Why Paul never quotes Jesus

[Jagd]

In this same Novel, our young hero is born thanks to a miracle of a god. The god said to the father : « your child will accomplish wonders ».
Later in the story, he conversed with scribes in a temple and they were amazed by his teachings.
He was 12 years old

What a smoking gun! Also incredible to read an LDS person admit the NT is full of repackaged stories.

Also interesting how the non-Christian versions of Christ (namely the portrayal by Celsus and the Toledot Yeshu) mention that the learned magic from the Egyptians, and this story is all about Egyptian magicians. In a larger way, many of the Gospel stories (mostly in Mark) feature Christ performing typical Greco-Egyptian magic. There's also of course the mention of Christ and his family going down to Egypt, which appears to have been later connected to a "prophecy" in Hosea in order to fit that element with Hebrew scripture.

[GakuseiDon]

In this same Novel, our young hero is born thanks to a miracle of a god. The god said to the father : « your child will accomplish wonders ».
Later in the story, he conversed with scribes in a temple and they were amazed by his teachings.
He was 12 years old

What a smoking gun!

I'd be wary of declaring 'smoking guns' for a simplified description that only contains selected details to invoke a parallel. Even so: a smoking gun for what? The precis given has no equivalent to gMark. Perhaps as an influence on later Gospels?

Out of interest, I tracked down what appears to be the English translation of the Egyptian story, here:
http://www.attalus.org/egypt/khamuas.html

That website has a lot of older Egyptian texts, it looks really good!

[Jagd]

In this same Novel, our young hero is born thanks to a miracle of a god. The god said to the father : « your child will accomplish wonders ».
Later in the story, he conversed with scribes in a temple and they were amazed by his teachings.
He was 12 years old

What a smoking gun!

I'd be wary of declaring 'smoking guns' for a simplified description that only contains selected details to invoke a parallel. Even so: a smoking gun for what? The precis given has no equivalent to gMark. Perhaps as an influence on later Gospels?

Out of interest, I tracked down what appears to be the English translation of the Egyptian story, here:
http://www.attalus.org/egypt/khamuas.html

That website has a lot of older Egyptian texts, it looks really good!

Thanks for the link. I meant a smoking gun for the Egyptian connection to the Gospel/Christ narratives.

[spin]

[Paul] does not seem like he was at all interested in whatever Jesus said or did here on Earth.

Had Jesus said or done anything on earth at the time of Paul's writing? We simply assume by convention that the Jerusalem people were "Christian", though nothing indicates that they were. We only hear about Jesus from Paul's mouth. He tells them his salvation gospel in private, but comes away from the meeting unimpressed. We know they were practising Jews, who were not of the traditional line of belief, if traditionally raised Paul harrassed people like them, but beyond that we know little about them. They were probably messianic, if Paul sought some recognition from them. The rest is eisegesis.

Well according to Paul, Jesus was born of a woman, crucified, and was buried. From this, it's heavily implied that Jesus had lived on earth before Paul's writing.

That's the beauty of messianic expectation. The messiah was naturally Jewish, ie born of a Jewish woman and a descendent of Abraham, of the line of David. That's what was expected.

He also tells us that one of the people in Jerusalem was James, "the Lord's brother." I suppose the argument is that we can't really know what Paul meant by the phrase "the Lord's brother"... however, the natural implication is that this James person was the brother of the same person Paul has consistently been referring to as "the Lord". Thus, Jesus would appear to have had at least a brother in Jerusalem.

This is the sort of eisegesis that I was talking about and you need to fight against. Do you know the Hebrew name Ahijah? It means "Yah(weh) is my brother". Gal 1:19 doesn't say "James the brother of Jesus" as one would expect, so you must not succumb to indoctrination and read it as such. Read my post on The use of κυριος in Paul's letters. It should make you question the assumption that Paul has "consistently been referring to [Jesus] as 'the Lord'."

One thing Paul consistently does: he uses αδελφος ("brother") to mean a fellow believer, not a biological relationship. He often attaches "in the flesh" to mark biology. You should be wary of assuming a physical relationship when Paul uses a common term for an association member. The only issue to deal with is what is meant by "brother of the Lord", remembering:

1. Paul exclusively uses "brother" of association members.

2. He uses "the Lord" to mean God. (Read the relevant linked post.)

3. The meaning of "Ahijah" is "brother of the Lord".

4. Qualifying something as "of the Lord" gives it enhanced status and James is the leader of the Jerusalem group.

5. Paul ranks "brothers of the Lord" on a par with apostles (1 Cor 9:5).

6. According to the gospels, Jesus' family thought he was touched, rejected him, and we note no James in Acts blessed with a filial relationship with Jesus.

This use of James the brother of the Lord is what I'd call Ehrman's gambit. It cannot be shown to mean what he intends, though it feeds into the prevailing theological dogma and distracts people from trying to read what Paul says.

Now, whether the folks Paul was writing to knew anything about Jesus, we have no idea, and it's a different question.

[davidlau17]

That's the beauty of messianic expectation. The messiah was naturally Jewish, ie born of a Jewish woman and a descendent of Abraham, of the line of David. That's what was expected.

This particular Messianic expectation could be applied to literally anyone who was born Jewish. And I'm not familiar with any prophecy regarding crucifixion.

Gal 1:19 doesn't say "James the brother of Jesus" as one would expect, so you must not succumb to indoctrination and read it as such.

We shouldn't expect this - Paul rarely uses the name "Jesus" alone. Using the term "Jesus" without any reverential titles such as "Lord" or "Christ" might be seen as a sign of humanizing him, a sign of disrespect in the eyes of a believer. This becomes particularly troublesome if you are referring to brothers or relatives of the deified figure; you're already treading on extremely slippery ground. Best to use a reverential term like "Lord" to ensure the readers understand that even though Jesus has brothers, he's still divine.

One thing Paul consistently does: he uses αδελφος ("brother") to mean a fellow believer, not a biological relationship. He often attaches "in the flesh" to mark biology. You should be wary of assuming a physical relationship when Paul uses a common term for an association member.

Paul uses the phrase "according to the flesh" when trying to downplay the significance of a biological relationship. He wouldn't use the phrase to describe James' relation to Jesus unless he wanted to take a jab at James. It's true that Eusebius and Epiphanius used the phrase "brothers, according to the flesh" to describe the brothers of Jesus, but this appears to be a later development.

Since αδελφος is the only word that can be used to denote a blood-brother, and since it can also mean fellow believer, the only way we can know if Paul meant "fellow believer" or actual "brother" would be to consider the context. "Then after three years I did go up to Jerusalem to visit Cephas and stayed with him fifteen days; but I did not see any other apostle except James the Lord’s brother." If "the Lord's brother" simply means another believer, why wouldn't Cephas be characterized as such? Paul later describes him as another "pillar" of the church, so he's surely a fellow believer. It seems to me that that this term was used to distinguish James from Cephas. Yet if it carries the meaning you suggest, it could not be used to distinguish the two.

He uses "the Lord" to mean God. (Read the relevant linked post.)

I read the relevant post, and you make a convincing argument that Paul's use of "the Lord" can simply mean God, but I don't see how we can conclude that it is limited to this meaning.

Qualifying something as "of the Lord" gives it enhanced status and James is the leader of the Jerusalem group.

We don't know that James was the sole leader of the Jerusalem from Paul's letters alone. Paul lists him among the three "pillars", the other two being Cephas and John. Deducing that James was the top guy would require eisegesis.

Paul ranks "brothers of the Lord" on a par with apostles (1 Cor 9:5).

True, but he lists them just after "the apostles". If these phrases are synonymous, why would he separate them?

According to the gospels, Jesus' family thought he was touched, rejected him, and we note no James in Acts blessed with a filial relationship with Jesus.

This is eisegesis. The gospel writers don't paint Jesus' family in a positive light and Acts barely even alludes to them. The leader of the Church named James abruptly appears in chapter 15 with not so much as an introduction. Peter seemed to be the leader until that point. Could we honestly expect the author of Acts to bless James with a filial relationship to Jesus? The authors may not have wanted to emphasize the role of the Desposyni.

This use of James the brother of the Lord is what I'd call Ehrman's gambit. It cannot be shown to mean what he intends, though it feeds into the prevailing theological dogma and distracts people from trying to read what Paul says.

It's Ehrman's view, but does it feed into the prevailing theological dogma, really? I was raised in an intensely Catholic upbringing, and confronted dogma from precisely the opposite direction - the insistence that the Blessed Mary was a perpetual virgin, and thus Jesus absolutely could not have had any blood siblings.

[Sinouhe]

In this same Novel, our young hero is born thanks to a miracle of a god. The god said to the father : « your child will accomplish wonders ».
Later in the story, he conversed with scribes in a temple and they were amazed by his teachings.
He was 12 years old

What a smoking gun!

I'd be wary of declaring 'smoking guns' for a simplified description that only contains selected details to invoke a parallel. Even so: a smoking gun for what? The precis given has no equivalent to gMark. Perhaps as an influence on later Gospels?

It is widely acknowledged that the infancy narrative in Luke is not historical. And we find a text older than Luke, discovered in Egypt, which contains not only an infancy narrative but also a parable very close to the infancy narrative and the lazarus parable in the Gospel of Luke.

Luke is known to copy Mark, certainly Matthew and even Flavius Josephus. And he also plagiarizes the old testament by transforming stories to make new ones of the life of Jesus or the apostles.

Would it be surprising that he used this Egyptian text ?

[spin]

That's the beauty of messianic expectation. The messiah was naturally Jewish, ie born of a Jewish woman and a descendent of Abraham, of the line of David. That's what was expected.

This particular Messianic expectation could be applied to literally anyone who was born Jewish. And I'm not familiar with any prophecy regarding crucifixion.

And no-one made such a claim. Your reference to being born of a woman "could be applied to literally anyone who was born Jewish" and is of no relevance.

Gal 1:19 doesn't say "James the brother of Jesus" as one would expect, so you must not succumb to indoctrination and read it as such.

We shouldn't expect this - Paul rarely uses the name "Jesus" alone. Using the term "Jesus" without any reverential titles such as "Lord" or "Christ" might be seen as a sign of humanizing him, a sign of disrespect in the eyes of a believer. This becomes particularly troublesome if you are referring to brothers or relatives of the deified figure; you're already treading on extremely slippery ground. Best to use a reverential term like "Lord" to ensure the readers understand that even though Jesus has brothers, he's still divine.

Complete eisegesis. You are not working fromo the text, but trying to make excuses for your dogmatic interpretation. If Paul wanted to give him the status you want, all he'd have to have done was to say "James, the brother of our lord Jesus" or similar. You haven't absorbed my post on κυριος.

One thing Paul consistently does: he uses αδελφος ("brother") to mean a fellow believer, not a biological relationship. He often attaches "in the flesh" to mark biology. You should be wary of assuming a physical relationship when Paul uses a common term for an association member.

Paul uses the phrase "according to the flesh" when trying to downplay the significance of a biological relationship. He wouldn't use the phrase to describe James' relation to Jesus unless he wanted to take a jab at James. It's true that Eusebius and Epiphanius used the phrase "brothers, according to the flesh" to describe the brothers of Jesus, but this appears to be a later development.

Try reading Paul:

Rom 1:3, "born of the seed of David according to the flesh,"
Rom 4:1, "our forefather according to the flesh"
Rom 9:5, "patriarchs, of whom comes Christ according to the flesh"

Since αδελφος is the only word that can be used to denote a blood-brother, and since it can also mean fellow believer, the only way we can know if Paul meant "fellow believer" or actual "brother" would be to consider the context. "Then after three years I did go up to Jerusalem to visit Cephas and stayed with him fifteen days; but I did not see any other apostle except James the Lord’s brother."

As I've pointed out twice now, when Paul talks of fleshly relations he does add "according to the flesh" to signal to readers that he's not dealing with spiritual mattes.

If "the Lord's brother" simply means another believer, why wouldn't Cephas be characterized as such? Paul later describes him as another "pillar" of the church, so he's surely a fellow believer. It seems to me that that this term was used to distinguish James from Cephas. Yet if it carries the meaning you suggest, it could not be used to distinguish the two.

Your first clause above is just misguided. I said 1) "brother" indicates a believer and 2) "of the Lord" is a separate notion that could give "enhanced status".

He uses "the Lord" to mean God. (Read the relevant linked post.)

I read the relevant post, and you make a convincing argument that Paul's use of "the Lord" can simply mean God, but I don't see how we can conclude that it is limited to this meaning.

Please read the post again. Especially this notion:

A term that can refer to two different things without contextual clues leads to confused communication, but Paul's aim is to make sense to his readership. This can't happen if you don't know what a term he uses means. On practical grounds Paul's use of "the Lord" as a substitute for a name should be seen to refer to only one entity.

Qualifying something as "of the Lord" gives it enhanced status and James is the leader of the Jerusalem group.

We don't know that James was the sole leader of the Jerusalem from Paul's letters alone. Paul lists him among the three "pillars", the other two being Cephas and John. Deducing that James was the top guy would require eisegesis.

It was James who sent people to Antioch to set Cephas straight. It's his name that comes first in the list of "pillars". The indications are pretty explicit.

Paul ranks "brothers of the Lord" on a par with apostles (1 Cor 9:5).

True, but he lists them just after "the apostles". If these phrases are synonymous, why would he separate them?

Who said they were synonymous??

According to the gospels, Jesus' family thought he was touched, rejected him, and we note no James in Acts blessed with a filial relationship with Jesus.

This is eisegesis. The gospel writers don't paint Jesus' family in a positive light and Acts barely even alludes to them. The leader of the Church named James abruptly appears in chapter 15 with not so much as an introduction. Peter seemed to be the leader until that point. Could we honestly expect the author of Acts to bless James with a filial relationship to Jesus? The authors may not have wanted to emphasize the role of the Desposyni.

It is quite ironic that you try to label what I said "eisegesis" then demonstrate the notion of eisegesis. I simply pointed out some evidence as to the validity or lack thereof of the assertion that Gal 1:19 was talking about a brother of Jesus. It's just evidence. And I actually agree with your second sentence: it supports my argument. "Could we honestly expect the author of Acts to bless James with a filial relationship to Jesus?" Well according to the pundits, Paul did just that. And Acts was written many decades later, so you'd expect what Paul said would have been taken on board by then, if it were veracious, but apparently it wasn't....

This use of James the brother of the Lord is what I'd call Ehrman's gambit. It cannot be shown to mean what he intends, though it feeds into the prevailing theological dogma and distracts people from trying to read what Paul says.

It's Ehrman's view, but does it feed into the prevailing theological dogma, really? I was raised in an intensely Catholic upbringing, and confronted dogma from precisely the opposite direction - the insistence that the Blessed Mary was a perpetual virgin, and thus Jesus absolutely could not have had any blood siblings.

The "prevailing theological dogma", Gal 1:19 as a reference to Jesus, is quite widespread. If you'd prefer, the prevailing theological dogma among scholars. But the quibble is nugatory. It's not dealing with the substance. Besides, you agree with Ehrman's interpretation here. Ehrman's gambit is based on eisegesis, as the text doesn't say what he would like it to, but his use of it "distracts people from trying to read what Paul says".

[GakuseiDon]

Luke is known to copy Mark, certainly Matthew and even Flavius Josephus. And he also plagiarizes the old testament by transforming stories to make new ones of the life of Jesus or the apostles.

Would it be surprising that he used this Egyptian text ?

No, not at all.

[davidlau17]

Your reference to being born of a woman "could be applied to literally anyone who was born Jewish" and is of no relevance.

It's only relevant insofar as it shows Paul claims Jesus was born on earth. Saying he was "born to a woman" indicates that Jesus was not essentially a divine spirit who simply appeared to be in human form but did not actually take on a fleshly human body.

Complete eisegesis. You are not working fromo the text, but trying to make excuses for your dogmatic interpretation. If Paul wanted to give him the status you want, all he'd have to have done was to say "James, the brother of our lord Jesus" or similar. You haven't absorbed my post on κυριος.

A brother to a god-man is different than a brother to a man. As such, we shouldn't expect these scenarios to be treated identically.

Try reading Paul:

Rom 1:3, "born of the seed of David according to the flesh,"
Rom 4:1, "our forefather according to the flesh"
Rom 9:5, "patriarchs, of whom comes Christ according to the flesh"

Gal 4:32 One, the child of the slave, was born according to the flesh; the other, the child of the free woman, was born through the promise.
Rom 9:3 For I could wish that I myself were accursed and cut off from Christ for the sake of my own people, my kindred according to the flesh.
Rom 9:8 This means that it is not the children of the flesh who are the children of God, but the children of the promise are counted as descendants.
Rom 8:13 for if you live according to the flesh, you will die.

As I've pointed out twice now, when Paul talks of fleshly relations he does add "according to the flesh" to signal to readers that he's not dealing with spiritual mattes.

Indeed. And "flesh" has a negative connotation to Paul.

Your first clause above is just misguided. I said 1) "brother" indicates a believer and 2) "of the Lord" is a separate notion that could give "enhanced status".

This status must be quite enhanced, considering "brother of the Lord" has only been applied to a single person in Christian history.

Please read the post again. Especially this notion:

A term that can refer to two different things without contextual clues leads to confused communication, but Paul's aim is to make sense to his readership. This can't happen if you don't know what a term he uses means. On practical grounds Paul's use of "the Lord" as a substitute for a name should be seen to refer to only one entity.

That's the problem. You're assuming Paul was adroit at communication. The fact that he continuously referred to Jesus as 'lord Jesus Christ" or "Jesus Christ our lord", while referring to God as "the Lord", indicates otherwise. It would confuse his readership. It's so confusing, in fact, that even the earliest Church Fathers assumed that whenever he referred to "Lord", he was referring to Jesus.

It is quite ironic that you try to label what I said "eisegesis" then demonstrate the notion of eisegesis. I simply pointed out some evidence as to the validity or lack thereof of the assertion that Gal 1:19 was talking about a brother of Jesus. It's just evidence.

Well you opened the door for it. You call it evidence. It brings in preconceived notions that Jesus' family rejected him to imply that James must not be his brother.

"Could we honestly expect the author of Acts to bless James with a filial relationship to Jesus?" Well according to the pundits, Paul did just that. And Acts was written many decades later, so you'd expect what Paul said would have been taken on board by then, if it were veracious, but apparently it wasn't....

Paul said James was the Lord's brother in a solitary verse. I'd expect what Paul emphasized to have been taken on board by then. In any case, Acts never says that James wasn't the Lord's brother.

[davidmartin]

Spin,

Did the Jerusalem people know anything about Jesus before Paul told them his gospel? I think that is quite a relevant question

Well if you put it like that, it's relevant! I just meant it's irrelevant what the convention is or was. The convention might be on to something or useful or it could be wrong. I just meant we can't dismiss something just because it's conventional there has to be a reason. Probably this is just crossed wires on this point

1 Cor 15:3-11 is extremely problematic, not the least because it renders the logic of 15:12-19 a waste of breath arguing for resurrection when there ostensibly are resurrection eyewitness accounts in verses 4-7.

Yes it is problematic, but there's plenty of other places Paul mentions rival teachers they seem to pop up all over his writings. He had major problems with them and these were in his own churches! (if we think he did indeed found them)
Paul is constantly fighting against these rivals, that's what he describes yet i don't see many commentators run with this point they seem to ignore it i think that's a mistake, he had powerful rivals directly opposing him, and if they outlived him they are in a position to influence Christianity in it's formative years

That's not sufficient, as the position you seem to be espousing just sidesteps the Jerusalem group while accepting that there were Jesus believers before Paul

Yes because there's not a lot that is known about the Jerusalem group. I'm perfectly ok with assuming they existed but there's no certainty they were the only rivals to Paul or even his main opponents. I don't think we know enough to kind of partition things into just these two groups
It's more likely there were a whole bunch of competing sects

But this lack of knowledge is only on specifics, that there was a "Christianity" prior to Paul is what Paul is suggesting is the case even if it had major differences to his own gospel. The interesting point this raises, is what would such opponents have tried to do once Paul was gone? If they didn't pack up their bags and go home they would have been on the scene trying to influence things

Interesting you mention messianic. If even the Jerusalem group had been overtly messianic I think Paul would have incorporated that stuff into his gospel a lot more, but it was left to the later gospels to make that connection.