Larry Hurtado vs Neil Godfrey

Discussion about the New Testament, apocrypha, gnostics, church fathers, Christian origins, historical Jesus or otherwise, etc.
robert j
Posts: 493
Joined: Tue Jan 28, 2014 5:01 pm

Re: Larry Hurtado vs Neil Godfrey

Post by robert j » Thu Dec 07, 2017 12:28 pm

Bernard Muller wrote:
Thu Dec 07, 2017 11:30 am
to robert j,
Bernard Muller wrote: ↑
Wed Dec 06, 2017 3:54 pm

Furthermore this is also stated in gMark (which has sisters also) and Josephus Ant. 20.20 (only for James).
I do not know what Paul should have said more to indicate blood brothers, if at that time when Jesus having true brothers was already known by his audience.


If you think you can use such information from gMark (and Josephus) here --- well, I know you are familiar with the phrase "gospel colored glasses".
What do you mean by "gospel colored glass"" Why would that influence me when reading "the brother of Jesus, who was called Christ, whose name was James" in Antiquities 20.20?
As for the reference of a "James" as brother of Jesus in gMark, I think the expression "gospel colored glasses" cannot apply.
The issue we were discussing was the existence/or not of contemporary biological brothers of Jesus based on Paul's letters. Bringing in information from gMark and Josephus was extraneous.

Reading Paul through gospel colored glasses means using material in the NT Gospels to read information into Paul. You acknowledged Hurtado's error in that regard ---
Bernard Muller wrote:
Wed Dec 06, 2017 2:54 pm
Hurtado: “… other named individuals who were Jesus’ original companions (e.g., Kephas/Peter, John Zebedee).
Response: Paul did not name these individuals as companions of Jesus. And Paul did not identify his single mention of a “John” as “John Zebedee”.
Sure, you can blame Hurtado for that.

perseusomega9
Posts: 342
Joined: Tue Feb 04, 2014 7:19 am
Contact:

Re: Larry Hurtado vs Neil Godfrey

Post by perseusomega9 » Thu Dec 07, 2017 1:03 pm

Bernard Muller wrote:
Thu Dec 07, 2017 11:30 am
About the Corinthians having been introduced to a Jesus (according to worldly ways: not spiritual, mundane or temporal) that Paul wanted them to forget about, see:
http://historical-jesus.info/20.html

Cordially, Bernard
With all these other Jesuses running around, kind of lends more credence to the mythicist position no?

User avatar
MrMacSon
Posts: 4996
Joined: Sat Oct 05, 2013 3:45 pm

Re: Larry Hurtado vs Neil Godfrey

Post by MrMacSon » Thu Dec 07, 2017 1:21 pm

perseusomega9 wrote:
Thu Dec 07, 2017 10:20 am

Part of the problem (and even Carrier suffered from this in his book), is scholars wanting to retreat behind the trenches of textual criticism and assume that the texts of the third century, [along] with a few second century [texts], are near identical to the antecedent texts of the late first and early-to-mid 2nd century texts.

Look at how hard they avoid seeing interpolations in Paul or anti-Marcionite responses in the gospels and pastorals. Any historical reconstruction based on that train wreck is highly dubious and that includes the mythicist position.
.
^This^!! And certainly Carrier seems to be fixed on a lot of early dates, especially for Paul, and the Ascension of Isaiah. An irony is Carrier's argument/s around the role of the Ascension of Isaiah would fit better if he was more flexible as, I understand, a later likely 2nd C. version fits his argument better!!

We know about Paul first from Marcion and probably Irenaeus Adv Haer 3, 1(?)

We may only first know Luke from Marcion from Tertullian's Adv Marc., itself a late 2nd or early 3rd C. text. And, if the recent arguments that the other synoptics are tied to Marcion, we don't know any late first or early-to-mid 2nd century texts.

User avatar
Ben C. Smith
Posts: 4214
Joined: Wed Apr 08, 2015 2:18 pm
Location: USA
Contact:

Re: Larry Hurtado vs Neil Godfrey

Post by Ben C. Smith » Thu Dec 07, 2017 1:49 pm

MrMacSon wrote:
Thu Dec 07, 2017 1:21 pm
We know about Paul first from Marcion and probably Irenaeus Adv Haer 3, 1(?)
What are the arguments that texts like 1 Clement (which definitely mentions Paul) and the epistles of Ignatius (some of which mention or allude to Paul) must postdate Marcion? I mean, it is possible, but what makes it likely?
ΤΙ ΕΣΤΙΝ ΑΛΕΘΕΙΑ

User avatar
MrMacSon
Posts: 4996
Joined: Sat Oct 05, 2013 3:45 pm

Re: Larry Hurtado vs Neil Godfrey

Post by MrMacSon » Thu Dec 07, 2017 2:24 pm

Ben C. Smith wrote:
Thu Dec 07, 2017 1:49 pm

What are the arguments that texts like 1 Clement (which definitely mentions Paul) and the epistles of Ignatius (some of which mention or allude to Paul) must postdate Marcion? I mean, it is possible, but what makes it likely?
I'm not aware of the specific arguments for a late date for 1 Clement, or the likelihood, but am aware that Laurence Welborn says it could be mid-2nd C1. I understand the phrase "sudden and repeated misfortunes and hindrances which have befallen us" (1:1) is taken as a reference to persecutions under Domitian. Some scholars believe 1 Clement was written around the same time as the Book of Revelation2. Whether Revelation is late 1st C is another matter3.

I think it is unlikely the Ignatius epistles are ~115-117 AD/CE. They read like later martydom literature. That is DCH's view, and I think Candida Moss's (+/- others') view, too (though I don't think Moss dates them as late as DCH does). (I think it's implausible that what is essentially an anti-empire criminal could be taken on a visitation tour like that).



1. L.L. Welborn, 'The preface to 1 Clement: the rhetorical situation and the traditional date', in C. Breytenbach and Laurence L. Welborn, Encounters with Hellenism: Studies on the First Letter of Clement, Leiden & Boston: Brill, 2004, p. 201.

2 W.C. van Unnik, 'Studies on the so-called First Epistle of Clement. The literary genre', in Breytenbach & Welborn, Encounters with Hellenism: Studies on the First Letter of Clement, Leiden & Boston: Brill, 2004, p. 118.

3. Conventional understanding until recently was that Revelation was written to comfort beleaguered Christians as they underwent persecution at the hands of a megalomaniacal Roman emperor, but much of this has now been jettisoned: Domitian is no longer viewed as a despot imposing an imperial cult, and it is no longer believed that there was any systematic empire-wide persecution of Christians in his time.[20]

The current view is that Revelation was composed in the context of a conflict within the Christian community of Asia Minor over whether to engage with, or withdraw from, the far larger non-Christian community: Revelation chastises those Christians who wanted to reach an accommodation with the Roman cult of empire.[21] This is not to say that Christians in Roman Asia were not suffering, for withdrawal from, and defiance against, the wider Roman society imposed very real penalties; Revelation offered a victory over this reality by offering an apocalyptic hope: in the words of professor Adela Yarbro Collins, "What ought to be was experienced as a present reality.[22]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Book_of_R ... on#Sources


20 Stephens, Mark B. (2011). Annihilation Or Renewal?: The Meaning and Function of New Creation in the Book of Revelation. Mohr Siebeck. p. 152.

Collins, Adela Yarbro (1984). Crisis and Catharsis: The Power of the Apocalypse. Westminster John Knox Press. p. 154.

Wall, Robert W. (2011). Revelation. Baker Books.

User avatar
Ben C. Smith
Posts: 4214
Joined: Wed Apr 08, 2015 2:18 pm
Location: USA
Contact:

Re: Larry Hurtado vs Neil Godfrey

Post by Ben C. Smith » Thu Dec 07, 2017 2:39 pm

MrMacSon wrote:
Thu Dec 07, 2017 2:24 pm
Ben C. Smith wrote:
Thu Dec 07, 2017 1:49 pm

What are the arguments that texts like 1 Clement (which definitely mentions Paul) and the epistles of Ignatius (some of which mention or allude to Paul) must postdate Marcion? I mean, it is possible, but what makes it likely?
I'm not aware of the specific arguments for a late date for 1 Clement, or the likelihood, but am aware that Laurence Welborn says it could be mid-2nd C1.
I will not dispute any date put forward for the Ignatian epistles here and now; that is one convoluted topic. My current observation in that area is simply that the author (whether Ignatius or not) says at one point that Paul makes mention of the Ephesian church in "every epistle" he writes. This may imply that he knows only of 1 Corinthians, 1 & 2 Timothy, and Ephesians (qua Ephesians). If so, and if Marcion knows a collection of epistles which excludes only Hebrews and the Pastorals, then might that not imply that Ignatius comes from a time when individual Pauline letters had to be collected, one or two at a time, whereas Marcion comes from a slightly later time, when larger collections are starting to be made? All of this is exquisitely tentative, obviously, but I am not aware of any slam dunk argument against such an arrangement, so surely possibilities must be left open. (And, of course, different parts of different Ignatian letters may date to different times.)

As for 1 Clement, you cite Welborn, who gives a range of dates between 80 and 140. Given that Marcion is commonly thought to have done his thing a bit after 140, it stands to reason that 1 Clement has a good claim to being prior to Marcion. If so, then our first knowledge of Paul does not come from Marcion.
ΤΙ ΕΣΤΙΝ ΑΛΕΘΕΙΑ

hakeem
Posts: 119
Joined: Sat Jun 17, 2017 8:20 am

Re: Larry Hurtado vs Neil Godfrey

Post by hakeem » Thu Dec 07, 2017 3:01 pm

The claim that a Pauline writer met the James Lord's brother is not evidence that the Lord and James were figures of history.

The Lord denied James was his brother in the Apocalypse of James.

The Apocalypse of James
It is the Lord who spoke with me: "See now the completion of my redemption. I have given you a sign of these things, James, my brother. For not without reason have I called you my brother, although you are not my brother materially.

Gaius an Emperor of Rome called himself the brother of Jupiter in Antiquities of the Jews 19.1.1.

Jupiter never ever existed.

Antiquities of the Jews 19.1.1
He also frequented that temple of Jupiter which they style the Capitol, which is with them the most holy of all their temples, and had boldness enough to call himself the brother of Jupiter.
Romulus the myth founder of Rome also had a twin brother called Remus.

Romulus and Remus never ever existed although it is claimed their mother was human.
See http://classics.mit.edu/Plutarch/romulus.html

James and Jesus called anointed were alive in the time of Festus in Antiquities of the Jews 20.9.1

James and Jesus are all NT fiction charaters without historical corroboration.

Bernard Muller
Posts: 2893
Joined: Tue Oct 15, 2013 6:02 pm
Contact:

Re: Larry Hurtado vs Neil Godfrey

Post by Bernard Muller » Thu Dec 07, 2017 3:49 pm

to robert j,
The issue we were discussing was the existence/or not of contemporary biological brothers of Jesus based on Paul's letters. Bringing in information from gMark and Josephus was extraneous.
Bringing gMark and Josephus is relevant because it confirms the normal reading of Paul's Galatians 1:19.
Reading Paul through gospel colored glasses means using material in the NT Gospels to read information into Paul.
I do not need the gospel in order to read Gal 1:19.
1) the Lord here is Jesus, because he has been qualified as "Lord" 16 verses earlier, with no other "Lord" in between.
2) If Paul wanted to indicate "James, the brother of the Lord", was a fellow Christian, he would have said "James, a brother", just like he called other contemporary fellow Christians.
3) Paul was very unlikely to laud that James by a pompous title, because, as shown latter in Galatians, his relation with the pillars (who included James) was rather on the cold side.
4) Paul indicated Jesus had been human, so him having brothers is a strong possibility.
5) If James was part of a brotherhood called "brothers of the Lord" in Jerusalem, that would be understood there as "brothers of God", a sure way to infuriate other Jews and lead to their executions.

Cordially, Bernard
I believe freedom of expression should not be curtailed

Bernard Muller
Posts: 2893
Joined: Tue Oct 15, 2013 6:02 pm
Contact:

Re: Larry Hurtado vs Neil Godfrey

Post by Bernard Muller » Thu Dec 07, 2017 4:34 pm

With all these other Jesuses running around, kind of lends more credence to the mythicist position no?
Actually, Paul described the historical Jesus with enough details that he could not have been two "Jesus" existing who would comply with these details. See http://historical-jesus.info/7.html

Cordially, Bernard
I believe freedom of expression should not be curtailed

Bernard Muller
Posts: 2893
Joined: Tue Oct 15, 2013 6:02 pm
Contact:

Re: Larry Hurtado vs Neil Godfrey

Post by Bernard Muller » Thu Dec 07, 2017 9:43 pm

We know about Paul first from Marcion and probably Irenaeus Adv Haer 3, 1(?)
Let's not forget about the Epistula Apostolorum, dated 140-150.

Cordially, Bernard
I believe freedom of expression should not be curtailed

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: GakuseiDon, JoeWallack, Kapyong and 54 guests