Musings on biblical studies, politics, religion, ethics, human nature, tidbits from science
Some time ago I was attempting to think through the pros and cons surrounding the disputed claims over the significance and meaning of James being described as the brother of the Lord in Paul’s letter to Galatians. I set out the various factors in a discussion of Bayesian probability. But since Bayesian analysis is a … Continue reading “Thinking through the “James, the brother of the Lord” passage in Galatians 1:19″
The influential French theologian who was excommunicated by the Pope for his views, Alfred Loisy, concluded that there were two different “Pauls” authoring the main letters attributed to him. The reason Paul’s letters are generally considered “hard to understand” is because they intertwine two incompatible messages of the Christian faith. Loisy acknowledges that scholars of … Continue reading “What Others have Written About Galatians – Alfred Loisy”
I have copied here a translation from an 1886 publication of … … two researchers from different fields of knowledge …. A. Pierson is the theologian …, whose work has made him known as an astute and fearless critic …. S. A. Naber, on the other hand, is a philologist and thus offers a guarantee … Continue reading “What Others have Written About Galatians – Pierson and Naber”
The fact that a century of such patient and devoted scholarship has yielded so few agreements on difficult passages and fundamental issues makes me think that the nineteenth-century debate is not yet over. (O’Neill, 8f) John Cochrane O’Neill had a reputation for being a controversial critic but his attempt to sift through the many variant … Continue reading “What Others have Written About Galatians – J. C. O’Neill”
The previous post presented a historical Dutch language criticism of Galatians and here I offer a sceptical analysis from France. I have selected from Henri Turmel’s discussion those paragraphs that address Galatians 1-2, — as per my earlier explanation. In my coming post on J.C. O’Neill’s detailed discussion, both Bergh van Eysinga and Turmel are … Continue reading “What Others have Written About Galatians – Joseph Turmel”
To freeload off the Gospel of Luke’s prologue, inasmuch as many have taken in hand to set in order an account of those things which have been written in Galatians, I have decided not to add my own variant to their number, but to set forth one by one the accounts of our predecessors so … Continue reading “What Others have Written About Galatians – Robert M. Price”
Criticism of the Pauline Epistles by B. Bauer First Section The Origin of the Galatians Epistle 1850 3 Preface We will put an end once and for all to the mistakes and unsuccessful attempts of the apologists, who started from the assumption that it is both possible and necessary to integrate the Pauline letters with … Continue reading “BRUNO BAUER: Criticism of the Pauline Letters – I. Origin of the Galatians Epistle”
What we have is a tradition that fairly consistently understood James to be the biological relative of Jesus, even when it eventually found it awkward to view him as Jesus’ biological brother because of other doctrines that had been developing surrounding Jesus and Mary. — Religion Prof Yes, and the earliest evidence we have of … Continue reading “When Did James Become the Brother of the Lord?”
The two earlier posts on The Lord’s Prayer: “Jesus Did Not Compose the Lord’s Prayer” On What Grounds Would Anyone Argue That Luke’s Lord’s Prayer Post-Dates Matthew’s? Let this be my third and final post on the Lord’s Prayer. I return to the article by Michael Goulder with which I began these posts. Our Father … Continue reading “How Matthew Invented the Lord’s Prayer (A Goulder View)”
Proper indexing of my posts has fallen behind. One small step towards correcting this has been to collate all Vridar posts that have dealt with Galatians 4:4 and the famous “born of a woman” phrase. First I list persons whose various views have been presented here. Then . . . well, you can see how … Continue reading ““Born of a Woman” / Galatians 4:4 INDEX“
This is not the first time we have seen Gullotta inexplicably fail to acknowledge that Carrier is prepared to concede for the sake of a fortiori argument the very position Gullotta is arguing. The focus of my response will center on Carrier’s claim that a pre-Christian angel named Jesus existed, his understanding of Jesus as … Continue reading “Gullotta’s review of Carrier’s On the Historicity of Jesus, point #4, “James, the brother of the Lord””
Since posting the following I have pointed to another detail that gives further reason to pause before assuming Lord = Jesus in Galatians. Galatians 1:19 but I saw none other of the apostles, but James the brother of the Lord. Fear not. I will not here repeat the arguments that James was/was not the brother … Continue reading “What If James Really Were “the Brother of the Lord”?”
James McGrath in a recent post, Jesus Mythicism: Two Truths and a Lie, made the following criticism of the use of Bayes’s theorem in the Jesus Mythicism debate: . . . . as I was reminded of the problematic case that Richard Carrier has made for incorporating mathematical probability (and more specifically a Bayesian approach) … Continue reading “Reply to James McGrath’s Criticism of Bayes’s Theorem in the Jesus Mythicism Debate”
James McGrath has posted that it is time to return to the Jesus mythicism question. He writes: It’s time to return once again to the subject of Jesus mythicism, the stance that denies the overwhelming consensus of professional historians and scholars that there most likely was indeed a historical Jesus of Nazareth. Translated, that means … Continue reading “The never-ending “brother of the lord” proof for the historical existence of Jesus”