aa5874

HJers TODAY claim THEIR Jesus was a LITTLE known preacher man of Nazareth, baptized by John and crucified under Pilate but cannot show any source of antiquity with their LIITLE known preacher man.

There is NO credible source of antiquity with such a preacher man.

The source Must be FIRST avaliable BEFORE a claim can be made.

If I claim Gabriel the ANGEL was the Governor of Judea in the 15th year of Tiberius I MUST, MUST, MUST have a source or else I would be Ridiculed as an INVENTOR.

Jesus the LITTLE known preacher man of Nazareth, baptized by John under Pilate is an INVENTION and people who maintain that claim WITHOUT a credible source are INVENTORS.

A claim MUST follow a source except those INVENTED.

graymouser

Phil 1:14 is a clear reference to all believers. Gal 1:19 is differentiating one apostle named James from others with whom he might have been confused, unlike Cephas who was sufficiently well known to be referenced by only his first name. So they have nothing to do with each other, however much you stretch it.

I don't like your explanation for 1 Cor 9:5 because it is an ad hoc solution that requires something much more elaborate than the alternative. If "brothers of the Lord" are the physical brothers of Jesus, this requires the phrase to refer only in its everyday sense to brothers, and for the central figure of Christianity to be a human being who was part of a fairly large family. Your solution requires a group called "brothers of the Lord" which existed, had sufficient moral authority to be cited in the context of 1 Cor 9:5, was not recorded outside of this verse and a few references to James as Jesus's brother - but by the time Mark was written the group was so blurred in memory that its members were constructed as the siblings of Jesus Christ.

Your hypothesis, like any other hypothesis offered by someone doing history, can have emendations and additional hypotheses added onto it - but as these hangers-on grow your theory is less and less tenable. That's why serious historians tend to avoid mythicism: it requires a very elaborate combination of alternate readings of texts, a very particular understanding of early Christian motivations, and when subjected to criticism a whole series of ad hoc hypotheses like your "brothers of the Lord" solution where falsifying any one of them makes the whole house of cards fall down.

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. 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.

Gal 1:19 almost certainly references a biological relationship. The only prob I have is whether it was simply a scribal addition--it's such a short reference that it could have been. As such it could simply be the reflection of a later tradition. For me the question then becomes one of how and why such a tradition could have developed over time. 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.

graymouser

Well, anything could be a later scribal insertion. But as you say, it's clearly an unlikely case here - there's no reason to think of it as one, there's no textual variant and it matches the phrasing used by Paul in 1 Cor 9:5 (brother / brothers of the Lord, with Lord in the genitive with the article). If Gal 1:19 said "the brother of Jesus Christ" and 1 Cor 9:5 said "the brothers of the Lord" then it might be different, we'd have at least some variation in phrasing and could say one or the other might be an interpolation. Similarly if א and B were different on the phrase, or א had something different than the Byzantine text-type or anything like that, we would be able to say that something was changed. Without clear motivation - particularly as later Christianity with the emphasis on Mary as a virgin would tend to remove, rather than enhance, references to Jesus's brothers and sisters - there is no case for interpolation other than that it fits one particular theory.

TedM

That all makes sense to me. 'Brother of Jesus' would have a been a much more likely later interpolation. We are back to a made-up brotherhood with no evidence despite a reasonable expecation for it vs a common meaning with lots of later evidence supporting it. That's why this made my Top 10 list (though it was #9).

EarlDoherty

Illogical nonsense, Mr. Mouse. I can refer to a group such as the Teamsters collectively. I can at another time separately refer to an individual member of the Teamsters. Does that make them “have nothing to do with each other”? I can refer to the Catholic priesthood collectively at one point in my correspondence. I can at another time refer to an individual and identify him as a Catholic priest. I might even use a slightly different phrase—perhaps just a different preposition—in the two cases. Does that make the two references “have nothing to do with each other”? The extent of your special pleading and your contortion of logic here is breathtaking, but it’s typical and understandable in those with an historicist agenda in the face of all evidence to the contrary and when one’s cupboard of meager support is so bare.

I have offered an analogy in my Jesus: Neither God Nor Man which would make perfect sense of Paul’s reference (if authentic) to James as one of the brethren of the Lord in Gal. 1:19 (note 28), but I assume of course that you have not troubled to read my book let alone try to come up with substantive rebuttals against it. The same, by the way, goes for TedM.

The term “ad hoc” only applies when there is nothing in the rest of the evidence to which it could reasonably conform. The picture which the epistles create of the workings of the sect which Paul attached himself to allows my suggestion about the meaning of “brethren of the Lord” to make sense in context. Whereas as a reference to siblings and part of a large family, it has NO supporting context, because outside of that, there isn’t the slightest reference anywhere in the epistles to siblings of Jesus let alone a large family surrounding him, even when we would have every reason to expect there should be (as in the ascriptions to the epistles of James and Jude which you have no feasible argument against). That doesn’t bother you? That doesn’t call into question your smug reference to the “everyday sense” of siblings and family when you can’t call on a single example to support your claim about the two appearances of the same phrase? (In fact, the similarity of the phrasing makes it likely that both have the same meaning, which is something you seem to want to argue, and yet the very similarity of both phrases with Phil. 1:14 is something you will not countenance as being an argument for also meaning the same thing, because we all know that Phil. 1:14 does NOT mean siblings and this effect on the other two passages is something you refuse to accept.)

And, by the way, in contradiction to your claim, wouldn’t your argument quoted above about Phil. 1:14 being in the plural and Gal. 1:19 in the singular necessitate 9:5’s “brothers of the Lord” to be a reference to a group of believers, while 1:19 is supposedly of a sibling? More (ad hoc) illogicality!

Furthermore, you and others keep insisting on an “everyday sense” for “brother” despite all the considerations which do not IN CONTEXT render this an everyday sense. No. 1, it’s OUR everyday sense, and you have made no case for carrying that sense over to the 1st century situation we are dealing with. No. 2, nor to the context of the epistles themselves, which are full of the “everyday sense” of brother being a reference to a fellow-believer. THAT was THEIR everyday sense, but you can only ignore that and bleat in favor of your own. No. 3, you don’t consider the phrase itself, which does not give us an “everyday sense” by saying “brother of Jesus”. No. 4, you ignore, deny, any connection to the very similar phrase in Phil. 1:14 which to any neutral observer would suggest a similar meaning.

If a prosecutor’s case against a defendant is very powerful on a lot of points: motive, opportunity, witness, abundant physical evidence, and yet there is one or perhaps two anomalies in the case, a discrepancy in a piece of evidence or a witness’s uncertainty on a certain point, what does a good prosecutor do? Does he acknowledge defeat in the face of the defence attorney who jumps on those one or two anomalies shouting that they make mincemeat out of the prosecutor’s entire case? Or does he try to find a reasonable explanation for the apparent anomaly, one that makes sense in the context of his case as a whole. The justice system is full of situations like that. Historical research is full of situations like that.

But only in the field of NT research where the existence of Jesus is being debated does a defence attorney think to claim that his one or two paltry ‘anomalies’ should win the day, that the prosecutors are not only crazy but charlatans, that their postulated explanations for those anomalies are not only worthless but render them agenda-driven hacks who need to be driven out of town on a rail. That kind of stuff, Mr. Mouse, doesn’t convert a jury to your position. And that’s what we are here for, not to slug it out in a boxing ring and see how much blood we can draw from the opponent, but to influence the judgment of the onlooking jury. If you truly think that your constant parroting of your one or two points, your constant reliance on the same arguments (which are hardly arguments at all but simply beating the point to death), while failing to engage with the mythicist counters and explanations, if you think that is winning over an impartial jury, you’re only deceiving yourself. And it isn’t the historicist peanut gallery here that constitutes the jury. Of course, you yourself serve as part of the peanut gallery for other historicists when they take the stand. All of you create one vast echo chamber, but what is echoing about is precious little.

It’s been like that for years. I’ve seen it all. You guys never change. You continue to refuse to seriously grapple with the mythicist case, especially my own, except on the most superficial and repetitious level, showing far more ignorance than understanding.

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.

Earl Doherty

Solo

If you have NRSV, then you know the subtitle for the pericope is "The Guilt of Humankind". The verse you are citing, Rom 1:18 speaks of generally of "all ungodliness and wickedness of men", not "Jews". There is nothing anywhere in Paul you can point that speaks ill of his people; he is proud of being Jewish, Rom 11:1.

Best,
Jiri

andrewcriddle

There is a third century citation of Galatians 1:19 in Origen on Matthew I'm not aware of a 2nd century citation of this verse.

Andrew Criddle

TedM

The fact is that it is not the same kind of reference Earl. Nothing you can weave or imagine will change that fact. You are simply using a 'could have' argument which few dispute, but only in two places does Paul reference 'brothers of the Lord' or 'Lord's brothers'. This refers to a relationship between the Lord and the person. It does not refer to relationships between believers--the 'brethren', 'our brethren', as it Paul's meaning elsewhere, when clear. SO there are five problems.

1. Paul references a relationship differently here than anywhere else
2. Paul doesn't refer to John and Cephas as 'brothers of the Lord' in the same book (or even chapter) even though there is no other distinction made.
3. Tradition, and Gospels, have a different prominent James so it makes sense to make a distinction.
4. Tradition gives Jesus brothers from multiple source, including James.
5. There is no record anywhere of a 'brothers of the Lord' group.

The weight of the evidence, the big picture, squarely refutes your minority position.

aa5874

Even Apologetic sources REJECT your claim.

Examine the Apocalypse of JAMES. First of all you have NOT established the veracity of the Galatians writer and also you have NOT established by any credible dated text for Galatians.

Galatians in P 46 has been DATED by Paleography to the 3rd century.

You MUST first establish Veracity and historical accuracy of the Galatians writer before any Presumptions can be accepted.

I no longer entertain Presumptions about letters that have NOT ever been corroborated to be historically accurate and has NEVER been corroborated to have been written before c 70 CE.

The days of PRESUMPTIONS ARE OVER--DONE.

Unchallenged Presumptions about the Pauline writers are for Sunday School and the Clergy not for people on BC&H.

The table has turned, Presumptions are worthless.