Vorkosigan

Hi Tercel. One book at a time. But there is a basic problem here...

.....the NIV is an ideological and tenditious translation done with the idea of eliminating the mythicist position, as well as biblical "errors." In other words, you need to start by choosing a more scholarly and nuetral translation. For example:

A more realistic translation would read:

• YLT: 3concerning His Son, (who is come of the seed of David according to the flesh,
  NKJV: 3concerning His Son Jesus Christ our Lord, who was born of the seed of David according to the flesh,

The phrase "who as to his human nature" is not in the original and was added by the NIV to silence doubters. The actual phrase shoud have some reference to David and Flesh.

This reading is entirely ambiguous. Where god "presented" him is left open.

This is a clear misreading. On the contrary, "the present time" is clearly set against the past time when Jesus was crucified, because it was done to show justice in the present time. "I gave my son in the past to show you justice now." The implication here is that Jesus was crucified at some unspecified time prior to the present, in order to show justice in the present. This quote supports Doherty's thesis. Thanks for the find.

Of course. The Primal Adam was a powerful figure in various eschatological and magical thought systems in Jewish circles. This comparison enhances the argument that Paul saw Jesus as a similarly mystical and symbolic figure. Two quotes in a row ironically turn out to support the other side.

Three for three. Jesus came in the form of a man. No one has ever argued otherwise. The form of the man was not a historical personage, but a spiritual one -- the Primal Adam, Sophia, and dozens of other spiritual figures who take human form -- like Angels, for example, which Jesus is taken for in some of the apocrypha.

• YLT
  4 who are Israelites, whose [is] the adoption, and the glory, and the covenants, and the lawgiving, and the service, and the promises,
  5 whose [are] the fathers, and of whom [is] the Christ, according to the flesh, who is over all, God blessed to the ages. Amen.
  6 And it is not possible that the word of God hath failed; for not all who [are] of Israel are these Israel;

The NIV rides again! It has inserted "human ancestry of Christ" where there is no such thing in the text. Tercel, please use a better translation, one that doesn't assume what it is trying to prove.

Corinthians in a moment. The swimming pool beckons.

Vorkosigan

Peter Kirby

Vork rules!

best,
Peter Kirby

Doctor X

On the contrary, when taking the entire passage in its context:

Galatians 1:18-19

Then after three years I went up to Jerusalem to visit Cephas, and remained with him fifteen days. But I saw none of the other apostles except James the Lord's brother.

The Nestle-Aland Greek-English New Testament does not list any variants for "James the Lord's brother"--most substitute "Petron" for "Kephan." It uses the RSV for the English, but the Greek--Iakobon ton adelphon tou kupriou--does not depart from the translation.

The context seems pretty clear that this is not a generic title. Otherwise, "But I saw none of the other apostles except James," would be more obvious.

Furthermore, when he referes to James and others:

If a generic he would have refered to Cephas and John as "brothers of the Lord."

Again, just that a person existed does not support the various mythology attached to him.

--J.D.

sodium

What do people think of the works of Theophilus of Antioch? Was he a Christian who expunged Christ from his theology? Or does he represent a pre-Christ Christianity? Or is he just a normal Christian?

Vorkosigan

There are several issues with I see, Doc. First, "Brother of the Lord" is the way that James was referred to by early Christians. It behaves just like a title -- when the Ossuary came out, many NT scholars found it puzzling that the thing didn't say JAMES THE BROTHER OF THE LORD as it should have (when NT scholars need it to be a title, it's a title, when they need it as a literal description, it's a literal description). That's what early Christians should have said. The second problem -- going back to the quote in Romans -- is that Cephas, the Brothers of the Lord, and the Apostles are treated as three separate items. This same separation appears in 1 Cor 15, where James, the apostles, Cephas, and 500 brothers are independent entities. Further, while JC is referred to in several ways, Christ/Jesus/Jesus Christ/the Lord etc, the Brothers are always of the Lord never the Brothers of Christ, the Brothers of Jesus, the Sons of Mary (sounds like an Irish folksinging group) or suchlike. They are only and always the Brothers of the Lord. That strongly suggests a title, not a true relationship.

On the whole, there is simply not enough evidence to determine what James and the Brothers of the Lord actually were, and their relationships to the other entities. The new religion had obviously evolved a complex titular system no doubt reflecting complex internal politics.

The idea that Paul thought James was a physical brother is something that appears only if you backread from the Gospels. Examining Paul's letters on their own does not lead to that conclusion, only more questions.

The idea that Paul knew the fleshly brothers of Jesus and Peter and others who knew Jesus personally begs the question of why he needed visions from Jesus. All he had to do was go to the source. There they were, a whole circle of people who knew him. If James et al derived their authority from personal acquaintance with Jesus, how was Paul able to claim that visions supplied him with authority? "Have I not seen the Risen Jesus?" implies that seeing the Risen Christ is the ticket to power in the new cult, just as it was in the Taipings of China, another cult where visions from above led to authority in a cult centered around a brother of Jesus, the mad Hong Xiu-chuan.

Of course, this also raises further question. Jerusalem for Paul is important because it is the center of the cult. According to later Christian legend, Jerusalem was the place where God died and the whole purpose of Creation was acted out. That latter sense is completely missing in Paul's letters. Further, not only did this momentous event happen in Jerusalem, but within Paul's lifetime, according to legend. That sense is also not in Paul's letters.

My personal belief is that James was the key figure and center of the cult, and it was he who first arrogated to himself the title BROTHER OF THE LORD through his visions of this figure from the past, just like Hong Xiu-chuan and Nxele.

PETER: side suggestion. I am going over the alleged connection between Pliny's Letter of Sabinias and Philemon the other day. It might be a good idea if you added a link to the former on ECW since the two are so often mentioned together by commentators.

Vorkosigan

Doctor X

Vorkosigan:

Good response, good point, but I am not convinced.

For example:

[quote]

The concept of brothers and sisters was, apparently, not a problem. Indeed, Mk referes to them without the "brothers of the Lord" rubric in 6:3 and, one of my favorites, 3:32-34.

Now that may not respond to you Pauline objections, but I am afraid that I do not see the evidence that a Mk was influenced by a Paul . . . it may be there . . . there may be a text on it and I have just not fallen over it yet!

But to take Paul . . . please . . . unless I am missing a redactor, he adds an emphasis in Galations right after refering to James--Gal 1:20: "(In what I am writing to you, before God, I do not lie!)"

If it would be interpreted that "James the Lord's brother" was a generic--ala Mk!--"we are all brothers!! Let me borrow a drachma!"--I do not think he would use the emphasis. Indeed, he seems to be a bit proud of it. Paul, in describing his differences with "Cephas" is very conscious about his position--he never saw Junior. So why should people believe him?

[ZZZZZzzzzZZZZZZzzzzzzZZZZZzzzzz--Ed.]

Anyways, that may not convince you which is fine because it is very thin indirect evidence. I see too much of a "conspiracy" between writers. I do find it interesting that Mk preserves a tradition of more than one brother which he names . . . should make the "forever-a-virgin" rather interesting. You think Joseph would buy that "immaculate" excuse more than twice?

Anyways, anyways, who ever is "right" we are stuck with the fact it says NOTHING of historical value.

Why is the Debate Important?

Allow me to ascend the soapbox. . . .

From an atheistic standpoint--I would say a "virulent atheist" in that someone is rather "anti-" others having religion--it would be neat if someone could prove Junior never existed.

From a "true believer" standpoint, one needs something concrete . . . anything. Once you "prove" a Junior existed, not only does the believer feel he has defeated the "atheist" he has something to hang whatever he wants to believe.

Your discussion of the ossary is a great example. Those who really wanted it to be genuine wanted the concrete link. Some who have danced very vigorously over its exposure as a forgery, enjoy the denial of another link.

--J.D.

Vorkosigan

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Doctor X
Anyways, that may not convince you which is fine because it is very thin indirect evidence. I see too much of a "conspiracy" between writers.

I don't, I see ignorance and a natural evolution. BUt you are right. The evidence is thin and ambiguous.

virgin" rather interesting. You think Joseph would buy that "immaculate" excuse more than twice?

Hey, I can name 24 people who thought they were going to ride away on a UFO to a comet, and committed suicide to do it....

Anyways, anyways, who ever is "right" we are stuck with the fact it says NOTHING of historical value.

Too true.

Vorkosigan

Doctor X

Vorkosigan:

While a bit of a nutter, Gore Vidal has a wonderful book, Live from Golgotha which involves people from the future visiting Titus to have him write a gospel because some hacker has removed all of them in the future. He become pestered by various groups who want him to put the "spin" he wanted.

He often wonders why the future depictions of Jesus miss his obesity and lisp. . . .

Anyways, he does a good job of considering the more secular Jerusalem community upset that "the Saint" has transformed it all into a religion.

One of the things that allowed the growth of the religion, in my opinion, was the lack of information--people can provide the rest. If you have a figure you can point to, you may find the ordinary man.

--J.D.

Radcliffe Emerson

Possibly, but the 4 Gospels were written decades after Paul wrote,and quite possibly after Paul was dead.
It's obvious the myths of Jesus get expanded each time a later writing comes out, and there are scores of other 'gospels' about Jesus that were labeled heretical that historically are just as valid as the ones that were accepted.
Plus, some of the books originally tributed to Paul are now in dispute, which could explain the differences in Galatians and Acts.
I don't know if Galatians is in dispute however.
And if Paul was just inventing something to get people to turn away from Judaism or to sponge off people, he might not have cared if there were other versions, or even ever known there were other versions.

godfry n. glad

So, you agree that if there was an historical Jesus, he probably was not divine?

If so, I have no problem with your statement and agree that there is no basis of claiming that there was no historical entity that served as a model for the gospel Jesus. However, that's not the issue for me. My issue is that most NT scholars and Christian apologists start their discussions with the a priori assumption that there was an historical personage underlying the Jesus represented in the gospels. My personal perspective is that there may have been an historical Jesus, but if there was, he had little in common with the gospel Jesus and that the possibility of his being a mythological construct, in toto, remains.

Neither position can be supported, nor disposed of, definitively with historical data.

Actually, I question the claims that a person named Guatama Siddhartha definitively existed and experienced those things attributed to him in the tales of the Buddha. The same with Lao Tsu, Mithras, Herackles, Zarathustra, Asklepius, Krishna, even Kungfu Tsu. I'm fairly convinced that Mohammed existed, but sincerely doubt that much of what has been attributed to him has a basis in history. Some of these individuals are founding figures for existing religious traditions...successful ones. Founding figures of religious traditions, particularly those whose historical existence is clouded by lack of adequate data, should be treated with adequate skepticism. I even harbor the suspicion that much of teachings attributed to Socrates may have been fabricated by Plato to serve his purposes.

Just don't expect me to accept outright that Jesus existed just because Christianity has been a successful cult. He may have existed, he may not. We don't have sufficient historical data to ascertain that one way or another. And, given the recent flap about the "Jim/Joe/Josh ossuary", it seems obvious that true-believers have been and still are intent on creating pseudohistorical artifacts to support their contention that he actually existed...I continue to entertain the thesis that the NT may be part and parcel of that history.

godfry n. glad