

Galatians 1
Based on the NT authors and Apologetic sources, Jesus had NO human brother called the Apostle James---Paul was lying Before God.

You are arguing Ehrman's Explanation is incomplete because you think that the Galatians letter used by Ehrman is a LATER Interpolated Text which is NOT Credible.

You actually think that the EARLIER Galatians did NOT contain "James the Lord's brother" as found in the Canon.

Ehrman's Explanation is DEAD WRONG because he cannot show that the Pauline writer was a KNOWN heretic and that Galatians was a KNOWN source of the Heresy that Jesus was a human being with a human father.

aa5874

Again you contradict yourself and show that your argument that Ehrman's Explanation is incomplete is DEPENDING DIRECTLY on your supposition that Ehrman used a Later dated Interpolated Text of Galatians which was NOT Credible.

If Galatians 1.19 was a LATE Interpolation then we would Expect that it was interpolated to produce Harmonisation of conflicting Apologetic writings but instead we get the Reverse.

Galatians 1.19 caused CONFLICT--Not Harmony with the claim that the Apostle James had a human brother called Jesus.

No NT or Apologetic source agreed with Galatians 1.19.

See De viris Illustribus. Jerome attempted to explain away the CONFLICT in Galatians 1.19.

Why is Jerome attempting to undo Galatians 1.19 in the 4th century if it was interpolated by a LATE editor???

The evidence from antiquity suggests that the letter to the Galatians itself was a LATE writing

sotto voce

He is better educated. He refers to James, 'the brother of the Lord'. It is Catholics, of criminal infamy, who without authority capitalise 'mother' in respect of Mary. So it is at least doubly unwise to unwittingly copy this malpractice; as we shall see.

A monkey wrench, eh. Or could a butterfly's wings collapse that notion? Anyone who accepts the idea that Paul wrote about an ahistoric, spiritual Jesus obviously has never read him. 'Born of a woman,' he says, his whole theology based on incarnation, the fulfilment of long-established prophecy; his whole existence turned upside down by nothing less than actual events, because he misunderstood the meaning of that prophecy. It's perverse, unless it's incredibly childish, to expect Paul to write to converts about miracles, when the miracle of resurrection predicates the very existence of converts. It's perverse, unless it's incredibly childish, to expect Paul to write to converts about parables, when, for them, perfectly clear meaning has fully succeeded parables. It's perverse, unless it's incredibly childish, to expect Paul to write to converts about precepts and prayers that applied to Jews before the curtain of the Temple was torn, when his constant theme is that these conditions no longer apply! But of such seems to be the message of some who lay claim to scholarship. Of course, it may be that they have a pressing agenda, that lends them that dogged mien.

Whatever, if 'James, the Lord's brother' refers to another son of Mary of Nazareth, as the necessarily mundane context requires, it does not materially affect the MJ pov, which is hallucination, if based on Paul's oeuvre. The date of the gospels is of not the least relevance, because Jesus and everything about him was known by word of mouth, immediately, throughout the known world; if it was known at all. So any argument based on non-existence of the gospels, in this issue, as in almost all others, is amateur and nugatory. It is agreed that Paul wrote of James precisely because of his personal knowledge of Jesus, that the gospel that the Galatians had accepted was the genuine article. This did not imply for a moment that James or Peter or anyone had special authority; only that they possessed special, first-hand knowledge of Jesus and his ministry.

So how is it that a perception of this whole issue can lead to the idea of Jesus having a brother as being akin to the mechanic's hefty tool in 'the works'? That may be because 'the works' are not as advertised. The issue of Jesus' brother, or rather brothers and sisters, has of course been a very sensitive one for Catholics since the Reformation, when people at last read the NT for themselves, and realised that they had been hoodwinked, as well as exploited, robbed and abused, for centuries. The religion that systematised the inversion of the gospel of justification by faith required more than mere negation of atonement by means of repeated Mass sacrifices. It required a focus, one to succeed Isis, a figure to keep supplicants in a state of perpetual suspension. So the humanist myth of a 'Mary' who was ever-virgin had to be cultivated. This is of course no less of a preoccupation today, when Mary, 'Mother of God', is now also referred to as 'Co-Redemptrix'. So capitalisation of 'brother' may actually signify faith in HJ.