Chili

The difference between Jesus and James is made clear in Rev.13 where Jesus came from the [celestial] sea to say that he was born from [God] above and James came from the [old] earth to say that he was born from carnal desire [below].

Iskander

"James is without doubt the Bishop of Jerusalem (Acts 12:17, 15:13, 21:18; Galatians 1:19; 2:9-12).

There is no reasonable doubt that in Galatians 1:19: "But other of the apostles [besides Cephas] I saw none, saving James the brother of the Lord", St. Paul represents James as a member of the Apostolic college. James is a cousin of Jesus."

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/02767a.htm

judge

Well I will admit that those pushing for the meaning of galatians 1:19 being a reference to god rather than jesus, do seem quite confused about about just how certain they are about anything much at times.. However we do see statemenst like the following in post #109

If "people" have to admit that galatians 1:19 is not a so called "non titular" refrence to Jesus, then yes, it is a claim that it the same verse cannot refer to a blood relationship.
So what we see, is "flip flopping" between "people have to see things my way and the galatians 1:19 cant refer to jesus" and " I am not so certain anymore maybe it does."

Well that sounds like an excellent suggestion, but who is the "we" ?
Toto seems to take that view, but the others here seem confused, and have consistently gone beyond the evidence in their claims.
And in doing so, are no different to religious fundamentalists, who make up their minds by faith and then look for evidence and or makes claims that cant be supported by the evidence.

We have seen at least two posters here claim that every time (apart from the ambiguous usage in Galatins 1:19) paul uses the word brother it is in a non literal sense.
Both of them cannot support this claim with evidence..so it needs to be abandoned.

GakuseiDon

That's my view, as well.

Agreed.

Do you mean "nearly all historicists questioning ahistoricism"? Because I can't imagine any historicist making that claim unless they are countering ahistoricism.

If you are talking about historicists questioning ahistoriclsm, then the argument isn't "Paul meant 'Jesus' brother', therefore Jesus existed". There is no reason why a mythical Jesus can't have a mythical brother James, or a fictional Jesus a fictional brother called James.

The historicist argument goes:
1. Paul appears to believe that Jesus was a person who walked on earth in Paul's recent past
2. Later Christians thought that Jesus had a brother called "James".
3. Therefore, it is most reasonable to suppose that "the lord's brother" meant "Jesus' brother."

Mythicists usually accept (2) but reject (1), and thus reject (3). The argument for historicity is with (1), not (3).

judge

Its curious how you arguments so often rest on you knowing what other people think and expect, never suspecting your own expectations may be crooked.
As it happens we have paul using lord to refer to jesus just before this verse.

As for you titular verse non titular, this is just a red herring until you explain how you decide why one is a title and the other is not.

To do this you will need to do more than you have done. (and try to do it woith using "clearly" or 'everybody knows")


You don't even have working definition of how you discriminate between them.

Secondly, according, even to your own unexplained, method, you readily admit that paul uses the so called "non titular" lord to refer to jesus, with no direct evidence or direct reason why they should not be considered part of the original letter.

all of which leaves you with the following, which aint much :devil1:

Doug Shaver

I'm referring to sensible ahistoricists -- like me, of course . I'm aware that lots of people have come up with some absurd arguments against historicity.

Yep. I've said so myself, to some of them.

maryhelena

OK - so the preferred translation is 'brother of the lord'.
However, that still leaves three basic options.

1. the 'lord' is the assumed historical Jesus and James is his brother.
2. the 'lord' is god and James is a brother of god - in some strange spiritual sense. (brother in christ being a variation on this theme...)
3. the 'lord' is historical person X and James, or someone, is his blood brother.

If Paul is taken at his word - that there were others prior to him who had played some role in early or pre-christian history - then option 3 cannot be ruled out.

And that is all I've been trying to say re the whole Gal.1:19 issue. Perhaps its not an issue of an assumed historical Jesus verse an issue of spiritual brothers. Perhaps Paul is being ambiguous in order to allow for some thinking outside the box - outside of his 'rule' re his use of 'brother'. The one exception that proves the rule...

Doug Shaver

Yeah, that's what I meant.

Well, it sure seems to be the argument. I suppose it's possible that I've been misunderstanding it all this time. Perhaps you can enlighten me as to what point historicists are actually trying to make when they quote Gal. 1:19 in the context of a debate about Jesus' historicity?

No, I suppose not, but unless some participant in the debate is also questioning James's historicity, I fail to see any relevance to that observation.

As I construe the terminology, a historicist argument is an argument for historicity, i.e. an argument having as its conclusion a statement affirming Jesus' historical existence. In this discussion, my point is that historicists habitually use (3) to try to prove (1) -- or so it appears to me.

I agree that practically no one disputes (2) and that, at least in this forum, disagreement tends to focus on (1). All I'm saying is that anyone who tries to use (3) to prove (1) is begging the question.

show_no_mercy

Here's how I would weigh the probabilities.

Paul consistently uses "brother" to mean fellow believer.
Paul consistently uses "the lord" to refer to the god of the Jews; the same circumlocution that Jews of the time period used to refer to YHWH.

Combining those two, we have someone who is a "brother" of "the lord" in Gal 1:19. Probability wise, this would lean much more closer to someone being a non-physical brother (i.e. fellow believer) of the lord (i.e. YHWH).

The only examples that rule out the ambiguity is when Paul says "the lord Jesus". In that example he's using it as a title for Jesus, not in a non-titular way; not as a circumlocution for YHWH.

Saying "the lord" as a circumlocution for "Jesus" and not YHWH is a non-Jewish development. This would place Paul in a non-Jewish context, and might even imply that Jesus was co-equal/interchangable with YHWH. I have no problems with Paul not being Jewish, but this doesn't jive with mainstream biblical scholarship on Christian origins.

maryhelena

But perhaps that is the problem - mainstream biblical scholarship has a wholly Jewish take on early christian origins.

If, as is the mythicist position, Jesus is not historical - and, going a step further, the mythological figure of Jesus has been placed within a Jewish context - then one could well be looking at a Jewish takeover of whatever it was that preceded Paul. The NT storyline is one thing - the historical roots of early or pre-christian origins are something else altogether! Whatever the early movement was, to gain a foothold in 'eternity', a foothold in achieving a lasting place in history, it would need to acquire a heritage. New fangled ideas, as far as I'm aware, did not go down too well - they need a connection to something. And what better heritage to acquire than a Jewish heritage, a heritage with its prophetic, future thinking, meme. Trace the new right back to some already defined and established roots.

Not to say that Jewish ideas were not themselves relevant - but to maintain that it was all Jewish is to short-circuit any investigation into early christian history. And really, at the end of the day, is that not what we have in the gospel storyline - the dying and rising god mythology 'married' to a Jewish prophetic storyline. A fusing of Jewish and non-Jewish ideas. That, of course, is the theological take on things - but historically, the possibility of early christian origins being composed of non-Jewish and Jewish elements, groupings, communities, should not be ruled out. What transpired, historically, prior to Paul is the big question - especially so when the gospel storyline is viewed as pseudo-history. The wholly Jewish take on things, like Paul himself, was most likely a later development that led to the Jesus storyline and Christianity.