Loading...Ten years ago on the blog when I was discussing the Proto-Gospel of James (the current subthread within a thread), I received an intriguing question about this issue, addressed in the previous post, about the brothers of Jesus and how “mythicists” — those who claim there never was a historical Jesus whatsoever but that he was completely made up (a “myth”) — dealt with them. Here’s the question and my response.
QUESTION:
Since you’ve brought up the subject of Jesus’ family perhaps it won’t be too far off the subject to ask this question.
Mythicists are forced by their arguments to deal with Paul’s encounter with Peter and James in Galatians 1:18–20. They claim that when Paul refers to James as “The Lord’s brother” he does not mean that James is Jesus’ biological brother (which of course would mean that Jesus actually lived) but that he was using the word “brother” in the sense that all the disciples were “brothers” i.e., metaphorically.
What about this? Is the word translated as “brother” in English that ambiguous in the original Greek? Can it be other than a biological relationship? Elsewhere I believe Paul uses the word “brothers” to describe fellow believers. Does he use the same Greek word?
RESPONSE:
Get access to Dr. Ehrman's library of 4,000+ articles plus five new articles per week about the New Testament and early Christianity. It costs as little as $2.99/mth and every cent goes to charity!
Unlock 4,000+ Articles Like This!
Just to clarify something. “Anepsios” (“ανιψιός” or “ανεψιός”) in Greek means “nephew”; the Greek word for “cousin” is “ξάδερφος” (“xatherfos”). I think I used too many quotation marks.
In ancient Greek ανεψιος means “cousin.” There is no ancient Greek word ξαδερφος (or indeed any word beginning with ξαν-).
Wow! That’s interesting! My comment was about modern Greek; I had no clue that the modern Greek work for”nephew” meant “cousin” in koini!
Do any mythicists claim that Paul did not exist?
I don’t know, but I wouldn’t be surprised.
I was wondering what your beliefs are about the visions Paul had on the road to Damascus that led to his conversion? I recently was talking to a Christian and they brought it up.
I think Paul definitely thought he saw something that he interpreted to be Jesus. Those who are Christian would say he saw Jesus and everyone else would say that he thought he did — which ain’t the same! I have a long discussion about it all in my book How Jesus Became God.
And do any mythicists claim that Bart Ehrman does not exist?
Many say they wish he didn’t….
Sadly, yes! Had one on my blog recently claiming that both Jesus & Paul were myths and were also both somehow Apollonius of Tyana. When I tried asking him probing questions, he threw out some snide comments about how I needed to do more research, then left. 😀
Ai yai yai. Well, apparently 3% of the inhabitants of the UK (I learned today) (and god knows how many Americans) believe the world is flat. Logic and evidence at some point become irrelevant….
How do mythicists respond to independent, non-Christian sources like Flavius Josephus who also mention James as the biological brother of Jesus? Does this not strengthen the case for a historical Jesus?
It’s worth noting that while there are debates about the authenticity of another passage in Josephus that mentions Jesus (known as the Testimonium Flavianum), the mention of James is generally considered to be authentic by most scholars.
As you intimate, they say that the passage in Josephus was not written by Josephus, but was added by later Christian scribes. Even the other passage about James they say was altered by adding a reference to Christ. My sense is that this is not the most common view. Certainly Christian scribes added a few things to the Testimonium, but most of it makes perfectly good sense as having come from Josephus, and so it’s widely thought that the heart of the Testimonium is authentic.
I’ve had quite a lot of discussions with mythicists (I’m currently reviewing a mythicist book on my blog). IME, the less informed mythicists lump the ‘brother of the Lord’ quote in with the TF and just assume it’s also an interpolation. The more informed mythicists typically go with a version of an argument thought up by Carrier, in which the ‘Jesus’ in this line originally referred to Jesus ben Damneus, a reader somehow mistook this for the Christian Jesus and added a note in the margin saying so, and a scribe then interpolated that note when copying it later. If you’re interested, Tim O’Neill’s ‘History for Atheists’ blog has a post debunking this argument very thoroughly. (I don’t know if I’m allowed to post links, but you can find the link fairly easily from the blog.)
Hi Doctor Ehrman I am reading the Son Rises by William Lane Craig at the moment and would interested to know if you’ve read it and if so would love to know your opinion on it as I know it’s a book from what I have read so far that has quite a lot of views contrary to yours (e.g. the empty tomb or the ressurection being historical fact) so would be interesting to know your exact thoughts on the arguments made in it and why you disagree if you wouldn’t mind sharing them?
I haven’t read it. Craig and I had a public debate many years ago on the resurrection of Jesus. I disagree with most things he says and think he misrepresents a lot of things and scholars. In any event, you can see others of my debates online (including a 6 hour one with Michael Licona! it’s on my website, bartehrman.com )disabledupes{f623fddfcecd26d7f4320bda7326d2cf}disabledupes
Thanks, I actually had another question I hope you wouldn’t mind answering regarding your 6 hour debate with Mike Licona. As I did purchase it and highly enjoyed it but remember you said how it’s not in a Historians toolbox to show that a miracle took place, as then this is doing theology not History. However, could you also not argue then that say if I have a theoretical great grandad who fell down the stairs to his death and that can’t be proven Historically to of happened as then that would be doing science (invoking laws of physics such as gravity) not doing History although do understand it’s not a fair comparison in that I know science can (mostly) be replicated multiple times to see if it’s true whereas that’s not the case with the ressurection but hopefully you understand where I am coming from?
I’d say all history follows the laws of science. That’s one way we know that some things happened in the past and others didn’t. The death of your (theoretical) relative is fully in accord with what could happen. If you said that he suddenly elevated off the floor and broke his neck hitting the ceiling, then I’d say that’s probably not historical.
When mythicists point out that you state the Bible is unreliable historically and yet you use it historically are you saying that Jesus as a person certainly existed but that the Supernatural events are not possible? That Jesus indeed preached and that included Apocalypticism. And that there are many historical people who have fantastical legends ascribed to them?
Yes, I’m saying there was a person Jesus who actually existed; that many of the stories about him are legendary, not historical; and that there are plenty of things we can say about him. That’s not a very radical view, it’s just pretty much what anyone who doesn’t have a particular axe to grind about the matter would conclude if they looked at the historical record. I think too that we can establish that he was an apocalyptic preacher, and in fact, I’m very sure of that, but I don’t think that is AS demonstrable as that he at least lived. Other things are less demonstrable (that one of his disciples was named Bartholomew), others seem (to me) almost certainly not historical (the Barabbas incident); others I think we can say are simply beyond our ability to demonstrate (his Transfiguration, walking on water, ascent to heaven, etc.)
I can only assume that in your next post “with another mythicist explanation for the “brothers of the Lord….” that you will be addressing what the steelman Jesus “mythicist” has to say about the brother (s) of Jesus, having dispensed with the strawmen.
https://www.richardcarrier.info/archives/11516
P.S. Enjoyed your interview with GodlessEngineer.
Hi doctor Ehrman apologies if you have also answered a question such as this a thousand timws before but I’ve heard you mention (correct me if I’m wrong here) how you don’t think Jesus was given a decent burial but that the story abt Jesus being given a decent burial by Joseph of Arimathea is most wrong but then if say Joseph of Arimathea was made up wouldn’t people reading the gospels know that there was no man named Joseph of Arimathea and if Joseph of Arimathea was real yet it’s still innacurate because he never did give Jesus a decent burial then could one not argue that it is likely the real Joseph of Arimathea would of been quick to debunk this story and if it is all a story doesn’t that hint that someone is being dishonest about what has gone on which doesn’t make sense if they sincerely believed Jesus was ressurected as if they did could they not just reccount the events as they actually happened rather than needlessly making things up and thus undermining their credibility?
Good question! It’s the same issue we confront with lots of stories in the Gospels — involving the disciples themselves, Nicodemus, Barabbas, the Sarmaritan woman of John 4, the woman who anointed Jesus for his burial, etc. etc. There are very good reasons for thinking these stories didn’t actually happen. Why wouldn’t people have known?
The main reason is this: These Gospels are written decades later, in a different part of the world, in a different language, to people who were not themselves around to see what Jesus and others in his time did, and didn’t know anyone else who sw them. So they just didn’t know and had no way of knowing — and probalby no reason to question the story, just as most of the 2 billion people today who read them don’t think about questioning them….
What if Paul simply made up that he met Peter and James? There are many claims by Paul that are most likely not true – like seeing the third level of heaven. Could it not be possible that he made up meeting Peter and James simply to gain more legitimacy?
He doesn’t use his claims polemically to prove anything, so that seems unlikely. And the episode in Antioch involving Peter (and messengers sent from James) in Gal. 2 seems certainly to have caused him considerable pain. Moreover, in that case, he’s reminding his readers what they themselves observed.