The Jesus Wars Go Thermonuclear

[Giuseppe]

to describe the apostles and Cephas as not brothers in the faith seems unlikely to me

the sense is clearly a Paul who laments his miserable ''ontological'' condition because he is forced to beg what the brothers of Lord have already.
So the sentence may have written very probably only those (the proto-catholics in polemic with Marcion) who wanted to turn down Paul than biological brothers of Jesus.
But even if you consider the passage as authentic, Paul is stating that even the brothers of the Lord, so even those who are not apostles but inferior (because mere believers), have a right which he has not.

[Giuseppe]

This raises the curious question: why the proto-catholic interpolator inserted a passage where ''brothers of Lord'' are mentioned and not rather the better explicit (in view to turn down Paul) ''brothers of Jesus''?

A possible answer: the proto-catholic interpolator didn't like elevate too much the emphasis on biological ''brothers of Jesus'' (by using that more explicit construct), preferring instead to maintain the same (typically ''pauline'') vertiginous vertical distance between Jesus (''the Lord'') and ''the brothers'' out of fear that the Ebionites (and in general the Judaizers) took advantage compared the nascent Catholicism.

[Michael BG]

This raises the curious question: why the proto-catholic interpolator inserted a passage where ''brothers of Lord'' are mentioned and not rather the better explicit (in view to turn down Paul) ''brothers of Jesus''?

A possible answer: the proto-catholic interpolator didn't like elevate too much the emphasis on biological ''brothers of Jesus'' (by using that more explicit construct), preferring instead to maintain the same (typically ''pauline'') vertiginous vertical distance between Jesus (''the Lord'') and ''the brothers'' out of fear that the Ebionites (and in general the Judaizers) took advantage compared the nascent Catholicism.

Looking at your second point first. It seems odd that what you call “the proto-catholic interpolator” would use the term “brothers of the Lord” rather than simply “brothers” or at a push maybe “brothers in Christ” (as Paul does talk about Christians being “in Christ” e.g. Gal 2:20a – “I have been crucified with Christ; it is no longer I who live, but Christ who lives in me”. Catholics had problems with the idea that Jesus had biological brothers and Papias of Hierapolis in Exposition of the Sayings of the Lord (c 95-140) made out that these “brothers” who he names were not the biological brothers of Jesus and this led on to the belief that they were cousins. (This assumes that fragment X is genuine, but even if not genuine Catholics were working to counter the idea that Jesus had biological brothers.

Taking your first point if an interpolator had used the term “brothers of Jesus” rather than “brothers of the Lord” the case for it to be an interpolation would increase because Paul only uses the word Jesus without either Christ or Lord attached twice (as far as I can see) in his five authentic letters (it appear quite a few times in 2 Cor.)

There are examples of Paul using the term “Lord” to mean Jesus (possibly an earthly Jesus) 1 Cor 7:10 “To the married I give charge, not I but the Lord, that the wife should not separate from her husband” and 1 Cor 7:25” Now concerning the unmarried, I have no command of the Lord, but I give my opinion as one who by the Lord's mercy is trustworthy.”

Please can you explain what you mean by the phrase “to turn down Paul” as I have not heard of it?

to describe the apostles and Cephas as not brothers in the faith seems unlikely to me

the sense is clearly a Paul who laments his miserable ''ontological'' condition because he is forced to beg what the brothers of Lord have already.
So the sentence may have written very probably only those (the proto-catholics in polemic with Marcion) who wanted to turn down Paul than biological brothers of Jesus.
But even if you consider the passage as authentic, Paul is stating that even the brothers of the Lord, so even those who are not apostles but inferior (because mere believers), have a right which he has not.

How do you read 1 Cor 9:5 “Have we not (the) right to be taking around (a) sister (as a) wife, even as the rest (of the) apostles and the brothers of the Lord and Cephas?” (my translation) in the light of the rest of chapter 9. In verse one Paul writes, “Am I not an apostle?” to which the answer has to be yes, or verse 4 “Do we not have the right to our food and drink?” (RSV) to which again the answer must be yes? Therefore rather than begging he is asserting his right to have what the other apostles have, what Peter has and what the brothers of Jesus have.

[Ben C. Smith]

Catholics had problems with the idea that Jesus had biological brothers and Papias of Hierapolis in Exposition of the Sayings of the Lord (c 95-140) made out that these “brothers” who he names were not the biological brothers of Jesus and this led on to the belief that they were cousins. (This assumes that fragment X is genuine, but even if not genuine Catholics were working to counter the idea that Jesus had biological brothers.

Your point about Catholics having problems with the idea that Jesus had biological brothers is very true. However, what Roberts and Donaldson called fragment X is definitely not from our ancient Papias. It is from Papias of Lombardy (century XI), author of the Elementarium Doctrinae Erudimentum, a medieval Latin lexicon. J. B. Lightfoot wrote the following about the passage in The Brethren of the Lord:

The passage in question is an extract, to which the name of this very ancient writer is prefixed, in a Bodleian MS, no. 2397, of the date 1302 or 1303. It is given in Grabe’s Spicil. II p. 34, Routh’s Rel. Sacr. I, p. 16, and runs as follows: ‘Maria mater Domini: Maria Cleophae, sive Alphei uxor, quae fuit mater Jacobi episcopi et apostolic et Symonis et Thadei et cujusdam Joseph: Maria Salome uxor Zebedei mater Joannis evangelistae et Jacobi: Maria Magdalene: istae quatuor in Evangelio reperiuntur. Jacobus et Judas et Joseph filii errant materterae Domini; Jacobus quoque et Joannes alterius materterae Domini fuerunt filii. Maria Jacobi minoris et Joseph mater, uxor Alphei, soror fuit Mariae matris Domini, quam Cleophae Joannes nominat vel a patre vel a gentilitatis familia vel alia causa. Maria Salome a viro vel a vico dicitur: hanc eandem Cleophae quidam dicunt quod duos viros habuerit. Maria dicitur illuminatrix sive stella maris, genuit enim lumen mundi; sermone autem Syro Domina nuncupatur, quia genuit Dominum.’

Grabe’s description ‘ad marginem expresse adscriptum lego Papia’ is incorrect; the name is not in the margin but over the passage as a title to it. The authenticity of this fragment is accepted by Mill, p. 238, and by Dean Alford on Matthew 13:55. Two writers also in Smith’s Biblical Dictionary (s.vv. ‘Brother’ and ‘James’), respectively impugning and maintaining the Hieronymian view, refer to it without suspicion. It is strange that able and intelligent critics should not have seen through a fabrication which is so manifestly spurious. Not to mention the difficulties in which we are involved by some of the statements, the following reasons seem conclusive: (1) The last sentence ‘Maria dicitur etc.’ is evidently very late, and is, as Dr. Mill says, ‘justly rejected by Grabe.’ Grabe says, ‘addidit is qui descripsit ex suo’; but the passage is continuous in the MS, and there is neither more nor less authority for assigning this to Papias than the remainder of the extract. (2) The statement about ‘Maria uxor Alphei’ is taken from Jerome (adv. Helvid.) almost word for word, as Dr. Mill has seen; and it is purely arbitrary to reject this as spurious and accept the rest as genuine. (3) The writings of Papias were in Jerome’s hands, and eager as he was to claim the support of authority, he could not have failed to refer to testimony which was so important and which so entirely confirms his view in the most minute points. Nor is it conceivable that a passage like this, coming from so early a writer, should not have impressed itself very strongly on the ecclesiastical tradition of the early centuries, whereas in fact we discover no traces of it.

For these reasons the extract seemed to be manifestly spurious; but I might have saved myself the trouble of examining the Bodleian MS and writing these remarks, if I had known at the time, that the passage was written by a mediaeval namesake of the Bishop of Hierapolis, Papias the author of the ‘Elementarium,’ who lived in the 11th century. This seems to have been a standard work in its day, and was printed four times in the 15th century under the name of the Lexicon or Vocabulist. I have not had access to a printed copy, but there is a MS of the work (marked Kk. 4.1) in the Cambridge University Library, the knowledge of which I owe to Mr. Bradshaw, the librarian. The variations from the Bodleian extract are unimportant. It is strange that though Grabe actually mentions the later Papias the author of the Dictionary, and Routh copies his note, neither the one nor the other got on the right track. I made the discovery while the first edition of this work was passing through the press [1865].

Ben.

[Giuseppe]

@Michael_BG

Catholics had problems with the idea that Jesus had biological brothers and Papias of Hierapolis in Exposition of the Sayings of the Lord (c 95-140) made out that these “brothers” who he names were not the biological brothers of Jesus and this led on to the belief that they were cousins.

Even if I think that 'Papia' is late second century fiction, you point is right. I think the proto-catholic Hegesippus was the first to create biological brothers of Lord (in function anti-Marcion) by creating legends about the evanescent figure of ''brother'' named James mentioned in the Gospels and ignoring deliberately that those ''brothers'' in the Gospels are mere symbols of material bondage. You can read more about this here:
http://naturalreason.revolvingplanet.ne ... comment-82

But the problem is that the Ebionites had ''reduced'' Jesus to a mere prophet (very like to modern Jehovah's Witnesses that consider Jesus only a man) therefore they had all the interest in co-opt Jesus by appealing the presumed major Jewishness of his ''brothers''.
Even the Gnostics (that wrote some Revelations of James) manifested then that same interest.

Therefore the catholic position about the ''brothers of Jesus'' is per se ambiguous:

1) on the one hand, Catholics need of biological brothers of Jesus in Paul's letters to reply against Marcion;

2) on the other hand, however, as they moved their worship on Mary the mother of Jesus (herself a response to the gnostic Mary Magdalene) -- along with the threat of Judaizing and/or gnostic cooptation of the same ''James the Just'' --, the ''brothers'' became ''cousins''.


Therefore we are OK that the Proto-catholic interpolator would not have liked to write ''brothers of Jesus''. The only left alternative for him was ''Paulinizing'' the brothers of Jesus (in 1 Cor 9:5 and Gal 1:19), i.e., to project on them the same abyssal metaphysical distance existing between Paul and the ''Lord'', by calling them ''brothers of Lord''.


About your question:

Please can you explain what you mean by the phrase “to turn down Paul” as I have not heard of it?

I apologize with the readers. When I talk about interpolations in Paul, I'm already assuming that all the Pauline letters were marcionite products. I refer you to the important research of Stuart Waugh here and Detering's revival of Dutch radical criticism.

In particular where he says that

The Marcionite depiction of Paul is always authoritative, never passive, never delegating, never recognizing any equals.All self-deprecation and belittling are from later Catholic strata, including that statement about Paul being an "abortion." In contrast we have a presentation in the Marcionite text of divinely sanctioned birth of Paul in Galatians 1:15-16 which fits the Marcionite view of this special Apostle.

"When it pleased God, who separated (ἀφορίσας) me from my mothers womb, to reveal his son in me that I might preach him among the gentiles, I did not immediately consult flesh and blood."

Paul's birth is one so special God separates (ἀφορίσας) him from other men for a special notice, lofty position. This is the same word used in Romans 1:1 (ἀφωρισμένος) by the redactor to announce Paul's now Catholic mission (see also Acts 13:2). It shows an importance of the mission. But for Marcion that importance is from birth.

Hardly an abortion, and hardly the least of the Apostles, which we see in Galatians 2:6. There is no deference in Paul, no acceptance of any other authority (e.g., 1:8, 1:9, 2:6). And he takes direct action as in Galatians 2:11ff (Marcionite form).

"But when Cephas came, I stood against him to his face, because he was condemned ..."

and again in 1 Corinthians 5:5 (verses 5:3-4 are not present in Marcion), there is no delegation to others, it is Paul who acts.

"I handed this one over to Satan for the destruction of the flesh"

So it is completely impossible that Marcion's Paul could have thought so lowly of himself as to say:

"and last of all me, accidentally born (or "abortion"), he was seen by me; for I am the least of the apostles, who is not even qualified to be called an apostle."

So clear a reference to not being one of the twelve who was with Jesus, and whose birth was of no value, no divine notice.

All of which is not to say the Gnostics were not clever at NT exegesis, even the Catholic texts to turn them to their purpose - frustrating the heck out of the Patristic writers. Elaine Pagel's book, the Gnostic Paul covers that well. That is where you will find support for your example of 1 Corinthians 15:9.

[DCHindley]

...the problem is that the Ebionites had ''reduced'' Jesus to a mere prophet (very like to modern Jehovah's Witnesses that consider Jesus only a man) therefore they had all the interest in co-opt Jesus by appealing the presumed major Jewishness of his ''brothers''.

JW do not think Jesus was a mere man. They think that the Christ is divine, but created by Jehovah to accomplish a task, one that does involve incarnation, etc.

You may be thinking of The Church of Jesus Christ, Letter Day Saints (Mormons). They DO think that Jesus was an elevated man who retains his flesh & blood, as does the Father. In fact, all good Mormon men can become Gods over other solar systems if they follow the cosmic template. I am not sure how they feel about the Holy Spirit.

Of course, I am speaking off the cuff, in case I have misspoke.

[outhouse]

I am now firm on this, myself--either these two things are interpolations, or the author of these letters had a 'truly human' Jesus view.

There are no mental hurdles at all for the bolded part.


For me wee see their rhetorical context pretty clearly, and we see motive. Nothing really contradicts the bolded with any credibility.

[outhouse]

Carrier is mentally unbalanced..

While that may be, he has quite the intellect. I WAS such a huge fan of his when he stayed in the cowardly safety of the middle of the road.

Once he took a stand on the mythicist side every bit of the methodology I loved about his early work, seemed to be gone.


One could possess a million dollar compass, but if it doesn't point north ish its fkn worthless.

[Peter Kirby]

I am now firm on this, myself--either these two things are interpolations, or the author of these letters had a 'truly human' Jesus view.

There are no mental hurdles at all for the bolded part.


For me wee see their rhetorical context pretty clearly, and we see motive. Nothing really contradicts the bolded with any credibility.

Put differently, the author of the two quotes had a 'truly human' Jesus view.

But that does not answer the question of whether these two quotes were or were not part of interpolations.

[Giuseppe]

...the problem is that the Ebionites had ''reduced'' Jesus to a mere prophet (very like to modern Jehovah's Witnesses that consider Jesus only a man) therefore they had all the interest in co-opt Jesus by appealing the presumed major Jewishness of his ''brothers''.

JW do not think Jesus was a mere man. They think that the Christ is divine, but created by Jehovah to accomplish a task, one that does involve incarnation, etc.

You may be thinking of The Church of Jesus Christ, Letter Day Saints (Mormons). They DO think that Jesus was an elevated man who retains his flesh & blood, as does the Father. In fact, all good Mormon men can become Gods over other solar systems if they follow the cosmic template. I am not sure how they feel about the Holy Spirit.

Of course, I am speaking off the cuff, in case I have misspoke.

Thanks for the info about these modern Christian sects. If the Ebionites were really Jewish Christians of I CE is controversial, because the possibility that they may be ''ex Catholics'' Judaizers or even ''Gnostic Jews'' (in that case the parallel with modern Mormons is very eloquent). I suspect the construct ''brothers of Lord'' being Catholic interpolation (like ''born by woman'') also in virtue of the latent contrast between something strictu sensu physical and carnal (''brothers'', ''born by'') and the very high Christology implicit in the term ''Lord'' and ''woman'' (when referred to the mother of a deity). Tellingly, Bob Price so wrote:

That's Catholicism: the mystical sanctification of matter, turning it into a channel of saving grace.
(The Amazing Colossal Apostle, p. 267)

''To sanctify the matter'' alone would be called more properly ''pantheism'': if the interpolator was a ''pantheist'', he would write ''brothers of Jesus'' (I'm ironic here ) The Catholic dilemma is that the Creation is not divine but however shares in the divinity of its creator. To solve this dilemma plastically, Catholics are ''pantheists-limited-to-consecrated host''.