Freethought & Rationalism Archive

PhilosopherJay · 04-02-2012, 12:54 PM

Hi All,

This is from this recent blog piece by Richard Carrier:

Quote:

McGrath then launches into a rebuttal to my remarks on the evidence. The weirdest thing about this is not that he tries the fallacy of “poisoning the well” (and that the very first thing he does, which is indeed a recognized tactic: it’s exactly how a dishonest opponent is supposed to use that fallacy! Nice, James McGrath) by intimating that I am engaging in the nefarious and dishonest “tactics” of the crank mythicists (and thereby implying I am no different than them, as if my methods and motives and qualifications were no better). No, the weirdest thing is that he turns a logical order of discussion into evidence of evil nefarious purposes:

Carrier engages in a common mythicist tactic also used by promoters of other forms of pseudoscholarship: begin with the less strong evidence and sow doubt, in the hope that when you get to the stronger evidence, your audience will be inclined to accept your implausible dismissal of it. Carrier describes as “Ehrman’s only evidence” Paul’s reference in Galatians to having met “James the brother of the Lord.”

What he means to say is that the James passage is his strongest evidence (I appreciate his admitting this, because it helps my point), and so I put that last, and lead with the other stuff, to “sow doubt.” (“Sowing doubt” meaning what anyone else would call arguing a case.) Rather than the actual reason I did that, which was to hold off the longest digression and the most disputed question until the end, so I could wrap up the easy stuff first and keep readers engaged. It is a perfectly logical sequence to address the clear points first, then close with the strongest point of debate. Instead of acknowledge that, he uses my ability to organize essays as evidence of my evil (and therefore disreputable) intentions. This dastardly scholar is trying to corrupt your mind with a wicked use of logical order.

Both McGrath and Carrier seem to agree that the best and most effective argument for the historical Jesus are the four words found in the Galatians Epistle at 1.19, "τὸν ἀδελφὸν τοῦ Κυρίου."

It seems that Bart Ehrman has done us the greatest service possible. He has simplified the debate between a mythical and historical Jesus down to its core. It all comes down to a reading of the words "τὸν ἀδελφὸν τοῦ κυρίου"

Only if these words were written by an Apostle named Paul and refer to a biological Brother of Jesus can we use them as an argument for the historical Jesus.

If They are
1. not in a letter written by Paul
2. an interpolation written by someone else into a letter written by Paul or someone else,
3. not a reference to a biological brother of Jesus, or
4. not a reference to Jesus as Lord,

then the best evidence for an historical Jesus disappears.

We no longer have to search through the forest of words in Early Christian writings to find the nail (or in this case, more like a toothpick) that binds Jesus to the cross of history.

This is certainly a gift for the Mythicists of the world.

I am reminded of a passage from Voltaire: "I have never made but one prayer to God, a very short one: 'O Lord, make my enemies ridiculous.' And God granted it."

Warmly,

Jay Raskin

MrMacSon · 04-02-2012, 02:32 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by PhilosopherJay

... It all comes down to a reading of the words "τὸν ἀδελφὸν τοῦ κυρίου"

Only if these words were written by an Apostle named Paul and refer to a biological Brother of Jesus can we use them as an argument for the historical Jesus.

Outline of Biblical Usage of "Brother"

1) a brother, whether born of the same two parents or only of the same father or mother
2) having the same national ancestor, belonging to the same people, or countryman
3) any fellow or man
4) a fellow believer, united to another by the bond of affection
5) an associate in employment or office
6) brethren in Christ

a) his brothers by blood
b) all men
c) apostles
d) Christians, as those who are exalted to the same heavenly place

http://www.blueletterbible.org/lang/...ongs=G80&t=RSV

from (4 & 6) another option is adelphpoiesis

Quote:

Adelphopoiesis (or adelphopoiia from the Greek ἀδελφοποίησις, derived from ἀδελφός (adelphos) "brother" and ποιέω (poieō) "I make") - literally "brother-making" - is a ceremony practiced at one time by various Christian churches to unite together two people of the same sex (normally men) - wikipedia

PhilosopherJay · 04-02-2012, 09:14 PM

Hi MrMacSon,

If one somehow fights their way through this "brother" jungle, holding the historical Jesus in his teeth, one has to avoid the tiger pit of the use of the term "Lord," which may well refer to the God "Yahweh."

Next comes the shark infested waters of interpolation. Frank R. McGuire in the article "Did Paul write Galatians?" gives good reasons for believing that Paul's first visit to Jerusalem in Galatians is an interpolation, based on a reading of Acts, although the second visit is also unlikely to be written by Paul:

Quote:

According to the original text, then, Paul returned to Damascus after his sojourn in Arabia (Gal. 1, 17) and did not go up to Jerusalem until whatever is implied by „after fourteen years“; whether a full fourteen years later, or in the fourteenth year of his apostleship, makes little difference. A second writer considers an interval of three years sufficient to demonstrate Paul's independence of Jerusalem; he may also have noticed, as William Paley was to do some 1600 years later, that the „many days“ which the Paul of Acts spends in Damascus could have amounted to three years. The author of Gal. 1, 18-24 did not bother to coordinate the second chapter with his own account; perhaps he hoped to displace the earlier Pauline version of Paul's first apostolic contact with the church at Jerusalem. To differentiate between the two visits now recorded, a still later „Paul“ inserts the word „again“ so conspicuously absent from Tertullian's reading of Gal. ii, 1. Perhaps from the same hand comes such incongruities as Peter at the head of a mission to the circumcised (ii, 7-8), anticipating the arrangement to which Peter becomes a party in the verse that follows.

While the narrative of Galatians is more plausible if stripped of known or demonstrable interpolations, the second chapter is still basically nonsensical. It does not become less so in the light of Acts-Luke's fifteenth chapter, the reader's acquaintance with which is tacitly presumed throughout, simply makes the unintelligibility more understandable.

I would distinguish line 1:19 as a special later interpolation of the interpolation in 1:18-24. The lines 1:19 and 20 really clashes with 1:18 and the reading is much smoother if we take them out along with 1:22-24. Doing so, we get the smooth reading:

Quote:

18Then three years later I went up to Jerusalem to become acquainted with Cephas, and stayed with him fifteen days. 21Then I went into the regions of Syria and Cilicia. 1Then after an interval of fourteen years I went up again to Jerusalem with Barnabas.

Finally the Historical Jesus warrior must face the unleashed Kraken in Darrell J. Doughty's article PAULINE PARADIGMS AND PAULINE AUTHENTICITY, which calls into question the unscientific nature of the criterion heretofore used in demonstrating Pauline authenticity.

It seems to me that the brave Mr. Ehrman has brought a knife to a drone missile fight.

Warmly,

Jay Raskin

Quote:

Originally Posted by MrMacSon

Quote:

Originally Posted by PhilosopherJay

... It all comes down to a reading of the words "τὸν ἀδελφὸν τοῦ κυρίου"

Only if these words were written by an Apostle named Paul and refer to a biological Brother of Jesus can we use them as an argument for the historical Jesus.

Outline of Biblical Usage of "Brother"

1) a brother, whether born of the same two parents or only of the same father or mother
2) having the same national ancestor, belonging to the same people, or countryman
3) any fellow or man
4) a fellow believer, united to another by the bond of affection
5) an associate in employment or office
6) brethren in Christ

a) his brothers by blood
b) all men
c) apostles
d) Christians, as those who are exalted to the same heavenly place

http://www.blueletterbible.org/lang/...ongs=G80&t=RSV

from (4 & 6) another option is adelphpoiesis

Quote:

Adelphopoiesis (or adelphopoiia from the Greek ἀδελφοποίησις, derived from ἀδελφός (adelphos) "brother" and ποιέω (poieō) "I make") - literally "brother-making" - is a ceremony practiced at one time by various Christian churches to unite together two people of the same sex (normally men) - wikipedia

MrMacSon · 04-02-2012, 09:46 PM

I agree the writings attributed to the alleged 'Paul' is so dubious as to be non-evidence.

Erhman has balanced his dubious act on a knife-edge.

outhouse · 04-02-2012, 10:58 PM

Quote:

It all comes down to a reading of the words "τὸν ἀδελφὸν τοῦ κυρίου"

no it doesnt

not in any sense

Vorkosigan · 04-03-2012, 03:27 AM

Quote:

I am reminded of a passage from Voltaire: "I have never made but one prayer to God, a very short one: 'O Lord, make my enemies ridiculous.' And God granted it."

Hahaha. I knew this would happen. But I honestly never expected Ehrman's book would be as bad as it is.

V

JonA · 04-03-2012, 05:29 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by PhilosopherJay

It all comes down to a reading of the words "τὸν ἀδελφὸν τοῦ κυρίου"

No it doesn't.

PhilosopherJay · 04-03-2012, 10:16 AM

Hi JonA and outhouse,

And the better argument that Bart Erhman gives is?

Warmly,

Jay Raskin

Quote:

Originally Posted by JonA

Quote:

Originally Posted by PhilosopherJay

It all comes down to a reading of the words "τὸν ἀδελφὸν τοῦ κυρίου"

No it doesn't.

Quote:

Originally Posted by outhouse

Quote:

It all comes down to a reading of the words "τὸν ἀδελφὸν τοῦ κυρίου"

no it doesnt

not in any sense

outhouse · 04-03-2012, 10:23 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by PhilosopherJay

Hi JonA and outhouse,

And the better argument that Bart Erhman gives is?

Warmly,

Jay Raskin

Quote:

Originally Posted by JonA

No it doesn't.

Quote:

Originally Posted by outhouse

no it doesnt

not in any sense

giving the best arguement, does not translate to "coming down to 4 words"

Juststeve · 04-03-2012, 10:33 AM

Jay:

Have you actually read the book? Erhman gives a number of reasons for thinking Jesus existed. You are free to discount them, as I suspect you will, but simply ignoring them is a badge of dogma, not thought.

Steve

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

04-02-2012, 09:46 PM	#4
MrMacSon Senior Member Join Date: Mar 2012 Location: South Pacific Posts: 559	I agree the writings attributed to the alleged 'Paul' is so dubious as to be non-evidence. Erhman has balanced his dubious act on a knife-edge.

04-03-2012, 10:33 AM	#10
Juststeve Senior Member Join Date: Nov 2004 Location: Dallas Texas Posts: 758	Jay: Have you actually read the book? Erhman gives a number of reasons for thinking Jesus existed. You are free to discount them, as I suspect you will, but simply ignoring them is a badge of dogma, not thought. Steve

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.