The Jesus Wars Go Thermonuclear

[Giuseppe]

I apologize for my lack of clarity.

So, I want to convince you that:
A) if the epistle is genuine, then Carrier is right about ''brothers of the Lord''.
B) if the epistle is not authentic, then a historicist reading of ''brothers of the Lord'' is right.

So you quote the words of Richard Carrier “that this passage is out of place” and state this is the consensus view as if therefore I should accept this view just because it is the consensus, but I haven’t been convinced it is the consensus. Of course the consensus changes over time and I am most likely not aware of the state of the current consensus. Therefore I am saying – Convince me that the consensus is correct?

Here I confess to base myself on an unproved premise, because I start from the assumption that Carrier is so honest to assume always as premise the exegesis of the consensus, or of a serious part of it even if a minority.

As his argument goes (from what I have understand) Dykstra is arguing something of very similar to your view: that everywhere, even in 1 Cor (and even in 1 Cor 9), Paul took advantage of the minimum casus belli (= a contingent dispute case), to make appear on the surface his own more general and sound contrast against high rank Christians (and hence against hypothetical biological 'brothers of Lord' where they appear in 1 Cor 9:5)

See the example of Dykstra:

Another example [after a list of other cases that show a latent implicit conflict between Paul and Pillars] is in 1 Corinthians. In chapter 7 Paul praises his own ability to remain unmarried while allowing that marriage is acceptable for people who are ”unable to control themselves” (7:8-9); then just two chapters later he alludes to the married status of ”the brothers of the Lord [James] and Chepas [Peter]” (9:3-6). The effect, and quite possibly the intent, of these two passages is to portray in a negative light the men who opposed Paul in Jerusalem and Antioch.
(Tom Dykstra, Mark, Canonizer of Paul, OCABS Press, p.34-35)

What is making Dykstra in common with you? While you are projecting in 1 Corinthians 9 the same conflict between Paul and Pillars (a subset of all Christians) that is in evidence in Galatians, so Dykstra is projecting in 1 Corinthians 7 and in 1 Corinthians 9 the same conflict between Paul and pillars (a subset of all Christians) that is in evidence in Galatians.

To be honest, I would think naturally the same thing as you and Dykstra (beyond if the latter is right or wrong in this particular view) but ONLY under the pre-requisite that 1 Cor is an entire epistle and not, as argues Carrier, a ''mishmash of several letters''. I cannot verify at present if Carrier's position about its being a ''mishmash of several letters'' is right or not (I see that Robert Price says explicitly ''Chapter 9 is an interpolation'', The Amazing, p.334), but I can see that this is vital for Carrier's argument about ''brothers of Lord''.

If you assume that 1 Cor 9 is originally a distinct epistle, then the argument of Carrier is the following:

1) Paul is arguing about a particular set of rights and not only against those who have a wife (per se a subset of all the Christians); and those rights apply to all the Christians.
2) it is not possible to say a priori whether that particular dispute is for Paul merely a casus belli to reignite the more general debate between Paul and the Pillars (as described in Galatians) or a mere little quarrel of little value.

Therefore, Carrier continues, only the particular little quarrel (totally beyond if behind it lurks the dramatic ideological conflict of Galatians: we don't know) is in evidence.

To introduce reasons of wider controversy [the conflict of Galatians] behind this little potential casus belli [as we, me, you and Dykstra, are inclined naturally to do, but ONLY WHEN we consider the epistle as an entire] means to cut in half the number of chances in favor of the own thesis. It means reducing our chances by 50% while Carrier has his chances intact at 100%: and so we lose and Carrier wins.


Therefore, it implies that that casus belli is about a little conflictual difference of this kind:

Paul versus ALL the Christians.

if for no other reason that for the fact that the unique EVIDENT object of dispute is a set of rights (not only the single right ''to have a wife'', in itself a reason to engage only a subset of Christians, something that would go against Carrier's argument) that regard ALL the Christians.

Since Carrier is interested in an explanation as economical as possible, he find it in the opposition between Paul and ALL the Christians, so seeing in 1 Corinthians 9:5 a mere trivial crescendo of claims of kind ''If they can - which are mere Christians [=''brothers of Lord''] - why not me ?''.

Only in this way, he can accuse you (or Dykstra, or me) of introducing ''ad hoc'' hypotheses (the latent conflict of Galatians) behind an apparent small quarrel (the unique thing in evidence).

Once I recognize that Carrier is right in this case (but I repeat: I don't know precisely the precise reason for 1 Cor being a 'mismatch of >=2 epistles'', I see only that that premise is vital for Carrier), then I can answer to your next question:

Are you saying that if Paul’s letter was written before 70 CE then you would agree with me when I wrote, “that 1 Cor 9:1-5 presents the same picture of Paul as we see in Galatians”?

No. I'm saying that if Paul’s letter was written AFTER 70 CE then I would agree ENTIRELY with you when you wrote, “that 1 Cor 9:1-5 presents the same picture of Paul as we see in Galatians”, because only in that scenario (the epistles as post-70 battleground between marcionites and proto-catholics) we MUST see behind even the more harmless, apparent ''quarrel'' (as is the case with 1 Corinthians 9:5) always and uniquely the same explicit dramatic pattern of Galatians, i.e. the mere pretext of the same more wide conflict that opposes the heretic pseudo-''Paul'' of Marcion to the catholic pseudo-''Paul'' of Acts.

Therefore we are in this paradoxical case:
if the epistle is BEFORE 70 CE, then 1 Cor9:5 describes only an apparent little harmless quarrel between Paul and abstract ALL the Christians, therefore ''brothers of Lord'' means ''generic Christians''.

if the epistle is AFTER 70 CE, then nothing, very nothing!, prevents us, nor Carrier!, to see behind the slightest pretext really the casus belli for the conflict -- again in all its dramatic virulence -- between the Paul of Marcion and the Catholic Pillars & ''brothers of Lord'' (that therefore become the biological ''brothers of Lord'').

I hope this time I am more clear.

[Michael BG]

Thank you Giuseppe I think you were clear and I have understood.

Here I confess to base myself on an unproved premise, because I start from the assumption that Carrier is so honest to assume always as premise the exegesis of the consensus, or of a serious part of it even if a minority.

I assume that authors are trying to present the best case they can and if they make assertions without evidence then I have a problem believing their logic. I need to see and understand their logic to agree with their conclusions.

Does Robert Price present a case for 1 Cor 9 being an interpolation in his book, The Amazing?

The only example I have seen that convinced me about putting numbers to probabilities was a post by Peter Kirby discussing Josephus and John the Baptist. Mostly I wish to be convinced by argument and not the allocation of numbers. Therefore it is unlikely Carrier is going to convince me by allocating numbers that the discussion in 1 Cor 9 isn’t as you say Dykstra says it is. But I don’t see how Carrier gets to divorce 1 Cor 9:5 from its context. Paul includes his claim to apostleship, and he talks about those who are questioning his apostleship. You present a convincing case using Dykstra that 1 Cor 9:5 links back to 1 Cor 7 and is therefore part of the original 1 Cor 9. Can you present a convincing case that 1 Cor 9:5 does not belong in 1 Cor 9?

Is it possible for you to present the case that “brothers of the Lord” = “brothers”? I noticed in that thread you linked to that Bernard was not convinced.

[Peter Kirby]

Carrier does not give expression to the most compelling understanding of this matter of interpretation, here and elsewhere.

When it comes to matters of interpretation, Doherty usually displays a little more sensibility, even if he stumbles frequently enough himself, which can only be expected of a person, especially someone bothering to blaze a different trail. I would suggest that the argument for interpolation in 1 Cor 9:5 (which I have never actually seen) and the reductive, simplistic equation suggested ('brothers' = 'brothers of the lord'?) are both inferior. There's a better idea at hand.

http://jesuspuzzle.humanists.net/sil20arg.htm

The appearance of the phrase "the brothers of the Lord" in 1 Corinthians 9:5 can further refine the picture. While the term "brother" by itself in general parlance, to judge by Paul's use of it, seems to be applied to all manner of apostles and believers, the phrase "brothers in/of the Lord" may designate a certain sectarian group or organization, one located in Jerusalem. This is suggested by the mention of the "more than 500 brothers" listed among those who had a vision of the spiritual Christ (1 Cor. 15:6). They have been differentiated from Peter, James and "all the apostles," indicating

http://jesuspuzzle.humanists.net/rfset3.htm#Sean

The term "brother" (adelphos) appears throughout Paul's letters, and was a common designation Christians gave each other. In 1 Corinthians 1:1 Sosthenes is called adelphos, as is Timothy in Colossians 1:1. Neither of them, nor the 500+ "brothers" who received a vision of the spiritual Christ in 1 Corinthians 15:6, are being designated as siblings of Jesus or anyone else. "Brothers in the Lord" (ton adelphon en kurio) appears in Philippians 1:14 (the NEB translates it "our fellow-Christians"). Surely this is the clue to the meaning of the phrase applied to James. Indications are that James was the head of a particular conventicle in Jerusalem which bore witness to the spiritual Christ, and this group may have called itself "brethren of the Lord." (Just as the term adelphos was common in Greek circles to refer to the initiates who belonged to the mystery cults.) The position of James as head of this brotherhood may have resulted in a special designation for him as the brother of the Lord. Or Paul may have used the phrase simply to identify him as one of these "brethren". Thus I cannot agree with Sean that the phrase in Galatians "does not fit any type of Community situation." Note, too, that such designations are always "of the Lord", never "of Jesus."

Paul's listing in 1 Corinthians 15 of those who had undergone a "seeing" of the Christ suggests a number of things. The "more than 500 brothers" seems to be distinct from "all the apostles", although the latter may be a sub-group within the overall brotherhood. Paul implies that 500 is only a portion of it, making it a sizeable organization. Probably its members lived in Jerusalem and its environs, and assembled for meetings and ceremonies. At one of these, a group of over 500 (is this exaggeration on Paul's part, or of the tradition as it came down to Paul?) had some kind of revelatory experience of the spiritual Christ.

The size of this group makes it difficult to believe that it would not have been known in Palestinian circles in its day. If this were a new religion, following an executed messianic pretender or teaching sage, especially one whom all these people were convinced had been raised from the dead, first century commentators would hardly have been so silent about it. But if it were essentially a Jewish sectarian group (the "Lord" of "brothers of the Lord" may even have referred to God), one holding commonplace apocalyptic expectations as well, it would have blended into a landscape with many such manifestations and would not likely have been treated as a separate movement (including by Josephus). However, its size might at the same time have given a certain profile to its leader, James the Just, and notice was taken of him by Josephus—in Antiquities of the Jews 20.9.1, where he describes James' murder. (For more on the Josephus passages, including the phrase "brother of the Lord," see Supplementary Article No. 10: The Josephus Puzzle.)

Let's take a close look at 1 Corinthians 9:5, which Sean offers, and note especially the words Paul uses. Here is a literal translation: "Have we not the right to take along a sister (adelphen), a wife, as do the rest of the apostles and the brothers (adelphoi) of the Lord and Cephas?" Look at the word "sister". No one would say that Paul is referring to his own or anyone else's sibling. He means a fellow-believer of the female sex, and he seems to use it in apposition to (descriptive of) the word "wife". Indeed, all translations render this "a believing wife" or "a Christian wife."

This should cast light on the meaning of adelphos, both here and elsewhere. It refers to a fellow-believer in the Lord. Our more archaic rendering as "brethren of the Lord" conveys exactly this connotation: a community of like-minded believers, not "siblings" of each other or anyone else. Thus, a "brother of the Lord," whether referring to James or the 500, means a follower of this divine figure, and in 1 Corinthians 9:5, Paul would be referring to some of these members of the Jerusalem conventicle.

It is sometimes argued that the "brothers of the Lord" mentioned here cannot signify the Jerusalem group with James as its head, since Peter is named separately, and "apostles" are also referred to as distinct from these "brothers". I don't see a problem. Paul himself is an apostle (as he vociferously claims in this passage) and he is not a part of James' group; the reference to "the rest of the apostles" may simply be to missionaries like himself, whether from Jerusalem or other places. Or it may be that he is referring to those among the brothers in Jerusalem who specifically do apostolic work. As for Peter, Paul may simply be picking him out of the group for special mention, as someone well known to his readers, even if only by repute. It is even possible that Peter, like Paul, was not formally one of the "brothers".

I don't have time to embroil myself in argument about this matter, but it pains me a bit to see the discussion revolving around inferior ideas.

[outhouse]

but it pains me a bit to see the discussion revolving around inferior ideas.

Thank you. It needed to be said.


Trying to figure out lost context cannot always be achieved, no matter how well argued.



At this time, I have no opinion one way or the other, nor do I think it matters one iota either way.

[Giuseppe]

but it pains me a bit to see the discussion revolving around inferior ideas.

I don't understand what would are these ''inferior ideas''. Even if I accept to name the hypothesis of an inauthentic Paul as ''inferior ideas'' (but only for pure sake of discussion) in this context, these ''inferior ideas'' help me to understand that behind the ''vague, obscure, indeterminate'' episodes that moved the mind of an hypothetical historical Paul real author of the his 6/7 epistles, many people are inclined to filling the holes with their own imagination: these same people accuse then the proponents of a fabricated ''Paul'' that the episodes in the epistles are too much ''vague, obscure, indeterminate'' to see in them the real theological conflicts post-70.

I don't understand why Peter writes that Doherty shows more sensibilities than Carrier.

I have read both and I confess that OHJ is below expectations until to chapter of Paul.

Because it is the chapter on Paul where Carrier demonstrates his absolute value more than Doherty. That chapter only is worth the cost of the book.

The hypothesis of ''brothers of the Lord'' as a particular elite intra-higher-rank-Christians is totally excluded, an typical example of filling the holes with the own imagination. The ''brothers of Lord'' means 'generic brothers'' or ''biological brothers''. Point.


Carrier is my right nemesis and revenge against these people. The ''moral'' lesson is the following:

I do not give you the right to see the polemic that you want to see behind the point x of an epistle if then you are the same person who denies me the right to see the disputes that I want to see assuming that ''letter'' in the second century.

[Michael BG]

Thank you Peter.

If the wording was the same as Philippians 1:14 "Brothers in the Lord" (ton adelphon en kurio) I might concede the point. Also the Greek might mean that the brothers are not “in Lord”, and it appears odd for them as “having confidence to the bonds of Paul” it seems to make sense more for them as “having confidence in Lord”.

An appeal to 1 Cor 15:6 does not move me, because I see it as an interpolation. The argument that because sister (adelphen) is used in 1 Cor 9:5 to mean a Christian woman, that “brothers of the Lord” means Christian men I find weak, but it would apply if the wording was only “brothers”.

[Peter Kirby]

But you have the burden of proof here, since it is your alleged evidence.

[Bernard Muller]

But you have the burden of proof here, since it is your alleged evidence.

Here are my blog posts I wrote on the issue of brother(s) of Jesus/Lord

#33 Comments on Josephus' Antiquities, XX, IX, 1 and "the brother of Jesus, who was called Christ, whose name was James". With UPDATE as of Jan 14th 2013
http://historical-jesus.info/blog.html

#37 All about "the brothers of the Lord” in 1 Corinthians 9:5. Updated from OHJ
http://historical-jesus.info/37.html

#51 Following my analysis of "brothers of the Lord" in 1 Corinthians 9:5, let's examine the meaning of "brother of the Lord" in Galatians 1:19.
http://historical-jesus.info/51.html

#67 More comments on Josephus' Antiquities, XX, IX, 1 and "the brother of Jesus, who was called Christ, whose name was James"
http://historical-jesus.info/67.html

#80 Does Romans 8:29 indicate Paul considered Christians as (spiritual) brothers of Jesus?
http://historical-jesus.info/80.html

#81 Looking at the other Carrier's arguments about brothers of the Lord meaning Christians
http://historical-jesus.info/81.html

#82 An answer to Carrier's objections about "brother of the Lord" in Galatians 1:19 meaning true flesh and blood brother of Jesus
http://historical-jesus.info/82.html

#93 My discussion with Dr. Carrier about Christians being understood as "brothers of the Lord" from Paul or the converts
http://historical-jesus.info/93.html

#94 Carrier's lame arguments in OHJ against "James, the brother of the Lord" in Galatians 1:19
http://historical-jesus.info/94.html

#104 Here are Carrier's comments on Josephus' Antiquities 20, 9, 1, trying to prove "Jesus called Christ" is an accidental interpolation.
http://historical-jesus.info/104.html

#105 Carrier's comments in OHJ on Romans 15:8 where Jesus is said to have been a servant/minister to the Jews
http://historical-jesus.info/105.html

I have my critique on Doherty's Jesus Puzzle about "brother(s) of the Lord" here:
http://historical-jesus.info/djp2.html at 3.3.

Cordially, Bernard

[Peter Kirby]

But you have the burden of proof here, since it is your alleged evidence.

Here are my blog posts I wrote on the issue of brother(s) of Jesus/Lord

I was replying to Michael BG.

If you feel that you've met a burden of proof, don't leave us guessing about where you think you did so. Quote it.

[Bernard Muller]

to Peter,

If you feel that you've met a burden of proof, don't leave us guessing about where you think you did so. Quote it.

And what would you accept as proof?
Furthermore, I think if I can demonstrate the mythicist explanations are flawed (which I did for Doherty & Carrier), what is left?
Did Doherty offer proof about his theories on this matter? None? Just unevidenced possibilities. The same for Carrier.

Proof: Jesus is said to be human several times in Paul's letters, one way or another (anybody human then has a fair chance to have human brothers).
"Brother of Jesus" is also evidenced by Josephus in 'Antiquities', as also "brothers of Jesus" in the first gospel ever written, gMark.
Of course one can claim:
a) the Pauline epistles were not written by Paul in the 50's, but later, by someone with knowledge of the gospels. Or if genuine, every allusions to a human Jesus in them are later interpolations.
b) the mention of James as a brother of Jesus called Christ in Josephus' Antiquities is an interpolation.
c) the mentions of brothers of Jesus in gMark are not to be trusted.

But this someone have to give proof that his/her claims are true for all of these three points. If only one of his/her claims is false, then Jesus had flesh & blood brother(s).

Cordially, Bernard