James The Least

What???!! Paul "never speaks ill of Jews as people"? What translation are you reading? Every single Pauline epistle is wildly hallucinatory, frothing-at-the-mouth rant against "The Jews." 1 Thess 2:14-16 is not only 100% compatible with everything Paul taught, it is the locus classicus for the New Testament's entire outlook on Jews vis-a-vis Lord Jesus.

aa5874

Please, there is ZERO corroboration for Galatians 1,19 in the very Canon itself.

Paul is a LIAR.

The Apostles are listed in the Canon and there is NO Apostle called James who was called the Lord's brother.

We have the LIST of the Apostles of Jesus in the Gospels and Acts of the Apostles and there is NO James called the Lord's brother--NONE--ZERO.

There were ONLY TWO Apostles of Jesus called James.

1. James the Son of Zebedee.

2. James the Son of Alphaeus.

See Matthew 10.2-4, Mark 3.14-18, Luke 6.13-16 and Acts 1.13.

Please, NO Canonised or Apologetic sources support that James had a human brother called the Lord Jesus--NONE.

You are wrong about everything you say about Galatians 1.19 because you REFUSE to look at the evidence.

Galatians 1.19 is completely uncorroborated by Apologetic sources and the Canon for hundreds of years.

jdl

[T2="w=90%;p=5;s=0;bdr=2,dotted,black"]... it is impossible to say whether the texts were altered a bit, or a lot, between the time the originals were penned and our first manuscripts appear.

My guess, as I said, is that they probably were not altered lots and lots and lots, but there really is no way to know.[/t2]

So here Ehrman says it's possible that manuscripts were altered prior to the first appearance of textual evidence, he just doesn't think this happened much. And yet elsewhere he trots out the lack of manuscript evidence when discussing 1 Thessalonians, as if it's his star witness, without any of the above trepidation.

[T2="w=90%;p=5;s=0;bdr=2,dotted,black"]... what is the hard evidence that the words were not in the letter of 1 Thessalonians as Paul wrote it? There is none. ... Every surviving manuscript includes it. If the passage was added sometime after the fall of Jerusalem, ... why is it that none of the manuscripts of 1 Thessalonians that were copied before the insertion was made left any trace on the manuscript record?[/t2]

In DJE, Ehrman employed a rhetoric of confidence in a way he ordinarily would not. When Daniel Wallace tries to eat the same cake Ehrman baked in DJE, suddenly Ehrman feels his recipe could do with a good dollop of reservation.

Joseph

Diogenes the Cynic

Because it's very late. It post dates the development of the aieparthenos (notably in the Gospel of James), and it contradicts all the early literature which calls James a literal sibling (e.g. Mark)
Whoever believed in the perpetual virginity, which was already a developed belief in Jacobean apocryphal literature.

aa5874

Again, The Pauline writings have been dated by Paleography to c 200 CE so all your Presumptions are worthless.

You cannot argue history on PRESUMPTIONS.

Again, your claim is erroneous. The authors of gMatthew and gMark Implied Jesus had siblings but did NOT claim that Jesus was human at all and did NOT claim James the Apostles was the Lord's brother.

In gMatthew and gMark, there were TWO Apostles named James--James the Son of Zebedee and the other the Son of Alphaeus.

In gMatthew it is implied Jesus had siblings but Jesus was described as the Son of a Ghost. See Matthew 1.18-20 and Matthew 13.55

It did NOT matter whether or NOT it was claimed Jesus had siblings or Mary had NO other child. One of her children or the ONLY child was FATHERED by a Holy Ghost.

Perpetual virginity does NOT affect Jesus after he was ALREADY a Son of a Ghost.

In gMark Jesus was the Son of God, who walked on water and Transfigured.

gMark's Jesus is NOT a man.

Please, just go get a history book for your Jesus. You won't find a man in Myth Fables of the Canon.

You DISCREDIT the Canon yet use it for your history. How absurd and illogical.

Adam

Belief in the Perpetual Virginity of Mary was on its way to becoming universal, so these believers were uncomfortable with James being a brother of Jesus rather than a step-brother or cousin.

Steven Carr

How?

Ehrman explains very clearly that we just don't have the manuscripts to provide this assurance.

EHRMAN
As I will explain in my next post, the kinds of manuscripts we would really need to be able to say with some assurance that we know what the “originals” said – very early and very extensive manuscripts – simply don’t exist.

CARR
That seems very clear to me.

Steven Carr

It is very amusing.

When Ehrman wants to claim there is no possibility of an interpolation in the text, he points out that we just don't have the manuscripts of alternative readings.

And when he wants to claim there is every possibility of interpolations in the text, he points out that we just don't have the manuscripts of the original readings.

hjalti

I think that Tertullian's lack of the "again" suggests knowledge of a text that lacked the first visit.

And are you sure about it being in reconstructions of a Marcionite version? I don't have Harnack's book on Marcion, so I can't check it out, but my sources say that he didn't include it.

jdboy

Do we have text from that era defending James as a sibling of Jesus? Does Irenaeus refute this claim that james was not a sibling?