For Kapyong: Defending a historical Jesus

[Belz...]

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?

No, I just told you that I didn't!

Here's my clarification again:

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.

 

[Mcreal]

Here's my clarification again:

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.

I think the issue is not necessarily that a higher 'standard' of evidence should be expected per se, but that some level of reasonable non-biblical 1st century information about a human Jesus is what one would hope for to justify the claims about (or of) such a supposedly highly-regarded 'human', early first-century entity.

Given the paucity in commentary from the 1st century, when the first texts are supposed to have been written, and the vague discussions in 2nd century texts about those first century texts, we have good reason to doubt.

 

[Craig B]

... 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)?

Can you possibly be referring to the work about which wiki has this to tell us? Or do you have some other text in mind? The Epistle, perhaps?

The document presents itself as written by James: "I, James, wrote this history in Jerusalem. The purported author is thus James, the brother of Jesus, but scholars have established that the work was not written by the person to whom it is attributed ...

The consensus is that it was actually composed some time in the 2nd century AD. The first mention of it is by Origen of Alexandria in the early 3rd century, who says the text, like that of a Gospel of Peter, was of dubious, recent appearance and shared with that book the claim that the "brethren of the Lord" were sons of Joseph by a former wife.​

 

[Mcreal]

The Gospel_of_James [has]

the claim that the "brethren of the Lord" were sons of Joseph by a former wife.​

Roman Catholic tradition generally holds that James the brother of Jesus is identified as the son of Alphaeus - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James,_brother_of_Jesus - yet

The Gospel of Mark 6:3 and the Gospel of Matthew 13:55-56 state that the brothers of Jesus - James, Joses (or Joseph), Judas (Jude), and Simon - were the sons of Mary - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brothers_of_Jesus#Jesus.27s_brothers_and_sisters

And "Catholics and Orthodox, as well as some Anglicans and Lutherans, believe in the perpetual virginity of Mary; they teach that James, along with others named in the New Testament as "brothers" (Greek: ἀδελφοὶ, translit. adelphoi, lit. 'brothers') of Jesus, were not the biological children of Mary, but were possibly cousins of Jesus or step-brothers from a previous marriage of Joseph." - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James,_brother_of_Jesus

 

[vridar]

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

Both Carrier and Doherty bend over backwards to avoid any suggestion of interpolation but I think they are over-fearful of being accused of flippantly changing the text to suit their case. Understandable given they are trying to win respectability among the mainstream biblical scholars.

But the grounds for suspecting a scribal gloss are in my view multiple and strong.

Just a few of those grounds that come to mind right now:

1. The curious failure of Irenaeus and Tertullian to use the phrase when discussing that section of Galatians in their attack on Marcion -- when that phrase would have served as the perfect line to clinch their case.
   
2. The incomprehensible absence of any other reference to a James who is identified as Jesus' (the Lord's) brother in Acts, in Jude, even in the epistle of James, in any gospel, and who became a head of the Jerusalem church if such a James really were a Jerusalem pillar and distinct from Peter and John.
   
3. The curious way James needs any identifier at all -- it is surely clear to Paul and his readers who this James of Jerusalem who causes him and the church in Antioch so much grief is; yet one can well imagine readers of a later generation who have become more aware of several other Jameses in the literature asking "which one?".
   
4. The deeply entrenched and widespread culture of both accidental and deliberate interpolations in texts (both secular classical and Christian) in the ancient world. Interpolations are the norm to be expected -- contrary to what biblical scholars sometimes try to affirm.

 

[Craig B]

<respectful snip>

In addition to these points that you have made, I was wondering if IanS really believes that James could possibly be the author of the "gospel" bearing his name, or if some other work attributed to James is meant instead.

 

[vridar]

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

I skimmed them because Carrier was repeating his argument that I have read and checked in OHJ.

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)?

He does, but the contexts of those other Pauline passages are distinct from the type of communication he is expressing in Galatians. One can pull on many passages to argue that a brother of the Lord technically means a spiritual brother. But the context of Galatians 1:19 suggests to me that we have a straightforward identifier of an individual within the context of explaining contacts with "Christian" leaders. It seems odd to me that Paul would need to remind readers that one of the persons he met was a "Christian".

Carrier argues otherwise and I could go into details why I find his argument problematic --- but that would be somewhat time-consuming and I'm not sure many would find it of much benefit or interest. If you disagree then I'll change my mind and explain in detail my reasons for disagreeing with C's reasoning.

(I have also read C's cited sources and I think their arguments are only partially tackled by C.)

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)?

I think all those points are most valid.

 

[Mcreal]

Bart Ehrman has made an interesting comment on his blog in response to another participants query:

hgb55 November 7, 2016

Bart, I’m forwarding the following question from mythicist Frank Zindler [via vridar] -

“Bart, many of us have used your research to support many of our own arguments. For example, in Orthodox Corruption of Scripture you show many examples of anti-Docetic passages in the NT, from the “born-of-woman” Gal 4:4 to the antichrist verses of 1-2 John. Galatians is usually dated to ~54 CE, and if Jesus ever existed, he died in 30 or 33 CE (although Irenaeus claimed he lived into the reign of Claudius, that ended in 54 CE—the very year in which Galatians was written!)

"As you know, there are no manuscript variants lacking the born-of-woman gynaikos of Gal 4:4. You have criticized me for claiming interpolation in cases where manuscript evidence is lacking. So……….

"According to you own method, the anti-Docetic Gal 4:4 is not an interpolation; it dates to 54 CE if the traditional dating be correct.

"So………

"If Jesus died in 33 CE, how is it possible that just 21 years later —or even in the very year Galatians was written— there could be widespread forms of Christianity that denied that Jesus had had a body? Was not some form of Docetism therefore the earliest form of Christianity?” [Frank Zindler]

Bart November 7, 2016

"Yes, it’s a good question. Paul himself believed Christ was an angel before he became a human. He was trying to clarify in this verse that, when he did become a human, it was not a temporary appearance (like angels who appear as angels in the OT), but was a real flesh-and-blood birth to a human mother type of appearance."​

https://ehrmanblog.org/carrier-and-james-the-brother-of-jesus/

 

[Mcreal]

... the context of Galatians 1:19 suggests to me that we have a straightforward identifier of an individual within the context of explaining contacts with "Christian" leaders. It seems odd to me that Paul would need to remind readers that one of the persons he met was a "Christian".

Unless some or a lot of those persons were not Christians?

 

[Mcreal]

Another Q & A with Bart E

clipper9422@yahoo.com November 8, 2016

"Do you see any similarities between present day mythicists and historical gnosticism? Mythicists describe early Christians’ original understanding of Christ as a cosmic figure crucified by demons in the heavenly realm. Is there anything in gnosticism similar to that that mythicists might have used? ...
"Maybe mythicists think Christianity originated in the same way as gnosticism."​

Bart November 9, 2016

Interesting idea! I hadn’t thought of it.​

https://ehrmanblog.org/what-is-gnosticism-a-blast-from-the-past/

 

[vridar]

Unless some or a lot of those persons were not Christians?

I can't imagine why others outside the cult would be of any interest to him or relevant to his readers.

 

[Mcreal]

I can't imagine why others outside the cult would be of any interest to him or relevant to his readers.

You cant imagine why ppl outside what cult would be of interest to Paul? or relevant to Paul's readers?

 

[Loss Leader]

In general, I have been very impressed by the advanced level of argument shown in this thread. Please remember to be civil to each other. Talk of who is being nice or rude to whom is against the MA. Thank you.

Replying to this modbox in thread will be off topic  Posted By: Loss Leader

 

[vridar]

Bart November 7, 2016

"Yes, it’s a good question. Paul himself believed Christ was an angel before he became a human. He was trying to clarify in this verse that, when he did become a human, it was not a temporary appearance (like angels who appear as angels in the OT), but was a real flesh-and-blood birth to a human mother type of appearance."​

https://ehrmanblog.org/carrier-and-james-the-brother-of-jesus/

Bart is overlooking the full content of the discussions he cites as evidence for his argument. One might also suggest he is cherry-picking his cited references.

Throughout Galatians Paul is clearly stressing the "angelic" status of Jesus. Ehrman cites Garrett who cites Gieschen. Both of those are actually stressing how for Paul Jesus was at all times and only viewed as an angel in the passages they address. Paul begins Galatians by saying that his gospel came direct by revelation from a heavenly "angel of the Lord" or Jesus Christ, and that same heavenly Jesus was "in" him, transforming him into that same angel himself -- just like the prophets of old who were taken to heaven and were themselves transformed into the spirit being they encountered there.

That's the sort of angel Gieschen and Garrett are arguing is Paul's Jesus.

So if Paul suddenly whacked a spanner in the spokes by declaring that this Jesus somehow was made from a woman one would expect a considerable effort be made to explain what the hell he means given that everywhere else in Galatians he is implying Jesus is anything but that, and has been anything but that ever since he revealed the mystery of the gospel of salvation.

The verse is a cuckoo in the nest of Pauline correspondence, certainly a cuckoo in the Galatian nest.

 

[vridar]

You cant imagine why ppl outside what cult would be of interest to Paul? or relevant to Paul's readers?

That Jewish cult in which membership was defined by those who recognized Jesus as a saviour figure.

 

[Mcreal]

That Jewish cult in which membership was defined by those who recognized Jesus as a saviour figure.

What if, as per the Dutch Radicals, Paul represented a Gnostic-messianic cult that was later aligned with a Jewish-messianic cult? (as Acts suggests)

 

[Kapyong]

Gday David Mo and all

Pardon me, you didn't apparently read post #112 where the argument is laid out.

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”.

Pardon? Yes we do, right here -

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.

Please read post #112.

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

Usually ?
Paul usually uses 'brother' in a metaphorical sense, NOT a literal sense.

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.

A heavenly divine being is not an 'angel-man' ? Are you complaining about the term 'angel' ? Or the combination with 'man' ?

I think 'angel-man' is a good term for this being :

• 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.

How does your comment 'First heavenly, after human' fit with Paul's 'became a life-giving spirit' ?


Kapyong

 

[Mcreal]

Originally Posted by Mcreal

Bart November 7, 2016

"..Paul himself believed Christ was an angel before he became a human.
He was trying to clarify in this verse {I presume Bart is referring to Gal 4:4} that, when he did become a human, it was not a temporary appearance (like angels who appear as angels in the OT), but was a real flesh-and-blood birth to a human mother type of appearance."

Bart is overlooking the full content of the discussions he cites as evidence for his argument¹. One might also suggest he is cherry-picking his cited references.

Throughout Galatians Paul is clearly stressing the "angelic" status of Jesus. Ehrman cites Garrett who cites Gieschen. Both of those are actually stressing how, for Paul, Jesus was at all times .. only viewed as an angel in the passages they address. Paul begins Galatians by saying that his gospel came direct by revelation from a heavenly "angel of the Lord" or Jesus Christ, and that same heavenly Jesus was "in" him, transforming him into that same angel himself -- just like the prophets of old who were taken to heaven and were themselves transformed into the spirit being they encountered there.

That's the sort of angel Gieschen and Garrett are arguing is Paul's Jesus.

So, if Paul suddenly whacked a spanner in the spokes by declaring that this Jesus somehow was made from a woman [ie. Gal 4:4], one would expect a considerable effort be made to explain what the hell he means, given that everywhere else in Galatians he is implying Jesus is anything but that, and has been anything but that ever since he revealed the mystery of the gospel of salvation.

The verse is a cuckoo in the nest of Pauline correspondence, certainly a cuckoo in the Galatian nest.

Cheers.

¹ Where does Ehrman make that argument?

 

[Kapyong]

Gday all,

I thought I'd bring together these criticisms of vridar, and IanS :

But the grounds for suspecting a scribal gloss are in my view multiple and strong. Just a few of those grounds that come to mind right now:

1. The curious failure of Irenaeus and Tertullian to use the phrase when discussing that section of Galatians in their attack on Marcion -- when that phrase would have served as the perfect line to clinch their case.
   
2. The incomprehensible absence of any other reference to a James who is identified as Jesus' (the Lord's) brother in Acts, in Jude, even in the epistle of James, in any gospel, and who became a head of the Jerusalem church if such a James really were a Jerusalem pillar and distinct from Peter and John.
   
3. The curious way James needs any identifier at all -- it is surely clear to Paul and his readers who this James of Jerusalem who causes him and the church in Antioch so much grief is; yet one can well imagine readers of a later generation who have become more aware of several other Jameses in the literature asking "which one?".
   
4. The deeply entrenched and widespread culture of both accidental and deliberate interpolations in texts (both secular classical and Christian) in the ancient world. Interpolations are the norm to be expected -- contrary to what biblical scholars sometimes try to affirm.

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)?

I think the Historical Jesus Theory places far too much weight on those words 'Lord's Brother'.


Kapyong

 

[vridar]

What if, as per the Dutch Radicals, Paul represented a Gnostic-messianic cult that was later aligned with a Jewish-messianic cult? (as Acts suggests)

That's an option. For sake of argument I generally assume the conventional model of Paul simply because that is as defensible as any other model and most people take it for granted anyway. Nothing is set in concrete, though -- everything is tentative of course.

There's also Jewish gnosticism. And Jewish mysticism (-- possibly related to gnosticism?) -- with texts like Enoch, and visionary ascent themes.

(I am not big on the messianic cult idea, though. At least not as it is understood as a messianic son-of-David type figure coming to conquer, liberate, etc. But that's another story, a vast topic of its own.)