I ran this theory past Richard Carrier in a recent comment on his blog and he didn't buy it. He suggested other reasons why Paul wouldn't and couldn't have split off on his own
Paul’s communities were probably supporting Jerusalem because he didn’t form them. Paul doesn’t ever explicitly say he did (neither does Acts, incidentally: it mentions making converts, but never being the first to have done so, or having established communities; Paul’s letters, meanwhile, were written twenty years after Jesus is supposed to have died, and thus the churches he is writing to could well have existed half a generation before Paul came and expanded them with new converts). Thus Paul may well have just come to already-existing congregations, teaching a new gospel (just as Apollos then did, which Paul then has to accommodate, Paul then being in the same position Peter and gang were with respect to Paul).According to Carrier, Paul needed both the support of the entire church network and the endorsement of the apostles in Jerusalem.
Although I appreciate Carrier's insights and look forward to his book outlining his theories on mythicism, I am doubtful that I will be persuaded that mythicism is more than one of a number of possible explanations for the origin of Christianity. It may well be that rather than forming communities, Paul brought his message to existing communities, but I don't see any way to be sure. For every "it may well be," there is an equal and opposite "it may well not be" (or at least a comparable one).
Paul may well have needed the endorsement of the Jerusalem gang to carry on his work among the gentiles, but there is a key point that makes me question that whether that was so. Jerusalem called for the circumcision of converts and Paul didn't. I cannot help but think that this would have given Paul a tremendous amount of leverage. In any conflict between Paul and the gang in Jerusalem, the Galatians would have a strong motivation to take Paul's side.
Carrier imagines a relationship in which Paul is like the loan shark who seeks permission to operate within the local mob boss's territory, in return for which the mob boss gets a cut of the profits. While that may well be, I think it is just as easy to imagine a relationship in which Paul is one mob boss having a sit down with another mob boss in order to establish that one of them gets Brooklyn and the other gets Queens. When Paul writes "they recognized that I had been entrusted with the task of preaching the gospel to the uncircumcised, just as Peter had been to the circumcised. . . . James, Cephas and John, those esteemed as pillars, gave me and Barnabas the right hand of fellowship when they recognized the grace given to me," (Gal. 2:7,9) I hear Tony Soprano and Carmine Lupertazzi divvying up turf.
Posts
Recently I had the chance to listen to Richard Carrier present his mythycist theory on an episode of the "Unbelievable" podcast so I hope that you'll tolerate a question I have about Galatians and the mythycist position. In Galatians 1:18 & 19 there appears to be a defeater for Carrier's idea that Paul only spoke of Jesus in the spiritual realm. Galatians 1:18 & 19 says, "Then after three years [after Paul's conversion which was ~33/34 A.D.], I went up to Jerusalem to get acquainted with Cephas and stayed with him fifteen days. I saw none of the other apostles—only James, the Lord’s brother." If Paul believes that Jesus' life, death and resurrection only occurred in the heavenly realm how is it that Paul meets Jesus' earthly brother? People who only exist in a heavenly realm, or not at all, don't have earthly brothers. Galatians 1:18 & 19 appears to be a defeater of Carrier's theory, but perhaps you have a defeater-defeater. How would you as a mythycist respond to this potential defeater of Carrier's theory?
ReplyDeleteI'm not a mythicist, but the short answer is that for Paul, all Christians are brothers and every Christian is the Lord's brother. Since Paul frequently uses "brother" to refer to a spiritual relationship rather than a biological relationship, there is no reason to assume that Paul means the latter in Galatians 1:19.
DeleteThanks for clarifying your position and for answering my question. I don't think that the answer you provided acts as a defeater-defeater for Carrier's theory. I agree that Paul thought of fellow Christians as brothers and sisters, but it doesn't seem plausible that Paul goes out of his way to say that James is Jesus' brother, but not mention that Cephas/Peter (or John in chapter 2) is also Jesus' brother if Paul is referring to James as being Jesus' spiritual but not earthly brother. The mythicist interpenetration of Galatians 1:19 is not impossible, but it is quite a stretch and I think it is very implausible.
DeleteNo Christian would ever say 'I saw Peter at church last night and Brother James was also there'.
DeleteThat is such an unnatural way of talking. What Christian would say that in everyday speech?
It would always, without exception ,be 'I saw Brother Peter at church last night and Brother James was also there.'
To be clear, Paul doesn't say that James is "Jesus' brother." He says that he is the "Lord's brother."
ReplyDeleteMoreover, the reason I think he is mentioning it is because James was a common name and Paul wants the Galatians to know which James he met. He doesn't have to say anything more about Peter because there was only one Peter. Apparently, however, there was another James in Jerusalem at the time of Paul's first visit and the Galatians wouldn't have known which one Paul meant without more information.
In a culture without surnames, people with common names tend to acquire additional monikers such as Simon the Zealot which distinguished its bearer from Simon Peter. Later, that same James was known as James the Just to distinguish him from other men named James. However, those names don't necessarily mean that Simon was the only zealous Christian or James was the only just one. Similarly, James the brother of the Lord might be a useful nickname even if another James might have been a brother of the Lord as well. All that would be necessary is that the other James was called something else.
I don't view any of these points as defeaters, but I see Galatians 1:19 as only one piece of the puzzle.
Well, certainly Paul would need to differentiate between Johns. There is James the son of Zebedee who mentioned in the Gospels. Matthew 4:21 says, "Going on from there, he [Jesus] saw two other brothers, James son of Zebedee and his brother John. They were in a boat with their father Zebedee, preparing their nets. Jesus called them." The problem for the mythicist interpretation of Galatians 1:19 is that the same Greek word ἀδελφός which is transliterated as adelphos and means a brother or from the same womb is used to describe the relationship between James the son of Zebedee and his ἀδελφός John and the relationship between James and his ἀδελφός the Lord (i.e. Jesus). Designating the John in Galatians with the unusual title of being the brother of the Lord denotes a unique relationship with Jesus that other followers of Jesus like Paul did not share. If James the brother of the Lord shared the same womb with the Lord (i.e. Jesus) then Jesus couldn't have only existed in the heavenly realm.
DeleteI'm not quite sure how Galatians 1:19 couldn't be a defeater for the mythicist position. When you combine this defeater with Carrier's shaky case for Paul's belief that Jesus only existed in the heavenly realm I think that his theory is sunk.
Does Paul use a different word for brother in Galatians 1:19 than he uses when describing spiritual brotherhood elsewhere in his writings? That might indicate that Paul was designating a unique relationship. The word that the author of Matthew uses is irrelevant.
DeleteI disagree that the Matthew passage's use of the word ἀδελφός is irrelevant because it is obvious that the writer of Matthew is using this word to describe the relationship between brothers who are biologically related to on another. From that use of the word we can see a contextual relationship between different passages.
DeleteIn any case, Paul uses a variation of the Greek word brother which is ἀδελφοὶ or brothers in 1 Corinthians 9:5 which says, "Don't we have the right to take a believing wife along with us, as do the other apostles and the Lord's brothers and Cephas?" Here we have another distinction between the apostles and Cephas which are not referred to as brothers and the Lord's brothers which obviously are referred to as brothers of the Lord. Paul appears to be saying that the Lord or Jesus has brothers he is related to. Contrast this with the use of ἀδελφοί in Galatians 1:2 which says, "and all the brothers and sisters with me, To the churches in Galatia:." From the context of Galatians 1:2 we can see that Paul is talking about brothers being fellow believers. Paul also uses ἀδελφὸς or a brother in 1 Corinthians 5:11 which says, "But now I am writing to you that you must not associate with anyone who claims to be a brother or sister but is sexually immoral or greedy, an idolater or slanderer, a drunkard or swindler. Do not even eat with such people." Again the context is pretty clear; this usage of brother is referring to a fellow believer or at least one that pretends to be a believer. Paul uses the word ἀδελφῶν or brothers in Philippians 1:14 which says, "And because of my chains, most of the brothers and sisters have become confident in the Lord and dare all the more to proclaim the gospel without fear." Again, Paul is clearly talking about fellow believers and not blood relations here.
From the variations on brother and their contextual usage when compared to other passages the obvious and mostly likely interpretations of Galatians 1:19 and 1 Corinthians 9:5 is that Jesus had biological brothers in the earthly realm.
If I understand you correctly, Paul uses the the exact same word in Galatians 1:19 that he uses on other occasions to refer to a spiritual relationship.
DeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
DeletePaul does use the word ἀδελφός in both Galatians 1:19 and 1 Corinthians 5:11, but the context of these verses are very different. In Galatians 1:19 Paul is referring to James, the Lord's brother, and in 1 Corinthians 5:11 he is clearly using brother in a universal church sense. There are only two instances where Paul talks about a brother or brothers of the Lord and those two instances are in Galatians 1:19 and 1 Corinthians 9:5. In both of these instances Paul is differentiating the brother(s) of the Lord from other apostles and fellow believers. In all other instances of Paul using brother or a variation on the word brother he is clearly using the word in the universal church sense. Paul never even refers to himself as the Lord's brother, he refers to himself several times as a servant (i.e. slave) of Jesus Christ.
DeleteIn addition to Carrier's unusual and unlikely interpretations of Galatians 1:19 and 1 Corinthians 9:5 one could also come up with an odd interpretation of Galatians 4:4 which says, "But when the set time had fully come, God sent his Son, born of a woman, born under the law,." Carrier could say that Paul is saying that God sent Jesus from one part of heaven to another to be born of spiritual woman. One could also say that God sent Jesus from heaven to the moon or the 12th dimension; that would make more sense then Carrier's interpretation of God sending Jesus from one part of heaven to another to undergo a spiritual birth from a spiritual woman, assuming there is such a thing. The problem with these interpretations is that they are outlandish and unlikely. The most straight forward, likely and common sense interpretations of Galatians 1:19, 1 Corinthians 5:11 and Galatians 4:4 is that Paul is talking about Jesus' earthly, biological brothers and mother.
I agree that the contexts of Galatians 1:19 and 1 Corinthians 9:5 are different. In one Paul is referring to a specific individual who is known as "the brother of the Lord" and in the other he is referring to brothers of the Lord generally. However, I don't think that is sufficient to establish that the latter is referring to a biological relationship since nothing else in Paul leads me to believe that biological relationships have any significance among Christians. Neither can I find anything in Paul to indicate that anyone's personal relationship with Jesus the man had any significance as opposed to their spiritual relationships with the risen Christ.
DeleteHave you read Galatians 4? How on earth can it be taken literally when Paul carefully spells out for even the densest reader that he us using typology.
DeleteGalatians 4 is almost entirely allegorical when it comes to talking about people born to women, The most straightforward , likely and common sense interpretation of Galatians 4 is that Paul is talking metaphorically about 'born under the law.'
Paul knows Jesus was 'born under the law' because it was a theological necessity, bot because it was a biological fact.
I have read Galatians 4 many times, and I so know that Paul's allegorical section is only in the last 10 verses which is less than half of Galatians 4. Further more, the whole point of Paul's allegory is convince the members of the church in Galatia to not live under the law or flesh (i.e. circumcision). In the allegory the slave women represents living under slavery to the law and flesh. The free woman represents living under freedom and promise and not through a sign of the flesh such as circumcision. This allegory has nothing to do with a mythical Jesus who only existed in a heavenly realm. Certainly we are not supposed to take the last verse in Galatians 4 which says, "Therefore, brothers and sisters, we are not children of the slave woman, but of the free woman," to mean that Paul and the Galatians only exist in a heavenly realm.
DeleteGetting back to Jesus and the first part of Galatians 4, Jesus was not metaphorically born under the law he was born a Jewish person, under the law and was circumcised as all Jewish boys are.
Vinny, I don't think that Paul is saying that James and the other brothers of the Lord are special or more holy because they are biologically related to Jesus; he's just saying matter-of-factly that Jesus has some brothers he's related to. The problem with Carrier's interpretation is that it's very hard to explain why Paul is not referring to Peter and the apostles as brothers of the Lord when most certainly Paul thought of them as spiritual brothers.
DeleteI think I've made a very solid case that Galatians 1:19 and 1 Corinthians 9:5 are defeaters of Carrier's
theory. People can still believe his theory but only on pain of irrationality.
Why isn't he referring to Peter and the apostles as brothers?
DeleteBy your logic, Paul is claiming that Peter was not an apostle?
After all, he clearly separates Peter from the apostles just as clearly as he separates Peter from the brothers of the Lord.
So if Peter was not a brother, then he was not an apostle (using your logic)
It is possible that Paul is referring to biological brotherhood, but I cannot see how you have made a case for it other than the fact that he uses the same word which he uses to designate spiritual brotherhood.
DeleteNowhere in any of his letters does Paul indicate that anyone he knows encountered Jesus in any way prior to the resurrection. He never indicates that anyone who knew Jesus personally ever told him anything about what Jesus said or did during his earthly ministry. Paul doesn't indicate that he has any knowledge that Jesus was a teacher or a healer or a miracle worker, or that he even had an earthly ministry. Paul doesn't say when or where Jesus lived or when or where Jesus died.
The only place I can see where Paul even hints that any of his contemporaries knew Jesus personally is the references to the Lord's brothers. Even if I were to agree that biological brotherhood is the most natural reading of those passages, I would have to acknowledge that a spiritual relationship is plausible as well.
All Christians are saints and all Christians are priests. Nevertheless, "saint" and "priest" are sometimes used as titular designations for specific people or groups of people. "Disciple" would have described most early Christians, but there is also a specific group known as "the Disciples." A similar use of brother would be consistent with Paul's complete lack of interest in the details of Jesus' earthly existence.
Vinny wrote: "It is possible that Paul is referring to biological brotherhood, but I cannot see how you have made a case for it other than the fact that he uses the same word which he uses to designate spiritual brotherhood."
Deleteἀδελφός does have different definitions one being biological and another being a spiritual brother, but the phrase ἀδελφός/ἀδελφοὶ τοῦ Κυρίου brother(s) of the Lord is only used used twice in Paul's writings setting it part from Paul's use of brothers in the general church sense. The sensible reading is that Jesus has brothers he was related to.
Vinny wrote: "Nowhere in any of his letters does Paul indicate that anyone he knows encountered Jesus in any way prior to the resurrection. He never indicates that anyone who knew Jesus personally ever told him anything about what Jesus said or did during his earthly ministry..."
The unstated premise in this enthymeme is if Paul doesn't mention X then X doesn't exist. This argument commits the argument from ignorance fallacy because it doesn't logically follow that because because Paul failed to mention certain things about Jesus, such as his early life on earth that, that Jesus had no early life on earth. Paul never mentions Herod, but we shouldn't conclude that Herod never existed (especially since we have good historical and archaeological proof that he existed).
That Paul understood Jesus to have had biological brothers is not the sensible reading. At best, it is a sensible reading. However, that "brother" might be applied in a titular sense to some Christians who had no biological relationship to Jesus is also a sensible reading. Since both readings are sensible, we should look to see whether anything else Paul has to say corroborates one of them.
DeleteThe point is not that a thing doesn't exist if Paul doesn't mention it. The point is that a thing is not corroborated if Paul doesn't mention it. If Paul thought some of his contemporaries had known Jesus personally during his earthly ministry, is it sensible to think that the only reflection of this we would find in Paul's writings would be a couple of ambiguous references to Jesus' biological brothers? Shouldn't we expect to see discussions of the meaning of the things that Jesus said and did during his life? If we cannot corroborate Paul's understanding that Peter, James, and John, or anyone else for that matter, knew the earthly Jesus personally, then we are not justified in claiming to have a strong case for interpreting him as referring to the biological brothers of Jesus.
Steven Carr wrote: Why isn't he referring to Peter and the apostles as brothers?
DeleteThe better question would be why is Paul not referring to Peter and the apostles as ἀδελφοὶ τοῦ Κυρίου or brothers of the Lord, and the simple answer to that is that they weren't related to Jesus like James and Jesus' other biological brothers.
Steven Carr wrote: "By your logic, Paul is claiming that Peter was not an apostle?...So if Peter was not a brother, then he was not an apostle (using your logic)"
We know via deduction from Galatians 1:18 & 19 that Paul thought of both Peter and James as apostles, so I don't think that we can conclude that Paul is saying that Peter and James aren't apostles.
We also know that Paul claimed to be a brother of other church members, but he never claimed to be among the ἀδελφοὶ τοῦ Κυρίου or brothers of the Lord. Since Paul considered himself to be a brother and an apostle even though he never claimed to be ἀδελφός τοῦ Κυρίου being a ἀδελφός τοῦ Κυρίου is not requisite for either role, so no I'm not saying that Paul believes that Peter is not a spiritual brother or apostle; I'm just saying that Peter is not biologically related to Jesus.
Why does Paul word 1 Corinthians 9:5 as he does? I'm not exactly sure. Perhaps he's highlighting Peter and the Lord's brothers to emphasize his point.
Vinny wrote: "That Paul understood Jesus to have had biological brothers is not the sensible reading. At best, it is a sensible reading. However, that "brother" might be applied in a titular sense to some Christians who had no biological relationship to Jesus is also a sensible reading."
DeleteBut it actually is THE only sensible reading. For the mythicist interpretation of Galatians 1:19 and 1 Corinthians 9:5 to be plausible you would need to show me why Paul only used the phrase brother(s) of the Lord twice. Why is Paul always saying brothers when he is addressing church members in his letters instead of brothers of the Lord? If you could show that brothers of the Lord is common way of addressing fellow believers who aren't related to Jesus then maybe the mythicist interpretation could be taken seriously. As things stand I think that a generous probability that the mythicist interpretation is correct is 0.1 (although I really think it is more like 0.05).
Vinny wrote: "Shouldn't we expect to see discussions of the meaning of the things that Jesus said and did during his life?"
No, first of all, we know from Paul's life story that he wasn't a follower of Christ until after Jesus' resurrection. Why in the world would we think that Paul would have a bunch of stories of Jesus' life when he had nothing to do with him.
Secondly, even if Paul heard some stories about Jesus' life from Jesus' disciples where are these stories supposed to be inserted in Paul's letters? Paul is often dealing with early church issues and/or making theological arguments. Where do the
anecdotes of Jesus' life fit in here?
The absence of anecdotes about Jesus' life do not mean that Jesus had no earthly life. It also does not mean that we get to concoct some wildly implausible theory that Paul taught that Jesus never left heaven even though Jesus was, according to Paul clearly sent somewhere.
If Jesus was thought to be an authoritative teacher and God's agent on earth, it would have been foolhardy for anyone to try to resolve any issue or theological dispute without considering how the things that Jesus said or did reflected on those issues. In the debate over circumcision, everything Jesus said or did relating to the law would have been parsed and analysed. Anyone who advocated circumcision would have pointed out that Jesus was a circumcised Jew and that he said "For truly I say to you, until heaven and earth pass away, not the smallest letter or stroke shall pass from the Law until all is accomplished." It is difficult to believe that Paul wouldn't have to answer such arguments.
DeleteMore than that, just as some unscrupulous people fabricated teachings in Paul's name, some would have fabricated teachings in Jesus' name. As Jesus teachings would have been discussed constantly, it would have been vitally important for Paul's readers to know which teachings were authentic.
A 10% probability that Paul is referring to spiritual brotherhood is not insignificant and more than good reason to look for corroboration.
Your mob boss interpretation Galatians 1 & 2 is interesting, but what actual proof do you have in Paul's letters that he was living large off of other believers? In 1 Corinthians 9:14-15 Paul writes, "In the same way, the Lord has commanded that those who preach the gospel should receive their living from the gospel.
ReplyDeleteBut I have not used any of these rights. And I am not writing this in the hope that you will do such things for me, for I would rather die than allow anyone to deprive me of this boast." Also Acts 18:3 describes Paul as a maker of tents.
Acts also describes the early church as exhibiting an early form of communism sans the government compulsion to share possessions. Acts 2:42-46 says, "They devoted themselves to the apostles’ teaching and to fellowship, to the breaking of bread and to prayer. Everyone was filled with awe at the many wonders and signs performed by the apostles. All the believers were together and had everything in common. They sold property and possessions to give to anyone who had need. Every day they continued to meet together in the temple courts. They broke bread in their homes and ate together with glad and sincere hearts,." This passage describes an environment of parity and shared possessions and not the greed and bling of gangsters.
In addition to the apparent lack of wealth flowing to the apostles Paul's life was hard. In 2 Corinthians 11:25-28 Paul writes, "Five times I received from the Jews the forty lashes minus one. Three times I was beaten with rods, once I was pelted with stones, three times I was shipwrecked, I spent a night and a day in the open sea, I have been constantly on the move. I have been in danger from rivers, in danger from bandits, in danger from my fellow Jews, in danger from Gentiles; in danger in the city, in danger in the country, in danger at sea; and in danger from false believers. I have labored and toiled and have often gone without sleep; I have known hunger and thirst and have often gone without food; I have been cold and naked. Besides everything else, I face daily the pressure of my concern for all the churches." Paul is hardly describing a cushy lifestyle. In fact Paul left a much more cushy lifestyle to become an apostle. Sure, the Pharisees are assiduous tithers, but they don't usually give up all of their wealth and they aren't usually beaten.
I haven't made any claim that Paul was "living large" off the Galatians. I was only using the analogy in terms of the relationship between Paul and the apostles in Jerusalem.
Delete'Your mob boss interpretation Galatians 1 & 2 is interesting, but what actual proof do you have in Paul's letters that he was living large off of other believers?'
ReplyDeleteHis words.
Paul's words are often a clue to what was happening.
Philippians 4:16
for even when I was in Thessalonica, you sent me aid more than once when I was in need.
Paul says there were people who were peddling the word of God for money.
As obviously Paul regarded them as peddling the word of God (not false words) it is clear you could make a living peddling the word of God to Christian churches even though your only motivation was money.
KEITH
ReplyDeleteI have read Galatians 4 many times, and I so know that Paul's allegorical section is only in the last 10 verses which is less than half of Galatians 4.
CARR
Really? Sez who?
I have read Galatians 4 many times, and clearly all the stuff about births is allegorical,
Fair enough, Paul really did regard Jesus as 'born under the law' - (which is a theological statement in itself).
His theology demanded that Jesus was born under the law so he could redeem those born under the law (which Paul CLEARLY states was Christians ie it included Gentiles).
But it is just as much a theological statement as a claim that Jesus was sinless.
But it is not a claim that Jesus was Jewish, as Paul was claiming that the Gentile Christians he was writing to had been slaves under the law.
But you already know all this.
You just choose to ignore it and replace Paul's text with 'Jesus was Jewish'.
While I prefer to read the actual words Paul wrote, which never state that Jesus was Jewish.
Steven Carr wrote: "I have read Galatians 4 many times, and clearly all the stuff about births is allegorical,"
DeleteSince your reading of Galatians 4:4 is aberrant it is up to you to prove that this simple declarative sentence is saying that Jesus only existed in heaven. How does it make sense that God is sending Jesus from one part of heaven to another? It makes much more sense to think that Paul is saying that God sent Jesus from heaven to earth. Why think that Paul is talking about about a spiritual birth from a spiritual woman rather than a physical birth from a physical woman? Why even think that spiritual beings need to have births. Why would you think that spiritual beings in heaven are under the law?
It seems to me that because Paul uses an allegory in the last verses of Galatians 4 you fly off the deep end and assume Jesus had an allegorical birth in heaven. You're making a wild leap in logic. As I said before, it doesn't follow that Paul is saying in Galatians 4:31 that because he and the Galatians have had an allegorical spiritual birth from the free woman that they didn't have real biological births from earthly women as well.
'How does it make sense that God is sending Jesus from one part of heaven to another? '
DeleteYou mean Paul had no idea there were things like 'the third heaven', and you could go from one part of heaven to the other?
'Why would you think that spiritual beings in heaven are under the law?'
For Paul it was a theological necessity that Jesus was under the law.
So he declared that Jesus was born under the law.
Theology can be very simple. If you want your spiritual beings to have property X, simply declare that they do.
Revelation also has a birth in Heaven....