Archaeologica.org

Then after three years I went up to Jerusalem to visit Cephas [Peter--Ed.], and remained with him fifteen days, but I saw none of the other apostles except James the Lord's brother.

We know there was a Galilean group and a Jerusalem group...and judging by the Gnostic gospels probably 40 or 50 ( or maybe 200!) other christian communities which had wildly differing views.

One of the gospel writers...don't ask me which one...claims jesus had brothers and sisters which Virgin Birth fanatics dismiss by saying that they were either Joseph's children by a prior marriage OR by saying that "brother" meant only 'fellow believer.'

So...let me get this straight. You are taking that one line literally?

Minimalist wrote:We know there was a Galilean group and a Jerusalem group...and judging by the Gnostic gospels probably 40 or 50 ( or maybe 200!) other christian communities which had wildly differing views.

The dating of the communities funds graduate programs.

One of the gospel writers...don't ask me which one...

Mk.

. . . claims jesus had brothers and sisters which Virgin Birth fanatics dismiss by saying that they were either Joseph's children by a prior marriage OR by saying that "brother" meant only 'fellow believer.'

and they are wrong of course. Neither Mk nor Jn would know or care about a "virgin birth." As you probably know, that comes from a mistranslation in the LXX. Anyways, Mk uses the "brothers" for a literary reason:

Mk 3:31-34 And his mother and his brothers came; and standing outside they sent to him and called him. And a crowd was sitting about him; and they said to him, "Your mother and your brothers are outside, asking for you." And he replied, "Who are my mother and my brothers?" And looking around on those who sat about him, he said, "Here are my mother and my brothers!"

I do not think anyone can consider that evidence of anything other than Mk and his intended audience would not give a fuck about siblings and the like.

So...let me get this straight. You are taking that one line literally?

One line is all one needs.

--J.D.

Saul/Paul did not have the ability to use emoticons.

The claiming of family relations to gods was not all that uncommon in the ancient world....Julius Caesar reckoned his line back to Venus.

Since it would seem that Saul/Paul was in a contest for Boss Hooter with the Jerusalem group how can you say that what he meant was not...


"James, the Lord's brother...."

Minimalist wrote:The claiming of family relations to gods was not all that uncommon in the ancient world....Julius Caesar reckoned his line back to Venus.

Why would Paul support such a claim for someone he disagreed with? Besides, whether or not Junior or James claimed divine kinship is irrelevent to whether or not a Historical Junior existed. Tthere is NO evidence that James or Junior claimed relations to gods. Indeed, if you consider the way the Synoptics--and in his own way Paul--castigate the disciples . . . perhaps neither did. Much of the "and he told the crowd of 47,000,000 not to speak of this" is merely a literary device to explain why no one heard of him. The denials on Junior's part may also be devices to explain why there was no tradition of divine kinship. "Hey, I heard that he never claimed to be a son of a god."

"Well . . . of course he denied it, it was . . . lovely plummage!"

Mk plays on that with a sort of tetragrammaton pun where Junior says "I yam what I yam"--ego eimi--εγω ειμι--.

Since it would seem that Saul/Paul was in a contest for Boss Hooter with the Jerusalem group how can you say that what he meant was not...


"James, the Lord's brother...."

If a brother someone to be a brother to.

Quod erat demonstrandum.

--J.D.

Why would Paul support such a claim for someone he disagreed with?

Politics.

Minimalist wrote:

Why would Paul support such a claim for someone he disagreed with?

Politics.

Hardly. Read his introduction again. He is setting himself up as greater than "the Pillars"--a sarcastic aside on his part!--because he was chosen and all of that wankiness. Why would he give any more credence to James? On the contrary, he is happy to mention it in passing because he is MORE important than any of them--certainly more important than the rivals he is dealing with in Galatia.

--J.D.

In 1939 Hitler and Stalin reached a deal in which they divided Poland between them. Neither had any intention of abiding by the treaty for long but for each, at the particular point in time, it served them to cooperate.

AS I said earlier, this looks like a pissing contest between two groups (assuming, for the sake of argument, that it ever happened). Who is to say that this wasn't some attempt to divy up spheres of influence?

"You take Jerusalem and I'll take Asia Minor... Oh, and you want to call yourself "brother of our Lord." Fine, I'll go along with it."

The same way rival senators refer to each other as "the distinguished gentleman from Alabama." Sounds better than "that flaming asshole from Alabama"

Minimalist wrote:In 1939 Hitler and Stalin reached a deal in which they divided Poland between them. Neither had any intention of abiding by the treaty for long but for each, at the particular point in time, it served them to cooperate.

I am unaware of how that is relevant. As far as I know neither Hitler nor Stalin were pretending the other was someone else.

AS I said earlier, this looks like a pissing contest between two groups (assuming, for the sake of argument, that it ever happened). Who is to say that this wasn't some attempt to divy up spheres of influence?

Which would only argue more strongly for the correctness of the passage.

"You take Jerusalem and I'll take Asia Minor... Oh, and you want to call yourself "brother of our Lord." Fine, I'll go along with it."

You have no evidence for that. Why would Paul mention it in a letter then? A letter James would never read? If anything, this would generate the tradition of someone falsely claiming kinship. People were quite happy to perpetuate the tradition that Cephas denied Junior. Furthermore, he acknowledges Cephas' role. So why does a "second-banana" get to be the brother, why not the leader?

The same way rival senators refer to each other as "the distinguished gentleman from Alabama." Sounds better than "that flaming asshole from Alabama"

Save, as demonstrated above, Paul never ever uses the appelation for anyone else.

Right . . . coffee . . . cigar . . . time to do that essay on Q. I may start it as a separate topic so as not to hijack this, but if the Admins [PBUT--Ed.] wish they can certainly "stitch it" to this one.

Doctor X wrote:

Minimalist wrote:In 1939 Hitler and Stalin reached a deal in which they divided Poland between them. Neither had any intention of abiding by the treaty for long but for each, at the particular point in time, it served them to cooperate.

I am unaware of how that is relevant. As far as I know neither Hitler nor Stalin were pretending the other was someone else.

AS I said earlier, this looks like a pissing contest between two groups (assuming, for the sake of argument, that it ever happened). Who is to say that this wasn't some attempt to divy up spheres of influence?

Which would only argue more strongly for the correctness of the passage.

"You take Jerusalem and I'll take Asia Minor... Oh, and you want to call yourself "brother of our Lord." Fine, I'll go along with it."

You have no evidence for that. Why would Paul mention it in a letter then? A letter James would never read? If anything, this would generate the tradition of someone falsely claiming kinship. People were quite happy to perpetuate the tradition that Cephas denied Junior. Furthermore, he acknowledges Cephas' role. So why does a "second-banana" get to be the brother, why not the leader?

The same way rival senators refer to each other as "the distinguished gentleman from Alabama." Sounds better than "that flaming asshole from Alabama"

Save, as demonstrated above, Paul never ever uses the appelation for anyone else.

Right . . . coffee . . . cigar . . . time to do that essay on Q. I may start it as a separate topic so as not to hijack this, but if the Admins [PBUT--Ed.] wish they can certainly "stitch it" to this one.

Sorry, Doc. People write all sorts of shit....some of it they may even mean. The written word is notoriously unreliable, especially if there are no other written sources to check it against. We have only Caesar's Commentaries on the Wars in Gaul and to hear him tell it he never lost a battle.

PS - Hitler and Stalin pretended to be allies even though they hated each other's guts.

You have no evidence for that.

Absolutely none. But I don't think that human nature has changed all that much in 2,000 years.

Minimalist wrote:Sorry, Doc. People write all sorts of shit....some of it they may even mean.

Irrelevant. One can explain the shit.

We have only Caesar's Commentaries on the Wars in Gaul and to hear him tell it he never lost a battle.

Yet he did exist, and he was in Gaul.

PS - Hitler and Stalin pretended to be allies even though they hated each other's guts.

Only relevant if Stalin was not actually Premier of the USSR but really the assistant latrine cleaner for Aberdeen.

Absolutely none. But I don't think that human nature has changed all that much in 2,000 years.

Again, irrelevant. You need to explain why Paul would lie in that way--and expect no one . . . like the readers of the letter in Galatia . . . to catch him on it.

--J.D.

Who says he's lying?


Perhaps he was just going along with the scam?

Minimalist wrote:Perhaps he was just going along with the scam?

Again, you would have to explain why he would do that. Why would he support a scam that is against his interests?

--J.D.

I found the book. As soon as I get the time I'll post Doherty's comment.

Doctor X wrote:

Minimalist wrote:Perhaps he was just going along with the scam?

Again, you would have to explain why he would do that. Why would he support a scam that is against his interests?

--J.D.

You already rejected my 1939 Non-Agression Pact analogy. Perhaps you would like a mafia "territory" analogy, better?

"Yo...James...you'se organize da rackets on da south side...and Paulie's people get the north side territory.....dat's how we do business...."

From page 57 of The Jesus Puzzle....

Did Jesus have a brother? Mark gives him four and in Galatians 1:19 we read the words: "James, the brother of the Lord." It may well be this very phrase which led later Christians to make James the Just, the head of the Jerusalem church until his martyrdom around 62 AD, a sibling of Jesus himself. But does Paul's refence to James mean this?

The term "brother" (adelphos) appears throughout Paul's letters, and was a common designation Christians gave to each other. In 1 Corinthians 1:1 Sosthenes is called adelphos, as is Timothy in Colossians 1:1. Neither one of them, nor the more than 500 "brothers" who received a vision of the spitiual Christ in Corinthians 15:6, are to be considered siblings of Jesus. "Brothers of the Lord" (adelphon en kurio) appears in Phillipians 1:14 (the NEB translates it "our fellow Christians"). This is a strong indicator of what the phrase applied to James must have meant. James was head of a community in Jerusalem which bore witness to the spiritual Christ, and this group seems to have called itself "brethren of/in the Lord." The pre-eminent position of James as head of this group could have resulted in a special designation for him as the brother of the Lord. Note, too, that such designations are always "of the Lord," never "of Jesus." We might also note that the term "adelphos" was common in Greek circles to refer to the initiates who belonged to the mystery cults."

So, I can't recall exactly what your comment in reference to Doherty was but I don't think he ignored the passage.....it just sounds like he doesn't think it was meant to assume a genuine family relationship.