“Did Jesus Exist?” On the New Testament Review

[Paul the Uncertain]

I agree partly, but disagree significantly on Mark 7.19 and environs. The point is that Mark adds the interpretive comment “Thus he declared all foods clean,” but Jesus' preceding sayings don't really establish that. I take this to mean Mark did not have complete freedom to make up whatever he wanted. There was some sort of prior tradition. The same would be true of Matthew and Luke – they can add, delete, alter, and in some cases even contradict Mark, but they are still constrained to some extent by what Mark had written before them. But to say that there was a tradition before Mark with which Mark had to deal is not to say that the sayings necessarily goes back to Jesus himself.

Sincere thanks for locating the "mismatch" for me. Looking at it, though, I'm not surprised or disappointed that I couldn't find it on my own.

I agree that Thus he declared all foods clean at 7:19 was added by Mark (or somebody) to follow the end of Jesus's speech about the latrine. I also agree that Jesus didn't say precisely that in the preceding speeches. However, there is no contradiction or surprising twist between that line and Jesus' lines about non-defilement by things which enter the body, and then specifically by things which traverse the digestive tract.

That's not necessarily food, granted, but often enough food to prepare the audience reasonably well for the narrator's comment, IMO.

[Bernard Muller]

Paul the Uncertain wrote:

Galatians 4:4 born versus made: The matter is irrelevant to whether the birth-or-making occurred on earth or in outer space instead, or whether Paul thought of Jesus as a real person.

If in outer space, who would be that woman? Who would make Jesus a Gentile or Jew (Paul also wrote Gentiles were also under the Law, Gal 3:23-29): "became/born/made of a woman, became/born/made under the law"

Brothers of the Lord: Carrier's insistence that the noun phrase means "any baptized Christian" doesn't exhaust the possible interpretations besides "a sibling of Jesus."

Carrier's insistence is not evidence: See my debate with him here: http://historical-jesus.info/93.html.
Also , http://historical-jesus.info/80.html, http://historical-jesus.info/51.html, http://historical-jesus.info/37.html, http://historical-jesus.info/10.html

Cordially, Bernard

[Paul the Uncertain]

Hi, Bernard

Galatians 4:4 born versus made: The matter is irrelevant to whether the birth-or-making occurred on earth or in outer space instead, or whether Paul thought of Jesus as a real person.

If in outer space, who would be that woman? Who would make Jesus a Gentile or Jew (Paul also wrote Gentiles were also under the Law, Gal 3:23-29): "became/born/made of a woman, became/born/made under the law"

I don't know who is being discussed, beyond her role in the story: she's Jesus's mother.

"The matter" referred to Paul's choice of the verb that appears in the indicated verse, as had been discussed in the OP video. The verb could just as well refer to a human mother giving birth on earth to a human child, or a celestial being giving birth in outer space to a celestial child, or any other admissible combination of maternal, location and offspring attributes.

Hence, that matter is irrelevant to discernment among the possible resolutions of the uncertainties mentioned in the statement you quoted. If some combinations of attributes are inherently impossible or unlikely, then that has nothing to do with the verb in question.

Carrier's insistence is not evidence:

I agree. Thank you for the links. I'll check those out.

[Bernard Muller]

to maryhelena,

I have a little niggle with the expression 'born of a woman' - somehow it just seems demeaning to woman. Who would go around saying that the child Johnny was born of a woman....The language, surely, suggests it's not a physical birth that is being referenced. Particular so as Paul goes on to speak about ''the other woman corresponds to the Jerusalem above; she is free, and she is our mother''. Children of the heavenly woman..... children of the spirit.'

"she is our mother": the "our" stands for human earthly Christians, not Jesus. And the heavenly Jerusalem is never said to give birth, or make Jews &/or Gentiles:
"became/born/made of a woman, became/born/made under the Law"

Cordially, Bernard

[Bernard Muller]

Paul the Uncertain wrote:

I agree that Thus he declared all foods clean at 7:19 was added by Mark (or somebody) to follow the end of Jesus's speech about the latrine. I also agree that Jesus didn't say precisely that in the preceding speeches.

Because (allegedly) Jesus is talking about what goes out of the body (feces), does that not imply what goes into the body is food?
Mk 7:18 "... Do you not see that whatever goes into a man from outside cannot defile him, since it enters, not his heart but his stomach, and so passes on? ..."

Cordially, Bernard

[Ken Olson]

I agree on Galatians 4.4. I think when Paul says Jesus was “born of a woman” in all probability he means Jesus existed as a human being on earth as human beings tend to.

I have a little niggle with the expression 'born of a woman' - somehow it just seems demeaning to woman. Who would go around saying that the child Johnny was born of a woman....The language, surely, suggests it's not a physical birth that is being referenced.

Many biblical texts are demeaning to women. But I think the language "born of a woman" is definitely meant to suggest a physical birth like that experienced by other human beings. It means Jesus was not just an angel appearing in human form, like Raphael in Tobit, nor created from dust like Adam in Genesis. The language "born of a woman" is also found in Job:

Job 14.1 “A mortal, born of woman, few of days and full of trouble,
2 comes up like a flower and withers, flees like a shadow and does not last.

Paul also writes of the incarnation in Philippians 2:

Phil. 2.5 Let the same mind be in you that was[a] in Christ Jesus,

6 who, though he was in the form of God,
did not regard equality with God
as something to be exploited,
7 but emptied himself,
taking the form of a slave,
being born in human likeness.
And being found in human form,
8 he humbled himself
and became obedient to the point of death—
even death on a cross.

But unlike the description in Philippians, the Galatians passage expresses that Christ Jesus' solidarity with humankind in the incarnation included a birth from a human mother (unlike Raphael or Adam).

Best,

Ken

[Ken Olson]

I don't agree with them on Gal. 1.19. I think there is a reasonably good argument to be made for the brothers of the Lord being a group of Christian leaders distinct from the apostles, but who are not Jesus' siblings. Also, I don't think the understanding that it means “male siblings of Jesus” is all that solid from either Pauline usage or the history of interpretation in the early church.

I would love to see more from you on "the brethren of the Lord" not (necessarily) being male siblings.

I'm working on it. But now that I've re-read Richard Carrier's treatment of the subject (On the History of Jesus, 583-592), I think my position is close to his. I think he's right about the way the term functions in 1 Cor. 9.5 (brothers not of apostolic rank who are engaged in church business may claim hospitality) and Gal. 1.19 ("I did not see any other apostle, but I did see James the brother of the Lord"). Where I differ from Carrier (and he could be right) is on how the "of the Lord" part functions. I suspect "brother" and "brother of the Lord" are not completely synonymous. I think τοῦ κυρίου may limit the category of brothers to those who are in the service of the Lord (on church business, as Carrier put it). James, of course, is not known to have been an itinerant missionary, but he is one of the pillars of the Jerusalem church and appears to have held an important position in church government.

Best,

Ken

[Ben C. Smith]

I have a little niggle with the expression 'born of a woman' - somehow it just seems demeaning to woman.

I guess I am not hearing it. What is the demeaning part? It is little different than a vegetarian saying that he or she refuses to eat "anything that has a mother." Is that demeaning to mothers? It comes off to me as an idiomatic, colorful way to say "anything animal," as opposed to vegetable or mineral. Similarly, "born of a woman" in antiquity is just an idiomatic, colorful way of saying "an ordinary, mortal human being," as opposed to a god or an angel or some entity like that. Then again, I am neither a woman nor a mother (though I am a father, and would hardly be offended by a vegetarian refusing to eat "anything that has a father").

I would love to see more from you on "the brethren of the Lord" not (necessarily) being male siblings.

I'm working on it. But now that I've re-read Richard Carrier's treatment of the subject (On the History of Jesus, 583-592), I think my position is close to his. I think he's right about the way the term functions in 1 Cor. 9.5 (brothers not of apostolic rank who are engaged in church business may claim hospitality) and Gal. 1.19 ("I did not see any other apostle, but I did see James the brother of the Lord"). Where I differ from Carrier (and he could be right) is on how the "of the Lord" part functions. I suspect "brother" and "brother of the Lord" are not completely synonymous. I think τοῦ κυρίου may limit the category of brothers to those who are in the service of the Lord (on church business, as Carrier put it). James, of course, is not known to have been an itinerant missionary, but he is one of the pillars of the Jerusalem church and appears to have held an important position in church government.

Thanks for this.

First, do "the brethren" in 3 John fit into this category for you of "brothers" who are on church business?

3 John [1.]1-15: 1 The elder to the beloved Gaius, whom I love in truth. 2 Beloved, I pray that in all respects you may prosper and be in good health, just as your soul prospers. 3 For I was very glad when brethren came and testified to your truth, that is, how you are walking in truth. 4 I have no greater joy than these things, that I hear of my children walking in the truth. 5 Beloved, you are acting faithfully in whatever you accomplish for the brethren, and especially when they are strangers; 6 and they have testified to your love before the church. You will do well to send them on their way in a manner worthy of God. 7 For they went out for the sake of the Name, accepting nothing from the Gentiles. 8 Therefore we ought to receive such men, so that we may prove to be fellow workers in the truth. 9 I wrote something to the church; but Diotrephes, who loves to be first among them, does not accept what we say. 10 For this reason, if I come, I will call attention to his deeds which he does, unjustly accusing us with wicked words; and not satisfied with this, he himself does not receive the brethren, either, and he forbids those who desire to do so and puts them out of the church. 11 Beloved, do not imitate what is evil, but what is good. The one who does good is of God; the one who does evil has not seen God. 12 Demetrius has received a good testimony from everyone, and from the truth itself; and we add our testimony, and you know that our testimony is true. 13 I had many things to write to you, but I am not willing to write them to you with pen and ink; 14 but I hope to see you shortly, and we will speak face to face. 15 Peace be to you. The friends greet you. Greet the friends by name.

Or are these just ordinary saints/believers who happen to be out and about?

Second, where do Jesus' own mentions of "my brethren" fit into this (Matthew 25.40; 28.10; John 20.17; refer also to Acts 12.17), if at all?

Third, so far as James not being an apostle is concerned, I get hung up on Galatians 1.19, in which Paul says that he "did not see any other (ἕτερον) of the apostles except (εἰ μή) James, the brother of the Lord." Does this imply that Paul considered James to be an apostle? In these kinds of cases, the most common use of εἰ μή seems to be to carve out an exceptional subclass of the class just established, but there are exceptions (fittingly enough!) to this commonality, including Matthew 12.4 (priests not being a subclass of the class of David's men); Revelation 9.4; 21.27; and Galatians 2.16 (with ἐὰν μή), if Romans 3.20, 27-28; Galatians 3.2, 5, 10 mean what they appear to mean. What gives me pause is (A) that these examples are not all that easy to find, (B) that Matthew, for one, is (probably) working from a source (Mark) and may have botched things up slightly in the process, thus not fully representing what the Greek is supposed to mean, and (C) that the Greek of Revelation is barbaric. The instance in Galatians seems on point, and it occurs in exactly the epistle we would like to find it in, but is it enough? 1 Corinthians 15.7 gives me a similar vibe: "then to James, and then to all the apostles," something that seems extremely easy to say if James is considered to be an apostle but a tiny bit jarring if he is not.

Fourth, I have wondered before whether the scenario might not have come in two stages. First, the term "brother" applied only to itinerant missionaries or other kinds of workers; this term was not exclusive (that is, it did not apply to a well defined group), but it implied some kind of service. Second, however, it was soon democratized and made to apply also to nonitinerant supporters, and then to anyone in the believing community. This trajectory would be virtually the opposite of that which the term "saint" took, first applying to all believers and then later being limited to the canonized few. Do you think there is anything to this?

[Ken Olson]

First, do "the brethren" in 3 John fit into this category for you of "brothers" who are on church business?

3 John [1.]1-15: 1 The elder to the beloved Gaius, whom I love in truth. 2 Beloved, I pray that in all respects you may prosper and be in good health, just as your soul prospers. 3 For I was very glad when brethren came and testified to your truth, that is, how you are walking in truth. 4 I have no greater joy than these things, that I hear of my children walking in the truth. 5 Beloved, you are acting faithfully in whatever you accomplish for the brethren, and especially when they are strangers; 6 and they have testified to your love before the church. You will do well to send them on their way in a manner worthy of God. 7 For they went out for the sake of the Name, accepting nothing from the Gentiles. 8 Therefore we ought to receive such men, so that we may prove to be fellow workers in the truth. 9 I wrote something to the church; but Diotrephes, who loves to be first among them, does not accept what we say. 10 For this reason, if I come, I will call attention to his deeds which he does, unjustly accusing us with wicked words; and not satisfied with this, he himself does not receive the brethren, either, and he forbids those who desire to do so and puts them out of the church. 11 Beloved, do not imitate what is evil, but what is good. The one who does good is of God; the one who does evil has not seen God. 12 Demetrius has received a good testimony from everyone, and from the truth itself; and we add our testimony, and you know that our testimony is true. 13 I had many things to write to you, but I am not willing to write them to you with pen and ink; 14 but I hope to see you shortly, and we will speak face to face. 15 Peace be to you. The friends greet you. Greet the friends by name.

Or are these just ordinary saints/believers who happen to be out and about?

I was limiting my discussion to Paul's usage, but yes, the brethren in 3 John strike me as the falling into the same category.

I should mention my thinking is heavily influenced by the work of E. Earle Ellis, [Paul & His Co-Workers NTS 17.4 (1971), also the entry "Coworkers, Paul and His," in Dictionary of Paul and His Letters, Gerald Hawthorne et al eds. 1993)] and V.P. Furnish, "Fellow Workers in God's Service [1 Cor 3:9]" JBL 80 (1961). Ellis considers brothers to be a technical term for a type of coworker and includes more texts in the category than I do (e.g., Acts 15.22); I am basing my understanding of "brothers in God's service" on Furrnish's understanding of 1 Cor. 3.9

Second, where do Jesus' own mentions of "my brethren" fit into this (Matthew 25.40; 28.10; John 20.17; refer also to Acts 12.17), if at all?

I would not connect these with Paul's usage of brothers of the Lord, except insofar as brother in the sense of a fictive kinship relationship was extremely common in early Christianity. I don't think Paul ever uses brother in another sense, though sister in Rom. 16.15 may well be used in the genetic sense. (I suppose Carrier could marshal your examples in support of his reading).

Third, so far as James not being an apostle is concerned, I get hung up on Galatians 1.19, in which Paul says that he "did not see any other (ἕτερον) of the apostles except (εἰ μή) James, the brother of the Lord." Does this imply that Paul considered James to be an apostle? By far the most common use of εἰ μή is to carve out an exceptional subclass of the class just established, but there are exceptions (fittingly enough!) to this commonality, including Matthew 12.4 (priests not being a subclass of the class of David's men); Revelation 9.4; 21.27; and Galatians 2.16 (with ἐὰν μή), if Romans 3.20, 27-28; Galatians 3.2, 5, 10 mean what they appear to mean. What gives me pause is (A) that these examples are not all that easy to find, (B) that Matthew, for one, is (probably) working from a source (Mark) and may have botched things up slightly in the process, thus not fully representing what the Greek is supposed to mean, and (C) that the Greek of Revelation is barbaric. The instance in Galatians seems on point, and it occurs in exactly the epistle we would like to find it in, but is it enough? 1 Corinthians 15.7 gives me a similar vibe: "then to James, and then to all the apostles," something that seems extremely easy to say if James is considered to be an apostle but a tiny bit jarring if he is not

.

Commentators seems to be split on Gal 1.19. I agree with those (e.g., Dunn) who think Paul is at least putting in question whether James can be considered an apostle as Peter and Paul are. I would argue that the fact Paul never clearly puts James into the category of apostle supports that theory.

Fourth, I have wondered before whether the scenario might not have come in two stages. First, the term "brother" applied only to itinerant missionaries or other kinds of workers; this term was not exclusive (that is, it did not apply to a well defined group), but it implied some kind of service. Second, however, it was soon democratized and made to apply also to nonitinerant supporters, and then to anyone in the believing community. This trajectory would be virtually the opposite of that which the term "saint" took, first applying to all believers and then later being limited to the canonized few. Do you think there is anything to this?

The categories are blurry, but I don't know if I would postulate that that is due to a chronological development, though that's a possibility. Paul calls the Philippians his partners in the gospel (Phil. 1.5), but this seems to be a courtesy or exaggeration he extends them in exchange for their financial support for his mission. He couldn't possibly think of them as partners in the same way Timothy was.

Best,

Ken

[Bernard Muller]

When eyewitnesses were still alive, Paul wrote about a minimal Jesus (but also, for Paul, pre/post-existent as a heavenly deity) who, from "Israelites, ... whose [are] the fathers, and of whom [is] the Christ, according to the flesh ..." (Ro9:4-5 YLT) and "come of a woman, come under law" (Gal4:4 YLT) (as a descendant of (allegedly) Abraham (Gal3:16), Jesse (Ro15:12) & David (Ro1:3)), "found in appearance as a man" (Php2:8) "in the likeness of sinful flesh" (Ro8:3), "the one man, Jesus Christ" (Ro5:15) (who had brothers (1Co9:5), one of them called "James", whom Paul met (Gal1:19)), "humbled himself" (Php2:8) in "poverty" (2Co8:9) as "servant of the Jews" (Ro15:8) and "was crucified in weakness" (2Co13:4) in "Zion" (Ro9:31-33 & Ro11:26-27, http://historical-jesus.info/djp1.html#skandalon).

For the ones who think 'Hebrews' is an early epistle (as I do):
Heb 7:14 "For it is evident that our Lord was descended from Judah, and in connection with that tribe Moses said nothing about priests."
and
Heb 2:14 Since therefore the children share in flesh and blood, he himself likewise partook of the same nature, that through death he might destroy him who has the power of death, that is, the devil,
2:15 and deliver all those who through fear of death were subject to lifelong bondage.
2:16 For surely it is not with angels that he is concerned but with the descendants of Abraham.
2:17 Therefore he had to be made like his brethren in every respect, so that he might become a merciful and faithful high priest in the service of God, to make expiation for the sins of the people.

That should be enough to "prove" Jesus was an earthly human.

Cordially, Bernard