Freethought & Rationalism Archive

yalla · 05-31-2010, 09:04 AM

Been there, done that lots of times.
The facts are:
1. Paul does not use the name "Jesus".
2. If he wanted to differentiate between the hundreds of believers he calls 'brethren/brothers' etc [and there are literally hundreds of examples of such ranging from the famous 'appearance' of JC to '500 brethren' to the use of 'brother/mother/sister' etc dozens of times to refer to non kin persons] then he could have simply and precisely designated the 'brother of the lord, differently as ' the brother of Jesus" to easily avoid confusion.
3. He did not do so.
The term 'brother' in this case is used in exactly the same sense as all the other cases when it does not describe or imply or suggest a kin relationship.
4. Without the rear vision mirror made of gospel coloured glass there is no reason to treat this case as different to all the other cases where kin terms are, as you describe it, 'metaphorical'.

The gospel rear view did not exist when Paul wrote this line [and the others ] therefore you cannot use what an anonymous author decades later probably writing in a different locale wanted to interpret it as for whatever reasons.

Going only on what Paul wrote, the primary textual evidence, we have dozens of kin terms being used that do not refer to kin relationships.

ApostateAbe · 05-31-2010, 09:29 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by yalla

Been there, done that lots of times.
The facts are:
1. Paul does not use the name "Jesus".
2. If he wanted to differentiate between the hundreds of believers he calls 'brethren/brothers' etc [and there are literally hundreds of examples of such ranging from the famous 'appearance' of JC to '500 brethren' to the use of 'brother/mother/sister' etc dozens of times to refer to non kin persons] then he could have simply and precisely designated the 'brother of the lord, differently as ' the brother of Jesus" to easily avoid confusion.
3. He did not do so.
The term 'brother' in this case is used in exactly the same sense as all the other cases when it does not describe or imply or suggest a kin relationship.
4. Without the rear vision mirror made of gospel coloured glass there is no reason to treat this case as different to all the other cases where kin terms are, as you describe it, 'metaphorical'.

The gospel rear view did not exist when Paul wrote this line [and the others ] therefore you cannot use what an anonymous author decades later probably writing in a different locale wanted to interpret it as for whatever reasons.

Going only on what Paul wrote, the primary textual evidence, we have dozens of kin terms being used that do not refer to kin relationships.

OK, I think I see what you are saying. From the perspective that the gospels cannot count for anything at all, then I can see how Galatians 1:19 doesn't count for an iota. I made the admission previously:

Quote:

If we had Galatians 1:19 and nothing else in Christian history, then the dismissals and the alternative explanations may be acceptable, and maybe mythicism could still be left on the table as a possible model. But, that short phrase in Galatians 1:19 is actually just a key component of a network of evidence about James that extends into the synoptic gospels and Josephus.

Josephus is just a report of Christian myth, so there would be no better reason to take Josephus into account, either. For me, whether or not the gospels are merely mythical is beside the point. Well, let me rephrase that: the myth, actually, is the point. Jesus was reputed to have a literal brother, born of Mary and Joseph, named James. That is what Christians believed. And we find corroboration of that point in Galatians 1:19. If you take an alternative explanation, that a "brother of the Lord" was just a high-status Christian, then you are required to believe that such a group of Christians were left unreported in Christian myth, until they quickly morphed, in all Christian sects, into the literal brothers of Jesus.

yalla · 05-31-2010, 10:01 AM

No, sorry Abe you are still commiting, IMO, a major error.

You are projecting backwards a convenient belief from a later period onto a previous document something that has no foundation within the original document.
Worse, the text of the original document [as we have it] contradicts the later desire of the anonymous gopelwriter[s] to identify a name as having a specific relationship which is not only not stated by the original document [the name"Jesus' is not used for whoever James is] but the context of that document,and several other documents by Paul, describe relationships in a manner which explicitly denies the sense that the later gospelwriter[s] prefer.
Paul uses kin terms to describe non kin relationships.

You say "Jesus was reputed to have a literal brother, born of Mary and Joseph, named James."

Not according to Paul. He doesn't say or even hint any such thing.

What later writers claimed/imagined/believed/created whatever is irrelvant to what Paul wrote.

You also seem happy to accept that Paul may have known someone called James who may have been a "just a high-status Christian".
Perhaps.
Its just a guess by some, speculation which is not necessary to excuse the phrase Paul does use for James.

Look, we know Paul used kin terms in a non kin sense.
He referred to people as 'brethren' as a group term.
He uses it as a collegiate term dozens of times even saying that the apostles married their sisters, that Rufus' mum was also his mum, that 500 viewers of JC [obviously not sharing the same parents] were 'brethren', he addresses 'brethren' fequently in his works and its pretty obvious they are not the children of his own mother and father.

Leave it at that.

aa5874 · 05-31-2010, 10:15 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ApostateAbe

The score is 1 to 0.5. A very compelling way to resolve the issue is to see whether Jesus was reputed to have a literal brother named James. And, yes, he did. In two of the synoptic gospels and in Josephus. I wrote a long post on this point near the beginning of the thread.

It is FALSE that Josephus mentioned the James in Galatians 1.19. The words "the Christ" in Antiquities 20.9.1 is a forgery. Also in the Synoptics there are two apostles called James and NONE is called the Lord's brother and Papias, an early apologetic source claimed James the apostle was NOT the son of Mary the supposed mother of Jesus.

ApostateAbe · 05-31-2010, 10:34 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by yalla

No, sorry Abe you are still commiting, IMO, a major error.

You are projecting backwards a convenient belief from a later period onto a previous document something that has no foundation within the original document.
Worse, the text of the original document [as we have it] contradicts the later desire of the anonymous gopelwriter[s] to identify a name as having a specific relationship which is not only not stated by the original document [the name"Jesus' is not used for whoever James is] but the context of that document,and several other documents by Paul, describe relationships in a manner which explicitly denies the sense that the later gospelwriter[s] prefer.
Paul uses kin terms to describe non kin relationships.

You say "Jesus was reputed to have a literal brother, born of Mary and Joseph, named James."

Not according to Paul. He doesn't say or even hint any such thing.

What later writers claimed/imagined/believed/created whatever is irrelvant to what Paul wrote.

You also seem happy to accept that Paul may have known someone called James who may have been a "just a high-status Christian".
Perhaps.
Its just a guess by some, speculation which is not necessary to excuse the phrase Paul does use for James.

Look, we know Paul used kin terms in a non kin sense.
He referred to people as 'brethren' as a group term.
He uses it as a collegiate term dozens of times even saying that the apostles married their sisters, that Rufus' mum was also his mum, that 500 viewers of JC [obviously not sharing the same parents] were 'brethren', he addresses 'brethren' fequently in his works and its pretty obvious they are not the children of his own mother and father.

Leave it at that.

OK, yeah, we do not share the same perspective on the historical methods of evaluation. To me, the gospels and Josephus can be used to clarify what Paul meant. To you, the gospels and Josephus are irrelevant to understanding what Paul meant. I am living in a different world. Perhaps, at least, you understand the thinking of people who accept this argument, even if you think it is erroneous, and at least that is a step forward.

Toto · 05-31-2010, 10:46 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ApostateAbe

.... To me, the gospels and Josephus can be used to clarify what Paul meant. ...

Why do you think this? It seems to come out of left field. You keep insisting that you don't think the gospels are a good source for history, but then you use them as if they are.

Are you assuming that the gospels were written about the same time as Paul, in the same social situation? :huh:

maryhelena · 05-31-2010, 10:59 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ApostateAbe

Quote:

Originally Posted by yalla

Yep that is really the crux of it isn't it?
Gospel coloured glasses.
There are a whole stack of kin terms [mother/brother/son/brethren/sisters] used by Paul in Galatians and other epistles none of which really signify a direct kin relationship so this alleged mention of JC, oops 'the lord' actually, help the historical JC mob not one iota.

I think it helps the historical JC mob a little more than an iota. At the least, it helps to convince very many critical scholars with doctorates and teaching positions in the field. It doesn't have to convince a bunch of lay people on the Internet in order to have an iota of evidential power.

If we are reading the texts critically, and not willy-nilly to suit any arbitrary theory, then we need to look at evidence on the outside--what did Paul really mean? Then we choose the argument that has the best explanation (ABE). Where do you look to resolve the uncertainty of what Paul meant, if you wish to resolve it? Yes, there are plenty of times that Paul uses the word for "brother" in a religious metaphorical sense. Score one for the mythicists. But, if Paul needed to use a word for "brother" in a literal sense, then he would still have no choice but use that same word. Score a half-point for the JC mob.

The score is 1 to 0.5. A very compelling way to resolve the issue is to see whether Jesus was reputed to have a literal brother named James. And, yes, he did. In two of the synoptic gospels and in Josephus. I wrote a long post on this point near the beginning of the thread.

I think that makes the score 1 to 6.5, the JC mob taking a very strong lead.

Do not take my word for it. Follow the link and read about the Argument to the Best Explanation. Choose what you think would be the best alternative to the JC mob hypothesis that "James, the Lord's brother" was the literal brother of Jesus. Then go down the list and compare the two hypotheses. I am not asking you to believe it. I am only asking you to grant that there is more than an iota of strength to this explanation.

Abe, Hoffmann is a well respected scholar - and his conclusion, his verdict, is this:

Quote:

I admit to being a bit prickly on the subject, having finally concluded that the sources we possess do not establish the conditions for a verdict on the historicity of Jesus. Some of my reasons for saying so are laid out in a series of essays included in the anthology Sources of the Jesus Tradition, coming out in August. The main argument for Jesus-agnosticism is being developed in a more ambitious study, The Jesus Prospect, for which watch this and other spaces. (The prologue on method will be ready later in 2010.)
<snip>
As for myself, the only thing I have in common with both those who want to argue the myth theory as a provable hypothesis and those who believe the gospels provide good evidence for the life of Jesus is that we are probably all wrong.

Did Jesus Exist? Yes and No (Hoffmann has changed the title of the essay for the second time....)
http://rjosephhoffmann.wordpress.com...e-suigenerity/

Its OK that you find fault with the mythicist position - but don't for one second imagine that the historicist position has more going for it. Don't waste time chasing after the wind. The work that needs to be done is uncovering the early origins of christianity, pre-christian history. Don't let the Jesus controversy become a roadblock to that far more important historical task.

ApostateAbe · 05-31-2010, 11:34 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by maryhelena

Quote:

Originally Posted by ApostateAbe

I think it helps the historical JC mob a little more than an iota. At the least, it helps to convince very many critical scholars with doctorates and teaching positions in the field. It doesn't have to convince a bunch of lay people on the Internet in order to have an iota of evidential power.

If we are reading the texts critically, and not willy-nilly to suit any arbitrary theory, then we need to look at evidence on the outside--what did Paul really mean? Then we choose the argument that has the best explanation (ABE). Where do you look to resolve the uncertainty of what Paul meant, if you wish to resolve it? Yes, there are plenty of times that Paul uses the word for "brother" in a religious metaphorical sense. Score one for the mythicists. But, if Paul needed to use a word for "brother" in a literal sense, then he would still have no choice but use that same word. Score a half-point for the JC mob.

The score is 1 to 0.5. A very compelling way to resolve the issue is to see whether Jesus was reputed to have a literal brother named James. And, yes, he did. In two of the synoptic gospels and in Josephus. I wrote a long post on this point near the beginning of the thread.

I think that makes the score 1 to 6.5, the JC mob taking a very strong lead.

Do not take my word for it. Follow the link and read about the Argument to the Best Explanation. Choose what you think would be the best alternative to the JC mob hypothesis that "James, the Lord's brother" was the literal brother of Jesus. Then go down the list and compare the two hypotheses. I am not asking you to believe it. I am only asking you to grant that there is more than an iota of strength to this explanation.

Abe, Hoffmann is a well respected scholar - and his conclusion, his verdict, is this:

Quote:

I admit to being a bit prickly on the subject, having finally concluded that the sources we possess do not establish the conditions for a verdict on the historicity of Jesus. Some of my reasons for saying so are laid out in a series of essays included in the anthology Sources of the Jesus Tradition, coming out in August. The main argument for Jesus-agnosticism is being developed in a more ambitious study, The Jesus Prospect, for which watch this and other spaces. (The prologue on method will be ready later in 2010.)
<snip>
As for myself, the only thing I have in common with both those who want to argue the myth theory as a provable hypothesis and those who believe the gospels provide good evidence for the life of Jesus is that we are probably all wrong.

Did Jesus Exist? Yes and No (Hoffmann has changed the title of the essay for the second time....)
http://rjosephhoffmann.wordpress.com...e-suigenerity/

Its OK that you find fault with the mythicist position - but don't for one second imagine that the historicist position has more going for it. Don't waste time chasing after the wind. The work that needs to be done is uncovering the early origins of christianity, pre-christian history. Don't let the Jesus controversy become a roadblock to that far more important historical task.

Cool. Do you think the more important work is uncovering the early origins of Christianity--pre-Christian history? Are you talking about the roots of Christianity in the first century BCE or something (before "Jesus")? I think that is a worthy pursuit of both the mythicists and the Jesus-agnostics/skeptics like Hoffman. I wouldn't want to discourage it. Hoffman is certainly correct that a positive model of mythicism with evidence does much more service to the scholarly field than the endless criticisms of the standard models. The downside is that it would probably be much more analogous to chasing after the wind, since the standard models really do have strong evidence, at least from my perspective, but I still say go for it.

ApostateAbe · 05-31-2010, 11:42 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

Quote:

Originally Posted by ApostateAbe

.... To me, the gospels and Josephus can be used to clarify what Paul meant. ...

Why do you think this? It seems to come out of left field. You keep insisting that you don't think the gospels are a good source for history, but then you use them as if they are.

Are you assuming that the gospels were written about the same time as Paul, in the same social situation? :huh:

The gospels were written by people of the same cult as Paul, a few decades apart. So, yeah, the contents of the gospels are very relevant to deciding between two conflicting interpretations of a passage in Paul, at least from my perspective. For those who believe that the gospels or other Christian sources should not be used to arbitrate meaning in the writings of Paul, it is a viewpoint I do not accept, but I sort of understand the motivation behind the viewpoint, that maybe Paul and the gospels belong to two drastically different belief systems, as many mythicists have proposed on the basis that Paul's Jesus is primarily spiritual and not human and so on.

aa5874 · 05-31-2010, 11:43 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ApostateAbe

Quote:

Originally Posted by yalla

No, sorry Abe you are still commiting, IMO, a major error.

You are projecting backwards a convenient belief from a later period onto a previous document something that has no foundation within the original document.
Worse, the text of the original document [as we have it] contradicts the later desire of the anonymous gopelwriter[s] to identify a name as having a specific relationship which is not only not stated by the original document [the name"Jesus' is not used for whoever James is] but the context of that document,and several other documents by Paul, describe relationships in a manner which explicitly denies the sense that the later gospelwriter[s] prefer.
Paul uses kin terms to describe non kin relationships.

You say "Jesus was reputed to have a literal brother, born of Mary and Joseph, named James."

Not according to Paul. He doesn't say or even hint any such thing.

What later writers claimed/imagined/believed/created whatever is irrelvant to what Paul wrote.

You also seem happy to accept that Paul may have known someone called James who may have been a "just a high-status Christian".
Perhaps.
Its just a guess by some, speculation which is not necessary to excuse the phrase Paul does use for James.

Look, we know Paul used kin terms in a non kin sense.
He referred to people as 'brethren' as a group term.
He uses it as a collegiate term dozens of times even saying that the apostles married their sisters, that Rufus' mum was also his mum, that 500 viewers of JC [obviously not sharing the same parents] were 'brethren', he addresses 'brethren' fequently in his works and its pretty obvious they are not the children of his own mother and father.

Leave it at that.

OK, yeah, we do not share the same perspective on the historical methods of evaluation. To me, the gospels and Josephus can be used to clarify what Paul meant. To you, the gospels and Josephus are irrelevant to understanding what Paul meant. I am living in a different world. Perhaps, at least, you understand the thinking of people who accept this argument, even if you think it is erroneous, and at least that is a step forward.

But, a forgery in Antiquities of the Jews 20.9.1 where some Jesus was called the Christ cannot help in any historical evaluation of James in Galatians 1.19 until you can establish when Galatians 1.19 was written.

And further, the information is second hand. The Pauline writer is claiming he met the Lord's brother that meeting someone who claimed he is the brother of Jesus is worthless in establishing the actual existence of Jesus.

In the Synoptics, Jesus had a mother but he was still described as the ofspring of the Holy Ghost.

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

05-31-2010, 09:04 AM	#31
yalla Veteran Member Join Date: May 2002 Location: oz Posts: 1,848	Been there, done that lots of times. The facts are: 1. Paul does not use the name "Jesus". 2. If he wanted to differentiate between the hundreds of believers he calls 'brethren/brothers' etc [and there are literally hundreds of examples of such ranging from the famous 'appearance' of JC to '500 brethren' to the use of 'brother/mother/sister' etc dozens of times to refer to non kin persons] then he could have simply and precisely designated the 'brother of the lord, differently as ' the brother of Jesus" to easily avoid confusion. 3. He did not do so. The term 'brother' in this case is used in exactly the same sense as all the other cases when it does not describe or imply or suggest a kin relationship. 4. Without the rear vision mirror made of gospel coloured glass there is no reason to treat this case as different to all the other cases where kin terms are, as you describe it, 'metaphorical'. The gospel rear view did not exist when Paul wrote this line [and the others ] therefore you cannot use what an anonymous author decades later probably writing in a different locale wanted to interpret it as for whatever reasons. Going only on what Paul wrote, the primary textual evidence, we have dozens of kin terms being used that do not refer to kin relationships.

05-31-2010, 10:01 AM	#33
yalla Veteran Member Join Date: May 2002 Location: oz Posts: 1,848	No, sorry Abe you are still commiting, IMO, a major error. You are projecting backwards a convenient belief from a later period onto a previous document something that has no foundation within the original document. Worse, the text of the original document [as we have it] contradicts the later desire of the anonymous gopelwriter[s] to identify a name as having a specific relationship which is not only not stated by the original document [the name"Jesus' is not used for whoever James is] but the context of that document,and several other documents by Paul, describe relationships in a manner which explicitly denies the sense that the later gospelwriter[s] prefer. Paul uses kin terms to describe non kin relationships. You say "Jesus was reputed to have a literal brother, born of Mary and Joseph, named James." Not according to Paul. He doesn't say or even hint any such thing. What later writers claimed/imagined/believed/created whatever is irrelvant to what Paul wrote. You also seem happy to accept that Paul may have known someone called James who may have been a "just a high-status Christian". Perhaps. Its just a guess by some, speculation which is not necessary to excuse the phrase Paul does use for James. Look, we know Paul used kin terms in a non kin sense. He referred to people as 'brethren' as a group term. He uses it as a collegiate term dozens of times even saying that the apostles married their sisters, that Rufus' mum was also his mum, that 500 viewers of JC [obviously not sharing the same parents] were 'brethren', he addresses 'brethren' fequently in his works and its pretty obvious they are not the children of his own mother and father. Leave it at that.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.