sotto voce

In a dream.

Diogenes the Cynic

Yes I am.
How does this have any bearing on Gal. 1:19? What does Gal. 1;19 have to do with the Gospels or with Hegesippus?
Galatians isn't a gospel. It does not follow whatsoever that taking a normal, plain reading of Paul saying James was the lord's brother means that one must think Jesus' family, as a whole, took over the Jerusalem Church, or that Jesus necessarily even had any other family at all. There is no reason to bring the gospels into it, and certainly no reason to extrapolate any kind of Taborian dynasty out of it.

Diogenes the Cynic

Why does it have to be "about" anything. I have two brothers because I have two brothers, not because it's "about" anything.

For a group with an ostensibly small town rural origin, you expect to see families/brothers already grouped. That's how it was then. The Gospels identify James/John and Simon/Andrew as the sons iof Zebedee and Jonah, respectively, which means they are being dentified as literal siblings, and those Gospels also say that they all belonged to the same fishing guild in Capernaum, and a couple of families owning boats together is exactly what you would expect a fishing guild to look like. Their "brotherhood" had no significance except the literal. Furthermore, not all of the apostolic pairings are identified as brothers, for instance Philip and Nathaniel/Bartholomew are paired and not called brothers
Why do you think that taking a literal reading of Galatians 1:19 means anyone has to accept completely unrelated claims in completely unrelated and much later texts?

outhouse

didnt he have a very sloppy form of greek anyway??

aa5874

The earliest DATED Pauline writings, P 46, are from the mid 2nd-3rd century so they CANNOT confirm the veracity and historical accuracy of Galatians 1.19.

The DATED Pauline writings SUPPORT the claim that the Pauline writings are NOT historically accurate.

Not even authors of the Canon ever claim that any Apostle called James was the Lord's brother and NEVER did claim Jesus had a human father.

And further, NO apologetic source even claimed the mother of James the Apostle was the same as the supposed mother of Jesus or that Jesus had the same father as any Apostle called James.

Diogenes the Cynic is 100% wrong from any perspective--from any angle.

How long can such an absurd HJ argument be maintained by using sources which are historically unreliable???

Diogenes the Cynic

Kyrios was also a normal word for "master" or (small l) "lord," and , in point iof fact, Paul never says that Jesus is God, nor does he say anybody esle is a "brother" of God.

Paul's designation of James as "the brother of the Lord," is not a construction he uses for anyone else and is not a relationship he implies for anyone else and is not similar to his congregational use of the word. It is specious at best to claim that the congregational use is his "normal" use of the word (then what is his "normal" word to imply a literal brother?), and that it should therefore be read that way in every instance, even when a literal reading makes far more sense and (here's the thing) has no reason to be doubted unless one has an a priori disposition against the possibility that Paul thinks Jesus was a real person.

Declaring that Gal. 1:19 must be non-literal (contrary to how any normal Greek reader would have taken that) is simply circular, ad hoc wishful thinking without some better evidence than "Paul calls other congregants 'bretheren.'" he doesn't call anybody else the brother of the Lord, the brother if Jesus or the brother of God. That's not a designation that Paul (who thought quite a lot of of his own importance) even gives to himself in any of his introductions. He calls himself an "apostle" and a "servant" of Christ, but never a "brother."

I'm not saying this means it should be therefore taken as a certainty that Paul thought James was a literal blood sibling of Jesus, but more work needs to be done than has been done to show that it's completely unreasonable or impossible. I'm sure as hell not convinced, and I have no dog in the fight.

Diogenes the Cynic

Not Paul. Mark did.

DCHindley

Whaat? Can't I just make assertions like everyone else? :Cheeky:

Actually, as you probably know, I think I have detected a redaction layer in all of the Pauline letters. The most comprehensive level is all about righteous gentiles inheriting along with the natural born sons. The other level is basically "high" christology that often seems to run against the meaning of the righteous gentile "stuff" (sorry for using technical jargon). It just seemed that the best solution is that the righteous gentile layer (the level that seems most complete to me) belongs to "Paul" and the "high" christology layer belongs to a Jesus movement that saw Jesus as a divine redeemer figure. I think this is an indication of time elapsing for high christology to develop, as I think any historical Jesus was at best a proclaimer of the coming of a messiah. Since this latter layer is fragmented and mostly seems to be commentary merged into the Paul layer, I'll assert that this is secondary.

How so 40's? The "Man of Lawlessness" and "what is restraining him now" of 2 Thess 2:3 seems to me to be Gauis Caligula attempting to erect his statue in the temple (39-40 CE), and the stalling action of Petronius, legate of Syria.

50's is in 1 Cor 11:5 "it is disgraceful for a woman to be shorn or shaven," which I take to be Paul disapproving of the Nazirite vow taken by Queen Mother Helene of Adiabene, which involves shearing off the hair at the end. I suppose that after fulfilling the vow, she left her head unveiled for a period to show she had taken the vow to conclusion. Of course the real issue for Paul was the fact that her sons, King Izates and his brother Monobazus, had converted to Judaism via circumcision, which Paul did not think necessary of a gentile. This could date it anytime between approximately 43 and 50 CE.

DCH

aa5874

How very convenient for you!!! How amusing!!! Galatians 1.19 is NOT even a direct claim that Jesus was human, the writer claimed he met an Apostle but the DIRECT claim in Galatians that Jesus is the Son of God is rejected by you when the same DIRECT claim is made in OTHER Epistles and by Apologetic sources.

You are just going over your DEBUNKED arguments over and over. The Pauline writer did SPECIFICALLY state that Jesus was GOD'S OWN SON and did so MULTIPLE times.

No other character is Singled out and claimed to be God's own Son in the Pauline writings.

Romans 1:9 KJV
For God is my witness, whom I serve with my spirit in the gospel of his Son, that without ceasing I make mention of you always in my prayers;

Romans 5:10 KJV
For if, when we were enemies, we were reconciled to God by the death of his Son, much more, being reconciled , we shall be saved by his life.

Romans 8:3 KJV
For what the law could not do, in that it was weak through the flesh, God sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh, and for sin, condemned sin in the flesh...

1 Corinthians 1:9 KJV
God is faithful, by whom ye were called unto the fellowship of his Son Jesus Christ our Lord.

2 Corinthians 1:19 KJV
For the Son of God, Jesus Christ, who was preached among you by us, even by me and Silvanus and Timotheus, was not yea and nay, but in him was yea.

Galatians 2:20 KJV
I am crucified with Christ: nevertheless I live ; yet not I, but Christ liveth in me: and the life which I now live in the flesh I live by the faith of the Son of God, who loved me, and gave himself for me.

Galatians 4:4 KJV
But when the fulness of the time was come , God sent forth his Son, made of a woman, made under the law,

The Pauline Jesus was NON-historical--the Son of God.

Iskander

Galatians 19:1 is only important to the denier sect. This strident evangelical style is ok by me; I like it as something exotic coming from a mysterious world.