A few questions re. the mainstream view of the Epistles

[timhendrix]

Hi,

I am currently writing a review of "On the historicity of Jesus" by Richard Carrier (I have previously reviewed "Proving History"). I am focusing on the Bayesian aspect of the book, however I have a few historical questions I am hoping to get some input on.

The questions are about how Carriers interpretation of certain passages in the Epistles align with the mainstream historical view (I.e. is Carriers view the same you would hear at the Yale NT department). I know there is a diversity of opinion on most things NT related and my point is not if Carrier is "correct" or not but simply to get some background information (If anyone would likely to see the context of the questions I would be happy to share a draft). The questions are:

1) Thessalonians 2.15-16 says Jesus was crucified by "the Jews". Is this almost certainly a later interpolation?
2) Galatheans 3.29 says "God sent his son, made from a woman". Is this clearly an allegorical woman representing the old covenant or does it refer to a physical woman (the biological mother of Jesus)
3) 1 Galatheans 1.16 says Paul met " James the brother of the Lord". Is this referencing to a biological brother of Jesus?
4) Romans 1.1-6 says that Gods son was "was born from the sperm of David according to the flesh". Is this a reference to a biological origin of Jesus or a reference to a "cosmic sperm-bank"?

Cheers,
/T

[Secret Alias]

I can't speak for scholarship as such but:

1) Thessalonians 2.15-16 says Jesus was crucified by "the Jews". Is this almost certainly a later interpolation?

No I don't think 'almost certainly' is a fair characterization of the situation. 'Some have argued ...' is better.

2) Galat(he = sic!)ans 3.29 says "God sent his son, made from a woman". Is this clearly an allegorical woman representing the old covenant or does it refer to a physical woman (the biological mother of Jesus)

No it is not clearly allegorical. As it stands it seems to be more likely to have meant to have been taken literally. The question in my mind is whether it is a later (Catholic) interpolation.

3) 1 Galat(he = sic!)ians 1.16 says Paul met " James the brother of the Lord". Is this referencing to a biological brother of Jesus?

As it stands it would naturally be read as a reference to a brother of the Lord. Yes.

4) Romans 1.1-6 says that Gods son was "was born from the sperm of David according to the flesh". Is this a reference to a biological origin of Jesus or a reference to a "cosmic sperm-bank"?

As it stands yes it would naturally be read in the way you suggest - biological origins of Jesus. The question as always is whether these readings were present in the Marcionite recension. I don't think so. But these silly games that people play pretending that the forced interpretation of these sentences ('forced' because it gets in the way of a desired interpretation for the letter as a whole) is repugnant.

[Secret Alias]

http://freethoughtblogs.com/carrier/archives/8192

[winningedge101]

I agree with the above. I think you can make an argument for 1 Thessalonians 2:16 the last line being an interpolation but not necessarily the whole line about the Jews killing Jesus.

2) Galatheans 3.29 says "God sent his son, made from a woman". Is this clearly an allegorical woman representing the old covenant or does it refer to a physical woman (the biological mother of Jesus)
Personally, I think you could take it either way. I don't think the skeptic can make an argument and say that Paul should have said he should have referenced to Mary because in Paul's letters Paul doesn't tell us that much about himself in detail, let alone Jesus.

3) 1 Galatheans 1.16 says Paul met " James the brother of the Lord". Is this referencing to a biological brother of Jesus?
I believe the consensus would certainly say this is a reference to James and I personally don't find Carrier's argument very compelling. Why doesn't Paul ever use this designation to anyone else? We clearly have a man named James with a incredibly strong tradition of being Jesus's brother and Paul clearly references him and so does Josephus. It is better to just take the statement at face value instead of having to stretch it.

4) Romans 1.1-6 says that Gods son was "was born from the sperm of David according to the flesh". Is this a reference to a biological origin of Jesus or a reference to a "cosmic sperm-bank"?
Well that goes both ways I think. Although I still think Paul is referencing to an earthly Jesus. I say this mostly on the part because Christians saw him as the godman person anyway, but it could fit well with Carrier's mythicist hypothesis as well.

[MrMacSon]

3) 1 Galatheans 1.16 says Paul met " James the brother of the Lord". Is this referencing to a biological brother of Jesus?

I doubt it.

a. The word 'brother' had and has more meaning than sibling in Christianity.

• adelphos: a brother
  
  Original Word: ἀδελφός, οῦ, ὁ
  
  Definition: a brother, member of the same religious community, especially a fellow-Christian.
  
  
  4. a fellow-believer, united to another by the bond of affection; so most frequently of Christians, constituting as it were but a single family:
  
  6. brethren of Christ is used of,
  

  • a. his brothers by blood; see 1 above.
    
    b. all men: Matthew 25:40 (Lachmann brackets); Hebrews 2:11f (others refer these examples to d.)
    
    c. apostles: Matthew 28:10; John 20:17.
    
    d. Christians, as those who are destined to be exalted to the same heavenly δόξα ...

  http://biblehub.com/greek/80.htm

b. There is more than one James in the NT - it is hard to fathom which is which.

• James the Less
  
  James the Greater

c. Paul otherwise gives no indication he knows much about Jesus's family.[/size]

.

[Ben C. Smith]

Hi,

I am currently writing a review of "On the historicity of Jesus" by Richard Carrier (I have previously reviewed "Proving History"). I am focusing on the Bayesian aspect of the book, however I have a few historical questions I am hoping to get some input on.

The questions are about how Carriers interpretation of certain passages in the Epistles align with the mainstream historical view (I.e. is Carriers view the same you would hear at the Yale NT department). I know there is a diversity of opinion on most things NT related and my point is not if Carrier is "correct" or not but simply to get some background information (If anyone would likely to see the context of the questions I would be happy to share a draft). The questions are:

1) Thessalonians 2.15-16 says Jesus was crucified by "the Jews". Is this almost certainly a later interpolation?
2) Galatheans 3.29 says "God sent his son, made from a woman". Is this clearly an allegorical woman representing the old covenant or does it refer to a physical woman (the biological mother of Jesus)
3) 1 Galatheans 1.16 says Paul met " James the brother of the Lord". Is this referencing to a biological brother of Jesus?
4) Romans 1.1-6 says that Gods son was "was born from the sperm of David according to the flesh". Is this a reference to a biological origin of Jesus or a reference to a "cosmic sperm-bank"?

Hi, Tim. Bearing in mind that you are asking for mainstream views on these topics and not my personal opinions on them (and also bearing in mind that "not mainstream" is not necessarily the same thing as "wrong"), I would respond as follows based purely on my own sense of the field:

1. Mainstream scholars are fairly loathe to accept interpolations without manuscript evidence (and often even with such evidence), but 1 Thessalonians 2.15-16 is one of the two or three most commonly accepted interpolations in the Pauline epistles. The view that it is an interpolation is considered respectable, and Carrier is not out on a limb on this one.
2. I had never heard of Carrier's interpretation of "born of a woman" until reading his book. He may be the only one who posits such a view of this phrase.
3. The phrase "brother of the Lord" is most commonly accepted as a reference to a biological brother of Jesus. There are a few qualified scholars who go a different route on this one, but mainstream opinion does not lean in their direction.
4. The same applies here as to #2. I am not sure anybody else shares Carrier's interpretation of "the seed of David".

Ben.

[Ben C. Smith]

One can get a sense of what I said above by referring to Carrier's comments and footnotes at each juncture. For the Thessalonian interpolation, he comments as follows:

This is not something mythicists cooked up ad hoc; many well-respected historicist scholars agree, and their case has been made in major peer-reviewed journals. I find their case decisive.

Then he gives a footnote:

See Birger Pearson, ' I Thessalonians 2. 1 3- 1 6: A Deutero-Pauline Interpolation ', Harvard Theological Review 64 (1971). pp. 79-94; G .E. Okeke, ' I Thessalonians 2. 13- 16: The Fate of the Unbelieving Jews', New Testament Studies 27 (1981), pp. 127-36; and Earl Richard, First and Second Thessalonians (Collegeville, MN : Liturgical Press, 1995), pp. 123-27.

But for the other points his comments and footnotes either summarize his own interpretation or refer to authors who are decidedly not in the mainstream, such as Thomas Verenna and Earl Doherty.

Ben.

[toejam]

1) Thessalonians 2.15-16 says Jesus was crucified by "the Jews". Is this almost certainly a later interpolation?

Nope. A case can be made for its potential interpolation, but nothing that is "almost certain" (to clarify, I'm not saying that it's "almost certain" that it's authentic either). A copy of a manuscript without those verses, or a Church Father who attested to its absence in a (now lost) manuscript, is what it would take to convince me that it's "almost certainly" an interpolation. 'Mainstream' scholarship is somewhat divided on this one as far as I can tell. I see a lot of those who take it as an interpolation saying that it's consensus that it is - that it's a foregone conclusion. But I'm not sure. I know of many scholars who accept it as authentic, or at least, admit they don't have a confident opinion either way. Personally, I find myself on the fence on this one.

2) Galatheans 3.29 says "God sent his son, made from a woman". Is this clearly an allegorical woman representing the old covenant or does it refer to a physical woman (the biological mother of Jesus)

I think (and the 'mainstream' view agrees) that it's referring to a physical woman. It's Paul's (or his potential interpolator's) way of saying "He was human! - He was born from a woman, under the Mosaic law", etc. (For the record, it's Galatians 4:4, not 3:29)

3) 1 Galatheans 1.16 says Paul met " James the brother of the Lord". Is this referencing to a biological brother of Jesus?

I think so (and 'mainstream' scholarship agrees). Attestation to a certain Ἰάκωβον (translated as "James") as someone of an immediate heir of Jesus is well attested. (For the record, it's Galatians 1:19, not 1:16)

4) Romans 1.1-6 says that Gods son was "was born from the sperm of David according to the flesh". Is this a reference to a biological origin of Jesus or a reference to a "cosmic sperm-bank"?

I really find Carrier's "cosmic sperm-bank" interpretation a stretch. It seems to me to be saying that Jesus was a human descendant of David, and this is the 'mainstream' interpretation as well. My view is that Paul thought of Jesus like Jehovah's Witnesses do - as a pre-existent head angel who was incarnated into humanity.

[John2]

I tend to think 1 Thess. 2:14-16 is not an interpolation. I guess that puts me in the minority, but it sounds like Paul to me. Like in 1 Thess 2:14 ("For you, brothers and sisters, became imitators of God’s churches in Judea, which are in Christ Jesus"), he mentions the "churches in Judea" in Gal. 1:22 ("I was personally unknown to the churches of Judea that are in Christ").

And like "You suffered from your own people the same things those churches suffered from the Jews," Paul mentions his own abuse from unbelieving Jews in 2 Cor. 11:24-26 ("Five times I received from the Jews the forty lashes minus one. Three times I was beaten with rods, once I was pelted with stones ... I have been ... in danger from my fellow Jews") and worries about it in Rom. 15:31 ("Pray that I may be kept safe from the unbelievers in Judea").

So 1 Thess. 2:14 sounds like Paul to me. And the reference to killing the prophets and displeasing God in 2:15 sounds like Jer. 2:30 ("In vain I punished your people; they did not respond to correction. Your sword has devoured your prophets like a ravenous lion") and Neh. 9:26 ("But they were disobedient and rebelled against you; they turned their backs on your law. They killed your prophets, who had warned them in order to turn them back to you; they committed awful blasphemies"), so this is not necessarily an anti-Semitic interpolation.

The reference to "the wrath of God has come upon them at last" (or to the utmost) in 2:16 seems to be a sign of interpolation because it supposedly refers to the 66-70 CE war and/or the destruction of the Temple and 1 Thessalonians supposedly predates the 66-70 CE war.

But Paul mentions the wrath of God throughout Romans and says that it is revealed to sinners in 1:18 ("The wrath of God is being revealed from heaven against all the godlessness and wickedness of people, who suppress the truth by their wickedness").

The only difference in 1 Thess. 2:16 is the word telos (or "at last" or "the utmost": http://biblehub.com/greek/5056.htm), which is generally seen as a reference to the 66-70 CE war and/or the destruction of the Temple.

But even if this is a reference to the 66-70 CE war, perhaps 1 Thessalonians was written later than is generally thought. This would fit the reference to "we who are still alive" and the concern with believers who died before Jesus comes down from heaven in 1 Thess. 4. When did Paul die anyway? Could it not have been in 66, or even later?

[Giuseppe]

In my view:

1) Thessalonians 2.15-16 says Jesus was crucified by "the Jews".

proto-Catholic anti-Jewish interpolation.

2) Galatheans 3.29 says "God sent his son, made from a woman".

proto-catholic anti-marcionite interpolation.

3) 1 Galatheans 1.16 says Paul met " James the brother of the Lord".

If the meaning of brother is biological, then his goal is to have a Paul who is subjected to Jesus blood family in Jerusalem (allegory of a proto-catholic Rome), against Marcion's Paul. Note that the proto-catholic interpolator wrote ''brother of Lord'' and not ''brother of Jesus'' because even for him it did sound strange the idea that a pre-existent being had a carnal brother and so he would still point out the abyssal distance between a simple blood brother James and the exaltated Lord Jesus Christ. The contrast between the simple humanity of James and the metaphysical height of the ''Lord'' (of which James is the brother) is the same artificial contrast between the eucharistic bread considered ''real body of Christ'' and the Catholic who eats it.
If it is a genuine passage of the historical Paul, then the interpretation of Carrier is very persuasive and convincing because it did help to make the point of Paul against a contingent threat, among the Galatians, to his mystical independence: a simple humble witness was necessary to confirm the fact that Paul saw Peter and only Peter after he became Apostle of Christ. Paul did want so to hide the fact that he listened really about Christ from other apostles who weren't Peter (therefore his hallucinations were false).

Romans 1.1-6 says that Gods son was "was born from the sperm of David according to the flesh".

If Paul had written only 'was born from the sperm of David' then the best interpretation is mythicist. But he added ''according to the flesh'' and this could be meant as allusion to his historical humanity. Frankly, this is for me the more persuasive argument pro historicity in all the epistles. Frankly, I suspect that all the incipit of Romans seems pro historicity, for me.