Zeichman

On the infidels own web site: http://www.infidels.org/news/atheism/logic.html#hominem

Particularly the "poisoning the well" aspect.

"Of course you'd believe in a historical Jesus, you're a Christian."

Dean Anderson

Are you saying that you can be a Christian and not believe in an historical Jesus?

Llyricist

Actually, if Doherty is correct, the original Christians did just that.

Dean Anderson

True - but if those Christians were around today, they'd be denounced by modern day evangelicals as being a cult in the same way that Mormons and Jehovah's Witnesses are...

Chris Weimer

In case some of you didn't get it, I do think XTalk is a great community. However, merely parroting an assertion there without proper discourse is bad form and shouldn't take precedence in the conversation.

jjramsey

Because this James is not necessarily the only James the Galatians have heard of. If they have heard of, for example, James son of Zebedee, then clarification on which James is being discussed is helpful.

Note that Paul is not talking about Cephas, James, and the other leaders in Jerusalem as if the Galatians had never heard of them before.

Because he is quoting a formula, rather than talking about his interactions with James. Here which James isn't even that important, and may even have been ambiguous to those from whom Paul got the formula.

Because being "esteemed to be a pillar" would not necessarily have ruled out other Jameses who may have been considered pillars, like James son of Zebedee. The Galatians probably already knew of these Jameses and had their stock ways of identifying them. Paul probably chose to use these stock identifiers instead of going out of his way to use an unusual and possibly confusing identifier.

More to the point, it would have been more trouble than it was worth to try to avoid making a reference to James' blood relationship with Jesus.

Take a look at this passage from http://www.atheists.org/christianity...susexist.html:

Notice that he is implying that the existence of a historical Jesus is an extraordinary claim akin to a claim of someone using a six-foot rabbit as a razor. Of course, the claim that Jesus was the Christ is extraordinary, but the claim that the Gospels present a distorted and exaggerated picture of a Galilean Jew named Jesus of Nazareth, who had an itinerant preaching ministry and was crucified, is not. If you look at his footnotes, he writes that 1 Cor. 9.5 is evidence that "Brothers of the Lord" were a governing class, which is a stretched interpretation to say the least. When he writes, "Misunderstanding of the original meaning of the title led to the belief that Jesus had siblings," he is presenting speculation as fact.

Of course one should be careful with it, but it still has a decent proportion of experts.

The grammar issue, I think, has more to do with whether in the phrase "brother of the Lord," the term "brother" is used in the same way that it is when Paul uses it to refer to other Christians in general. As for whether "brother of the Lord" is figurative in some other sense, such as a special title, I don't think the grammar can answer that. Here, it is more a matter of the simpler explanation. If "brother of the Lord" were a title, then either it was coincidence that there happen to be other references to James that even more clearly identify him as a physical brother of Jesus, or somehow there was a misunderstanding of the title. The latter is not impossible, but aside from explaining away the prima facie meaning of "brother of the Lord," there is little reason to suppose it; it is unsupported speculation.

Amaleq13

The speculative possibility that there were other important yet unmentioned men named James would be more compelling if Paul mentioned any other prominent Christians by that name.

It seems obvious to me that there was a very prominent James who was significant enough to warrant individual identification (without this allegedly important identifier) in a Christian formula and that this James would be the one everyone assumed was being referred to whenever Paul talked about a prominent man by that name. From the evidence, we should expect Paul to feel compelled to add a specific identifier only for any other James.

Exactly my point. He is acknowledging that those three were known as "pillars" which suggests that was the most common identifier used for them. Whose side are you on?

He is important enough to be the only other individual specifically named so this is not a very credible explanation, IMO. Again, this seems to argue against any alleged need to identify what James was being referred to unless it was a different James from the one widely known to be a leader.

Again, this explanation would obtain credibility if Paul mentioned another James, let alone one that was the son of Zebedee and there is no indication of this alleged concern when he chooses only use the "pillar" identifier.

It seems to me that the credibility of your explanation is undermined by the fact that there is no evidence in Paul to support either "probably". The evidence from Paul suggests that he would only need to identify James if it wasn't the one everybody knew as a prominent leader.

He had no problem avoiding it elsewhere and you've offered no reason whatsoever to think it would be more trouble than it was worth to avoid it. In fact, you've offered absolutely no credible explanation why Paul would feel compelled to use such a clearly problematic identifier in this case.

It ceases to be a problem, however, if it was a title referring to James' reputation for piety (ie Lord = God rather than Jesus). I believe we find the notion that James had an established reputation for piety supported by several Church fathers including Hegesippus.

mikem

I think the reason why Paul identifed James as the "brother of the Lord" was because he was speaking with reference to the apostles - "I saw none of the other apostles EXCEPT James "(the brother of the Lord). In the synoptics, we are given the names of the Twelve, and they include James, brother of John and son of Zebedee, and James the son of Alphaeus. (Matthew 10, Mark 3.) Luke also mentions the same two, and in addition, refers to the father of one of the twelve as James.

Since there was more than one apostle called James, it would be quite natural for Paul to identify which James he was referring to. If it was not the natural brother of Jesus that Paul was referring to, it would not have helped matters by referring to either James the son of Alphaeus or James the son of Zebedee as the "brother of the Lord", as that would still not identify which of the two was meant, if it was only an honorific title.

The most natural reading therefore is that Paul was referring to Jesus' sibling, James.

To anticipate an objection, it is true that Jesus brother James was not one of the original Twelve. However, NT usage of the name Apostle does not confine it to the original Twelve.

jjramsey

That James son of Zebedee is mentioned in the New Testament as an apostle and is not a complete hypothetical makes it plausible that Paul and his readers had heard of him. Paul was not writing in a vacuum, so to make his letters the only consideration as to what he and his readers had heard of is artificial and misleading. A person named "James" only gets mentioned in two of Paul's letters at all. That James son of Zebedee apparently had the luck to not be mentioned is not surprising.

Note the bit about the "other leaders in Jerusalem." I also suggest that you read what I had written before: "being 'esteemed to be a pillar' would not necessarily have ruled out other Jameses who may have been considered pillars, like James son of Zebedee." If the Galatians had heard of James son of Zebedee and knew he was an apostle, then referring to a James who was a pillar would still be ambiguous, since it would not be implausible to call an apostle a pillar.

Except that James son of Zebedee is about as good a witness to a resurrected Jesus as James brother of Jesus, so there is not a big problem if the formula is ambiguous on this point.

You are being misleading. Galatians 2:9 reads, "when James and Cephas and John, who were acknowledged pillars, recognized the grace that had been given to me, they gave to Barnabas and me the right hand of fellowship, agreeing that we should go to the Gentiles and they to the circumcised." Paul is not using "pillar" as an identifier here. "son of Zebedee" is an identifier; "the Nazarene" is an identifier. "Pillar" here is used to describe a role, not to disambiguate among persons with the same name.

He already mentioned it once in the letter to the Galatians, so there was no reason to repeat it; the task of disambiguation was done. As for 1 Corinthians, as I said before, disambiguating which James was being mentioned wasn't that important.

Yes, I did, when I wrote, "The Galatians probably already knew of these Jameses and had their stock ways of identifying them. Paul probably chose to use these stock identifiers instead of going out of his way to use an unusual and possibly confusing identifier."

Hardly! If "brother of the Lord" is a reference to a blood relationship with Jesus, then it is a reference to an accident of James' birth. If "brother of the Lord" is a reference to James' piety, then Paul is pointing to a reason why James should have greater authority--namely his piety.

andrewcriddle

If one harmonises the information in Acts and Paul's letters (something that I'm aware many members of this forum would question) then his visit to Jerusalem described in Galatians 1:18-19 took place in the very late 30's. The execution of James son of Zebedee took place in the mid to early 40's. James the brother of Jesus becomes prominent after the death of James son of Zebedee. All references to James by Paul other than in Galatians 1:18-19 and 1 Corinthians 15:7 almost certainly refer to events after the death of James the son of Zebedee. In 1 Corinthians 15:7 the James intended is clearly not a member of the twelve (see verse 5) and hence not James son of Zebedee.

Hence in all other cases when Paul refers to James it would be presumed by an informed person that he meant James the brother of Jesus. However in Galatians 1:18-19 it would be presumed that James refers in the context to James son of Zebedee. It would have been anachronistic and ambiguous to clarify by saying James the Pillar. (In the very late 30's James son of Zebedee was probably regarded as at least as much of a Pillar of the Church as was James the brother of Jesus.

Hence when referring to meeting a James before the execution of James son of Zebedee, clarifying which James by saying James the brother of the Lord was the appropriate course of action, but unnecessary in other cases

Andrew Criddle