Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Toto · 01-20-2010, 05:26 PM

Origen believed in the perpetual virginity of Mary, so the idea of a brother of Jesus would have been theologically incorrect.

ApostateAbe · 01-20-2010, 06:12 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by PhilosopherJay

Hi ApostateAbe

If a single strand of hair turns up at a murder scene, we may assume that the person who matches that strand of hair may be the culprit. However, if a second single-strand of hair turns up at another murder scene, one has to think that something very strange is going. It would be amazing if a single strand of hair just happened to turn up at two murder scenes. This would lead one to believe that the single-strand of hair has been planted in order to indict the suspect.

In the case of the phrase James, the lord's brother, we not only find it in Paul, but in Josephus too. Again the phrase only, with no other information.
How strange that the writer of Paul's epistle and Josephus both thought James so famous that they did not have to explain what the phrase meant.

Now if I brought home a friend and said to my wife, "This is Jimmy, the lord's brother," I could be certain that she would ask me, "What? What do you mean the lord's brother?" Since term does not seem to be a common one in ancient literature, it is highly suspicious that both the Galatian's epistle writer does not bother to explain it, nor does Josephus.

Weirder still is Origen's comment on the phrase. He writes against Celsus 1:47, "Paul, a genuine disciple of Jesus, says that he regarded this James as a brother of the Lord, not so much on account of their relationship by blood, or of their being brought up together, as because of his virtue and doctrine."

How do we account for Origen saying this:
1) There is some other unknown Pauline text that Origen had access to in which Paul says that James was not a real brother of the Lord. This seems a bad explanation because, Origen never quotes the unknown Pauline text again.
2) Origen is making up that he read this in Galatians. But anybody who read Galatians would know it wasn't there and realise that Origen is lying.

Thus we have two mysteries. Why does both Josephus and Paul mention the phrase "the lord's brother" without explaining it and why does Origen say that there was more to the passage then we now read in Galatians.

There is one solution and only one solution that I believe fits the facts perfectly. We must recall that Eusebius is the man who a) had access to Josephus, as he is the first to report the TF, b) had access to the writings of Origen, and c) is a man goes to great lengths to prove that James the Just whom Paul met is not the blood brother of Jesus, but a different James.

Quote:

3. But Clement in the sixth book of his Hypotyposes writes thus: "For they say that Peter and James and John after the ascension of our Saviour, as if also preferred by our Lord, strove not after honor, but chose James the Just bishop of Jerusalem."

4. But the same writer, in the seventh book of the same work, relates also the following things concerning him: "The Lord after his resurrection imparted knowledge to James the Just and to John and Peter, and they imparted it to the rest of the apostles, and the rest of the apostles to the seventy, of whom Barnabas was one. But there were two Jameses: one called the Just, who was thrown from the pinnacle of the temple and was beaten to death with a club by a fuller, and another who was beheaded." Paul also makes mention of the same James the Just, where he writes, "Other of the apostles saw I none, save James the Lord's brother."

Here is one rational explanation, that clears up to the two mysteries stated above and fits all the facts:

Eusebius wanted to build up the authority of the Jerusalem church. He did this by forging the phrase "the lord's brother" in both Paul's Galatians and Josephus. Eusebius is the first of the ancient writers to notice the phrase there. Someone must have pointed out that this is a mistake, since Jesus' own brother became head of the Jerusalem Church, that would mean that the Jerusalem church should have more authority than the Church in Rome. After all, a brother should have more authority than a disciple. Eusebius had to backtrack. He did this by interpolating into the work of Clement and the work or Origen, that James was not really the the brother of the Lord, but a different James. This must have soothed Eusebius' conscience, although he made James into the brother of the lord with two interpolations, he denied the claim with two other interpolations.

Warmly,

Philosopher Jay

Quote:

Originally Posted by ApostateAbe

I am not sure that your analogy fits, but maybe I am not understanding you correctly. All it takes is one isolated hair to make a difference between guilty and not guilty. And a passing a reference is all it takes to infer a connection to Jesus. Arguments are made that the passages are redactions, so maybe that is how the argument about 1% is relevant. "The Lord's brother" is an example. If the phrase wasn't written by Paul, then the evidence would be considerably weaker. But, there seems to be no reason to believe it is a redaction except to make a particular theory seem plausible. Same for the passage that identifies Cephas as Peter. They are passages that seem meant only to clarify, not to make any significant point. There is no evidence that there was any question or dispute in early Christianity that Jesus existed as a human being (except among the Marcionites, who acknowledged that Jesus seemingly existed as a human being).

Thanks for putting so much thought into this, Philosopher Jay. There is at least one relevant error in fact and maybe a few errors in reasoning.

Josephus does not use the phrase, "James, the Lord's brother." He uses the phrase, "the brother of Jesus, who was called Christ, whose name was James."

This phrasing is relevant. It is NOT testimony to the existence of James or of Jesus. Josephus never met either of them (and the content of the testimony does seem unlikely--it is martyrdom and smacks of Christian myth). Josephus was only reporting on the common Christian belief of the time. This means the myth of the time was that James was a literal brother of Jesus. And this means that the MJ interpretation of Galatians 1:19 is unlikely: those who read the Epistles believed that "James, the Lord's brother" meant Jesus' flesh-and-blood brother. It is direct evidence against the proposition that "the Lord's brother" was merely a religious title. If that is what Paul meant, then we would expect early Christians to have believed likewise. Chaucer's argument from 1 Corinthians 9:5 should be taken as further corroboration of that interpretation.

So they use two different phrasings, but maybe it is still odd that James would be identified as a brother of Jesus in the writings of both Paul and Josephus. If it still seems odd to you (maybe it doesn't in light of the point I made), then it does not seem odd to me. The role of being the brother of Jesus would be the most relevant identifying feature of James.

The quote from Origen I think is best explained with one part of being meant to be interpretated as fact from Paul (italics) and another part being merely an inference from Origen (bold).

"Paul, a genuine disciple of Jesus, says that he regarded this James as a brother of the Lord, not so much on account of their relationship by blood, or of their being brought up together, as because of his virtue and doctrine."

Origen may have made this inference because James, according to Paul, was "reputed to be a pillar" alongside Cephas and John (Galatians 2:9).

That seems to be the plainest and most plausible interpretation of that quote from Origen. Inferring source texts that we no longer have should be a last resort.

Your conclusion that Eusebius interpolated that quote from Origen for the sake of the idea that the James whom Paul met is not the blood brother of Jesus seems directly contrary to the quote from Origen, which plainly implies that the James whom Paul met really is a fleshly brother of Jesus, if I can trust your English interpretation. Maybe you comprehend it differently, but the phrase, "not so much on account of their relationship by blood," implies that they are related by blood but it is secondary to another point. If this was Eusebius' interpolation to support his own theory about James, then it seems to be an extremely weak effort at the very least.

I think the main lesson is that you should take the explanations that best fit the normal patterns and intuitive expectations. Occam's razor is a principle that originated with the study of Biblical exegesis for that reason. Your explanation smacks too much of a conspiracy theory. Not that there weren't plenty of conspiracies in early Christianity, but the trouble, as you know if you have ever debated with conspiracy theorists (I used to be one of them), is that any theory can be made to seem consistent and true if a few powerful and highly deceitful people are part of the plot, even if the theory lacks proper evidence.

ApostateAbe · 01-20-2010, 06:19 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

Origen believed in the perpetual virginity of Mary, so the idea of a brother of Jesus would have been theologically incorrect.

That is a good point, which seems to be a counter to both the theory of Philosopher Jay and the point I made against it.

aa5874 · 01-20-2010, 08:49 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ApostateAbe

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

Origen believed in the perpetual virginity of Mary, so the idea of a brother of Jesus would have been theologically incorrect.

That is a good point, which seems to be a counter to both the theory of Philosopher Jay and the point I made against it.

So, the Pauline writer did not meet the actual brother of James nor the actual brother of the Lord. The Lord does not appear to a brother. Based on Jerome he met someone who was only called the Lord's brother but was really a holy ghost/cousin since the father of Jesus was the Holy Ghost of God and the father of James was Joseph.

This is Jerome in De Viris Illustribus 2

Quote:

James, who is called the brother of the Lord, surnamed the Just, the son of Joseph by another wife, as some think, but, as appears to me, the son of Mary sister of the mother of our Lord of whom John makes mention in his book....

See http://www.newadvent.org

The Pauline writer should have had at least tried to meet Mary the mother but he met the Father. But the Father and Son are one.

I think the Pauline writer met no-one ,whether in the flesh or out of the flesh. God knows.

spamandham · 01-20-2010, 08:53 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ApostateAbe

But, the way I see it, there should be no default position. It is most reasonable to simply choose the theory that best explains the available evidence.

I agree with this. But reasonable people who are reasonably well informed can nonetheless come to different conclusions as to what hypothesis best fits the evidence, because there is *no theory* that explains all of it without imposing assumptions and speculation.

As a trivial example, the Gospels record Jesus as healing a blind man with spit and mud. This is an impossibility. We *must* propose a reality that differs from the direct reading.

1. The gospel authors made it up for dramatic effect because they were trying to paint Jesus as magical/godly (HJ or MJ)

2. Jesus actually did rub spit/mud in someone's eyes and in an unrelated medical coincidence, the person's eyes were healed (HJ only)

3. It was a common myhtheme of the time and the authors just figured Jesus must have done it (HJ or MJ)

4. It's symbolic of something else altogether, and both the authors and original audience knew this (HJ or MJ)

5. It's a fictional story meant to entertain (MJ)

6.-1001. ?

Quote:

There is strong evidence that Jesus existed.

No. Evidence is neither strong nor weak, it simply is.

It's the conclusions that we draw from evidence that are relatively stronger or weaker.

spin · 01-20-2010, 10:05 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ApostateAbe

It is NOT testimony to the existence of James or of Jesus. Josephus never met either of them (and the content of the testimony does seem unlikely--it is martyrdom and smacks of Christian myth). Josephus was only reporting on the common Christian belief of the time. This means the myth of the time was that James was a literal brother of Jesus. And this means that the MJ interpretation of Galatians 1:19 is unlikely: those who read the Epistles believed that "James, the Lord's brother" meant Jesus' flesh-and-blood brother. It is direct evidence against the proposition that "the Lord's brother" was merely a religious title. If that is what Paul meant, then we would expect early Christians to have believed likewise. Chaucer's argument from 1 Corinthians 9:5 should be taken as further corroboration of that interpretation.

Here we have discussed the Josephus passage numerous times and you don't seem to have contributed to the discussion. Given the tainted nature of the TF, the fact that the James passage has clearly been interfered with, and that the only two places that AJ has "christos" is regarding Jesus, it is difficult to believe that an infidel would argue for the veracity of the Jesus stuff in Josephus. But time and again, we get people who will try to use one dubious passage to support a dubious interpretation.

You are still trying to use a text that was written some time after Paul to reflect what Paul meant. It is a crass error to read a later text into an earlier one. It's of the blunder level of reading Prince of Egypt into the Moses story. You persist in repeating such rubbish without any solid argumentation to justify the time wasted reading your repetition.

The brother(s) of the lord is a reference that is made obscure by the term "lord" being used. How many times in Paul's works is the non-titular κυριος used for Jesus? How many times for god? How many times is the name Jesus used? If you do the math you'll see that there is no reason from Paul to assume you understand the term "brother(s) of the lord".

When someone has the name Ahijah, would you assume that the name refers somehow to Jesus? It would seem that the lord can have a brother according to the Hebrew name. Paul frequently refers to believers as "brothers", so why should you expect that "the brother(s) of the lord" doesn't refer to the subject's (s') belief?

You won't answer these issues because you have an a priori view.

Quote:

Originally Posted by ApostateAbe

So they use two different phrasings, but maybe it is still odd that James would be identified as a brother of Jesus in the writings of both Paul and Josephus.

Not two different phrasings at all. I keep telling you to stop manipulating the text. One talks of "the brother of the lord" and the other, a marginal comment taken into the text, says "the brother of Jesus called christ".

You will persist in thinking that anchronisms and dubious parallels help you make some point, but the only point I see is how willing you are to abuse the evidence to reach your a priori view.

spin

spamandham · 01-20-2010, 10:28 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ApostateAbe

"The Lord's brother" is an example. If the phrase wasn't written by Paul, then the evidence would be considerably weaker. But, there seems to be no reason to believe it is a redaction except to make a particular theory seem plausible.

6 of the traditional 13 Pauline epistles have been identified as pseudepigrapha by well qualified scholars. It is reasonable to conclude from this that *all* the epistles are likely pseudepigrapha, particularly when you consider that they are all letters to other churches somehow consolidated together - they all knew Paul's letters would be incorporated into the canon because Paul was all-that?

So there is no default position of authenticity. We *know* the authors had agendas and used the authority of Paul (we don't know why Paul was considered authoritative) to promote their ideas. Galatians could have been written well into the 2nd century by anyone for any reason.

I agree that to argue that Galatians is genuine except for that one phrase is whack, but to argue that all of Galatians was written long after Christian mythology was well developed is not.

Quote:

Same for the passage that identifies Cephas as Peter.

Which passage is that?

aa5874 · 01-20-2010, 11:02 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by spamandham

Quote:

Originally Posted by ApostateAbe

But, the way I see it, there should be no default position. It is most reasonable to simply choose the theory that best explains the available evidence.

I agree with this. But reasonable people who are reasonably well informed can nonetheless come to different conclusions as to what hypothesis best fits the evidence, because there is *no theory* that explains all of it without imposing assumptions and speculation.

As a trivial example, the Gospels record Jesus as healing a blind man with spit and mud. This is an impossibility. We *must* propose a reality that differs from the direct reading.

There is no need to propose a reality when Jesus may have not existed. It is the information that is presented that must be used. All that is necessary is to examine the information and if it is implausible, fictitious or questionable and there is no other historical source to support the entity then it can be considered mytholoigcal.

The information about Achilles or Romulus and Remus does not require that one MUST propose a reality that differs from information given by the author.

What reality can be given to a fictitious event without any historical source? History cannot be imagined into reality. The onus is upon the veracity of the author and the credibilty of his sources.

The NT has clearly stated using witnesses that Jesus was the offspring of the Holy Ghost of God, who walked on water, transfigured, resurrected and ascended through clouds.

The DESCRIPTION is MYTHOLOGICAL and there are no other credible historical sources to contradict the authors.

The NT and Church writings are not a source for an human only Jesus.

In order to argue that Jesus was just a man, you MUSTfind a history book that claim Jesus was just a man, not a book or compilation of books that claim chapter after that Jesus was raised from the dead and ascended to heaven.

Quote:

There is strong evidence that Jesus existed.

Quote:

Originally Posted by spamandham

No. Evidence is neither strong nor weak, it simply is.

It's the conclusions that we draw from evidence that are relatively stronger or weaker.

No at all.

I am really surprised that you do not realise that evidence can be strong or weak.

It MUST BE the quality of the evidence that makes or break a case or argument. We first must have quality information from some credible source before any meaningful conclusions can be drawn

A strong piece of evidence for the Pauline writer would have been if he claimed he talked to and met Jesus in Jerusalem before he was crucified, but he did not write that he met Jesus, he claimed that he met someone whose relation to Jesus is questionable even in the Church writings.

The Church appeared to have claimed later that Jesus, who had no human father, had no brother called James. Mary his mother had a single child for the Holy Ghost of God.

The case for the MJ is directly dependent on the fictitious and implausible nature and activities of Jesus coupled with no known historical sources for him and his disciples.

The quality of the mythological information for Jesus is extremely good, his supposed contemporaries saw him walking on water, talking to storms, cursing a tree to kill it, transfiguring with resurrected prophets, after he was raised from the dead and going through the clouds on his way to heaven.

His betrayal, trial and crucifixion appear implausible based on the evidence provided in the NT. His deification by Jews in Jerusalem is historically improbable.

His supposed mission on earth to save mankind from sin was accomplished by a non-historical act, the resurrection.

The quality of myth information of Jesus that have survived probably exceeds any other myth both in volume and quality. And as is expected of myths, no credible historical sources for Jesus can be found just like the other myths.

Chaucer · 01-20-2010, 11:17 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by spin

Quote:

Originally Posted by ApostateAbe

It is NOT testimony to the existence of James or of Jesus. Josephus never met either of them (and the content of the testimony does seem unlikely--it is martyrdom and smacks of Christian myth). Josephus was only reporting on the common Christian belief of the time. This means the myth of the time was that James was a literal brother of Jesus. And this means that the MJ interpretation of Galatians 1:19 is unlikely: those who read the Epistles believed that "James, the Lord's brother" meant Jesus' flesh-and-blood brother. It is direct evidence against the proposition that "the Lord's brother" was merely a religious title. If that is what Paul meant, then we would expect early Christians to have believed likewise. Chaucer's argument from 1 Corinthians 9:5 should be taken as further corroboration of that interpretation.

Here we have discussed the Josephus passage numerous times and you don't seem to have contributed to the discussion. Given the tainted nature of the TF, the fact that the James passage has clearly been interfered with, and that the only two places that AJ has "christos" is regarding Jesus, it is difficult to believe that an infidel would argue for the veracity of the Jesus stuff in Josephus. But time and again, we get people who will try to use one dubious passage to support a dubious interpretation.

You are still trying to use a text that was written some time after Paul to reflect what Paul meant. It is a crass error to read a later text into an earlier one. It's of the blunder level of reading Prince of Egypt into the Moses story. You persist in repeating such rubbish without any solid argumentation to justify the time wasted reading your repetition.

The brother(s) of the lord is a reference that is made obscure by the term "lord" being used. How many times in Paul's works is the non-titular κυριος used for Jesus? How many times for god? How many times is the name Jesus used? If you do the math you'll see that there is no reason from Paul to assume you understand the term "brother(s) of the lord".

When someone has the name Ahijah, would you assume that the name refers somehow to Jesus? It would seem that the lord can have a brother according to the Hebrew name. Paul frequently refers to believers as "brothers", so why should you expect that "the brother(s) of the lord" doesn't refer to the subject's (s') belief?

You won't answer these issues because you have an a priori view.

Quote:

Originally Posted by ApostateAbe

So they use two different phrasings, but maybe it is still odd that James would be identified as a brother of Jesus in the writings of both Paul and Josephus.

Not two different phrasings at all. I keep telling you to stop manipulating the text. One talks of "the brother of the lord" and the other, a marginal comment taken into the text, says "the brother of Jesus called christ".

You will persist in thinking that anchronisms and dubious parallels help you make some point, but the only point I see is how willing you are to abuse the evidence to reach your a priori view.

spin

But here we see Spin ignoring the chief aspect in 1 Corinthians 9:5 that most directly affects any understanding of the phrase "the Lord's brother", or variants of same, at all. In 1 Corinthians, verse 9:5 reads

"Don't we have the right to take a believing wife along with us, as do the other apostles and the Lord's brothers and Cephas?"

This being so, Paul here is plainly resisting using the term "Lord's brothers" for the apostles. Apostles are separate from "brothers" here. Therefore, the most pertinent question is --

If "Lord's brother" here is plainly not being applied to the apostles at all, then what IS "Lord's brother" being applied to? Please d-e-f-i-n-e what "Lord's brother" here could possibly reference if it's neither siblings nor apostles.

Thank you,

Chaucer

Toto · 01-21-2010, 12:35 AM

Someone - I think it was Robert Price - has speculated that there was a separate group known as "The Brothers of thr Lord" - a brotherhood of believers, not siblings.

There is not enough there for the weight you want to give it.

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

01-20-2010, 05:26 PM	#51
Toto Contributor Join Date: Jun 2000 Location: Los Angeles area Posts: 40,549	Origen believed in the perpetual virginity of Mary, so the idea of a brother of Jesus would have been theologically incorrect.

01-21-2010, 12:35 AM	#60
Toto Contributor Join Date: Jun 2000 Location: Los Angeles area Posts: 40,549	Someone - I think it was Robert Price - has speculated that there was a separate group known as "The Brothers of thr Lord" - a brotherhood of believers, not siblings. There is not enough there for the weight you want to give it.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.