LegionOnomaMoi

What's funny is that you think I'm anything other than agnostic. Not just about christianity, or religion. You, on the other hand, are a believer. You have "faith" in your approach; a faith rejected by agnostic, atheist, Jewish, christian and all other historians.

maryhelena

Come now, aa - spin is not the only one wanting to deny that Gal. 1:18,19 is dealing with a biological brother issue. How about Doherty - and Carrier??

aa - it's all a story. In stories, literary characters can have as many brothers as the writer finds use for.....

For heavens sake - let the gospel JC historicists have James as a 'brother of the Lord'. Big Deal...........................

The ahistoricist/mythicists position does not stand or fall upon Gal. 1:18,19 - and neither does the JC historicist position.

MrMacSon

Well, about half of the letters ascribed to Paul were not written by him ...

But the point about the fallacy is that you cannot ascribe a situation with Paul to any other, or all, ancient authors. What is discussed about the Pauline documents does not apply to writings written by others. They are independent of each other.

is a non-sequitur - the two halves of that sentence do not relate to each other, at all.

Yes; if it is historically unprecedented, so be it.

We are talking about letters that advocate the writer was primarily and significantly impacted by the supernatural - that invokes myth & narrative fiction which as likely involves the alleged author being a literary device to confer legitimacy.

We are dealing with extra-ordinary claims which as likely involve extra-ordinary tactics.

LegionOnomaMoi

And you know this because of your personal knowledge of the genre and language in question? Or because someone told you so?

I didn't. Having read "ancient authors" and the textual analysis/criticism behind the most accepted versions of various manuscripts, I happen to know what methods are employed to determine whether or not is it a particular author composed a given text.

You don't. Clearly.

Who cares what is "discussed about the Pauline documents"? The issue is quite plain. You assert something about a criterion or criteria concerning what constitutes genuine authorship. Have you applied it to other ancient authors? No, you haven't.

Excellent. You refute a point I never made. Congratulations.

So we have no evidence that this type of collective creation in ancient highly illiterate society ever happened, but we should accept your account because..."so be it" ? Well, that certainly sounds like faith.
Influenced by myth, supernatural, and impossibility? OH NO! Wait... that's basically all of ancient history.

I don't know what you are "dealing with." I'm dealing with an argument that amounts to a radical denial of any ancient authorship/author.

MrMacSon

Err, No. Just a proposition that the Paul that is both the alleged author and alleged central character of the epistles allegedly written by him is mostly, if not all, myth.

Half the epistles written by this alleged Paul are widely deemed to be unlikely to have been written by him, and others are have questioned, or are questioning, the other half - the so-called "undisputed Pauline epistles".

With nothing else written about this alleged Paul, he is a shadowy figure indeed.

spin

So you don't think that the fanaticism involved in vociferously claiming that Gal 1:19 must mean that James is the biological brother of Jesus is reasonable, despite the fact 1) that the gospels show James with all the family as rejected by Jesus, 2) Acts gives no family status to James, 3) that Paul basically only uses the term "brother" for a believer in his religion, and 4) that equating the non-titular κυριος to Jesus is against the Jewish usage of the time, unprecedented and against his theology, which clearly subordinates Jesus to god. This is not exegesis: it's dogma. And apparently you are an accomplice. Denial has the sort of negative implications of someone in your position.

maryhelena

:hysterical:

Story-time, spin - it's a story. If you want to read it as history - that's OK with me - I beg to differ.

And, spin, you can drop the negative vibes your throwing my way - they do nothing for your argument. You have enough trouble on your hands in this debate with LegionOnomaMoi than to bother with small-fry like me......

Seems to me there is more at stake in this debate than rationality....:constern01:

spin

Claiming it's a story changes nothing. You still get the same blind faith in the significance of the phrase.

You chose your words. Denial is negative and its usage in "spin is not the only one wanting to deny that Gal. 1:18,19 is dealing with a biological brother issue" shows your disposition. Your implication of denial is inappropriate and false.

I'd say thoughtless communication, if you get my ambiguity.

tanya

exegesis: critical scrutiny of a text;

dogma: an established belief or doctrine held by an organization or individual;

In my view, dogma arises from acceptance of someone's exegesis.

I don't think we have sufficient information to accept an interpretation of Galatians 1:18-19, that identifies the presumed historical figure, James the Just, as biological sibling of the mythical Jesus of Capernaum. The linguistic and theological evidence/debate is inadequately persuasive.

1: conflict between gospel presentation, versus Pauline epistles is tough, in view of absence of hard data on publication dates/authors.
2. Acts is one of, if not the, most unreliable sources of the canon.
3. Brother is often used, not only by Paul, but by other early writers, to indicate fellow christian, rather than kinship (agree with you).
4. John refutes you, by equating Jesus to YHWH. Further, I am unpersuaded that earliest Christianity is derived from Judaism, rather than Gnosticism. I see Judaism as salt and pepper, not flesh. I cannot imagine any Jew, then or now, reading Mark 1:1, and thinking anything other than "heresy". YHWH had no offspring. That's some kind of pagan nonsense, nothing to do with the monotheistic Judaism of that era.

I thought maryhelena's comment was right on target, and not directed as criticism of anyone.

Vorkosigan

That's probably why in the whole history of research into ancient texts, no one has ever discovered any forgeries and no one has ever asked questions like "Did Socrates exist?" or "Are the essays attributed to Aristotle in the Catalogue of Diogenes really by him?" or "Was Homer a woman?". Because skepticism about who wrote what is quite unjustified; we can take the authorial attribution as a given. Further, everyone knows that organizations and institutions always faithfully represent their origins, and their internal and external accounts are never self-serving. Nor do they coordinate presentations over time and space to put themselves in the best possible light, nor do their adherents share understandings about how issues are to be presented. That never happens.

If you question anything in the above paragraph, you must be a radical skeptic.

Vorkosigan