TedM

Knowing why doesn't make it any less weird. Making one person into 2 opposite individuals when it isn't even necessary is weird, and I for one would NOT expect it. Why would you?


So? Two men with common names is a lot more likely that the creation of two opposite men from one for whatever reason one might come up with.



It WOULD then be an unnecessary complication because Mark doesn't explain how the inner circle James was at some point after Jesus' death replaced by the doubting brother James. However, I'm not sure we should expect Mark to have explained that since his gospel ends with the empty tomb and all 12 disciples still alive.

If we assume that "brother of the Lord" is NOT a literal reference, we have Mark CREATING an unnecessary complication for reasons that can only be considered bizarre or foolish, and adding to it further by CREATING ANOTHER brother with the same name as Peter's. I don't see how you can state that this would not have been complicated for Mark's audience. Can you derive any scenario that would make it uncomplicated?

IOW, a NON-literal "brother of the Lord" by Mark results in a stronger unnessary complication than a literal "brother of the Lord" by Mark, assuming Mark was aware of the "brother of the Lord" designation.

If Mark didn't know of the title, and just made up names then we have a complication that resulted from common names, and not a deliberate action by the writer.


You've argued for another way to differentiate, IF that was what Paul was doing. In such a case, I find your alternative ways to differentiate to be less likely than what was written. Differentiation is IMO the most reasonable explanation IF it is a literal reference.


All the more reason to NOT describe James as having the title something equivalent to "brother of the Risen Christ". Why do YOU think he bothered with any descriptor at all?


How does it NOT do that if it is to NOT be taken literally?



I can't find this.


You have yet to show why the alternatives are viable IMO. Rather, you've primarily presented arguments against the literal interpretation. I've pointed out what I think are significant problems with your arguments against the literal interpretation as it pertains to GMark.



Why should they assume it would be the same?


Good question..I haven't finished Eisenman's book yet (maybe in 5 more years..). When I do, I'll have his answer..

ted

jjramsey

Thank you. That's just it. The totality of the evidence suggests that the most natural interpretation of "brother of the Lord" is as a reference to a biological relationship, as TedM has been pointing out. Given that, Jesus' death would have had to have been relatively recent, since it would have happened during James' lifetime.

You are missing the point, which is that Justin is trying to argue on behalf of Christianity by trying to show that it is even older than Roman paganism. Why? Because he lives in a world that tended to disparage the "new-fangled." If Christians in the late first century and early second century had enough of a historical amnesia that they didn't even know when their origin was, it would still be unlikely for them to evolve an origin story that takes place in a first-century setting, because that would have been too recent for them.

What I'm doing is pointing out that Paul giving an extra adornment to James but not to Cephas or John is unsurprising if the Gospels are correct in presenting more than one James, but is an oddity in Paul that needs further explanation under your hypothesis that there was only one James who was split in two by later writers.

BTW, if you are wondering about why I'm talking in terms of things being "surprising," I'm using it in the context of abductive reasoning:

• A surprising fact A is observed.
• If B were true, A would be a matter of course.
• Therefore, there is reason to believe B is true.

If you have enough "surprising facts" and a single explanation that makes all these facts a matter of course, that makes it probable that this explanation is true, and here abduction and induction blur together somewhat, and one can formulate the abductive reasoning another way:

• D is a collection of data (facts, observations, givens),
• H explains D (would, if true, explain D),
• No other hypothesis explains D as well as H does.
• Therefore, H is probably correct.

Moving along ...

This is half-true. To say that Paul's letters have "absolutely no evidence in Paul's letters to support" an apocalyptic HJ is wrong precisely because, as you yourself put it, "If Jesus had been an apocalyptic preacher, Paul would likely have expressed apocalyptic beliefs." Or to phrase it another way, Paul's apocalyptic beliefs are "surprising" facts that are unsurprising if Jesus was an apocalyptic preacher. Is Paul enough to conclude that Jesus was apocalyptic? Of course not. But neither is it irrelevant. The few "surprising" facts from Paul are part of a larger body of "surprising" facts that together point to an apocalyptic Jesus. This is why I consider it strange to object that Paul isn't more explicit about Jesus being apocalyptic.

TedM

Sorry for the confusion.

Young's I may have read too much into what Mead wrote. It sounded like he was making an argument that Paul was referencing a Gnosis idea as evidence that Paul was just adding to existing beliefs. I was saying that verse 9 seems sufficient explanation for describing the appearance to him as being late, and one more immature--ie premature--due to his practice of persecution. IOW I see no reason to conclude from his word that he was acknowledging some pre-existing Gnosis beliefs. Anyway, it is a new way of looking at the verse. Thanks.




It could have been, but from Paul it appears we have no reason to believe in an existing movement prior to the apparitions. He never mentions such a movement. When he mentions the movement prior to himself, it always includes belief in the resurrection (see Gal 1:23), and the timeline in 1 Cor 15 doesn't suggest a movement between the death and the appearances either. The implication is that the appearances were shortly after the death.

If the movement had existed prior to apparitions, it would have been more likely that Josephus, Pliny, or Paul, or the various extra-biblical scrolls found would have alluded to it, than if it hadn't. The longer it existed, the more likely it would have been mentioned. It seems unlikely that the idea that the Messiah had come and had been resurrected would go without comment and without even a clear name (ie Christian, Essene, etc..) for very long.

ted

andrewcriddle

"Abortion" as a technical term in developed Gnostic systems is not found before the 2nd century and is unlikely IMO to be part of Paul's meaning here.

It is possible that the term in Valentinian Gnosis arises from a (mis)interpretation of this passage in Paul. See Irenaeus 'Against Heresies' Book 1 chapter 8 Andrew Criddle

Toto

In any case, Paul is not saying that he was born too late to know the historical Jesus. Would you agree with this?

There seems to be some dispute as to what this really means. The Christadelphians claim it means "born dead" and try to use this passage to argue that Paul saw Jesus, but his possible spiritual rebirth was aborted. This seems rather too creative.

I see no way of making sense out of this if ektroma means born dead, and I don't see any consensus among Christians as to what it means. The gnostic reference would fit in with the idea that this is a late interpolation.

Amaleq13

That makes no sense. It seems weird to you because you don't know why he would do it.

I don't "expect" anything of the sort. You seem to be confusing my actual position with what I presented as following from the opposite position. Mark's author only appears to have turned one person into 2 if we accept the Pauline phrase literally which is the position I am opposing. That said, I don't think we have enough information to conclude what was or was not "necessary" for the author nor to formulate "expectations".

Again, a coincidence is not a problem for my position.

I question the basis for concluding it to be "unnecessary" since we have no idea of Mark's specific motivations but I certainly agree that assuming the Pauline reference to be literal results in complications when we get to Mark's story. Good thing that isn't my problem.

It is only an "unnecessary complication" for folks who incorrectly interpreted Paul's reference literally. Assuming the names to be fictional tells us nothing about why the specific choices were made and it would seem rather foolish to base one's opinion of the choices on ignorance.

It is based on the nutty assumption that an author wanting to get a particular point across tries to avoid confusing his readers.

Without knowing who the foursome depicted as brothers were to Mark and his audience, we can only speculate. Perhaps it is related to Paul's use of "brothers" in a non-literal sense but Mark's author uses it literally as a joke and caps it off by depicting them as considering Jesus crazy. This might work with Joe's "Impossible Jesus vs Possible Jesus" in that the men depicted rejecting the Impossible Jesus were, at one time, considered "brothers of the Lord" supporting the Possible Jesus but they think Paul/Mark's Impossible Jesus is a crazy idea. We just don't have enough information to do anything but guess if we are assuming the details to be fabrications of the author.

Again, it would only be a "complication" for anyone taking the Pauline phrase literally but I think you're just repeating what I've already said.

I guess you missed where I suggested that, as a title, "Lord" = God and it is just another reference to the righteous reputation of James among his fellow Jews. IOW, no connection to Jesus.

I think the context suggests the answer. Paul is telling his audience that 1) he preached for three years before talking to any of the Big Shots in Jerusalem 2) that decision was the result of divine instruction and 3) when he did check in, he "only" spoke with two of the Main Dudes.

The short answer is it looks to me like he was name-dropping.

(Best read in a Barney Fife voice with a moment of silence for Don Knotts afterward)"<sniff> Yeah, I eventually went up to see the big shots but only after God said I should. It wasn't like I was intimidated or anything. I talked with Peter for awhile but nobody else. Oh, except James aka "Mr. Righteous". I talked to him, too. No biggee. We were all real cool."

If, as I've said several times now, it referred to his righteous reputation for piety and "Lord" = God then there is no implied relationship with Jesus nor any implication of greater authority about Jesus. In fact, given Paul's difficulties with Judaizers, perhaps dropping a reference to James' reputation for righteous adherance to Judaism can be understood as a back-handed compliment.

http://www.iidb.org/vbb/showpost.php...2&postcount=86

Why would they think otherwise given that his brother is leading the movement and continuing to use Jesus' name as an integral part of it?

Amaleq13

That isn't my hypothesis but the apparent situation in Mark given your literal interpretation of the Pauline phrase.

I've provided a possible reason for Paul to use the phrase in my response to Ted above. He appears to be simultaneously making himself look independent of yet familiar with the "pillars" in Jerusalem and possibly subtly using James reputation for Jewish piety against him.

That hypothetical scenario in no way undermines the accuracy of my statement because the hypothetical scenario is not "evidence in Paul's letters".

They are also unsurprising since Paul explains them. The advantage of that explanation over yours is that mine is actually present in his letters while yours is only present in our imaginations.

It isn't enough to even suggest the notion since Paul tells us the reason for his apocalyptic beliefs.

You've offered one "surprising" fact that, as it turns out, isn't surprising at all since Paul explains it. What are the other "surprising" facts? I hope they are actually surprising because, otherwise, you won't have any.

Who has raised that objection? I've been saying he offers us nothing to suggest such a notion.

TedM

me: I can't find this

you: http://www.iidb.org/vbb/showpost.php...2&postcount=86

This was a misinterpretation. I was referring to the specific use of "son of Joseph" when I said there was "clearly no need" for it. I wasn't referring to the idea of differentiation between people. Sorry it wasn't clear--mainly because it was an unnecessarily obvious statement.


I can't conceive of any valid reason that wouldn't still be weird. Who splits people into two opposites? Not too many authors do that.


I don't see how that works. James the brother coexists with James the disciple. James the brother thinks Jesus is crazy, and James the disciple is clueless like the rest of them, though still part of the inner circle. It would have been much simpler to make James the brother one of his inner circle disciples, yet voicing that he thinks Jesus is crazy. It doesn't make sense that Mark INTENTIONALLY created two James' out of one. He could have accidentally done this, but that seems pretty unlikely since he would have known that the leader of the Christians both hung out with Peter and John and had a title of "brother of the Lord", even if he wasn't familiar with Galations.


Seems to me pretty hard to establish given Paul's desire to claim his gospel as coming from no man. And I fail to see how calling James the brother of God helps Paul to establish his equal authority to James and the others, as you suggested this morning.


This is complete nonsense. By implication singling out one man as the "brother of God" in a letter about faith in his gospel concerning salvation through Jesus implies a high degree of respect for James and his own relationship to God, which would only be honorable in Paul's eyes if he also had an honorable relationshiop to Jesus.

IF the Galations respected James, Paul may have wanted to also compliment James for effect. However, in only a few verses later he hits them with "what they are makes no difference to me". This would have the OPPOSITE effect of a compliment, so I don't see any basis for this speculation.



Maybe because there was no real threat and no one was claiming to be king?..

ted

Amaleq13

{question withdrawn due to lack of interest }

How is that relevant? Paul doesn't tell us that he obtained his gospel from either man.

You misunderstood. I have never argued this as a reason for Paul to use the identifier. The problem is that, interpreted literally, "brother of the Lord" appears to go against that expressed desire for equal authority.

You clearly aren't following me at all and I'm doubting whether it is worth it to try to explain my position yet again. The portion of the letter in which Paul mentions James has nothing to do with faith in Paul's gospel. The nickname refers to James' prior reputation for Jewish piety which, for Paul and presumably the Galatians, is not necessarily a good thing given that Paul accuses Judaizers of working for Satan and bound for hell.

That is what a "back-handed compliment" is, Ted.

NOGO

70 pages is a lot for it to have missing a clear reference to Jesus' humanity while having many references to the risen Jesus. A lot of pages to state that Paul received revelation from scriptures and the risen Jesus but not from the life and teachings of the human Jesus.

Which context are you talking about?

Are you talking about the context which you assume Paul is writing from?

The Lord's Supper is definitely not an account of what Paul believed Jesus did during his lifetime. You are reading into this because you assume that what the gospels say is what went around as fact at the time of Paul. Is this the context which you complain that I do not have.?

I believe that you have already read what I had to say about the Lord's supper so I wont repeat it here. The fact is, you do have a case.