To which I responded:
Paul did that to distinguish James in 1:19 from James the apostle. Alternately, if we assume that James the apostle was the “James, brother of the Lord” mentioned in 1:19, then a biological interpretation is falsified by the fact that Luke-Acts knows of no biological brother James who held an active role in the church.
McGrath again:
“This is typical of mythicists – being satisfied with any counterclaim without paying attention to or even giving much thought to the details. In this example, for instance, isn’t it obvious to everyone else, and not only to me, that if ‘brother of the Lord’ means ‘Christian’ then it is no more useful as a way of contrasting one Christian James from another who happens to be an apostle, than it is useful as a way of distinguishing between the James and Peter mentioned in Galatians?”
I’ve found McGrath’s words confusing, but if he means ‘why didn’t Paul call Peter the brother of the Lord?’ That would be easy: 1) Peter and James don’t have the same name, thus there is less reason for a distinction, and 2) Peter may have been a ‘brother of the Lord’ but he was not merely a ‘brother of the Lord,’ he was clearly a high-ranking leader of the church, so calling him a ‘brother of the Lord’ would be like a talk show host introducing the pope as merely a “Christian.”
Responding to someone in the comments section who commented on the many possibilities mythicists have concerning Galatians 1:19, McGrath’s circular reasoning becomes apparent:
“Carrier himself lacks credentials in New Testament studies, however, which is not reason to reject his argument, but does leave one wondering why it is that adequately credentialed New Testament scholars almost universally reject the mythicist position.”
I don’t know the answer to that question. That’s the problem. So far, Larry Hurtado, James McGrath, and a few others have taken a swing at it only to fall flat on their face, leaving me with no idea why they reject it.
Jonathan Bernier, like other anti-mythicists, also isn’t very good at logic:
“The mythicist narrative rests essentially upon a conspiracy theory, namely that New Testament scholars are beholden to disciplinary pressure such that they are unable to see or speak the truth, but that just begs the question by supposing that mythicism is true.”
First, if you want a good look at how Christian faith assumptions permeate new testament scholarship, look no further than Bart Ehrman’s Forged. From the book’s description: “[T]his book takes on an idea widely accepted by biblical scholars: that writing in someone else’s name was common practice and perfectly okay in ancient times. Ehrman argues that it was not even then considered acceptable—hence, a forgery.” Why did scholars think it was “perfectly acceptable” to write in someone else’s name for so long? Pro-Christian bias. It is not to be found in the ancient evidence. If you can understand that without positing a conspiracy theory, but rather as the shared biases of believers, who are naturally in the majority in biblical studies, then you can understand the Christ myth theory without positing a conspiracy theory.
Second, it isn’t ‘begging the question’ to see bias in NT scholarship, for that is not a conclusion deduced from the Christ myth theory, it’s just an evident fact the more you look at the field. NT Wright’s book – which argued that a dead body came back to life and that anyone who didn’t conclude the same was a ‘Herod,’ – was the subject of a full issue in The Journal for the Study of the Historical Jesus. But that same journal hasn’t been even slightly interested in the question of whether its object of study is even a real thing!
Larry Hurtado was asked a question regarding whether there is a ‘pre-Christian Jesus’ in Philo:
“Yes, in another of his writings (NB: contra Carrier, not in the De Confusione passage), Philo can refer to the Logos by the labels you cite. Indeed, he can even refer to the Logos as ‘a second god’ (deuteros theos), but then quickly qualifies this with ‘so to speak.’ The Logos is an ‘archangel’ (remembering that for ancient Greek speakers the word ‘angelos’ = messenger, or spokesman), for the Logos is the expression of the ineffable biblical deity toward the world/creation. One has to study carefully the multitude of Philo’s references to the Logos to put it all together, for he was a complex writer. But the Logos isn’t really a separate ontological being, like we imagine an ‘angel/archangel.’ And, contra Carrier, nowhere does Philo refer to an archangel named ‘Jesus.'”
Who does Hurtado think he’s refuting by pointing out a difference between Philo and Christianity? That would only be relevant if somebody out there was arguing that Christianity directly stole everything it believed from Philo. Instead, Philo and Christianity both ‘inherited’ their theology from a common ideological ‘ancestor,’ a fact which is undeniable given their deep similarities. Hurtado himself writes:
I identify ancient Jewish traditions of what I call “divine agency”, distinguishing three types: (1) personified divine attributes, such as Wisdom and Philo’s Logos; (2) “exalted patriarchs”–Enoch, Moses, and others; and (3) “principal angels” including Michael and others. I contend that these all are variant forms of what we can call “chief agent” tradition, in which God is pictured as having a particular figure acting as God’s plenipotentiary or vizier. I further propose that the early christological statements appear to portray Jesus as God’s unique agent, and so likely drew upon these traditions.
The heavens and Earth were thought to be mirror images of one another (read Hebrews, see what I mean) such that there was a heavenly double of everything on Earth and vice versa. Given that context, if there is an earthly Joshua who builds the temple of the Lord and serves as high priest (Zechariah 6) then there must also a heavenly Joshua who builds the temple of the Lord (“I will destroy this temple and in three days raise it up!”) who will serve as high priest of this heavenly temple (Lo and behold: Hebrews 8:1-2).
So, Hurtado butchered Carrier’s argument by assuming the Christians borrowed directly from Philo, when Carrier’s argument only assumes that Philo’s and early Christian theologies stem from a common tradition, a conclusion that Hurtado shares and has even published in support of! Unbelievable.
“For atheists to try to use mythicism as though it were an argument against Christianity makes no sense.”
27 comments
“When McGrath is asked how he knows that the gospels refer to a historical man instead of symbolic myths about a celestial being, he refers to Paul.” I don’t see that this happened. It’s obvious Mark means for the reader to understand it as talking about events in Palestine involving human beings.
Mark, Ancient context is very important; one cannot ‘read the bible like a newspaper.’ Here’s a brief intro to symbolism in the gospels:
http://aigbusted.blogspot.com/2012/01/gospels-tell-you-so-what.html
Matthew’s genealogy is even symbolic:
https://books.google.com/books?id=E4Ji4v7Z9UEC&pg=PA104&dq=Matthew%27s+symbolic+genealogy&hl=en&sa=X&ei=nLu0U82HKqbL8AGJ_4HQDQ&ved=0CDgQ6AEwAg#v=onepage&q=Matthew's%20symbolic%20genealogy&f=false
A popularized, easy-to-read account of the symbolic genealogy may be found here: https://isthatinthebible.wordpress.com/2014/07/19/whats-the-deal-with-matthews-genealogy/
Your claim though was that McGrath argued in a circle, but you didn’t cite any evidence. Maybe it exists. It is by the way not arguing in a circle to use two pieces of evidence – here Mark and Paul – to argue for claims about each that couldn’t be established separately.
That isn’t what McGrath does: Both mythicism and historicism compete to account for both the early epistles and the gospels, with historicism claiming that Epistles refer to a human figure (albeit strangely) and that the gospels work out the details, whereas mythicism would say that the Epistles refer to a celestial being and that the gospels do, too (earthly stories were often interpreted as veiled references to celestial beings and events). So, no argument from ‘convergence’ can be used.
McGrath (now bolded):
Primary sources?
Close to Paul’s time?
Gullotta (2017) now bolded:
Covington: “The heavens and Earth were thought to be mirror images of one another…”
Charles, Robert Henry (1900). The Ascension of Isaiah: Translated from the Ethiopic Version, Which, Together with the New Greek Fragment, the Latin Versions and the Latin Translation of the Slavonic, is Here Published in Full. A. & C. Black.
Per Carrier (16 December 2017). “On the Historicity of Jesus: The Daniel Gullotta Review”. Richard Carrier Blogs. Comment by Carrier (17 December 2017):
I prefer the term likeness (cf. “man was made in the image and likeness” of God – Genesis 1:26-27).
“Gaffes”? What has happened to your alliteration? Surely “mistakes” or “misunderstandings” or “misprisions”! Come on, pick up your game, man.
😉 Wish I had thought of those.
My comments never seem to show up on your blog. Why not?
Hurtado:
Philo of Alexandria (c. 20 B.C.E.—40 C.E.) § Doctrine of the Logos in Philo’s Writings § The Angel of the Lord, Revealer of God @ http://www.iep.utm.edu/philo/
“The Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy (IEP) (ISSN 2161-0002) was founded in 1995 to provide open access to detailed, scholarly information on key topics and philosophers in all areas of philosophy.” @ http://www.iep.utm.edu/home/about/
McGrath:
Ehrman (2012):
Of course, the only people who would consider the Christ myth theory plausible would be non-Christians (notwithstanding odd exceptions like Thomas Brodie), practically every Christian would find this contradictory to their beliefs.
Lataster, Raphael (14 December 2014). “Weighing up the evidence for the ‘Historical Jesus'”. The Conversation :
Dickson, John (24 December 2014). “It’s Beginning to Look a lot Like Christmas … Mythicism’s in the Air”. http://www.abc.net.au :
I would like to know if a scholar does not hold some form of the Documentary hypothesis, Supplementary hypothesis or Fragmentary hypothesis.
Lataster (2015):
Covington: [Why New Testament scholars almost universally reject the mythicist position.] “I don’t know the answer to that question.”
I do not know why agnosticism about the historicity of Jesus is not a credible conclusion?
I don’t think even historicity is crazy. Agnosticism, Historicism, and Mythicism are all credible conclusions reasonable people may come to.
Pro-Christian bias is why some scholars that forgery was an innocent practice in ancient times? This conclusion is not drawn from Ehrman’s work, which doesn’t argue any such thing. This was derivative from the idea that some historians had concluded that ancient literary practice did not censure writing in someone elses name. Secondly, the vast majority of scholars, both Christian and non-Christian alike, applauded Ehrman when he demonstrated, from historical sources, that forgery was in fact censured. This was not a Christian issue, this was a scholarly issue. Armin D. Baum, who is a Christian, writes “In Bart Ehrman’s recent book on ancient pseudepigraphy, at least three central questions can be distinguished. First, Were pseudepigraphical texts written to deceive and were they regarded as deceptive by their readers? Ehrman gives a positive answer.1 His second question is, “Did forgers think that lying is something not only right, but divinely sanctioned?” (548). Ehrman’s answer is again positive, and there can be little doubt, I believe, that this is exactly what some of the ancient sources indicate.”
Baum, Armin D. “Content and Form: Authorship Attribution and Pseudonymity in Ancient Speeches, Letters, Lectures, and Translations—A Rejoinder to Bart Ehrman.” Journal of Biblical Literature 136.2 (2017): 381-403.
If Christian bias so greatly permeates New Testament scholarship, then how is it that Ehrman is considered one of the most distinguished historians in his field? Or how is it that John Dominic Crossan, a member of the Jesus Seminar, is the president of the Society of Biblical Literature? Or how is it that Rudolph Bultmann, a radical German critic, was literally the most influential New Testament scholar of all the 20th century, even beyond the likes of C.H. Dodd and F.F. Bruce? Is your evidence for this really a single issue (like 10 papers) being published in devotion to an important work? Was it similarly outrageous when the journal Harvard Theological Review devoted an entire issue to the debate concerning the authenticity of the Gospel of Jesus Wife? Couldn’t it be that some journals think attention should be devoted to inspecting the methodology of new works which would clearly be very important if valid?
“If Christian bias so greatly permeates New Testament scholarship, then how is it that Ehrman is considered one of the most distinguished historians in his field?”
Bias does not = vast conspiracy with zero exceptions. Nontheless, far more typical than Ehrman are situations like Gerd Ludemann being fired for his rejection of the Christian Faith:
https://infidels.org/kiosk/article/open-letter-on-behalf-of-gerd-ludemann-49.html
I hardly need to mention such situations as Michael R. Licona being scapegoated for questioning the literal veracity of Matthew’s account of many people being resurrected at Christ’s death. There are many others, as David Fitzgerald documents in his “Jesus: Mything in Action” series.
“Was it similarly outrageous when the journal Harvard Theological Review devoted an entire issue to the debate concerning the authenticity of the Gospel of Jesus Wife?”
Let me ask a question: Was there serious concern over whether that work was historically accurate (i.e. that Jesus actually had a wife)? Even if so, that only proves that if you’re willing to go to those lengths in the name of intellectual discussion of a wide range of possibility, then mythicism should definitely qualify for as much.
“Couldn’t it be that some journals think attention should be devoted to inspecting the methodology of new works which would clearly be very important if valid?”
That would most certainly apply to Carrier’s work, both in his application of Baye’s theorem and his interpretation of early Christian writings.
For some reason, your responses do not appear in my notifications. Anyhow, your grave errors are just extraordinary. Your appeal to Ludemann is in fact self-refuting.
Have you actually read what Ludemann got fired for? He not only argued against claims important to Christians, he used his scholarly position to attack Christianity directly. This is one thing he wrote:
‘the person of Jesus himself becomes insufficient as a foundation of faith once most of the New Testament statements about him have proved to be later interpretations by the community’
Ludemann let his religious axe to grind get in the way of his scholarly profession. Whether or not this was an adequate reason for dismissal is beyond my ability to assess, but even the very link on infidels.org you link to is enough to dismiss your claim. Do you see how many scholars signed that letter? So many signed it that it really does crush the claim that there is a bias. And finally, no scholar fired Ludemann. The Church fired Ludemann. The Church had enormous power to dismiss people from their positions there, and it’s not surprising that the clergy, seeing Ludemann abuse his power to attack Christianity, dismissed him. So which scholar is exactly responsible for bias against Ludemann? Name the scholar. If you can’t, why can’t you?
“Bias does not = vast conspiracy with zero exceptions”
This seems to be an attempt to play around the facts. When shown overwhelming evidence of secularism in scholarship, as I just did, one simply claims that “i never said it’s a vast conspiracy”. Ugh, who cares?
“I hardly need to mention such situations as Michael R. Licona being scapegoated for questioning the literal veracity of Matthew’s account of many people being resurrected at Christ’s death. There are many others, as David Fitzgerald documents in his “Jesus: Mything in Action” series.”
I’m well aware of what happened to Licona. None of the people who dismissed Licona are actively engaged in scholarship. Again, Licona, like Ludemann, was dismissed by the clergy in his non-scholarly organization. And David Fitzgerald holds no credibility as everyone knows.
“Let me ask a question: Was there serious concern over whether that work was historically accurate (i.e. that Jesus actually had a wife)?”
What nonsense are you talking about? The Gospel of Jesus Wife would be an enormously important apocryphal document if authentic like the Gospel of Judas. Journals happen to occasionally publish issues devoted to important scholarly matters. What about that is confusing to you?
“That would most certainly apply to Carrier’s work, both in his application of Baye’s theorem and his interpretation of early Christian writings.”
There’s nothing particularly important about Carrier’s abuse of logic.
I have to add one more comment. I will disclose my bias beforehand: I consider mythicism a great delusion. Anyhow, you write this:
“To which I responded: Paul did that to distinguish James in 1:19 from James the apostle.”
It flat out stuns me how badly mythicists read the Bible. They absorb every detail, every word, letter, a punctuation mark of Carrier, and yet this is written. I was going through a century old commentary that actually spotted the following fact:
Galatians 1:19: but I did not see any other apostle **except** James the Lord’s brother.
Paul says he did not see any other apostle EXCEPT James, which means Paul overtly says that James is an apostle here. Paul flat out calls James an apostle, and so the entire mythicist claim that Paul id distinguishing Peter an “apostle” from James “a mere brother” gets itself into a muddle. Paul says they are both apostles. There is no distinguishment in apostleship, and so the mythicist tirade must once again explain something. Both James and Peter were apostles, but **only** James was the “Lord’s brother”. Why is this?
“Paul says he did not see any other apostle EXCEPT James, which means Paul overtly says that James is an apostle here.”
Allow me to quote Galatians 1:18-19:
“Then after three years, 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.”
When he says “I saw none of the other apostles” he is probably referring back to Cephas. Even if not, if James the apostle is one and the same as “James, the Lord’s brother” then there is still a problem with reading this as a biological reference, since Luke-Acts never refers to James the Apostle as having a biological relationship with Christ!
To add a bit to what I was saying previously…
“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.”
I think you could read that as saying, “I stayed with Cephas [the apostle] and saw no other apostles, but I did see James, Lord’s brother [not an apostle, just an ordinary Christian].
Tischendorf 8th Edition:
ἕτερος δέ ὁ ἀπόστολος οὐ ὁράω εἰ μή Ἰάκωβος ὁ ἀδελφός ὁ κύριος
Secondly now the apostles were absent, the only one present was James…
You provide this translation:
“Then after three years, 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.”
Three problems. For one, I already quoted Galatians. Two, you offer a novel translation than the one I provided, and it’s clearly troubling. Why is there a hyphen? There are no ‘–‘s in Greek, nor does the Greek grammar warrant that. Finally, that’s a clear minority translation when seeing all the different available translations of Galatians 1:19 on BibleHub. I’m simply using the translation most scholars use. Paul saw no apostle EXCEPT James, meaning that by this translation, James is an apostle. It’s quite nifty to see all of mythicism hang on one peculiar translation. Not surprising, of course.
“Luke-Acts never refers to James the Apostle as having a biological relationship with Christ!”
Ugh, maybe because James “the Apostle” (a phrase that never appears in Luke-Acts from what I know) is not the brother of Jesus. That James is the other James of the twelve disciples. There are two James’s in the New Testament, the first being one of the twelve, the second being the family member of Jesus (see Mark 6:3 and Matthew 13:55-56). Jesus having a brother named James is even known in non-Christian circles in the first century, see Josephus Antiquities of the Jews XX.9.1. So, since you cite Luke-Acts, why don’t you actually … listen to what Luke-Acts says? According to Luke-Acts, James “the Apostle” got martyred almost right away. So, according to Luke-Acts, by the time Paul was talking about his experiences in Galatians 1, James “the Apostle” was long dead. So……… that refutes this ridiculous interpretation of Galatians 1:19, it must be the brother because the disciple was dead. Craig Evans even mentioned this fact to Carrier in their debate, Carrier’s reply was “durrr Acts not reliable”.