Jesus’ life in eclipse: Reviewing chapter 6 of Doherty’s Jesus Neither God Nor Man

58 thoughts on “Jesus’ life in eclipse: Reviewing chapter 6 of Doherty’s Jesus Neither God Nor Man”

1. “1 Clement is also without any link to a ritual meal originating as Jesus’ last supper.”

   And 1st Clement is nothing but a quotefest from 1st Corinthians. So its a late addition even to 1st Corinthians, and thus also to the gospels. Undoubtedly the Didache’s symbolism was first, bread = Jesus’ teaching, wine = Jesus is vine of David or Messiah. Paul himself can’t even be credited with imposing the pagan symbolism onto the “Lord’s Supper.” Someone subsequent to Paul borrowed this symbolic cannibalism from Mithraism.

   Reply

2. Might I suggest on the phrase “brother of Lord” that Paul uses it sarcastically to refer to James as the one who’s teaching is the closest to the original Christian teaching and hence no as enlightened. In Galatians Paul makes a big deal about not listening to those who were apostles before him, and James the brother of the Lord is clearly the one apostle before him that he is most antagonistic to. It could be a title denoting the old-school nature of his doctrine, a taunt.

   Reply

   1. Or if Paul is a Gnostic it could be a way of identifying James with the Demiurge rather than the Higher God. Brother of the Lord = brother of the Demiurge. Again, it would basically be the same as attacking James for being too old-school.

      Reply

3. “All of this having been said, we cannot rule out an even simpler explanation, despite the lace(sic) of manuscript evidence to support it. The phrase may have begun as an interpolation or marginal gloss.”

   I’m wary of simple explanations that lack evidence to support them. We have all been though the discussion of the brother of the lord, so I won’t rehash the arguments. But if Doherty is so confident, why the need to resort to this? I think he realizes that a lot of people, people who are partial to the idea of a mythical Jesus, are not going to buy this argument. This is why I don’t find Doherty worthwhile, after seeing arguments like this presented by a supporter, why should I think the book has better material?

   Concerning what you think is the most important support for the idea of James not being Jesus brother. First, I will congratulate Doherty for bringing you around to more conservative dates for Galatians, James and Jude. First century? I am impressed, gives us more common ground. Limiting it to first century works is smart, as the later James material doesn’t play up his relation to Jesus either. I’m not sure that Doherty’s common sense should be trusted here. I mean, do the letters receive less authority from people who presume that the letters are from Jesus brothers because they don’t point that out? Since the author call James and Jude, Jesus’ slaves, making a point about Jesus being their brother might undercut the humble tone he is establishing with slave. Of course this is speculative on an authors motive, but Doherty wrote a couple a books using that, so I’ll indulge a bit here.Frankly I don’t know why the letter James doesn’t use the relationship for authority. I also don’t know why Paul doesn’t make use of Jesus’ marital status, but I don’t feel they are proof of doherty’s conclusion.

   Reply

   1. Doherty has pointed out something that some scholars do acknowledge about the nature of the evidence — and the necessity for us to be tentative in conclusions we draw from it given the uncertainties attached to so much of that evidence. Doherty’s point is valid:

      Given what we know about the evolution of texts, the alterations to manuscripts and so on, it is by no means sure how secure any wording, especially a slight one, in a New Testament text should be considered which is that far removed from the autograph. How can a decision be made about key questions base on this inherent degree of uncertainty, an uncertainty justified by the general instability of the textual record visible in the manuscripts we do have? And yet arguments are formulated on such slender reeds all the time — and not excepting by mythicists.

      The evidence of Galatians 1:19 for James being a sibling of Jesus is ambiguous. It is not at all certain given the ambiguity of the term “brother” and the failure to even mention the name “Jesus”. But even if we lean towards it meaning a sibling of Jesus, then any fair and reasonable approach (as opposed to an apologetic or dogmatic one) needs to balance that against all the other factors that Doherty (and others) point out also must be accounted for in any final judgment.

      (Oh, and I was presenting Doherty’s arguments, by the way. I don’t know why you assume my own views of dating of the epistles have changed. My views are the same: I simply don’t know if Paul’s epistles belong to the mid first century or the second century.)

      Reply

   2. Mike, what do you make of Philippians 1:14?

      Reply

      1. It would be best to ask a Greek expert, and i am always dependent on them myself. adlfwn en kuriw seems different from ton adelfwn tou kuriw. There a number of places where the phrase x en kuriw (something in the lord), such as friend in the lord, which is what Paul call’s a friend of his in Romans 16:8. I suppose it means that he is a Christian friend, but again, I’m not Greek expert. in light of that I would take Philippians 1:14 to mean Christian brothers. the other, I can only trust the Greek experts that I should read the brother of the lord and not the brother the lord. But the key word en is missing, so I don’t think we should read brother in the lord for James. thats what i make of it.

         As Neil points out there is a probability that any particular word or phrase is not what was originally intended, and I avoid arguments that hinge to much on a word or phrase. I’m not sure what the expected percentage of disintegration on NT books, but there is at least a couple of percentage points chance a particular word is not right, i call it the blur of documents. Don’t know if that will catch on, but basically your never sure exactly what was meant to be said. I brought this up because we have discussed it before, and it is symptom of the Doherty hypothesis that it has a number of these passages that need fixes so they don’t read counter to his understanding of the epistles. Of course I might be willing to accept the arguments if the rest of his arguments made it likely that the Epistles are discussing a purely mythical Jesus, but they don’t. So given the uncertainties of the other arguments, I don’t have much reason to entertain the outside chances on the trouble verses.

         Reply

         1. Mike it strikes me that Doherty has a lot fewer of these passages than the historicist. If you abandon Galatians 1:19, you lose any early attestation of Jesus having an earthly family. It strikes me that you, Dr. McGrath and the historical Jesus-industrial complex have placed a lot of weight on that single text. Whereas Doherty has large numbers of textual citations from the epistles that suggest the idea that Jesus is a mysterious or mythical entity, and there are very few other verses in the Pauline epistles besides Gal 1:19 that suggest he was not. So if you want to avoid arguments that hinge too much on a word or a phrase, you shouldn’t agree with posts like this where you yourself seem to mock the idea that there was a group called “brethren of the Lord” even though you now seem to think that there was such a group called “Christian brothers” at a time when Christian didn’t exist as a word.

            Isn’t it possible that Phil 1:14, along with 1 Cor 9:5 is the clear “external evidence” that you requested in your first comment to that post that there was indeed a group called “brothers of the Lord”?

            Reply

            1. Your an odd guy Evan.

               Reply

               1. Mike, you refer to a line in Doherty’s argument as a “fix” as if it is an ad hoc safety net for a tenuous argument. That is misunderstanding what he writes as much as you have regularly misunderstood much of anything I have ever written.

                  What Doherty is covering is the nature of the evidence and the caution we need with that, and how other options are always possible given what we are dealing with. That is not a “fix”. But it is historicists who often do place more weight on very little without regard for the whole state of the evidence.

                  Doherty’s approach is defensible.

                  And calling someone “odd” is not an argument.

                  Reply

4. I’m still thinking that, at least in Paul’s case, he did not have access to all the doctrines of James’ group, perhaps due to a rule of concealing them from outsiders, like we see in the Dead Sea Scrolls and the Essenes in Josephus. I also don’t expect to find much (or perhaps any) NT gospel info reflected in pre-gospel writings, mostly because that information appears to be largely made up by people who weren’t “there.” In any event this type of literature doesn’t appear to exist before 70, unless you count the pesharim or messianic proof-texts from Qumran. Another thing I consider is that there may have been no need to write a history of Jesus before 70 because he was expected to return soon. Not trying to defend “HJ’ers,” this is just what I’m thinking.

   Reply

   1. Doherty’s arguments concerning the failure of the first century Christian literature to reference the Jesus we find in the Gospels are built around what we could expect to surface in the evidence that does exist IF the authors had any interest in a Jesus of recent times. If there had been a historical Jesus who generated such an worshipful response among so many, then we do find so many anomalies and contradictions and avoidances and misdirections and ambiguities against this background in the evidence that does exist.

      The simplest explanation for lack of evidence of X is that X did not exist or had no relevance.

      Then when we do read the Gospels we can see immediately that the narratives and characters do have clear antecedants – they are all in the Old Testament.

      It seems simple enough: no evidence for historicity, or at best a little evidence that is ambiguous; clear evidence for literary fabrication of the Gospel narratives.

      Reply

      1. I don’t see it as a “failure” of first century Christian literature to reference the Jesus we find in the gospels, since I agree that of course it wouldn’t because the gospel Jesus did not exist yet.

         As for why there is little mention of a “recent Jesus,” I’m only suggesting that, like “other” second temple sects (the Dead Sea Scrolls group and the Essenes), perhaps James’ group also concealed their doctrines from outsiders. The writings in the NT were all written by or to people who were presumably not “insiders.” Paul was free to say whatever he liked, whether the authors of the epistles of James and Jude liked it or not. But the important thing James wanted “others” to know, in any event, is the imminent “coming of the Lord” (5:7-8), and that “the Judge is standing at the doors” (5:9), which is also all he tells the public in Hegesippus: “‘[T]ell us what is meant by the door of Jesus’ … ‘Why do you question me about the Son of Man? I tell you, he is sitting in heaven at the right hand of the Great Power, and he will come on the clouds of heaven'” (EH 2.23).

         So dangerous would it have been to say much more than this is evidenced by the fact that even saying this much, according to Hegesippus, caused James to be murdered. I think this is a possible reflection of the climate that James’ group operated in, and explains their “silence” and need for secrecy of the messianic doctrines they held. Only after the war do we see the Gospel of the Hebrews, or, if it’s different, “Q.” By then there was a different set of needs, to explain why Jesus never came back, and time (and freedom) to speculate what he might have done when he was here the first time.

         I admit I’m just guessing, and I just wanted to share the thought with you, and I enjoy your feedback and I’m learning a lot here.

         Reply

         1. John, if Jesus was a mythical or heavenly being, then it would make sense to make him a mystery concealed from outsiders. But if he was a real, historical person who had been alive during the lifetime of people who were alive at the time the epistles were written, how could you keep him a secret?

            Reply

            1. It wouldn’t be the existence of Jesus that was the secret, but rather the “meaning” of his life or death. I imagine that it would have been hard (if not impossible) to keep a crucifixion secret, which is why (if it really happened) it was known to the scribes and Pharisees who question James in Hegesippus: “[T]he people are going astray after Jesus who was crucified; so tell us what is meant by the door of Jesus.” The only things that James was willing to say publicly about what Jesus “meant” (in both Hegesippus and the Epistle of James) were that he was coming and would judge people, and that alone, in the former, ended up getting him killed, which shows how dangerous these ideas were. It even says so in Hegesippus: “[T]here was an uproar among the Jews and Scribes and Pharisees, who said there was a danger that the entire people would expect Jesus as the Christ.”

               He tells the same things (in Hegesippus) to representatives of sects who also wanted to know what was meant by “the door of Jesus, and he replied that Jesus was the Savior. Some of them came to believe that Jesus was the Christ: the sects… did not believe in a resurrection or in One is coming to give every man what his deeds deserve, but those who did believe did so because of James.”

               It could be argued that this Jesus is mythical (and maybe he is), but Hegesippus, however late, knew the Gospel of the Hebrews, and says that he had relatives.

               Reply

   2. “I’m still thinking that, at least in Paul’s case, he did not have access to all the doctrines of James’ group, perhaps due to a rule of concealing them from outsiders, like we see in the Dead Sea Scrolls and the Essenes in Josephus.”

      In the Pseudo-Clementine literature Peter sends a copy of his sermons to James with a cover-letter explaining that they must only be read by those who meet certain criteria.

      Reply

      1. You’re right, rey. I wanted to mention that but it slipped my mind. It’s a great example that, like the Essenes in Josephus and the Dead Sea Scrolls sect, James’ group may have kept their doctrines secret from outsiders.

         http://web.archive.org/web/20130526195333/http://www.compassionatespirit.com/Homilies/Epistle-Peter-to-James.htm

         Reply

5. My only problem with the “brother of the Lord” question is that it could be interpreted the way Doherty does or the way Christians like Mark did, and that the convenience of the latter view is that there is then no need to explain what Paul means in Galatians 1:19 or regard Josephus’ “brother of Jesus” comment to be an interpolation (though it’s also debatable). As for 1 Cor. 9:5, I agree that “sister” appears to be used to describe a member of the sect, but a minor quiblle is that the difference here is that they are not being called “sister(s) of the Lord” like the Lord’s “brothers” are. It’s not that I insist that there was an “HJ,” it’s just that these questions don’t seem to have certain answers.

   Another issue I’m starting to have is with the use of the Ascension of Isaiah as evidence that Jesus’ descent was a myth and that the “rulers of this age” are (only) demons. I know it is considered a composite work, and I don’t know if I could say exactly where the “seams” are, but according to the info on earlychristianwritings.com, 9:14 could be regarded as belonging to the same section as ch. 11, which places the crucifixion and resurrection on earth:

   “16. And I saw, O Hezekiah and Josab my son, and I declare to the other prophets also who are standing by, that (this) hath escaped all the heavens and all the princes and all the gods of this world.

   17. And I saw: In Nazareth He sucked the breast as a babe and as is customary in order that He might not be recognized. 18. And when He had grown up he worked great signs and wonders in the land of Israel and of Jerusalem.

   19. And after this the adversary envied Him and roused the children of Israel against Him, not knowing who He was, and they delivered Him to the king, and crucified Him, and He descended to the angel (of Sheol).

   20. In Jerusalem indeed I was Him being crucified on a tree: 21. And likewise after the third day rise again and remain days. 22. And the angel who conducted me said: “Understand, Isaiah”: and I saw when He sent out the Twelve Apostles and ascended.”

   Reply

   1. I posted on a range of scholar’s views of the Ascension of Isaiah and from what I recall all of them assign the bulk of chapter 11 to a later Christian addition to the original text.

      Reply

      1. This is even more complicated than I thought.

         Reply

   2. Personally, I think that “brother of the Lord” is a late addition to Galatians to harmonize it with Acts. Acts has James the apostle killed off early so the James that Paul is in conflict with can be a new hitherto unknown James. The obvious intent is to defend Paul by saying “the James that Paul was in conflict with was not an apostle.” So when we see Paul in conflict with Peter, James, and John in Galatians, the church didn’t like the idea of allowing this James to be the apostle James, so they tacked on “the brother of the Lord” to imply it is a different James, and thus give Paul leeyway to attack him. James “the brother of the Lord” could then simply be an invented character to hide that it was James the apostle the son of Zebedee that Paul was in conflict with.

      Reply

6. The other issue I have is over the meaning of words like Lord and kata sarka. I realize these questions have been dealt with by Doherty and his critics, and however that may be I still tend to approach them by seeing how the words are used elsewhere.

   Let’s take the “brother of the Lord” reference in Galatians 1:19, for example. Let’s even forget how in most cases in his letters Paul means Jesus when he says Lord, or what he may mean by “brothers of the Lord” in 1 Cor 9:5, and look at the five times he uses it in Galatatians. Three of them clearly refer to Jesus, and though I am willing to say that a fourth could possibly refer to God (5:10), I’m not certain that it does, especially considering the other three uses. That leaves 1:19. In the context of the letter, why should that one be different?

   That’s how I approach kata sarka in Romans 1:3 as well. Regardless of what it could mean, elsewhere in Romans it is applied to “real” human beings, like “Abraham, our forefather according to the flesh” (4:1) and “my brothers, my kinsmen according to the flesh” (9:3), and “the fathers, and from whom is the Christ, according to the flesh” (9:5). Why should 1:3 be different?

   I know I’m not bringing anything up that others haven’t already, but setting regardless of the back and forth I’ve read about this, this is the way I look at it, and it’s not because I “want” there to be a “historical Jesus,” because I don’t care one way or the other and never have. My mind is certainly open to Doherty’s interpretations, and I find them really thought provoking, but this is what I can’t help thinking when I consider certain passages.

   Reply

   1. But 1:3 is clearly identified as an interpolation by all by fundamentalists.

      Reply

7. The possibility that “brother of the Lord” was a gloss cannot be discounted. Galatians contains several scribal modifications that appear to be clarifying for second- and third-century readers who Cephas was by replacing each instance with “Peter.”

   Some manuscripts take the list of people in Galatians 2:9 — James and Cephas and John — and change it to — Peter and James and John. You can imagine later readers seeing “James and John” and thinking Paul might be talking about the son of Zebedee, not the Jerusalem bigwig. So there were indeed factors in play that could cause scribes to want to differentiate James, and we know they were comfortable with making changes for clarification purposes.

   By the way, you can actually see a gloss in the Codex Sinaiticus next to Gal. 1:18. The body text says KEPHAN (ΚΗΦΑΝ), while the marginal note says PETRON (ΠΕΤΡΟΝ). By the time we see this verse in the Textus Receptus, Peter has completely replaced Cephas.

   http://www.codexsinaiticus.com/en/manuscript.aspx?dir=next&folioNo=2&lid=en&quireNo=84&side=v&zoomSlider=0

   Reply

   1. I can understand the confusion over Cephas and Peter (I’m confused by it myself), so it’s not surprising to see it reflected in glosses or textual changes. But are there any texts of Galatians without the “brother of the Lord” reference in the main body, or with it only in a marginal note?

      If we assume that it is a gloss (and I could), we will then have to wonder where (and why) Mark says that Jesus had a brother named James, and why Hegesippus (who was said to know the Gospel of the Hebrews and a Syriac gospel) thought so too, and believe that Jospehus’ comment is an interpolation. If we have no reason to assume that it is a gloss, then those other things make sense.

      Reply

      1. John: ‘But are there any texts of Galatians without the “brother of the Lord” reference in the main body, or with it only in a marginal note?’

         Would I have pointed to the precedent of Peter vs. Cephas as a gloss if I knew of a manuscript in which “brother of the Lord” appeared as a marginal gloss? If I knew of such evidence then it wouldn’t be a plausible conjecture; it would be a fact.

         I don’t assume a gloss, but there is good reason to think there was confusion over which James was which. I know that in Acts 1:13 we have three people named James.

         1. James, the brother of John (sons of Zebedee)

         2. James the son of Alphaeus.

         3. James the brother of Judas (Jude). Isn’t it odd that Jude is called James’ brother but not Jesus’ brother?

         Are any of these Jameses the one Mark called James the Less? Or does that make four? It reminds me of the Monty Python sketch where the all the Australian university faculty members are named “Bruce.”

         Reply

         1. I didn’t know if you were aware of a gloss for the James reference, that’s all, and didn’t think anything beyond that. I was just curious. So there isn’t any evidence for one then.

            But I grant that over time there could have been some confusion over which James Paul means in Gal. 1:19, and thus perhaps for that reason “the brother of the Lord” could be an interpolation. But then that makes me wonder why no one needed to clarify which James Paul means in 1 Cor. 15:7.

            Reply

            1. Did Paul really write that? http://depts.drew.edu/jhc/rp1cor15.html

               Given what we know of interpolations in very many ancient texts — not only biblical ones (ancient scholars were also engaged with sorting out interpolations in Homer and others) — and especially given what we know of the irregular history of manuscript transmissions and the controversial status of Paul in particular, interpolations should be expected.

               I don’t mean that we should be cavalier in deciding on interpolations. But where reasonable arguments can be made for them then we do have a right to be cautious in any conclusions we derive from those passages. Not saying we should declare them interpolations but that at least we have a right to read them with a question mark hanging over them.

               Reply

               1. I am aware that this passage is debatable. But regardless of who wrote it, I have to wonder why no one needed to clarify who James was here if someone needed to do so in Gal. 1:19.

                  Reply

                  1. It seems to me that a gloss would not be necessary for the self-clarifying 1 Cor 15:7. That is: the James referenced was not one of the 12 and thus not James the brother of John. Maybe if we could better discount Josephus’ reference to the brother of Jesus, it would be easier to discount “the brother of the Lord” in Galations. I have tried to highlight some difficulties I see with making Josephus’ reference an interpolation. I have those difficulties posted at http://www.bobmoorepainting.com/BlogPhotos

      2. Marcion’s version of Galatians did not have “brother of the lord”. It’s interesting that Tertullian never accuses Marcion of removing it.

         Reply

         1. That’s interesting, J. Quinton. I’m looking into this question, but so far in this translation (I don’t know what it is based on), it says “brother of the Lord”:

            http://www.gnosis.org/library/marcion/Galatian.htm

            I also looked up Tertullian’s Against Marcion (book 4), but I don’t see anything yet that indicates that there was no “brother of the Lord” reference in Marcion’s Galatians.

            http://www.tertullian.org/articles/evans_marc/evans_marc_10book4_eng.htm

            I feel like I might be missing something. Where are you getting this idea?

            Reply

            1. It looks like the one on the gnosis library is an uncritical translation. Why would Marcion have Paul meet a brother of a divine hypostasis that only had the appearance of a body? Marcion’s Jesus was never born; he first appeared on Earth during the reign of Tiberius.

               If “brother of the Lord” was originally in Galatians, Marcion would have snipped it. If it wasn’t originally in there (or at least in Tertullian’s copy of Galatians) he would have mentioned Marcion’s necessary removal of the passage. If it was in Marcion’s version of Galatians, and Marcion was not apt enough to remove it to promote his particular Christology, then imagine the mockery that Tertullian would have heaped upon Marcion for his inconsistency (suddenly a son, suddenly sent, suddenly Christ, suddenly with brothers! *3rd century version of lol*).

               This looks to be a more critical reconstruction http://www.deusdiapente.net/science/Bible%20Research/Paul%20to%20the%20Galatians%20(Marcion).pdf

               Reply

               1. I need to chew on this. My thought when you first mentioned this, not out of desperation to defend HJ, was that, if this is true, it’s understandable why Marcion would remove it (if it was there). Tim also mentioned that others would have had a reason to add it. Personally, I’m okay with it being there, but I’m also okay with it not being there, if it could ever be figured it out.

                  Reply

               2. On the other hand, proto-“orthodox” Church Fathers would have good reason not to point too hard toward James as a “brother of the Lord,” since they were trending toward support for a doctrine of the perpetual virginity of Mary, IIRC.

                  Reply

                  1. I just noticed that Eusebius saw the need to clarify who the James in 1 Cor. 15:7 was, when he cites Paul’s passage on resurrection appearances:

                     “Next, he says, He was seen by James -one of the reputed brothers of the Lord” (EH 1.12).

                     I agree with KevinC above. The family of Jesus seems to have been an awkward subject for orthodox Christians. I’m just wondering off the top of my head, but at the moment I can’t think of any sources besides (maybe) Paul, Josephus and Hegesippus, who thought that James was Jesus’ brother without trying to explain what it “really” means. I’m too lazy to look it up right now, so I could be wrong.

                  2. I wonder why the Gospel writers had no details of Jesus childhood or birth and so felt free to invent details, when James would have been pestered for information about his brother, and would have spent all of his time retelling this oral tradition that circulated so freely among early Christians.

                  3. But what do we know about Paul’s childhood or birth, or James’, or anyone else in early Christianity? What do you suppose would have been so important about these details of Jesus’ life to James’ group?

                  4. It is baffling why early Christians had no interest in their Saviour’s birth, so felt free to invent stories of his being born in Bethlehem, born of a virgin, showered with gifts etc etc,almost as though there were no true stories about his birth.

                  5. Steven, I have to reply to your following post under my preceding post, as I don’t see a reply button under yours.

                     I don’t find it baffling, because I expect Pauline Christians to be “out of the loop.” We can see that the Dead Sea Scrolls group, the Essenes in Josephus and Jamesian Christians in the Clementine literature all (if they are any different) kept their doctrines secret from outsiders, and judging from the letters of Paul, James and Jude, the Clementine literature and other Ebionite sources, Paul was considered an outsider.

                     So I can understand why they would make up stories about Jesus, whether he was a myth or not.

                     And since Ebionites are said to have believed that Jesus was a normal man, I don’t understand what more they would need to say beyond what they did say, that he was the son of a man and a woman by normal generation. Or what Hegesippus says, that “the Lord’s family” was of David’s line. And even Paul says (mythically or not) that he was born of a woman, of the seed of David.

                     If other people wanted to say more than this in their “pious fiction,” that’s understandable.

8. I approach the meaning of “brothers in the Lord” in Philippians 1:14 the same way as kata sarka: how does Paul use these words elsewhere.

   In Romans 16 there is a long list of people associated with Paul who are referred to as being “in the Lord” and “in Christ” and people who are variously called saints, beloved or brothers, like Timothy is in 1 Cor. 4:15-17: “For I became your father in Christ Jesus through the gospel. I urge you, then, be imitators of me. Therefore I am sending you Timothy, my beloved and faithful child in the Lord, to remind you of my ways in Christ, as I teach them everywhere in every church.”

   “Lord” and “Christ” are interchangable to Paul, like in 1 Cor. 7:22: “For he who was called in the Lord as a slave is a freedman of the Lord. Likewise he who was free when called is a slave of Christ.”

   And the people he refers to in this way do not seem to be members of a Jerusalem group: “Have I not seen Jesus our Lord? Are you not my workmanship in the Lord? If to others I am not an apostle, at least I am to you; for you are the seal of my apostleship in the Lord” (1 Cor 9:1-2).

   Philippians is addressed to “to all the saints in Christ Jesus who are at Philippi” (1:1), to whom he also says in 1:12, “I want you to know, brethren …”

   In Philippians, as in Romans and 1 Corinthinans, “saints” and “brethren” who are “in the Lord” or “in Christ” are the same, and do not appear to be members of a Jerusalem group: “Greet every saint in Christ Jesus. The brethren who are with me greet you. All the saints greet you, especially those of the household of Caesar” (Philp. 4:21-22).

   What Paul usually means by “brothers” (like in 1:12) and “in the Lord” is evidence that “brothers” in Philippians 1:14 means those who are associated with Paul, and that “in the Lord” means “in Christ.”

   If Galatians 1:19 is not an interpolation, then perhaps James is just another “brother” like this, but I suspect that of “the Lord” means of “Christ,” since that what it usually means in Paul’s letters.

   Maybe I’m wrong, but I don’t know what else to think.

   Reply

9. We can easily get lost in arguments about kata sarka and ‘brother of the Lord’ but how we understand these will always come back to our understanding of some other verses or hypotheses or whatever.

   The reason I like Doherty’s case is that it stands upon the core thoughts expressed in the NT epistles (not only Paul’s) as interpreted against the philosophical/theological background thoughts of the time.

   That leaves a couple of verses still hanging in ambiguity: ‘kata sarka’ in Romans and ‘brother of the Lord’ in Galatians. Only an apologetic fundamentalist type of thinker would insist on starting with an exclusive interpretation of an ambiguous verse and forcing everything else into that. Doherty makes his case on the strength of the bulk of the passages, and shows that a couple of left-over ambiguities do not necessarily overturn his argument.

   There are too many variable and uncertainties that can be brought to bear upon those two passages that it is pointless, I think, ever trying to pin them down into something so definitive that that they deserve to be the pivot upon which the entire NT epistolic corpus should be interpreted.

   Reply

   1. ‘Only an apologetic fundamentalist type of thinker would insist on starting with an exclusive interpretation of an ambiguous verse and forcing everything else into that.’

      Mainstream NT historians despise fundamentalists who force the picture of Jesus in John’s Gospel to conform to the picture of Jesus in the synoptics, just as these scholars despise people who do not try to force the picture of Jesus in Paul to conform to the picture of Jesus in the Gospels.

      Reply
10. Pingback: Chapter 6 of Earl Doherty’s Jesus: Neither God Nor Man | Exploring Our Matrix
11. Pingback: McGrath’s suppression of Doherty’s arguments: Ignatius « Vridar
12. Pingback: Evidence McGrath does not read what he claims to be reviewing « Vridar
13. Pingback: James Brother of the Lord, Porky Pies and Problems for the Historical Jesus Hypothesis « Vridar

14. Ga 5:2 Behold, I Paul say unto you, that if ye be circumcised, Christ shall profit you nothing allthat means is ur not gonna get anything extra
    For I testify again to every man that is circumcised, that he is a debtor to do the whole law.if u wish to do things and demand the law from others thats what u get
    Ga 5:4 Christ is become of no effect unto you, whosoever of you are justified by the law; ye are fallen from grace. no man can justify himself by the law most off these debated things r there simply to show u that ur no better than anyone else even if u think u got somthin special god gave it to u and gave me mine neither has a greater value Ga 5:6 For in Jesus Christ neither circumcision availeth any thing, nor uncircumcision; but faith which worketh by love.

    Reply

15. and to some off u perhaps ur efforts would be better used if u just tried to propperly interpert the bible its not gonna hurt u theres tons off idiots out there that talk abunch off crap thats not in the bible or is a mis representation off it and the context there off its all good wen u get to the core off what matters
    http://www.gnosis.org/library/infgos1.htm
    http://www.goodnewsinc.net/othbooks/thomas.html
    http://www.gnosis.org/library.html put that in ur pipe and smoke it o look for the pistis sophia most devote christians r stupid the wont accept anything not in the bible but will read all sorts off commentaries and such how stupid iff u cant see and allow others to see other stuff written by the same people how stupid gods word is not bound by any book not even king lames

    Reply

16. and yes king lames was intentional
    Joh 9:1 And as Jesus passed by, he saw a man which was blind from his birth. And his disciples asked him, saying, Master, who did sin, this man, or his parents, that he was born blind? Jesus answered, Neither hath this man sinned, nor his parents: but that the works of God should be made manifest in him
    Isa 25:7 And he will destroy in this mountain the face of the covering cast over all people, and the veil that is spread over all nations. He will swallow up death in victory; and the Lord GOD will wipe away tears from off all faces; and the rebuke of his people shall he take away from off all the earth: for the LORD hath spoken it.
    Mt 22:35 Then one of them, which was a lawyer, asked him a question, tempting him, and saying, Master, which is the great commandment in the law?
    Jesus said unto him, Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind. This is the first and great commandmentAnd the second is like unto it, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself. On these two commandments hang all the law and the prophets.

    Reply

17. I have posted this on McGrath’s blog:

    By now we are all familiar with how much historicists rely on Galatians 1:19 and its “brother of the Lord” to find an historical Jesus within the epistles. It’s one of a small handful of life preservers thrown into the waters to try to rescue Paul from drowning in a mythical sea. I would like to put an additional emphasis on one of the arguments I have used to poke holes in this particular preserver. I have pointed out that Philippians 1:14 uses a similar phrase to Galatians 1:19, namely “brothers in the Lord” (ton adelphon en kurio). This can hardly be taken any other way than meaning “fellow-believers in the Lord” and indicates the usage of a phrase to describe a group of sectarians Paul is acquainted with. The very fact that it is so similar to the Galatians phrase should be a strong argument that the latter is likely to have the same meaning.

    We might also include here the “brothers of the Lord” (hoi adelphoi tou kuriou of 1 Cor. 9:5. It would seem that both these phrases refer to members of a sect which is known by that name, with the preposition in it somewhat fluid and interchangeable. I referred to the difference in prepositions between Gal. 1:19 and Phil. 1:14 as “slight.” (Actually, in the “of” form, the preposition is understood within the genitive of the definite article before “Lord”.[There is no ‘missing’ preposition before the genitive “Lord”.])

    Bernard [Muller], with his peerless command of language both English and Greek, disputed the “slight”. But let’s see if we can illustrate how there is essentially no difference in sample phrases which interchange these two prepositions. These examples can only be in English, but I would challenge anyone to demonstrate that in Greek there would be any particular prohibition to understanding these examples as essentially meaning the same thing, no matter which preposition/case is used.

    Example 1:
    “We are students in the art of love.”
    “We are students of the art of love.”

    Example 2:
    “We are fellow-seekers in the truth.”
    “We are fellow-seekers of the truth.”

    Example 3:
    “We are practitioners in outdoor sports.”
    “We are practitioners of outdoor sports.”

    Example 4:
    “We are advocates in the practice of rationality.”
    “We are advocates of the practice of rationality.”

    Given that Phil. 1:14 can only have the one meaning, these examples show that Galatians 1:19 could also have the same meaning, undercutting if not destroying any claim by historicists that the latter phrase can “only have one natural meaning,” namely that of sibling. Not even a probability of that meaning can be maintained, since nowhere else in the entire early record outside the Gospels is James identified as the sibling of Jesus, despite several inviting opportunities to do so, as in the letters of James and Jude, and also in Acts. Nor in the Gospel of Thomas (saying 12) is James identified as Jesus’ very brother (despite having heaven and earth created for him). Explanations for such silences are indeed ad hoc and entirely unconvincing (see JNGNM, note 29). And of course, we have the vast majority (if not them all) of Pauline/epistolary usages of “adelphos to mean a member of the sect.

    We can also note that the Gal. 1:19 (and 1 Cor. 9:5) phrase is “brother(s) of the Lord”, not “brother of Jesus” which we might expect if Paul’s thoughts were focused on a sibling relationship; whereas Phil. 1:14, which is focused on belief and membership in a sect, uses “the Lord” for such a focus, leading us to assume the same focus in Galatians with its similar language.

    The naïve claim that Galatians 1:19 can only have the meaning of sibling and is primary ‘proof’ of the existence of a human Jesus cannot stand, and is little short of ludicrous. And that’s even before we consider the feasibility of interpolation.

    So what’s left? Romans 1:3? Another passage as having only one possible meaning? Galatians 3:29, the gentiles as “seed of Abraham”: obviously NOT a physical linkage but a mystical one. Ergo, “seed of David” does not have only one possible meaning. “Born of woman”? Let’s wait until Jim gets to my Chapter 15.

    They’re falling like tenpins.

    Earl Doherty

    Reply

18. Once again, I will make a point similar to a similar situation a couple of weeks ago.

    One cannot analyze the probable meaning of “brother(s) of the Lord” according to a statistical analysis of usages of individual words by Paul elsewhere. If “brothers of the Lord” is a phrase with currency, Paul will use it because of that fact, unrelated to how he normally uses the same terms in phrases of his own invention.

    Reply

19. I had a look at some of the discussion on McGrath’s blog where Earl Doherty posted the comment above (#17). Those arguing against his earlier comments etc – at least those responding posts I read – are simply not even listening to (or reading) Doherty’s arguments in large part.

    Doherty gives specific and detailed arguments concerning the significance of a certain phrasing or wording found in Paul, and people simply respond that the argument is void without ever attempting to demonstrate why any of the particular arguments are void. Is this what is called in the business “hand-waving” things away?

    Reply

20. I just posted on McGrath’s site a response concerning the issue of Phil. 1:14’s “brothers IN the Lord” which is particularly important. I’ll repeat it here:

    In the matter of Philippians 1:14…

    This is a good example of debaters here relying on what others say, while being incapable of analyzing a claim for themselves, particularly where the Greek text is concerned.

    I have the utmost respect for Richard Carrier, but here, as Bernard has quoted him, I have to say that if Carrier is maintaining that his alternate translation is the only one possible, I cannot agree. And I’m not the only one. The majority of translations (despite what Mike Wilson claims) do NOT agree with him, and those translators, I daresay, are at least as competent in Greek as Carrier is. At best, the passage might be ambiguous. Here are the more common translations:

    KJV: “And many of the brethren in the Lord, waxing confident by my bonds, are much more bold…”

    NIV: “Because of my chains, most of the brothers in the Lord, have been encouraged…”

    NAB: “most of my brothers in Christ, taking courage from my chains, have been further emboldened…”

    NEB: “(my imprisonment)…has given confidence to most of our fellow-Christians to speak the word of God…”

    The Translator’s New Testament: “Most of my Christian brothers have gained confidence through my imprisonment and are daring more…”

    Carrier has translated (according to Bernard): “most of the brethren having confidence in the lord because of my bonds more abundantly dare to speak the word of the Lord without fear.” But, as you can see, the above translations take the “having confidence” idea as linked to the idea of Paul being in chains, the latter words following on the former. They do not see it as governing the phrase that comes previously, “in the Lord” (en kuriō).

    The other problem is that if “being confident” (pepoithotas) is to be taken with the preceding “in the Lord”, this makes the following phrase about Paul in chains (tois desmois mou), which must in whatever case be dependent on the “being confident”, creating something of a contradiction, or perhaps better called a redundancy. Because then the “confidence” has turned its eyes in two different directions. Paul’s “brothers” are “confident” both in the Lord, and by virtue of Paul’s chains. This would be an awkward juxtaposition of thoughts. If they are confident because they have confidence in the Lord, is Paul also going to say that they are confident because of his own chains? The two thoughts are less than comfortably compatible. Why, according to Carrier above, would “the brethren have confidence in the lord because of my bonds”? Why would Paul being thrown in prison give them confidence in the lord? This strikes me as unnatural, even garbled. Whereas, simply “taking courage from my chains” (as in the NAB) is a natural thought, in the sense of being “inspired” by Paul’s chains. In fact, if we look back at the preceding sentence, the thought is focused entirely on those who recognize that Paul is in prison in the cause of Christ (as the NASB puts it). It follows that it is this situation, Paul in chains, which has given his fellow brethren in the Lord confidence to declare their message even more strongly; that it would give them confidence “in the Lord” (while not an impossible idea per se) simply doesn’t follow within the context.

    The NASB and the RSV also awkward-ize the verse, but they are in the minority. (Of course, there are other translations I have not surveyed, but others may do so.)

    However, one that is NOT in the minority is Bauer’s Lexicon, perhaps the most respected Lexicon of NT Greek for the last near-century. Bauer, under “peithō, def. 2.a (“put one’s confidence in with dative of the person or thing”), links the pepoithotas with the following dative “tois desmois mou Phil. 1:14.”

    So I’m sorry, but I do not agree with Carrier here, and certainly do not accept his reading as reliably demonstrating that ‘brothers in the Lord’ is not to be found in Phil. 1:14. I would suggest that Bernard and others avoid pontificating in the absence of any expertise whatever on their own part.

    Reply
21. Pingback: Doherty answers McGrath and others (continuation of ch. 6 criticisms) « Vridar

22. “The main book that a number of scholars apparently still continue to cling to to argue the case for the Gospels being of the Biography genre is Burridge’s 1995 What Are the Gospels? (reprinted 2004). Doherty does not discuss Burridge’s work, but I have discussed it in a post outlining and questioning Burridge’s arguments, Are the Gospels Really Biographies? Since Burridge’s work, a far more scholarly-disciplined approach to the subject of genre has appeared, which is built upon a substantial theoretical understanding of the nature of literary genre itself, and I am thinking in particular of Michael Vines’ The Problem of Markan Genre: the Gospel of Mark and the Jewish Novel, which I have discussed in the post The First Gospel Was a Jewish Novel? Against such works more deeply grounded in a theoretical base, Burridge’s case for the Gospels being Biographies looks like a superficial list of CliffsNotes.”

    JW:
    In my reveiw of Burridge’s book at Amazon:

    http://www.amazon.com/What-Are-Gospels-Comparison-Graeco-Roman/product-reviews/0802809715/ref=cm_cr_pr_hist_1?ie=UTF8&showViewpoints=0&filterBy=addOneStar

    I have added an Appendix summarizing my findings at FRDB:

    http://www.freeratio.org/showpost.php?p=6813346&postcount=107

    Where I demonstrate that using Burridge’s own criteria from What are the Gospels? and comparing “Mark” to http://penelope.uchicago.edu/Thayer/E/Roman/Texts/Suetonius/12Caesars/Julius*.html Suetonius, The Life of Julius Caesar and http://records.viu.ca/~johnstoi/sophocles/oedipustheking.htm Oedipus the King, to see which would parallel better, “Mark” parallels somewhat better here to Greek Tragedy. I’ve also created my own suggested criteria to help DISTINGUISH between characteristics of Greek Tragedy (GT) and Greco-Roman Biography (GRB):

    1) Sources = GRB identifies sources

    2) Background = GRB gives background to the writing

    3) Theme = GT has a definite theme

    4) Literary Form = GT is a connected narrative

    5) Structure = GT has a formulaic structure

    6) Style = GT has significant style

    7) Irony = GT features irony

    8) Divine = GT features Divine intervention

    9) Impossible = GRB tries to avoid the Impossible

    10) Effect = GT has emotional effect

    Using these criteria I have Faith that “Mark” will parallel significantly better with GT. It’s safe to say that Burridge’s conclusion that the Gospels are simply Greco-Roman Biography has been discredited. I think his book will still be considered a classic, but a classic of bad scholarship (Apologetics). Basically, he only created a sample to test for parallels to Greco-Roman Biography, created generic criteria with broad applicability to many genres, evaluated the Gospels as a whole to shield “Mark” from failure to match and claimed matching criteria no matter the extent of the characteristic in the Gospels.

    A proper study of the genre of “Mark” will create contemporary samples of all competing genre, (Greek Tragedy, Greco-Roman Biography, Religious and Greek Hellenistic novel) and evaluate the extent of the characteristics in “Mark”. The combination of the known existing characteristics of different genre in “Mark” and the lack of contemporary clearly defined genre, suggests that the question of Markan genre should be phrased in terms of multi-genre (extent of each) rather than which (only one) genre.

    Joseph

    Reply

    1. It might be interesting to produce a grid table with various criteria listed in rows and different genre in columns.

       You refer to “emotional” effect. More precisely, let’s use “cathartic” — specifying the type of emotion. (Even mathematics involves an emotional element.)

       Reply
23. Pingback: Vridar » The “Born of a Woman” / Galatians 4:4 INDEX

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.