For Kapyong: Defending a historical Jesus

[Mcreal]

There are only two arguments in favour of the existence of Jesus.

(b) Paul mentions a brother of Jesus as a well-known authority of the Jerusalem Christians.

Paul mentions a brother of the Lord: well, 'the brother of the Lord'.

Carrier & Ehrman are debating it now via their blogs

1. Carrier's Argument 14 here (re the Ehrman-Price debate) - http://www.richardcarrier.info/archives/11435

Also see parts of the Argument 12, which Carrier refers to in (3)​

2. Ehrman's blog-post here https://ehrmanblog.org/carrier-and-james-the-brother-of-jesus/

3. Carrier's blog response here - http://www.richardcarrier.info/archives/11516

which refers to a 2012 blog-post by Carrier on Ehrman's Did Jesus Exist?​

 

[David Mo]

Paul mentions a brother of the Lord: well, 'the brother of the Lord'.

Carrier & Ehrman are debating it now via their blogs

1. Carrier's Argument 14 here (re the Ehrman-Price debate) - http://www.richardcarrier.info/archives/11435

Also see parts of the Argument 12, which Carrier refers to in (3)​

2. Ehrman's blog-post here https://ehrmanblog.org/carrier-and-james-the-brother-of-jesus/

3. Carrier's blog response here - http://www.richardcarrier.info/archives/11516

which refers to a 2012 blog-post by Carrier on Ehrman's Did Jesus Exist?​

I know the arguments of Ehrman and Carrier and I have seen some other considerations in Vridar blog. My argument is simpler:
In the context of Galatians 1:19 "brother" is a blood brother. (I had arrived to this conclusion before to read Ehrman's blog that you quoted. It seems evident). Another thing is that pauline epistles or Paul himself were not a reliable testimony. May be, but I think we have not any reason to think so in that specific versicle.

Ehrman is wrong and Carrier also. The truth is at the mid point between them.

 

[IanS]

I would still like an answer as to what people here believe the nature of the SGospels was. Were they.

1. Written accounts taken from oral accounts handed down through a couple of generations?

2. Written accounts taken from one or more earlier written accounts which no longer exist or have yet to be found?

3. Pure fiction in the minds of any of the writers, be they Mark, Mathew or Luke, or of whoever's material they wrote down?

Perhaps there was some of all three involved?

I think the position is that nobody really knows if the gospels that we have, derived from earlier oral descriptions of Jesus.

Afaik, the reason why most people think they must have come from oral beginings, is that if Jesus existed then it seems inescapable that many people would have heard his preaching and would have told stories about him, long before anyone decided to write anything down.

That seems logical and reasonable, but it is partly based on the assumption that he did exist. Because if he didn't exist, then of course it's also possible that gospel writers simply invented their stories about him (so that part's of their stories may be true, but not the parts involving an invented Jesus).

But in any case academic authors like Randel Helms have written quite extensively (eg in his book "Gospel Fictions"), to show beyond all doubt that the gospel writers were certainly creating their Jesus stories from what had been written centuries before as messiah prophecy in the OT. So that appears to be very clearly the main source of Jesus stories in the gospels.

IOW - the answer is that the earlier pre-Gospel source was the Old Testament (regardless of any earlier oral transmison).

The objection that HJ believers, e.g. most bible scholars, have to the above, is that authors like Helms only account for perhaps half or a third of the contents of the various gospels. So they argue that Helms has not proved that all the gospels stories can be found in the OT. But that is of course an incredibly weak pro-HJ argument, for numerous reasons. Firstly ...

... once you have found more than about 3 or 4 examples of where, why, and how the gospel writers had used the OT as their source for Jesus stories, then the veracity of the gospels greatly reduces ... you do not need to find the source of all 40 stories of Jesus in order to show that the gospel writers were certainly using earlier messianic writing such as the OT as their source. Also, some of the gospel stories may have been similarly adapted from other early messianic writing that was not a specific part of the OT ... one obvious example is the writing known as The Ascension of Isaiah, which is thought to date from around the end of the first century or early second century. Though iirc that itself shows signs of being derived from earlier copies of that same Isaiah writing (so it might have originated much earlier).

The problem with all of this sort of analysis and speculation, is of course that all of it was happening 2000 years ago, and a great deal of what was written at that time has almost certainly been lost for ever. So at this distance everyone is guessing about what was really being said, written and preached about a prophesised messiah of the OT since at least 500 BC. Some of it can probably be found in the writing known as the Dead Sea Scrolls. However the scrolls are written in "code", i.e. they are written with hidden meanings and hidden names, so it's hard to tell now what the writers of the Scrolls really meant or who they were really talking about as their central characters.

It's even difficult now, after a great deal of radio-Carbon dating, to be accurate about the dates when the scrolls were written. At one time, most experts agreed that the main scrolls were probably written between about 200 BC to 70 AD. But now the C14 dates show a possible range from about 400 BC to 300 AD ... although iirc most of the dates cluster around 200 BC to 100 AD. It's possible of course that the scrolls were written over many centuries, so that some of the scrolls may be as early as say 250 BC, whilst others may be as late as say 200 AD. But which ones are early and which ones are late, and what the early pre-NT scrolls said vs. what the later post-NT scrolls said, I don't know.

But the point about the Dead Sea Scrolls is that they provide an enormous amount of religious apocalyptic messianic-type writing from Jews in that exact region, stretching all through the time leading up to and including the time of Paul and the time when Jesus was supposed to have been preaching. So you might expect that somewhere in the coded writing of the scrolls there exists all sorts of references to the beginnings of what came to be called Christianity and the gospel stories.

A last problem with the scrolls is that whilst parts of as many as 800 different scrolls have been found (that number just from memory), all but about 10 of the scrolls are known only as thousands of tiny crumbling fragments. So most of what can be clearly seen/read in the scrolls, comes from the few that are more completely preserved (though that's still a huge amount of information).

 

[Mcreal]

My argument is simpler: In the context of Galatians 1:19 "brother" is a blood brother.

... pauline epistles or Paul himself were not a reliable testimony. May be, but I think we have not any reason to think so in that specific versicle.

I disagree. Lord is problematic, s are the various manifestations of James.

You're reifying something that shouldn't be reified.

 

[Mcreal]

Furthermore, reifying Jesus as a human is also treating an abstraction as an actual entity.

aka hypostatization.

 

[Kapyong]

Gday David Mo

Thanks for joining in.

If we suppose that people usually look for means adequate to their ends, and the end of Pauline Christians was to proselytize the Romans, to invent a messiah crucified, this is to say, executed for rebellion against Rome, was not consistent in any way. Furthermore, the crucifixion was an infamous punishment in Rome. It was not consistent as choice. It was an inconsistent mean to their ends. More likely other alternative death would be chosen. Therefore, a certain Jesus crucified by the Romans would have existed.

Sorry but you can not possibly know the intent of an unknown ancient author, nor what he/she would, or would not, have written.

That same argument can prove almost any story true - such as the Golden Ass of Apuleis.

(b) Paul mentions a brother of Jesus as a well-known authority of the Jerusalem Christians.

No, he did not mention a 'brother of Jesus'. Rather he used the term 'Lord's Brother' - which could perhaps mean God as 'Lord', perhaps as a form of title. Particularly considering his many metaphorical uses of 'brother' and the tendency of Christians to call themselves 'brother'.

Please be more careful in future David Mo

If something is true in Paul adnd the gospels it is almost impossible to draw from legendary stories.

Firstly, as a resident mythicist here, let me point out the general form of my version of the argument at least :

Paul believed in a real heavenly spiritual angel-man Jesus Christ.

G.Mark later created religious literature based on Paul, and on the Tanakh i.e. myth - he was telling deeper truths about people and God, in the form of a story not literally true. Copies grew somewhere in private, but no Christian writer on record had access to them.

After the Bar Kochbar war, the four Gospels were released, published, or revealed - with Justin Martyr being the first to have his hands on all four. Everyone believed they were true.

But in my view G.Mark was BASED partly on Paul's names and key themes - they don't confirm each other, any more then the variant Gospels do.


Kapyong

 

[IanS]

"Controversial"? You are trying to claim that some nonsense about a talking snake from 1000 BC, shows that Paul thought Jesus was a human man?

Gday IanS and all

Hey buddy Pardon me, but that was rather rude, even childish perhaps. Members here, especially the polite GDon, don't deserve that - let's try to keep the tone calm and mature, shall we ?

You have plenty of evidence to marshall, and good language skills to express them, and an argument I agree is correct - but behaviour like that only weakens your credibility.

Actually it was not rude at all. Nothing of the sort. You are reading something into it which was never there. But also you are now personalising things, which iirc is something warned against in the forum rules (and which is something I have not done).

It's better if you/anyone sticks to the subject, and leaves others here to decide how they wish to write their own responses.

 

[Belz...]

This is the problem with all these discussions. Before you can talk about "Historical Jesus" you need to define Jesus.

How dissimilar from the bible can you go before you decide that said person is not actually Jesus any more?

If he doesn't do a single miracle, is he really Jesus? Certainly not Jesus of the Bible, I would say. I mean, when the case for the "historical Jesus" turns into "there was a Jewish preacher in the region at the time," are you really referring to Jesus? Nah, that's not Jesus. Jesus wasn't just some Jewish preacher in the region at the time.

Well, considering how these discussions usually go I'd say HJ would be "some sort of Jewish preacher who inspired the creation of this religion" vs "a completely made up person as the basis for said religion". I lean towards the former, though I'll be damned if anyone can say anything about who that man was.

 

[Belz...]

In short, Jesus is a hugely important man in the foundation of Christianity, yet there is not one single, verified mention of him anywhere before GMark which most scholars agree was not written before AD 70.

Indeed, though we must be careful not to confuse "important to Christianity" with "important to history at the time". He could have been hugely important to his illiterate followers but largelu obscure otherwise. This is a mistake that I think IanS is making, for instance.

 

[IanS]

Indeed, though we must be careful not to confuse "important to Christianity" with "important to history at the time". He could have been hugely important to his illiterate followers but largelu obscure otherwise. This is a mistake that I think IanS is making, for instance.

Where am I making the mistake of assuming anything like your highlight?

Where have I ever said anything like that?

 

[Nay_Sayer]

Gday Nay_Sayer and all




Do you believe everything heavenly is an 'complete and utter fairy tale' - even God ? Or just Paul's claimed belief in Pi3H specifically ?

Well, jumping in boots-first like that isn't very polite And the issue here is what Paul believed, not what anyone here believes (theologically i.e.)

Considering Paul's frequent uses of heavenly terms and spiritual concepts, and total silence on anything clearly historical, it is entirely feasible that Paul placed the crucifixion in heaven.

Plausible even.


Kapyong

Paul could have placed the crucifiction in Michigan for all I care.

The jesus myth is just a retelling of older resurrection tales; Horus comes to mind.

 

[David Mo]

I disagree. Lord is problematic, s are the various manifestations of James.

You're reifying something that shouldn't be reified.

See the context, Galatians 1:18-19
“Then after three years, I went up to Jerusalem to get acquainted with Cephas and stayed with him fifteen days. I saw none of the other apostles--only James, the Lord's brother”.

Ibid 2:9:
“James, Cephas and John, those esteemed as pillars, ” (…)

And 1 Corinthians: 15:3-8
“For I delivered to you as of first importance what I also received: that Christ died for our sins in accordance with the Scriptures, that he was buried, that he was raised on the third day in accordance with the Scriptures, and that he appeared to Cephas, then to the twelve. Then he appeared to more than five hundred brothers at one time, most of whom are still alive, though some have fallen asleep. Then he appeared to James, then to all the apostles. Last of all, as to one untimely born, he appeared also to me.”


It is clear that in Galatians 1:18-9 Paul is speaking of Cephas and other apostles and a certain James that is identified as “Lord’s brother”. Almost every translations point to that James as another apostle (in the Pauline sense of the word).


This James, whoever he could be, is identified as “brother” of the Lord. Presumably he is the same James of Corinthians, because he is paired with Cephas.

“Brother” of the Lord is the feature that differences him for other Christians also named James. This cannot mean “spiritual brother” because this wouldn’t be a characteristic feature of this James (the other also are “spiritual brother”). Therefore, the more evident meaning of “Lord’s brother” is a blood brother of Jesus, called "The Lord" by Paul.

 

[David Mo]

Gday David Mo

Thanks for joining in.


Sorry but you can not possibly know the intent of an unknown ancient author, nor what he/she would, or would not, have written.

That same argument can prove almost any story true - such as the Golden Ass of Apuleis.


No, he did not mention a 'brother of Jesus'. Rather he used the term 'Lord's Brother' - which could perhaps mean God as 'Lord', perhaps as a form of title. Particularly considering his many metaphorical uses of 'brother' and the tendency of Christians to call themselves 'brother'.

Please be more careful in future David Mo

Firstly, as a resident mythicist here, let me point out the general form of my version of the argument at least :

Paul believed in a real heavenly spiritual angel-man Jesus Christ.

G.Mark later created religious literature based on Paul, and on the Tanakh i.e. myth - he was telling deeper truths about people and God, in the form of a story not literally true. Copies grew somewhere in private, but no Christian writer on record had access to them.

After the Bar Kochbar war, the four Gospels were released, published, or revealed - with Justin Martyr being the first to have his hands on all four. Everyone believed they were true.

But in my view G.Mark was BASED partly on Paul's names and key themes - they don't confirm each other, any more then the variant Gospels do.

Kapyong

You are welcome. Thanks to you also for resuming this old topic of this forum.

Every historian I know states that the Pauline tendency breaks with the Judeo-Christians in starting the hellenization of the Christianity and the "conquest" of Rome. This is a basic interpretation of the early Christian texts and I don't know any dissident voice. This has nothing to do with the analysis of personal intentionality of an individual. On the contrary, pure textual hermeneutics.

I don’t know any ancient text where a brother of the Apuleius’s ass would be introduced. The Pauline epistles are not fictional works. Religious literature is not novels. With the same criterion most ancient documents (almost all) of the Ancient world would be invalidated. History is not natural science.

“Lord” is the usual name to refer to Jesus in Pauline epistles. “Brother of God” has not sense. God has no brother in the Jewish culture.
Let us stay with Paul. He mentions Jesus as a man several times. Philippians 2: 6-11; Romans, 1:3; 1 Cor 15:21, etc.

I am glad to know that you are an accredited mythicist. I am not. Is the label important?

I am careful. And you?

 

[Belz...]

Where am I making the mistake of assuming anything like your highlight?

Where have I ever said anything like that?

Several times, actually. You've often indicated that the Jesus character's historical importance means the burden of proof for his existence should be higher. This indicates that you think that his historical importance should somehow translate into a greater amount of evidence from the time of his alledged existence.

 

[Mcreal]

You've often indicated that the Jesus character's historical importance means the burden of proof for his existence should be higher. This indicates that you think that his historical importance should somehow translate into a greater amount of evidence from the time of his alleged existence.

I think you mean 'level of proof', as in veracity of the evidence, rather than 'burden of proof' which is a different concept. Though the two concepts are tied.

The burden of proof lies with 'they' who aver. 'They' are obliged to back up their assertions, such as these -

... I'd say HJ would be "some sort of Jewish preacher who inspired the creation of this religion" vs "a completely made up person as the basis for said religion". I lean towards the former....

 

[Belz...]

I think you mean level of proof, as in veracity of the evidence, rather than burden of proof which is a different concept. Though the two concepts are tied.

The burden of proof lies with 'they' who aver. 'They' are obliged to back up their assertions, such as these -

Yes, my bad.

 

[Mcreal]

See the context, Galatians 1:18-19
“Then after three years, I went up to Jerusalem to get acquainted with Cephas and stayed with him fifteen days. I saw none of the other apostles--only James, the Lord's brother”.

Yes, see the context. ie. Galatians 1:11-24 (ESV)

11 "For I would have you know, brothers, that the gospel that was preached by me is not man's gospel. 12 For I did not receive it from any man, nor was I taught it, but I received it through a revelation of Jesus Christ. 13 For you have heard of my former life in Judaism, how I persecuted the church of God violently and tried to destroy it. 14 And I was advancing in Judaism beyond many of my own age among my people, so extremely zealous was I for the traditions of my fathers. 15 But when he who had set me apart before I was born, and who called me by his grace, 16 was pleased to reveal his Son to me, in order that I might preach him among the Gentiles, I did not immediately consult with anyone; 17 nor did I go up to Jerusalem to those who were apostles before me, but I went away into Arabia, and returned again to Damascus.

18 "Then after three years I went up to Jerusalem to visit Cephas and remained with him fifteen days. 19 But I saw none of the other apostles except James the Lord's brother. 20 In what I am writing to you, before God, I do not lie! 21 Then I went into the regions of Syria and Cilicia. 22 And I was still unknown in person to the churches of Judea that are in Christ. 23 They only were hearing it said, “He who used to persecute us is now preaching the faith he once tried to destroy.” 24 And they glorified God because of me."​

Why Gal 1:20? (& why was Paul 'set apart' before he was born? Gal 1:15. b/c he's a liar?)

Ibid 2:9:
“James, Cephas and John, those esteemed as pillars, ” (…)

And 1 Corinthians: 15:3-8
“For I delivered to you as of first importance what I also received: that Christ died for our sins in accordance with the Scriptures, that he was buried, that he was raised on the third day in accordance with the Scriptures, and that he appeared to Cephas, then to the twelve. Then he appeared to more than five hundred brothers at one time, most of whom are still alive, though some have fallen asleep. Then he appeared to James, then to all the apostles. Last of all, as to one untimely born, he appeared also to me.”

There are several James in the bible, and there is very little correlation between the various ones; there is very little correlation, if any, between the James mentions in the Pauline epistles and James of the Synoptic gospels. Also, See the comments on this by Carrier, below --

There is also 1 Cor 9:5 -

"Do we not have the right to take along a believing wife [or sister], as do the other apostles and the brothers of the Lord and Cephas?"​

Note the plural.

It is clear that in Galatians 1:18-9 Paul is speaking of Cephas and other apostles and a certain James that is identified as “Lord’s brother”. Almost every translations point to that James as another apostle (in the Pauline sense of the word).

This James, whoever he could be, is identified as “brother” of the Lord. Presumably he is the same James of Corinthians, because he is paired with Cephas.

"This James, whoever he could be" .. "Presumably" ??!

I think 1 Cor 9:5^ puts a dent in your argument.

“Brother” of the Lord is the feature that differences him for other Christians also named James. This cannot mean “spiritual brother” because this wouldn’t be a characteristic feature of this James (the other also are “spiritual brother”). Therefore, the more evident meaning of “Lord’s brother” is a blood brother of Jesus, called "The Lord" by Paul.

Carrier puts a dent in your argument, too -

"Bible translations are written with Christian dogmatic assumptions, so how this gets translated varies widely, in some cases more clearly trying to make this James an Apostle, other times more honestly making that ambiguous, as Paul’s actual vocabulary entails. You can see a broad comparison at Bible Hub, ranging from the more honest “I saw none of the other apostles–only James, the Lord’s brother” (NIV) to the more distorted “The only other apostle I met at that time was James, the Lord’s brother” (NLT). The latter is definitely not what the Greek says. It’s an interpretation of what the translator thinks the Greek text means; but it’s not what the text says. The former is closer to what the text actually says.

"Why does he construct the convoluted sentence ‘I consulted with Peter, but another of the apostles I did not see, except James’? As L. Paul Trudinger puts it, ‘this would certainly be an odd way for Paul to say that he saw only two apostles, Peter and James’.[n. 98] To say that, a far simpler sentence would do. So why the complex sentence instead? Paul could perhaps mean that he consulted with Peter (historeô) but only saw James (eidô)—that is, he didn’t discuss anything with James. But if that were his point, he would make sure to emphasize it, since that would be essential to his argument.

"So it’s just as likely, if not more so, that Paul means he met only the apostle Peter and only one other Judean Christian, a certain ‘brother James’. By calling him a brother of the Lord instead of an apostle, Paul is thus distinguishing this James from any apostles of the same name—just as we saw he used ‘brothers of the Lord’ to distinguish regular Christians from apostles in 1 Cor. 9.5 ..."​

"..the grammatical construction Paul uses in Gal. 1:19 is comparative. In other words, “Other than the apostles I saw no one, except James the Lord’s brother.” Thus, the construction Paul is using says James is not an Apostle. And both Trudinger and Hans Dieter Betz (who wrote the Fortress Press commentary on Galatians) cite a number of peer reviewed experts who concur (OHJ, p. 590, n. 100). There were of course Jameses who were Apostles. So Paul chose this construction to make clear he didn’t mean one of them (or a biological brother of Cephas, for that matter). He meant a regular “Brother of the Lord,” an ordinary non-apostolic Christian...

"Ironically, in his attempt to answer Trudinger, George Howard, the only person to answer Trudinger in the peer reviewed literature (OHJ, p. 590, n. 101), observed that the examples Trudinger referenced still involve “a comparison between persons or objects of the same class of things,” such as new friends and old friends belonging to the general class of friends, and indestructible elements and destructible elements belonging to the general class of elements. But that actually means Cephas and James belong to the same class (Brothers of the Lord, since Jesus is “the firstborn of many brethren…”), which entails the distinction is between Apostolic and non-Apostolic Brothers of the Lord, just as Trudinger’s examples show a contrast being made between destructible and indestructible elements and old and new friends. Howard’s objection thus actually confirms the very reading I’m pointing to. It thus does not in fact argue against Trudinger at all —who would agree both Cephas and this James belonged to the same class of things: Christians."

http://www.richardcarrier.info/archives/11516


L. Paul Trudinger, ‘[Heteron de tōn apostolōn ouk eidon, ei mē iakōbon]: A Note on Galatians I 19’, Novum Testamentum 17 (July 1975), pp. 200-202.

George Howard, ‘Was James an Apostle? A Reflection on a New Proposal for Gal. I 19’, Novum Testamentum 19 (January 1977), pp. 63-64.

Hans Dieter Betz, 'Galatians: A Commentary on Paul’s Letter to the Churches in Galatia (Minneapolis, MN: Fortress Press, 1979), p. 78.

.

Carrier also makes another comment below his blog-post -

"Paul cannot mean the same James in both places. This is already in contradiction with Acts (which places Paul’s visit in Gal. 2 at the same time James the Pillar dies, yet Paul says nothing about that James being killed when Paul visited, but instead that that James was still around long after that, in Gal. 2:9-12), and that’s not the only occasion where Acts has lied about the chronology of Paul’s travels (see my related comment* and of course Ch. 9 of OHJ).

* [in part]- "fourteen years later (so, around 50 A.D.) Paul says he met “the pillars” James, John, and Peter (Cephas), the same three top Apostles the Gospels set as the top three Apostles (hence, James the brother of John, hence the sons of Zebedee)."
http://www.richardcarrier.info/archives/10935#comment-17460​

"The Pillars, Cephas, James and John, correspond too obviously with the top three “disciples” narrated in the Synoptic Gospels. And there they are certainly Apostles; and that James is the brother of John, not of Jesus. No brother of Jesus is numbered among the Apostles in any of the Gospels. To the contrary, the Gospels all have Jesus renounce his family, and they clearly don’t know that that ever changed (they have no evident knowledge of any brother ever even joining the church at all; Luke alone claims such in Acts 1, but no such fact is noted in his Gospel and they immediately disappear from history even in his own narrative in Acts).

"So it’s not likely even on the historicity thesis that the James in Gal. 1 is the same as in Gal. 2 (and many experts concur, as I cite). It’s even less likely on ahistoricity. It’s not impossible (“Brother of the Lord” could be some special policed title that regular baptized Christians were not allowed to use even though in fact they are brothers of the Lord; but there is no evidence of that, any more than there is evidence of Paul meaning biological brothers by it). But it’s not probable (though maybe more probable than interpolation; interpolation is likewise possible... "http://www.richardcarrier.info/archives/11516#comment-18728

 

[IanS]

Paul mentions a brother of the Lord: well, 'the brother of the Lord'.

Carrier & Ehrman are debating it now via their blogs

1. Carrier's Argument 14 here (re the Ehrman-Price debate) - http://www.richardcarrier.info/archives/11435

Also see parts of the Argument 12, which Carrier refers to in (3)​

2. Ehrman's blog-post here https://ehrmanblog.org/carrier-and-james-the-brother-of-jesus/

3. Carrier's blog response here - http://www.richardcarrier.info/archives/11516

which refers to a 2012 blog-post by Carrier on Ehrman's Did Jesus Exist?​

The links given above by Mcreal are extremely informative, hugely detailed (with copious references), and they deal very directly with not only all the pro-HJ points being raised in this thread (they are all the same pro-HJ claims made in all HJ threads), including what was said in Paul's letters as any reference to a real Jesus, and very specifically on the famous line where it says "other apostles saw I none, save James the Lords brother" ...

.... for which details and argument from Carrier - see the first above link-1, and scroll down to "Argument 12", where Carrier says that in the debate Ehrman repeated all sorts of completely false claims to say that Paul's letters made numerous references to Jesus as a real person (Carrier actually says that Ehrman was openly and repeatedly lying in his numerous claims about that), and in the 7th bullet point he (Carrier) explains what I referred to in a previous post a page or two back, where Carrier says that when Paul used terms like "brother ... brothers ... brethren ... sisters" and even "brother of the lord", in Paul's terminology that merely meant those who were correctly baptised into their faith.

And upon which point, see also the third of Mcreal's links (link-3 above), where Carrier replies to a response from Ehrman, and where he (Carrier) expands further on that same issue of James as "the lords brother".

As I said before - I do not know if Carrier is right to conclude that "brother of the Lord" simply meant an appropriately baptised member of the faith. But in the above described link and commentary from Carrier, he gives the reference for that discussion in his own book OHJ p582-592, so anyone here can read for themselves what Carriers reasoning is.

Though whether Carrier is right or wrong about the origin and meaning of "brothers of the Lord" (see also 1-Corinthians 9.5, which is the only other place where Paul mentions "brothers of the lord", i.e. plural in that particular letter), what is known apparently as "fact", is that -

1. Nowhere else does Paul ever again (in any of the letters), say that James (or anyone) was an actual family brother of "the lord". It is only that one single mention in Gal.1 19. It was never repeated again anywhere.

2. The structure of that sentence in Gal.1 19 has the form of a series of after-thoughts, as if the writer had first just written "other apostles saw I none" ... but then he (or someone else!?) remembered that he had seen someone called "James", and so he adds "save James" ... and then as a further after-thought in case his readers did not know who this particular "James" was, he then produces the explanatory addition of writing "...the lords brother" ...

... it reads as if the writer at first just meant to say "other apostles saw I none" ... but then he thinks, "oh I should add that I did see James" ... and then finally he thinks "oh, and I should explain that this James is a brother to the lord". It may be a coincidence that the sentence is constructed that way, but that sort of construction as if in a serious of "after-thoughts", might also be the result of latter additions by Christian copyists. That is - the sentence would actually have been complete if Paul had just written "other apostles saw I none". And it might be the case the the explanations of saying "save James", and then adding "the lords brother", were actually just later interpolations with copyist scribes, adding for clarity, what they believed happened (or what was meant) and who they believed "James" was.

Why might we think it's a copyist interpolation of that sort? Well firstly because of that after-thought style of the sentence (as just explained), secondly because we know that Christian copyists were in the habit of making such changes where they thought it better explained their later and changing beliefs, thirdly because half of all Paul's letters are now agreed to be complete forgeries anyway (so those were all 100% "interpolation"), and fourthly as I noted earlier (from Carrier OHJ, with references), several of Paul's letters apparently show quite clear evidence of being a composite pieced together from parts of quite different letters.

3. As Alvar Ellegard noted in his book (Jesus One Hundred Years Before Christ) - when Paul went to visit Cephas as described in that passage of Galatians-1 15-22, it was said to be 3 years after Paul's vision of Jesus; an event which completely changed Paul's life so that he dropped all of his earlier Jewish preaching and instantly began preaching Jesus as the messiah (that became Paul's entire life). And yet when he meets the actual blood brother of Jesus (i.e. this man "James"), Paul asks not one single thing about Jesus, and James apparently tells him not one single word about Jesus. That seems extremely strange, not to say highly unlikely, if Paul is finally meeting the actual brother of the messiah of God who has become the whole motivation for everything in Paul's entire life.

4. That same "James" apparently wrote his own gospel. And yet in that gospel, James makes no mention of being a brother of Jesus. In fact there is no claim that he even ever met any such person as Jesus!


So, by all the above am I claiming that Paul definitely could not have meant that this person James was actually a blood brother to Jesus? No. I am not claiming that. But what I am saying is that for all the reasons explained above, it is very far from clear whether that one line (never repeated again anywhere, and never confirmed by James himself), ever meant anything other than a brother in the faith, i.e. in just the spiritual sense.

On it's own that is, to put it mildly, extremely dubious evidence of Jesus as a real person. And yet, as I say (and as Carrier says in those above links ... and as Ehrman himself seems to accept), that one part of one line, is really the only thing that could be considered even remotely credible as actual evidence for anyone knowing Jesus as a real person anywhere in the entire NT bible.

 

[IanS]

Indeed, though we must be careful not to confuse "important to Christianity" with "important to history at the time". He could have been hugely important to his illiterate followers but largelu obscure otherwise. This is a mistake that I think IanS is making, for instance.

Where am I making the mistake of assuming anything like your highlight?

Where have I ever said anything like that?

Several times, actually. You've often indicated that the Jesus character's historical importance means the burden of proof for his existence should be higher. This indicates that you think that his historical importance should somehow translate into a greater amount of evidence from the time of his alledged existence.

What?? You have now completely changed the subject! You were saying that I had made mistaken claims about Jesus being "hugely important to his illiterate followers but largely obscure otherwise" ... see the red highlight of your own original words.

Can you quote from any of my posts where I have ever mistaken or misrepresented whatever notion it is that you are talking about when you wrote He could have been hugely important to his illiterate followers but largely obscure otherwise. This is a mistake that I think IanS is making, for instance. ... just quote whichever posts of mine you are referring to when you accuse me of that.

 

[Belz...]

What?? You have now completely changed the subject! You were saying that I had made mistaken claims about Jesus being "hugely important to his illiterate followers but largely obscure otherwise"

"Hugely important to his illiterate followers" translates in him being important to history, which is the reason you cited for the standard of evidence being higher for Jesus according to you. "Largely obscure otherwise" is the counter-argument to that. I don't know what'd confusing about this.