yalla

From Eikonklasts link:

From the brother of Eysinga ..article #3 or so.
"The average scholar today does not doubt the historicity of a Gospel Jesus. Those who do are usually outlawed and declared insane or uncritical."

From the radio interview from the link above.
Tim Freke: Just like George Wells was "strange" because he didn't agree with you.
Michael Green: He's not a New Testament scholar at all.

That amused me.
yalla

Doug Shaver

He says he did. Why shouldn't we take his word for it?

Julian

The reference to borther(s) of the lord in Galatians 1:19 and 1 Cor. 9:5 uses the exact same language to describe the relationship, the only difference being the use of a plural form in 1 Cor. which means nothing.

Galatians 1:19 αδελφον του κυριου

1 Cor 9:5 αδελφοι του κυριου

I fail to see why the former would be considered referring to a physical brother of Jesus and the later wouldn't when the language is identical.

Julian

Chunk

Do those two match the other times he uses it? As in, when he refers to groups of Christians as "the brothers", or when he calls people his "brother"?

For example:

Romans 16:23

Gaius, who is host to me and to the whole church, greets you. Erastus, the city treasurer, and our brother Quartus, greet you

and

Romans 7:1

Or do you not know, brothers[1]—for I am speaking to those who know the law—that the law is binding on a person only as long as he lives?

Clivedurdle

Why would Paul write "those who seemed influential" TWICE about people who allegedly had first hand knowledge of the man Jesus and who had lived with him for a few years and seen him die and resurrect?

Why could they add nothing to him?

yalla

According to my reading of the Blue letter Bible the word is the same [adelphos] in all 4 instances with ''adelphe'' for ''sister'' in I Cor 9.5

Julian

In Romans 16:23 the expression used is και κουαρτος ο αδελφος which directly translated says and Quartos the brother or, in better English, and brother Quartos. There is no mention of the word 'our.' It seems to have been made up by the translators. Or maybe it is possible to infer from the definite article although I sincerely doubt it.

As for Romans 7:1, it simply says αδελφοι or brothers which is used by Paul many times.

Julian

mikem

Greet Rufus, eminent in the Lord, also his mother and mine

Paul does not call Rufus his brother. If Rufus had been Paul's blood brother, it would have been simpler to say "remember me to my brother Rufus and our mother". In this passage(Romans 16:1 to 16 Paul is asking to be remembered to members of the Roman church who he knows individually, and of whom he is fond. Various terms of affection and approbation are used, i.e our sister Phoebe, Priscilla and Aquila my fellow workers, beloved Epaenetus, Mary, who has worked hard, Andrnicus and Junias, my kinsmen, Ampliatus, my beloved in the Lord, beloved Persis, Rufus eminent in the Lord, his mother and mine, and so on. The tone of the whole passage is personal and affectionate. These were all people he knew. In this context there is no reason to think that Paul was referring to Rufus mother being his mother in a biological sense.

Which is saying no more than that you have decided in advance what is to count as evidence, and what is not. The gospels were not in written form in Pauls time, however that does not mean that there were not oral traditions in circulation. The historical value of the gospels cannot be determined solely on the basis of when they were written.

As I have argued in a previous post that we do.

Paul prefers to call Jesus "the Lord" or "the Lord Jesus". He refers to him as "son of God" on about 4 occasions. Yes, Paul does say that believers are sons of God, but that does not mean that every reference to he makes to brother should therefore be making a theological point. What he means can only be determined from the context.
Which brings us to our disputed texts.

These are the only two texts I can find where Paul uses the phrases "the Lord's brother" and "brothers of the Lord". So these two are different by virtue of that fact alone.

Galatians 1:19.

If Paul only means to say that James is a brother solely by virtue of being a fellow Christian, why does he exclude the other "pillars", James and John? It has been argued that Paul called James "the Lord's brother", because this was a title given to him because of his special piety. It was an honorific title. If this is the case, all Christians are brothers and sisters, but some are more brothers than others. I really can't see Paul countenancing this kind of favouritism given what else he has to say in this epistle! And remember, Paul's concern in this passage is to show that he stand on equal footing with the other apostles. He is not going to make it harder for himself by acknowledging that one of them is somehow spiritually superior to the rest. If James had the title "brother of the Lord" only as an honorifc title, Paul is more likely to have referred to him as "James the so called brother of the Lord" The other option is that he was just matter of factly saying that this James was James who was related to Jesus.

1 Corinthians 9:1 -5 "Am I not free? Am I not an apostle? Have I not seen Jesus our Lord? Are you not my workmanship in the Lord? If to others I am not an apostle, at least I am to you: for you are the seal of my apostleship in the Lord.
This is my defence to those who would examine me. Do we not have the right to our food and drink. Do we not have the right to be accompanied by a sister as a wife, as the other apostles and the brothers of the Lord and Cephas? Or is it only Barnabas and I who have no right to refrain from working for a living? Who serves as a soldier at his own expense.

And verse 15 "But I have made no use of any of these rights"

This is a similar passage to the Galatians one. Paul is defending his apostleship, and as in Galatians he is comparing himself to the Jerusalem leadership. He is saying that they have wives and their livelihoods are paid for out of church funds. As an apostle, Pul too has the right to these things, but has denied himself. In Acts we are told that Paul supported himself financially by being a tent maker.

The "brothers of the Lord" here are a specific group of people. They are married, and they are supported from church funds. They do not include Cephas, or any of the other apostles. They are a special and priveleged group. They are refered to no where else, but clearly Paul expected the Corinthians to know who they were.

From the historicist point of view, they were the relatives of Jesus.

Having said that of course, it is possible that James was called the "brother of the Lord" as an honorific title. It is also possible that "the brethren of the Lord" were an otherwise unknown group, perhaps some monastic group of converted Essenes.

The upshot is that one cannot use these passages to prove that Jesus existed as a historical figure and had brothers and sisters. However, if he did, and one can reasonably show that the gospels contain genuine historical traditions relating to Jesus, then these references in Paul have a straightforward interpretation.

mikem

Well, if he received his gospel from a revelation of Jesus Christ, then he is claiming that it came from a real live Jesus isn't he? He says he received his commission as an apostle "through Jesus Christ and God the Father".

The gospel Paul preached, is presumably the one he received by revelation, pertains to Christ as God's agent in the salvation of humanity. This was achieved by the death and resurrection of Christ, according to Paul. It is this salvation which was foretold in the Old Testament. Paul's message focuses exclusively on this aspect of Jesus career.
That does not preclude Paul receiving information about the earthly existence of Jesus from others that had known Jesus, his closest followers. By his own admission, Paul spent 15 days with one of Jesus apostles. What do you suppose they talked about? That would have been plenty of time for Paul to find out about Jesus earthly career. Not to mention the period he spent with the believers in Damascus prior to that, who would have been able to tell him about Jesus. Or do you suppose that Paul shut himself
away and said "No! I'm not talking to anyone! I've got my revelation and that is that!"
According to Acts, Paul spent months, years sometimes in any one location, founding a church, training leaders, before moving on. Presumably Paul would have told them what he knew about the Jesus life. There would have been no need for him to repeat it all in his letters, which were written in response to problems that arose after he had left the area.

This is the weakness of the mythicist position, that it tries to build a case based primarily on what the texts DON'T tell us, and then just assume that they OUGHT to tell us.

Chunk

Thank you mikem. Your last two posts basically put into words my opinion. I am not the best at trying to explain what I think at times, so those were two great posts.

Another small point about 1 Cor 9:5

It appears to me that Paul is addressing the Corinthians in order to justify his position as an Apostle. He says "we" in reference to himself and Barnabas.

Therefore, when he says:

Do we not have the right to take along a believing wife, as do the other apostles and the brothers of the Lord and Cephas?

It seems to me he is comparing himself to other Apostles and people in Apostle-like positions. He is basically saying it, if they do it ... why cant I. He then goes on to justify it in a more general way:

Who serves as a soldier at his own expense? Who plants a vineyard without eating any of its fruit? Or who tends a flock without getting some of the milk?

It makes no sense for "brothers of the lord" to apply to general Christians.

I think Paul is making reference to Joses, James etc. The people named as literal brothers of Jesus, in the gospels.