The Jesus Wars Go Thermonuclear

[Bernard Muller]

to MrMacSon,

a) the Pauline epistles were [probably] not written [or not finalized] ... in the 50's, but later, by someone with knowledge of the gospels ...
... allusions to a human Jesus in them are later interpolations.

Can you prove the references to an earthly & human Jesus were done by an interpolator?
I disprove that for at least one of them: http://historical-jesus.info/18.html

b) the mention of James as a brother of Jesus called Christ in Josephus' Antiquities is an interpolation.

Can you prove it?

c) the mentions of brothers of Jesus in gMark are not to be trusted as allusions to biological-brothers ie. siblings

Can you prove that?

Cordially, Bernard

[Bernard Muller]

to Stephan,

The best argument against Jesus having brothers or sisters is having the earliest Christian believers hold that he was angel.

How do you know that? The Pauline Christians (and most likely the others at that time) thought Jesus was in heaven as a divine/heavenly entity at the time of the "ministry" of Paul. But that would not prevent Jesus to have been an earthly human before that, as told in some Pauline epistles & Hebrews.

Cordially, Bernard

[toejam]

^I think Paul thought Jesus was a pre-existent angel who had been incarnated here on Earth. That makes the most sense of the Philippian Hymn and other passages in my opinion. So there is no contradiction with Paul also thinking this incarnated angel had an Earthly family - a mother and brothers, etc.

[Michael BG]

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

I don’t understand how the burden of proof moved to me. I had been asking for the case for “brothers of the Lord” = “Christian brothers”. You provided one and I commented that I didn’t find it convincing with the reasons. I don’t recalling saying I wanted to convince anyone of my position.

If you think their arguments are bad, what would be the good ones?

The point was to say that you can't be certain about anything in this field. The best argument against Jesus having brothers or sisters is having the earliest Christian believers hold that he was angel. Whether or not Doherty or Carrier have done that means little other to say you have 'certainty' in the matter. But we are so far removed from the historical situation at the beginning of Christianity it would be foolish to have certainty in any respect. My dislike with your approach is that it assumes that certainty is possible. It isn't that clear cut ... I am certain of that.

It is so easy to make statements that imply certainty, when what one is saying is that the evidence convinces me.

While I can accept that the resurrected Jesus was presented as an angel, there are other traditions which present him as a human being, and therefore for me that seems to be likely. However in the future I might be convinced there was no human Jesus, but it would be hard for me to reject all the human Jesus traditions behind the gospels as creations of the early Christians. In the same way that I have not been convinced that Paul does not have a human Jesus before he is crucified.

[Peter Kirby]

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

I don’t understand how the burden of proof moved to me. I had been asking for the case for “brothers of the Lord” = “Christian brothers”. You provided one and I commented that I didn’t find it convincing with the reasons. I don’t recalling saying I wanted to convince anyone of my position.

The allocation of the onus isn't arbitrary, and it hasn't moved.

If a text is being used to prove a point for X, the burden is on X to evince that interpretation.

This text is not being used to prove a point for the 'mythicist' interpretation of Paul.

This text is being used to prove a point for the non-'mythicist' interpretation of Paul.

The onus is on the non-'mythicist' in this case. This is true even if particular individuals don't care to be convincing.

(The same logic is consistently applied to 'mythicists,' who are basically given nothing for granted in matters of interpretation. The logic is correct and cuts both ways.)

[Bernard Muller]

The onus is on the non-'mythicist' in this case

OK, I'll take that onus: a non-mythicist's reading:
Paul said James is "the brother of the Lord" (Gal 1:19). "Lord" is Jesus, according to Gal 1:3. Therefore Jesus had a brother. According to 1 Cor 9:5 ("brothers of the Lord"), Jesus had other brothers ("Lord" is Jesus according to 1 Cor 9:1)
Jesus having a brother called James is confirmed by Josephus' Antiquities.
Jesus having brothers, including one named James, is confirmed by gMark.
Paul had Jesus as an earthly human in the past, as in Ro 1:3, 9:4-5 & Gal 3:16, 4:4.

Do I have to prove the above verses & passages are written in the aforementioned Pauline epistles and 'Antiquities' and gMark?

Cordially, Bernard

[Michael BG]

I disagree. It is quite legitimate to state which parts of someone else’s case you find unconvincing. This does not oblige me to state an alternative case to try to convince them their case is wrong. I might be happy just to disagree. It might be that there are no convincing alternative cases.

However in the general scheme of things someone has to present alternative theories to those presented by the mythicists. Are there not scholars that present the case for Jesus being a historical person? Do they all just assume it? And here, doesn’t Bernard do it?

[Adam]

Nice argument, Bernard, but it ignores a compromise solution, namely that the early Catholic Church was always right about this, that the so-called "Brothers" were really "cousins" (or for early Orthodoxy and by the Proto-Evangelium of James, "step-brothers"):
The strange coincidence that the "other Mary" was the mother of James and Joses, two of the named "brothers": Mark 15:40, Mt. 27:56.
The strange coincidence of two canonical epistles written by another set of two brothers, James and Jude.
The strange coincidence of yet another pairing of two brothers as "barsabbas", sons of Sabbas: Joseph Justus (Acts 1:25) and Judas (15:22).
Put them together gives James, Joses, and Judas. The only one of the four missing is Simon, who presumably became the second Bishop of Jerusalem by family heritage as the brother of James. That all the names of Mark 6:3.

[Secret Alias]

This is the part which gets me. You cite the brother of the Lord business. Whether or not you agree with Marcionite primacy the facts are that there were disputes with regards to the 'correct reading' of the Christian scriptures WHICH ARE IMPOSSIBLE FOR US TO FULLY QUANTIFY. The earliest strata of this debate had Justin vs. the Marcionites. But we don't know what Justin said exactly. How do we get this bloody certainty about anything??? This is what I find baffling about your approach and Ben's for that matter. It's not as if we have a straight forward EITHER/OR - Marcion vs Irenaeus. There is a grey area with a number of gospel texts which (the Epistle to the Apostles demonstrates) had a different order from any of the canonical gospels.

The received texts are corrupt. That has to be most likely possibility from all the evidence from early Christianity and once the sandwich falls into the garbage you shouldn't want to eat it. But with the Christian scriptures - whether or not you accept Marcionite primacy (which I do as a working hypothesis for a number of reasons) - there is a completely separate argument to say that the Catholic scriptures AREN'T CORRUPTED. While the Marcionite debates with Justin for instance allow for (a) Marcionite primacy or (b) the primacy of Justin's gospel text or even (c) a proto-text behind both the Catholic scriptures don't even factor in the debate because Justin didn't use our scriptures. The likely possibility (aside from anything to do with Marcion) is that our texts were corrupt versions of Justin's texts whether or not Justin's text was first or second with respect to Marcion's. In short it is almost impossible to believe that Matthew, Mark, Luke or John are the original gospel texts. To this end, the Pauline letters (preserved in a canon with corrupt gospels) aren't themselves also corrupt.

[Peter Kirby]

I disagree. It is quite legitimate to state which parts of someone else’s case you find unconvincing. This does not oblige me to state an alternative case to try to convince them their case is wrong. I might be happy just to disagree. It might be that there are no convincing alternative cases.

Indeed.

But in the context of thread, nobody advanced the appeal to 1 Cor 9:5 as part of a "case" for anything (except Bernard, apparently). Certainly not your interlocutors.

It's apparently a ghost argument. Nobody's making it. So why are we talking about it at all?

Well, it goes back to this utterance:

Can you present a case to try to convince me that 1 Cor 9:5 is an interpolation or do you not see this a reference to a human Jesus?

Let's say we accept the pretense that you are simply asking a question, ignoring all the wrangling you've engaged in here.

Then the answer to the first part is "no," I cannot. It's not even an idea that seems to be floated much.

The answer to the second part is "yes," that I do not see this as as a reference in the way that you describe.

If this is simply a plain question, there's no need to talk about it further.

1 Cor 9:5 isn't an argument for anything until someone accepts the responsibility of making it an argument for something. Without that, it's nothing.