For Kapyong: Defending a historical Jesus

[HansMustermann]

The only Galatians reference at that BibleHub link is Gal 6:18

I was referring to Galatians 1:19.

Which is actually listed, although the list is split by declension or conjugation. So you won't find Gal 1:19 under "kurios", as in nominative singular, but under "kuriou"

 

[Kapyong]

Gday David Mo and all

Your hypothesis? Have you any quote of Paul speaking of a brother of the Father? ...
New speculation based on a single verse: "Don't we have the right to take a believing wife along with us, as do the other apostles and the Lord's brothers and Cephas?" (1 Cor 9:5). If the apostles are not Lord's brothers then Cephas is not an apostle nor a Lord's brother. This contradicts the use of "apostle" and the references to Cephas in Pauline epistles.

Thanks for your reply, but the discussion has moved on somewhat - please check post #112 from Mcreal about the Gal. 1:19 passage meaning :

“other than apostles I saw only the brother James."​

My summary goes like this :
The reference to James being The Lord's Brother does NOT uniquely identify him as THE physical brother of Jesus, nor does it uniquely identify him as especially pious or respected (as I argued.)

Rather - there are Christians refered to as Lord's Brothers, who are distinct from those called Apostles (although a person could conceivably be in both.)

James is a Lord's Brother. When Paul mentions him, he is simply labelling him as such - which James ? ' James the Lord's Brother ' - that James.

There are some other Lord's Brothers too (1 Cor. 9:5.)

It's just a label, or title, for a small group of Christians, which includes James.

An “angel-man”? I don’t know this category. An example, please. In Paul, of course.

The particular term 'angel-man' came from Mcreal - I've heard it before, but I've realised it's a better term than my real spiritual heavenly man being.

So, how about Paul's comparison between the two Adams 1 Cor. 15:22 :

• in Christ all will be made alive,
• raised in incorruption, glory, power,
• a spiritual body,
• became a life-giving spirit,
• is the Lord from heaven,
• is the heavenly (not of dust - made of heavenly stuff?),
• is spiritual,
• is the image of the heavenly.

In comparison to (the first) Adam who is described like this :

• in Adam all die,
• sown in corruption, dishonor, weakness, sown a natural body,
• a natural body,
• became a living soul,
• of Earth,
• made of dust.

The second Adam is a heavenly being - 'angel-man' is quite a good term.


Kapyong

 

[IanS]

As I said: if you get stuck on the precise wording, of course you won't find it. That's because I never claimed you said that word for word. I explained a mistake that people are making about the HJ debate and then named you as an example.

Wow, how much more proof do you need!? Look - I have never said (EVER) that the reason we need particularly good evidence in the case of Jesus, is because he was very well known in his own lifetime. That was your accusation, and it's 100% completely untrue - I have never said any such thing on any forum, anywhere! .... do you understand that or not?

Thanks for taking me off ignore, by the way.

What??? This is getting really bizarre now - I have never had you or anyone on "ignore" (nobody ever at all on any internet forum). If there is any such thing here as an "ignore" function, then I have never bothered to look at it.

See? You DO think that.

OK, this is just looking completely disingenuous now. I "do think" what? I think that we do need particularly clear and convincing evidence for the existence of Jesus, but not for the reason that you had claimed! ... not for any reason of me ever claiming that Jesus was very well known in his own lifetime (I have never claimed any such thing).

 

[David Mo]

“other than apostles I saw only the brother James."​

You are welcome.
Correction:
“But I saw none of the other apostles except James the Lord’s brother”.
Or
“Other than apostles I saw only Lord’s brother James”.

My summary goes like this :
The reference to James being The Lord's Brother does NOT uniquely identify him as THE physical brother of Jesus, nor does it uniquely identify him as especially pious or respected (as I argued.)
Rather - there are Christians refered to as Lord's Brothers, who are distinct from those called Apostles (although a person could conceivably be in both.)
(…)
There are some other Lord's Brothers too (1 Cor. 9:5.)
It's just a label, or title, for a small group of Christians, which includes James.

The conclusion is not deduced from the premises.
We don’t know the identity or this alleged “small (why small?) group”. Who are they?
We don’t know other identified “Lord’s brother”.
We don’t know if “Lord’s brother” is used in the same sense in 1 Cor 9:5 or Galatians 1:18-19. Are they the same “brothers” of 1 Corinthians 15;6 (adelphois also)?
It is very little and confuse to draw conclusions based on a minority version of a verse.
We only know that “brother” (adelphos) is usually used in Greek as a blood brother and that in Galatians it is used in the position of the current patronymics. See here: http://biblehub.com/greek/adelphon_80.htm

The particular term 'angel-man' came from Mcreal - I've heard it before, but I've realised it's a better term than my real spiritual heavenly man being.

Sincerely, I don’t see any reference of an “angel man” in the epistles. I know about a heavenly being (with divine form) that adopted a human form. (Philippians 2: 6-7). First heavenly, after human, not together. I would appreciate this reference if it exists.

 

[Belz...]

Wow, how much more proof do you need!? Look - I have never said (EVER) that the reason we need particularly good evidence in the case of Jesus, is because he was very well known in his own lifetime.

I DIDN'T SAY YOU DID.

What??? This is getting really bizarre now - I have never had you or anyone on "ignore" (nobody ever at all on any internet forum).

Really? Well I threw a LOT of posts your way in the HJ threads and you never so much as answered them so I figured you had.

OK, this is just looking completely disingenuous now. I "do think" what?

That Jesus' historical importance means we should require a higher standard of evidence for him.

 

[Elagabalus]

...That Jesus' historical importance means we should require a higher standard of evidence for him...

He definitely said it at some point.

 

[Belz...]

He definitely said it at some point.

In fact, in a post not long after the one I linked to, I think he complained about having said it 50 times and the other poster not being aware of that, or something.

 

[IanS]

I DIDN'T SAY YOU DID.

Really? Well you started this particular dispute with a post where you singled me out by name with your quote below -

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.

You are saying in your above post, that I have been making a mistake of not realising that Jesus may have been "largely obscure" except to his original followers. That's absolutely clear and unarguable in your own words quoted above.

So, can you quote any post anywhere from me (anywhere on the entire internet) where I have ever said that Jesus could not have been "largely obscure" except to his original followers?

I can save you the trouble of looking, because you will not be able to find any such post from me. Not even the most microscopic spec of me saying any such thing. Because I have never said anything at all like that. And I have never used any argument like that to claim that we ought to be able to find good evidence of Jesus today (i.e. due to any claimed fame or notoriety at the time ... see also the third quote from your post, at the end of this page).

Can you now accept that please? If not, then you will have to quote a post of mine saying that Jesus could not have been largely obscure during his own time.

Really? Well I threw a LOT of posts your way in the HJ threads and you never so much as answered them so I figured you had.

Well this is the same thing again - I have never had you or anyone on anything called "ignore" (if there even is such a function/option), and I don't recall any posts from you where I would have deliberately refused to reply for some reason of having anything at all against you ...

... so again, can we cut this short please by you accepting that what I have said in reply to you is absolutely completely true?

OK, this is just looking completely disingenuous now. I "do think" what?

That Jesus' historical importance means we should require a higher standard of evidence for him.

OK, well what you have there is an entirely different issue. I have explained to you several times now that whilst I have often said that in my opinion we should demand a good standard of evidence for the claim of Jesus reality, but not for the reason of any assumption that his fame was widespread in the first century (such that some evidence of that fame should still remain today). Other people may have claimed that as a reason to expect good evidence for him, but I have never claimed that any assumed 1st century fame of Jesus is reason to expect remaining evidence of that today.

As I have explained to you several times now - my reason for saying we should hold someone as important as Jesus is today, up to a genuine level of convincing evidence, at least for the most minimal standard of his bare existence, is NOT based on any belief from me that he would have been widely known or famous in his own time.

So again, can you now accept that what I have said to you there is completely true? And then we can put this issue behind us, OK?

 

[IanS]

He definitely said it at some point.

I have said that many times. But that was never the issue with what Argumemnon was accusing me of! See the post above.

My reasons for saying that we should require a solid standard of evidence for Jesus, have nothing whatsoever to do with any assumptions about his supposed widespread fame during the 1st century. That has never been the reason why I have said that we should demand really solid genuine evidence of at least the minimum bare existence of the person named Jesus.

 

[Craig B]

I have said that many times. But that was never the issue with what Argumemnon was accusing me of! See the post above.

My reasons for saying that we should require a solid standard of evidence for Jesus, have nothing whatsoever to do with any assumptions about his supposed widespread fame during the 1st century. That has never been the reason why I have said that we should demand really solid genuine evidence of at least the minimum bare existence of the person named Jesus.

This exposes an interesting ambiguity, which it might now be possible to settle once and for all. Argumemnon refers to a belief that he seems to attribute to IanS, to the effect

That Jesus' historical importance means we should require a higher standard of evidence for him.

I have always understood that to mean, Jesus' importance throughout later history as an object of religious veneration and worship. But IanS takes it to refer to "his supposed widespread fame during the 1st century."

That is a very different thing. A person known only to a tiny marginal group in the first century could nevertheless become important later, as the centre of a religious cult. The person at the centre of the cult need not necessarily even have existed, as has been proposed in the case of John Frum and the Melanesian cargo cults.

So perhaps Argumemnon could now tell us which, if either, of these opinions he attributes to IanS.

 

[Belz...]

Really? Well you started this particular dispute with a post where you singled me out by name with your quote below -

IanS, you're simply not understanding what I'm saying. I'll try to unpack it for you:

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.

What I'm saying is that you are making the mistake of thinking that because he is important (historically, in your case) then we should expect more evidence to show that he existed. Now, read it again with that in mind. I'm not attributing a quote to you; I'm saying that you are not seeing what I'm saying about Jesus: that he was an obscure person in his time, and thus that we cannot expect much in the way of evidence.

Is that clearer?

So, can you quote any post anywhere from me (anywhere on the entire internet) where I have ever said that Jesus could not have been "largely obscure" except to his original followers?

I've quoted you saying that the standard of evidence should be higher for Jesus because of his historical importance, which is exactly what I was saying about your argument.

Well this is the same thing again - I have never had you or anyone on anything called "ignore" (if there even is such a function/option), and I don't recall any posts from you where I would have deliberately refused to reply for some reason of having anything at all against you ...

Then you just ignored me for no reason?

 

[IanS]

I've been on this forum for 11 years, that's why. Besides, that's more exasperation on his part because we're talking past each other. Hopefully we'll connect at some point and it'll all fade away.

OK, that's a very sensible and reasonable reply in the above quote. And I think you and I can sort this out entirely amicably, and as you say let it just fade away.

My position relates entirely to your original post which I'll quote again at the end of this post for easy reference. But when you replied to smartcooky saying "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." ... I was just replying to you to dispel any notion that I had ever disputed that Jesus may have been as you say "largely obscure otherwise" (i.e. otherwise than amongst his own supporters) ... because I have never said that he would have been well known outside of his own supporters (I have no particular opinion on whether he would have been more widely known or not).

So I was just pointing out that it was mistake if you thought I had ever claimed that Jesus must have been well known in his own time. And since we were talking specifically about evidence for Jesus, I was making clear that my reasons for requiring good evidence for Jesus had never included any claim that he was so famous in his own time that if he was real then we would surely find remaining evidence of that today ... I was just clarifying that, if you thought I had ever said that, then you were, and are, mistaken.

I think this whole storm-in-a-teacup is a misunderstanding. I think you had simply assumed from some of my previous posts, that one of my reasons for saying that we now need good evidence for Jesus, is that I had assumed he was so famous that evidence should still be found today. But that has never been any part of any assumption that I have ever made, and it's not something I have ever said in any posts anywhere ...

... does that make it clearer?

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.

 

[Belz...]

... does that make it clearer?

Yes. I didn't think you said that the evidence would be expected to occur, but wanted pointed out that requiring a higher standard of evidence because of his historical importance was misguided, given what we know of the period and what we suspect of his relative obscurity. In other words, I simply don't think requiring a higher standard of evidence in Jesus' case is useful.

 

[IanS]

IanS, you're simply not understanding what I'm saying. I'll try to unpack it for you:


What I'm saying is that you are making the mistake of thinking that because he is important (historically, in your case) then we should expect more evidence to show that he existed. Now, read it again with that in mind. I'm not attributing a quote to you; I'm saying that you are not seeing what I'm saying about Jesus: that he was an obscure person in his time, and thus that we cannot expect much in the way of evidence.

Is that clearer?

I've quoted you saying that the standard of evidence should be higher for Jesus because of his historical importance, which is exactly what I was saying about your argument.

Then you just ignored me for no reason?

No! I'm sorry but the above is simply not true. You are trying to change the subject from what you originally said (and I pointed that out to you in the very first reply). Here, yet again, is what you originally accused me of -

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 largely obscure otherwise. This is a mistake that I think IanS is making, for instance.

What you say there is that I am making the mistake of failing to realise that "He could have been hugely important to his illiterate followers but largely obscure otherwise" ... OK, so I am telling you that I have never made that "mistake" ... and I have been asking you if you can find any post of mine where I have ever said any such thing ...

... and of course you cannot find any post of me making that "mistake" ... because I have never said that at all!

So lets deal with that first before we get to any subsequent point about claims of a need for evidence -

- do you accept that you are wrong to have said that I am making the mistake of ever disputing that "He could have been hugely important to his illiterate followers but largely obscure otherwise"? Be careful here please, because I have never disputed that "He could have been hugely important to his illiterate followers but largely obscure otherwise", and I do not think you will not be able to find any posts of mine saying any such thing.

 

[IanS]

Yes. I didn't think you said that the evidence would be expected to occur, but (I) wanted pointed out that requiring a higher standard of evidence because of his historical importance was misguided, given what we know of the period and what we suspect of his relative obscurity. In other words, I simply don't think requiring a higher standard of evidence in Jesus' case is useful.

Well yes, precisely! But look at your own highlighted words above!

You are saying that you wanted to point out that "requiring a higher standard of evidence because of his historical importance was misguided, given what we know of the period and what we suspect of his relative obscurity." ... you are directly saying that a higher standard of evidence should not be expected in view of what you say was his "relative obscurity" at the time ... and I have been explaining to you that I have never said anything different to that! ... I have never said that a higher standard of evidence is required because of any argument about whether he was, or was not, obscure in his own time!

IOW (look at your own words quoted above) you are linking together the idea of a need for a higher standard of evidence with whether or not Jesus was widely known at the time (1st century), and you were saying that was a mistake that I had been making ... and what I have said to you is that I have never claimed that a "higher standard of evidence" is required because of anything whatsoever to do with any claims about whether Jesus was or was not, well known at the time.

 

[vridar]

. . . 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 think the Vridar blog posts have in the main agreed (... they have disagreed with Carrier and Doherty). It most likely was meant to indicate a blood brother of the one who became the Lord.

Whether such a line lends any support to historicity of Jesus is another question entirely. Some people seem to naively read the Bible as if it really is divinely inspired and can be used to arbitrate in debates by means of simple proof-texting.

 

[IanS]

Yes. I didn't think you said that the evidence would be expected to occur, but wanted pointed out that requiring a higher standard of evidence because of his historical importance was misguided, given what we know of the period and what we suspect of his relative obscurity. In other words, I simply don't think requiring a higher standard of evidence in Jesus' case is useful.

Look, lets try this, because I think you are an honest poster here - try to give me an honest answer to the following question -

- have you been under the impression (e.g. when you made that first post, if not still now), that my reasons for saying that I do think we need a higher standard of evidence in the case of Jesus is because I was thinking that Jesus should have been well known enough in his own time that some sort of evidence of his fame should still be found today?

Were you assuming (to repeat) that I had been assuming Jesus was so well known that various independent people would surely have written much more about him at the time, such that we really ought to still find evidence of that today if he really existed? Were you under the impression that was what I had been saying in earlier posts?

 

[IanS]

I think the Vridar blog posts have in the main agreed (... they have disagreed with Carrier and Doherty). It most likely was meant to indicate a blood brother of the one who became the Lord.

Whether such a line lends any support to historicity of Jesus is another question entirely. Some people seem to naively read the Bible as if it really is divinely inspired and can be used to arbitrate in debates by means of simple proof-texting.

Just out of interest - have you read those links that Mcreal real gave to Carrier's very long and highly detailed arguments against Ehrman?

In those links Carrier gives several quotes from Paul's letters which appear to lend weight to his argument that even in Paul's own terminology, the term "brother" only actually meant a spiritual brother of Jesus (not an actual family member)?

Also, what do you think of the various points that I raised as doubts about those few words "save James the lords brother"? Such as -

1. Were those words actually in any letters originally written by Paul? (given that all we have are copies written by Christians about 150 years after Paul apparently died).

2. Are the Pauline Epistles reliable, given that (a) half of them are now widely agreed to be forgeries, and (b) that there is published evidence (in journals) to show that various letters seem to have been pieced together from several different earlier versions of letters, and (c) when we know that Christian copyists were in the not infrequent habit of making later alterations.

3. Is the construction of that particular part-sentence suspicious, with it's structure perhaps seeming to be in the form of a series of after-thought additions?

4. Is it surprising that in none of his letters does Paul ever describes asking the brother of Jesus, anything at all about Jesus?

5. If the same "James" wrote his own gospel (which afaik, he supposedly did), then is it true that nowhere in that gospel does he ever claim to have been the brother of Jesus (or even to have ever met Jesus at all)?

 

[Mcreal]

. . . 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 think the Vridar blog posts have in the main agreed (... they have disagreed with Carrier and Doherty). It most likely was meant to indicate a blood brother of the one who became the Lord.

Carrier has given a good argument why it doesn't necessarily mean blood brother, citing other literature on others' exegesis of Gal 1:19.

See a summary in this post on p.3 in this thread - #112

 

[Mcreal]

Originally Posted by Mcreal"
The only Galatians reference at that BibleHub link is Gal 6:18

I was referring to Galatians 1:19.

I know you were: we all are.

So you won't find Gal 1:19 under "kurios", as in nominative singular, but under "kuriou"

Cheers -

Galatians 1:19 N-GMS
GRK: ἀδελφὸν τοῦ κυρίου
NAS: except James, the Lord's brother.
KJV: save James the Lord's brother.
INT: brother of the Lord

Galatians 6:14 N-GMS
GRK: σταυρῷ τοῦ κυρίου ἡμῶν Ἰησοῦ
NAS: in the cross of our Lord Jesus
KJV: the cross of our Lord Jesus Christ,
INT: cross of the Lord of us Jesus

Galatians 6:18 N-GMS
GRK: χάρις τοῦ κυρίου ἡμῶν Ἰησοῦ
NAS: The grace of our Lord Jesus Christ
KJV: the grace of our Lord Jesus Christ
INT: grace of the Lord of us Jesus​

The primary debate,however, is about the meaning of brother.