I do agree with Neil Godfrey that historicists sometimes have a tendency to overlook the circularity that creeps into their arguments. One place where I noticed this was on the question of whether Paul meant to designate a biological or symbolic relationship when he referred to James as "the brother of the Lord." McGrath said of this argument,
If Paul only made vague references to "the brothers of the Lord" of course it might be a viable option to consider it Paul's generic use of "brothers." But Paul's reference to "James the Lord's brother" coupled with the fact that there is no other evidence for "brother" as an honorific title in early Christianity, and later authors either understood it as biological brother or made strenuous attempts to argue it meant "cousin" or "half brother" so as to support the perpetual virginity of Mary, the evidence seems clearly to favor taking it in its straightforward sense.I cannot help but wonder where in early Christianity other than Paul we would be able to look for evidence of the use of "brother" as an honorific. Isn't the conclusion that we have no such evidence based on the assumption that Paul was using "brother" in the biological sense? And if the theory is that Mark historicized Paul's mythological Jesus, can we really refute it with the fact that Mark and later Christians treated James relationship to Jesus' as biological?
Posts
The voice of agnosticism rings out clearly in debates like this where emotions are high and evidence is lacking. I have been keeping up with the McGrath/Godfrey discussions, and it refreshing to have calm and collected agnosticism as an option.
ReplyDeleteatimetorend,
ReplyDeleteThanks. Unfortunately, it can be a lonely path to trod. The committed historicists view agnostics as radical skeptics, and the hard-core mythicists view us as gullible believers.
'As Robert Oerter of Early Christian Religion has pointed out, Paul is not our only source for information about the historical Jesus.'
ReplyDeleteYes, we also have the Epistles of 1 Peter, James and Jude.
Which, of course, take for granted that their readers want to hear about Enoch, Job, Adam, Moses - anybody except Jesus.
We also have Hebrews.
Hebrews 9
When Christ came as high priest of the good things that are already here, he went through the greater and more perfect tabernacle that is not man-made, that is to say, not a part of this creation.
Jesus blood apparently was beamed up from the ground outside Jerusalem to Heaven, so it could be used in the Tabernacle there.
Or perhaps the whole thing took place in 'not a part of this creation'.
' I know that people who know a lot more than the subject than me have been persuaded that "Q" is something that points to an independent source supporting the historical Jesus hypothesis. '
ReplyDeletePeople like George Wells , who abandoned mythicism because he was persuaded by Q.
That's the trouble with mythicists. They are so dogmatic that mere evidence gets them to change their minds, no matter if they have spent a life time putting their reputation on the line.
Of course, the existence of Q is now highly disputed.
"I cannot help but wonder where in early Christianity other than Paul we would be able to look for evidence of the use of "brother" as an honorific."
ReplyDeleteI would suggest:
1. Other NT writings in the "Paul" tradition, like the Pastoral epistles.
2. Other NT writings that are independent of Mark, like (possibly) John and Revelation.
3. Non-canonical writings like Barnabas and 1 Clement.
That's a pretty wide spread of independent sources in which the "brothers of the Lord" COULD have showed up, but (as far as I know) didn't.
Don't forget that we have the non-Christian Josephus who also denotes James as the brother of Jesus. Of course, there are the questions of the authenticity of the James passage, but the need to dismiss Josephus makes your argument seem rather strained.
Of course there ARE arguments that will seem circular from the agnostic/mythicist point of view. This is because, once some hypothesis is considered established, it becomes the basis from which other arguments are made. Most NT scholars take a historical Jesus as a given, and so don't have any problem basing other arguments off that assumption. But that doesn't mean that there are no other, non-circular reasons for accepting the historical Jesus.
(And thanks for mentioning my site! Your readers might be interested in my essay, Jesus: Man or Myth? at that site, though I don't make any claim for it as a definitive analysis of the issue.)
Robert,
ReplyDeleteI actually did read that essay when I stopped by your site and I found it very interesting. I thought your treatment of the data was both circumspect and reasonable.
My point about "the brother of the Lord" is that the only source we have for the earliest church, i.e., the church in Paul's time, is Paul himself, and I don't think that anything Paul says makes a literal reading of brother any more straightforward than a symbolic reading. I concede that those other sources are probative as well.
But Mark has Peter, James, and John as the three most important disciples, in this probably following the epistles of Paul. Neithet James, nor the lesser James also a disciple is seen as son of Joseph and Mary.
ReplyDeleteIt surprises me that anyone still mentions Josephus ssince the passage is an obvious interpolation.