The Case for the Historical Christ

[Paul of Tarsus]

Can we make a case that Jesus really lived? Whatever else you might think of him, the answer to this question is not hard to come up with.

The first and perhaps most commonly cited reason to believe Jesus lived is that we know that the popular majority of New Testament authorities think he lived. So in the same way you can be sure that evolution has occurred because the consensus of evolutionary biologists think evolution happened, you can be sure Christ lived based on what his experts think about his historicity.

Now, one of the reasons New Testament authorities are so sure Christ existed is because Christ's followers wrote of his crucifixion. The disciples were very embarrassed about the crucifixion, and therefore we can be sure they didn't make up the story. Why would they create a Messiah who died such a shameful death? The only sensible answer is that they had to tell the whole truth about Jesus even if it went against the belief that the Messiah would conquer all.

We also have many people who attested to Jesus. In addition to Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John; we also have Paul and John of Patmos who wrote of Jesus. If Bible writers aren't convincing enough, then we have Josephus and Tacitus who wrote of Jesus, both of whom were not Christians. Yes, one person might write of a mythological figure, but when we have so many writing of Jesus, then we are assured he must have lived.

Finally, we have Paul's writing of Jesus' brother James whom Paul knew. As even some atheist Bible authorities have said, Jesus must have existed because he had a brother.

So it looks like we can safely conclude that Jesus mythicists have no leg to stand on. Unlike Jesus authorities who have requisite degrees in Biblical studies and teach New Testament at respected universities, Jesus mythicists are made up primarily of internet atheists and bloggers who can use the internet to say what they want without regard to credibility. They've been said to be in the same league as Holocaust deniers and young-earth creationists.

[AgnosticBoy]

There are some similarities between the Galatians passage and the 1 Corinthians passages, but the latter passages do not specify that Paul received anything from Christ. So far, most of the expert material I've read, including that of skeptics such as Dr. Richard Carrier, all view 1 Corinthians 15:3-7 as being an early Christian creed that even predates Paul. If such a creed existed before Paul, then he did not have to get it from divine revelation. Let's look at 1 Corinthians 15 again:

3 For what I received I passed on to you as of first importance[a]: that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures, 4 that he was buried, that he was raised on the third day according to the Scriptures, 5 and that he appeared to Cephas.

This clearly shows Paul alluding to information that is found in "Scripture" and not divine revelation. Divine revelation is not needed for something that's already documented.

Based on further research, I'm convinced that the "Scripture" Paul refers to in 1 Corinthians 15 is most likely the OT, particularly the prophets, like Isaiah 53:5.

The majority of evidence for 1 Corinthians 15:3-7 being pre-Pauline tradition is linguistic evidence. I'll provide a source that does a good job listing some of the commentary on the 1 Corinthians 15 passage. I would also recommend that Difflugia compare his personal interpretation with that of expert commentary before making claims that Paul is alluding to revelation as opposed to tradition. Here's one of my sources:

Is the 1 Corinthians 15 creed pre-Pauline?
According to most scholars, the 1 Corinthians 15 creed is a traditional formula that early Christians would often recite. Paul claims to be reciting it here in his letter to the Corinthian church.

Paul says he “delivered” [paredoka] what he “received” [parelabon]1 This is relevant because these are technical Rabbinic terms indicating something carefully preserved and passed down from mentor to students.2

The author goes on to list commentary on 1 Corinthians 15:3-7 from various scholars (it's a long list so I'll give you a sample):

• John Meier: “The vocabulary of handing on a receiving was used in the ancient world by philosophical schools, Gnostic literature, and rabbinic circles (e.g., m. 'Abot 1:1) to designate important traditions that (e.g., m. 'Abot 1:1) to designate important traditions that were carefully passed down from teacher to student.” [The Circle of the Twelve: Did It Exist during Jesus' Public Ministry?, Journalal of Biblical Literature (1997).]
• N.T. Wright (NT Scholar, Ph.D [Oxford, +5 honorary]): “paredoka and parelabon (v. 3, the latter echoing parelabete in v. 1) are technical terms for the receiving and handing on of tradition.” [The Resurrection of the Son of God (Minneapolis, MN: Fortress Press, 2003) 319.]
• Joseph Fitzmyer (NT professor): “[h]e again makes use of the technical Greek terms for tradition, paradidonai and paralambanein (see Notes on 11:2, 23).” [Anchor Yale Bible Commentary: 1 Corinthians (Yale, 2008) 32.545.]
• Hans Conzelmann: “The fact that the following statements are introduced by παραλαμβάνειν/παραδιδόναι, “receive/pass on,” means that here established elements of the tradition are being quoted. (See on 11:23. ὁ καὶ παρέλαβον is omitted by Marcion; for the tendency see Adolf von Harnack, Marcion, TU, 45 (Leipzig: Hinrichs, 21924; Darmstadt: Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft, 1960), 91. Ulrich Wilckens, “Der Ursprung der Überlieferung,” (n. 54 below), 62, thinks that ὁ καὶ παρέλαβον, “which I also received,” merely emphasizes that there is no other gospel, but does not stress the idea of tradition as such. Against this is 11:23.)” [1 Corinthians; Hermeneia (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1975). 170.]
• Richard Bauckham (NT professor): “The evidence is found in Paul's use of the technical terms for handing on a tradition (ρaradidσmί, i Cor 11:2, 23, corresponding to Hebrew másar) and receiving a tradition (ρaralambanö, ι Cor 15:1, 3; Gal 1:9; Col 2:6; ι Thess 2:13; 41 2 Thess 3:6, corresponding to Hebrew gίbbel). (For this terminology, see M. S. Jaffee, Torah in the Mouth: Writing and Oral Tradition in Palestinian Judaism 200 acε-4οο CE (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2001) 73-75, 80.) These Greek words were used for formal transmission of tradition in the Hellenistic schools and so would have been familiar in this sense to Paul's Gentile readers. They also appeared in Jewish Greek usage (Josephus, Ant. 13.297; C. Αρ. 1.60; Mark 7:4, 13; Acts 6:14), corresponding to what we find in Hebrew in later rabbinic literature (e.g.,265m. Avot 1.1). Paul also speaks of faithfully retaining or observing a tradition (katecho, ι Cor 11:2; 15:2; krateo, 2 Thess 2:15, which is used of Jewish tradition in Mark 7:3, 4, 8, corresponding to the Hebrew 'ahaz) and uses, of course, the term "tradition" itself (paradosis, ι Cor 11:2; 2 Thess 215; 3:6, used of Jewish tradition in Matt 15:2; Mark 7:5; Gal 1:14; Josephus, Ant. 13.297).” [Jesus and the Eyewitnesses (Wm. B. Eerdmans, 2006) .]

James Dunn (Professor at Durham): “Despite uncertainties about the extent of tradition which Paul received (126), there is no reason to doubt that this information was communicated to Paul as part of his introductory catechesis (16.3) (127). He would have needed to be informed of precedents in order to make sense of what had happened to him. When he says, ‘I handed on (paredoka) to you as of first importance (en protois) what I also received (parelabon)’ (15.3), he assuredly does not imply that the tradition became important to him only at some subsequent date. More likely he indicates the importance of the tradition to himself from the start; that was why he made sure to pass it on to the Corinthians when they first believed (15.1-2) (128). This tradition, we can be entirely confident, was formulated as tradition within months of Jesus' death. [Jesus Remembered (Eerdmans, 2003) 854-55.]

Sources: here and here.

So there we have it! Difflugia thinking does not factor in rabbinical and other Greek literature beyond the New Testament. The experts factor in all of that. For now, until I receive peer-reviewed evidence that says otherwise, my conclusion on 1 Corinthians 15:3-7 is that Paul is making reference to a tradition or creed (both signify shared beliefs/customs) as opposed to some unique revelation that was delivered to him alone.

In fact, I'm willing to accept that Paul received some unique information about the Gospel. The information in 1 Corinthians 15:3-7 is not an instance of that for reasons I stated above. Some would argue that the Paul and Peter dispute would be one instance of Paul's unique revelation. The apostle Peter did not know about the Gentiles not needing circumcision based on his actions described in Galatians 2:11-16. Paul had to set him straight on uncircumcision. This would indicate that Paul had unique information (presumably based on unique revelation and not tradition) and that he had to instruct Peter on it.

[Goat]

It's weak according to the definitions of what evidence is. There is nothing that is contemporary

I disagree. I mean Jesus's life was short lived (33 year span?) and the important aspects (his ministry) was even shorter (3.5 years?). I wouldn't have expected for people to be thinking about documenting his life given his low socioeconomic status (he wasn't important or part of the ruling class) and his short lived life. Even by modern standards, my expectations are reasonable. If I were famous, and my fame lasted a very short time, then I wouldn't expect for a historian to already have documented my full life details because a) the historian would not even take notice of me until I became famous b)he would not have had time to fully research my life in 3 years, especially if he's just starting to focus on how my fame is developing.

Either way, to claim that "nothing is contemporary" is a misleading. We can say that nothing written was contemporary but that does not mean that the information and the sources were not contemporary which is possible when or if they existed prior to being written. They were likely made into creeds or confessions (i.e. summary statements of the Christian faith) to help the early Christians remember key information about their faith. One of the earliest creeds has been dated back to being within months or a few years from the time of Jesus's death. I'll let a skeptic explain it to you:

A member asked:

I keep hearing Christian apologists insisting the Corinthian Creed (1 Cor. 15:3-8) can be reliably dated to the 30s A.D., just years or even months after Jesus died. Can you direct me to a solid refutation of that claim?

Dr. Richard Carrier responds:

The answer is no. Because there is no refutation of this claim—other than “maybe possibly it originated later,” which is the logical fallacy of possibiliter ergo probabiliter (“it’s possible, therefore it’s probable,” see Proving History, index). In fact the evidence for this creed dating to the very origin of the religion is amply strong; and there is no reasonable basis for claiming otherwise.

Yes, maybe Paul’s letters are a forgery. But that’s very unlikely. Yes, Paul added at least one line (verse 8, appending his own conversion years later to the original). But the first three lines certainly are original components of the sect’s founding creed (written in non-Pauline style). Yes, the text may have become corrupted (I suspect verse 6 originally said something like, “then he appeared to all the brethren together at the Pentecost” and not “then he appeared to more than five hundred brethren at once”; and verse 7 looks like a post-Pauline scribal addition, as it breaks the logic of the sequence and is too redundant, just repeating the same information already conveyed in verses 5 and 6, since everyone who saw Jesus was already an apostle and James the pillar was already one of the twelve: see Empty Tomb, pp. 192-93). But the essential elements of the creed (especially verses 3 to 5), even if we have to account for some transmission error (in verses 6 and 7), still dates to the sect’s origin. It’s what distinguishes Christianity from any other sect of Judaism. So it’s the only thing Peter (Cephas) and the other pillars (James and John) could have been preaching before Paul joined the religion. And Paul joined it within years of its founding (internal evidence in Paul’s letters places his conversion before 37 A.D., and he attests in Galatians 1 that he was preaching the Corinthian creed immediately thereupon: OHJ, pp. 139, 516, 536, 558).

Source: https://www.richardcarrier.info/archives/11069

And? That doesn't make the claim of what Paul said any stronger. There is no one in that 500 that is named, it is just a claim from Paul. That's weak evidence. He attests, but well ,lots of people lie . Can you show that claim ihas any facts to it, other than 'paul wrote it down'

[historia]

The OP was written by an atheist who doubts Jesus' existence.

That’s fine, this was about whether everyone in this thread is arguing in terms of probability.

Right, I'm only taking into consideration those who are arguing in good faith.

[M]y actual point here was that whatever arcane reasonable doubts or historical complications may technically exist about Jesus' historicity, those with such doubts should perhaps be happy enough to settle on the idea that he "probably" existed, because the context of this issue is one in which so few people would seriously consider more extreme qualifications.

Sure, I'm not taking issue with that overarching point, but rather a specific assertion you made within that argument.

Ehrman shows that at least one scholar on this issue holds the perception that skepticism about Jesus' historicity is overwhelmingly beyond the scope of serious academics.

If Ehrman truly thinks this issue is "beyond the scope of serious academics," then writing an entire book on the issue -- in which he says several times that the handful of scholars who hold this view need to be taken seriously -- would seem like a rather ineffective way to get that point across.

Many of these scholars have no vested interest in the matter. As it turns out, I myself do not either. I am not a Christian, and I have no interest in promoting a Christian cause or a Christian agenda. I am an agnostic with atheist leaning, and my life and views of the world would be approximately the same whether or not Jesus existed.

[...]

So what Ehrman is admitting here is that he has no interest in this issue. That doesn't mean he doesn’t care about it at all, but beyond the fact that it doesn’t impact his personal beliefs, having “no interest” or stake in the issue also implies there's nothing to be gained within academia from critiquing the historical basis of Jesus.

No, by "vested interest," Ehrman clearly means a prior religious (or political, etc.) commitment that one feels obligated to uphold.

He uses the same phrase, in the same way, later in the book (pg. 219):

Because of where I teach, almost all of my students come from a conservative Christian background and already have both a vested interest in and form set of opinion about the subject matter.

So, while conservative Christians clearly have a "vested interest" in whether Jesus existed -- because several key traditional Christian doctrines, such as the Atonement and Resurrection, depend upon it -- Ehrman is simply noting in the introduction that many scholars -- including liberal Christian and non-Christian scholars -- have no such religious commitment.

For those scholars (including Ehrman himself), whether Jesus existed or not has no real bearing on their worldview, and so they are free to conclude he did not exist, should the evidence support that position. That is clearly his point.

To argue this phrase somehow implies a wholly separate argument about what could be "gained within academia" is highly dubious, in my estimation. You're essentially just reading your conclusion into the text.

So again he sees two sides--the dispassionate academic view and the less rational/informed/academic view and he doesn’t want to be affiliated with the non-academic side.

Here, too, I think you're forcing Ehrman's comments to fit your prior conclusions.

Consider this comment from the introduction (pg. 6):

[F]or anyone whom both evidence and the past matter, a dispassionate consideration of the case makes it quite plain: Jesus did exist. He may not have been the Jesus that your mother believes in or the Jesus of the stained-glass window or the Jesus of your least favorite televangelist or the Jesus proclaimed by the Vatican, the Southern Baptist Convention, the local megachurch, or the California Gnostic.

Here, then, is a third 'view', held by those who believe Jesus existed but for a variety of non-academic reasons.

Ehrman isn't saying that there are academics on one side of this issue and non-academics on the other. There are non-academics on both sides!

And, sure, some of those non-academics come to conclusions that are not particularly rational or informed, as non-academics are want to do. We might note that this is a view shared by Richard Carrier, the foremost proponent of the mythicist position today, who is, in fact, far more disparaging of popular-level mythicist arguments than Ehrman.

None of this suggests to me that Ehrman is motivated primarily by a desire to distance himself from a bunch of non-academic mythicists. He's writing to explain why he thinks the mainstream academic view here is correct (over against both mythicism and conservative Christianity), while taking the opposing views seriously.

How is it that critical scholars can conclude -- as many do -- that the nativity stories and resurrection accounts are legendary, that many of the sayings attributed to Jesus were invented by the early church, that any claims to his divinity were a late theological development, etc. But, when it comes to the question of Jesus' existence, these same scholars are now suddenly kowtowed by Christian tradition?

It's easier to critique a narrative than the existence of a specific character within a narrative.

So, these critical scholars just find it too hard to doubt Jesus' existence? Surely, that is not an adequate explanation.

The main evidence used to support Jesus' existence are the religious texts themselves that contain the narratives about Jesus. But the historical critiques of the resurrection and nativity seem to utilize a higher standard of evidence for whatever reason, perhaps due to the more nuanced literary comparisons involved.

This hand-waving explanation seems to suggest that critical scholars can conclude Jesus didn't exist, they just don't find that conclusion persuasive "for whatever reason."

And if those scholars, such as Ehrman, tell us they do so for historical reasons, then why should we go hunting for ulterior explanations?

Consider that the two best biographies of Smith are Richard Bushman's Rough Stone Rolling and Fawn Brodie's No Man Knows My History, written by a practicing Mormon and an ex-Mormon, respectively. They agree on more than they disagree -- even on points that many believing Mormons today would deny about Smith -- in large part because they both were attempting to write dispassionate, secular history.

Most religious history is not written by trained historians who aspire to this ethos.

I don't think that's true at all. But, even if it was, we have quite a few historians who do aspire to this ethos doing that type of research on Jesus, so we can simply ignore any other works that do not.

If an expert on Mormon history (regardless of their background) made a particular claim about the life of Joseph Smith, their expertise alone would not be enough to compel a reasonable person to reserve all skepticism about the issue, given the clear potential for religious influence on the topic (my original point here).

Okay, but nobody is asking you to "reserve all skepticism" on this or any other issue, so if that is all you are trying to say, then I'm afraid you're not addressing any serious argument being made in the thread.

It’s not that scholars are directly coerced into holding Christian positions at the behest of powerful religious overlords. Non-Christian scholars do have centuries of experience in making their own paths of interpretation. But are there possible circumstances in which tacit acceptance of a tenuous traditional historical interpretation may be an outcome this system inadvertently produces? If so, I think the historicity of Jesus is potentially vulnerable to this.

Okay, but this argument doesn't amount to much, then.

What I would want to know is whether the historicity of Jesus is actually (not just potentially) vulnerable to this. And, more than that, whether the scholarly consensus on this issue is likely (not just possibly) the result of a "tacit acceptance of a tenuous traditional historical interpretation," should anyone here care to give us some good reasons to believe so.

[Difflugia]

I'd rather say that we don't know what it means when there is no evidence. Making a claim, such as what it can or "can't", without evidence is simply an argument from ignorance. Based on Paul's writings, we can reasonably conclude that he met with those who witnessed Jesus.

That's just an argument for accepting speculation as evidence.

The apostle Paul affirms that Jesus had a brother.

If we assume that "brother of the Lord" is synonymous with "brother of Jesus" and it's not metaphorical, then Paul affirms that Jesus had many brothers.

• Romans 8:29—"For whom he foreknew, he also predestined to be conformed to the image of his Son, that he might be the firstborn among many brothers."
• 1 Corinthians 9:5—"Have we no right to take along a wife who is a believer, even as the rest of the apostles, and the brothers of the Lord, and Cephas?"

The apostle Paul does have to say it exactly in the way you want it said to indicate that people knew Jesus prior to his death. Logic would dictate that if Jesus had a brother, then he would have to exist, and that someone knew him before his death.

If you're certain that that's what Paul meant by "brother," then you can jump to that conclusion, but each of the other hundred or so times that Paul uses the word "brother" or "brothers," it's a metaphor.

Also, Josephus mentions that Jesus had a brother.

Here's what Josephus wrote (Antiquities of the Jews, Whiston: 20.9.1, Niese: 20.200-203):

And now Caesar, upon hearing the death of Festus, sent Albinus into Judea, as procurator. But the king deprived Joseph of the high priesthood, and bestowed the succession to that dignity on the son of Ananus, who was also himself called Ananus. Now the report goes that this eldest Ananus proved a most fortunate man; for he had five sons who had all performed the office of a high priest to God, and who had himself enjoyed that dignity a long time formerly, which had never happened to any other of our high priests. But this younger Ananus, who, as we have told you already, took the high priesthood, was a bold man in his temper, and very insolent; he was also of the sect of the Sadducees, who are very rigid in judging offenders, above all the rest of the Jews, as we have already observed; when, therefore, Ananus was of this disposition, he thought he had now a proper opportunity [to exercise his authority]. Festus was now dead, and Albinus was but upon the road; so he assembled the sanhedrim of judges, and brought before them the brother of Jesus, who was called Christ, whose name was James, and some others, [or, some of his companions]; and when he had formed an accusation against them as breakers of the law, he delivered them to be stoned: but as for those who seemed the most equitable of the citizens, and such as were the most uneasy at the breach of the laws, they disliked what was done; they also sent to the king [Agrippa], desiring him to send to Ananus that he should act so no more, for that what he had already done was not to be justified; nay, some of them went also to meet Albinus, as he was upon his journey from Alexandria, and informed him that it was not lawful for Ananus to assemble a sanhedrim without his consent. Whereupon Albinus complied with what they said, and wrote in anger to Ananus, and threatened that he would bring him to punishment for what he had done; on which king Agrippa took the high priesthood from him, when he had ruled but three months, and made Jesus, the son of Damneus, high priest.

Note what it says. Ananus ben Ananus was the "bold" and "insolent" Jewish high priest. He had James, "brother of Jesus" executed, for which the King removed him as high priest and replaced him with Jesus "son of Damneus."

If "who is called Christ" is removed, then we have the story of Ananus being punished by the king for executing James ben Damneus by having James' brother, Jesus, made high priest. It's not certain, but it fits both the context and the form of a potential Christian interpolation. It might even be "likely."

There are some similarities between the Galatians passage and the 1 Corinthians passages, but the latter passages do not specify that Paul received anything from Christ. Furthermore, I tend not to put too much stock into personal interpretations of how the Greek reads or functions unless you can back it up with experts who share your view.

Leaving aside my skepticism that the scholarship will impact your opinion, did you actually think scholars wouldn't remark on something that obvious? From the AYBC volume on Galatians by J. Louis Martyn:

Following the Hebraic expression biśśar bĕśōrâ, Paul speaks literally of "the gospel gospeled by me" (cf. 1 Cor 15: 1; 2 Cor 11: 7; Rev 14:6). It is an indication of the verbal character of the noun "gospel." The gospel happens as it is gospeled.

Smith & Helwys Bible Commentary: Galatians by Marion L. Soards and Darrell J. Pursiful:

In this case, what Paul wants the Galatians to know about is “the gospel that is preached by me.” English translation does not usually capture and communicate the nuance of Paul’s remark, for literally he says something like “the gospel that is gospelled by me,” thereby using both the basic noun and verb from the Greek word group, euangeli. Thus, the substance of the gospel determines the manner of the action of proclamation of the gospel; in other words, there is an assumed consistency between what is preached and how it is preached.

You can certainly argue that the similarity and formulaic appearance are a coincidence and when Paul wrote to the Corinthians, he didn't remember what he wrote to the Galatians. That doesn't seem very "likely" to me, though.

So far, most of the expert material I've read, including that of skeptics such as Dr. Richard Carrier, all view 1 Corinthians 15:3-7 as being an early Christian creed that even predates Paul.

Perhaps it is. Perhaps Paul's phrase "not according to a man" means something completely different than how I'm imagining it. Perhaps he was lying.

On the other hand, regardless of who he heard it from or how early, you're trying to derive historical information out of what you, yourself keep calling a creed. By their very nature, creeds are polemic in nature, separating one group from another. If it's based on well-known historical information and something all Christians believed, then from whom were the Pauline churches separating themselves?

If such a creed existed before Paul, then he did not have to get it from divine revelation. Let's look at 1 Corinthians 15 again:

3 For what I received I passed on to you as of first importance[a]: that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures, 4 that he was buried, that he was raised on the third day according to the Scriptures, 5 and that he appeared to Cephas.

This clearly shows Paul alluding to information that is found in "Scripture" and not divine revelation. Divine revelation is not needed for something that's already documented.

I'm not sure what this argument is supposed to support. First, I'm pretty sure Paul would have considered the Jewish scriptures to be divine revelation. Second, if Paul constructed the "facts" of Jesus' death and resurrection out of Jewish scripture, then that hardly implies that they were based on a historical source.

Are you claiming instead that the creed came from some lost, New Testament-era work containing historical data about Jesus that Paul considered to be both "Scripture" and "not according to man?"

EDIT: Corrected the Josephus citation from Niese.

[AgnosticBoy]

I'd rather say that we don't know what it means when there is no evidence. Making a claim, such as what it can or "can't", without evidence is simply an argument from ignorance.

That's just an argument for accepting speculation as evidence.

How is saying that we don't know if it is or isn't from contemporary sources speculation? There's no claim there. If someone says that they lack belief in God's existence (meaning they don't believe or believe - again no claim nor belief), is that speculation on God's existence?

The apostle Paul affirms that Jesus had a brother.

If we assume that "brother of the Lord" is synonymous with "brother of Jesus" and it's not metaphorical, then Paul affirms that Jesus had many brothers.

• Romans 8:29—"For whom he foreknew, he also predestined to be conformed to the image of his Son, that he might be the firstborn among many brothers."
• 1 Corinthians 9:5—"Have we no right to take along a wife who is a believer, even as the rest of the apostles, and the brothers of the Lord, and Cephas?"

The apostle Paul does have to say it exactly in the way you want it said to indicate that people knew Jesus prior to his death. Logic would dictate that if Jesus had a brother, then he would have to exist, and that someone knew him before his death.

If you're certain that that's what Paul meant by "brother," then you can jump to that conclusion, but each of the other hundred or so times that Paul uses the word "brother" or "brothers," it's a metaphor.

While you seem focused on just the mention of "brother", "brother of Jesus", "brother of the Lord", I'm also focusing on if the phrase is applied generically or to one specific individual. In Galatians 1:19, Paul applies it to a specific person named James. We know that Jesus had a brother. We also know that Jesus's brother was named James. I mean we know that Paul made a distinction with James in Galatians 1:19 because if everyone was the brother of the Lord, then why didn't he also refer to Peter in the same way just one verse before (i.e. Peter, the brother of the Lord)? Looking at it another way, if everyone was referred to as brothers of the Lord, then Paul would've just referred to "James" without any distinctive title (unless you expect him to add the title "brother of the Lord" after every Christian person he mentions by name which he did not).

Also, Josephus mentions that Jesus had a brother.

Here's what Josephus wrote (Antiquities of the Jews, Whiston: 20.9.1, Niese: 20.25-27):
[snipped]
Note what it says. Ananus ben Ananus was the "bold" and "insolent" Jewish high priest. He had James, "brother of Jesus" executed, for which the King removed him as high priest and replaced him with Jesus "son of Damneus."

If "who is called Christ" is removed, then we have the story of Ananus being punished by the king for executing James ben Damneus by having James' brother, Jesus, made high priest. It's not certain, but it fits both the context and the form of a potential Christian interpolation. It might even be "likely."

You said "might" so your speculation is dismissed as a valid argument or view. Not to mention that the overwhelming majority of scholars today view the Josephus reference to James as being authentic.

There are some similarities between the Galatians passage and the 1 Corinthians passages, but the latter passages do not specify that Paul received anything from Christ. Furthermore, I tend not to put too much stock into personal interpretations of how the Greek reads or functions unless you can back it up with experts who share your view.

Leaving aside my skepticism that the scholarship will impact your opinion, did you actually think scholars wouldn't remark on something that obvious? From the AYBC volume on Galatians by J. Louis Martyn:

Following the Hebraic expression biśśar bĕśōrâ, Paul speaks literally of "the gospel gospeled by me" (cf. 1 Cor 15: 1; 2 Cor 11: 7; Rev 14:6). It is an indication of the verbal character of the noun "gospel." The gospel happens as it is gospeled.

Thanks for revealing your sources . I presume that you have no disagreement or no comment on the sources I posted earlier, sources that come from scholars of all stripes (atheist, skeptic, and Christians).

The reference that you brought up is a commentary on Galatians but our dispute is about 1 Corinthians 15, and if Paul is citing tradition or revelation. I found at least one place that in your source (it may be an unauthorized copy of the book but it also contains your excerpt word-for-word) that supports my case:

When he is referring to the true gospel (cf. 2:5, 14), Paul uses in the main three expressions: “the gospel” (e.g., 1 Thess 2:4; Rom 1:16), “the gospel of God” (e.g., 1 Thess 2:2; Rom 1:1), and “the gospel of Christ” (e.g., 1 Thess 3:2; Rom 15:19). He can also speak of “my gospel” (Rom 2:16; 16:25), an expression similar to the one emphasized in the present verse. The personal dimension (“my”) does not reflect possessiveness; it is here a locution necessitated by the fact that the Teachers have attacked Paul's preaching, characterizing it as a fundamental error.

Your author lists 3 expressions that Paul tends to use when he is referring to a gospel that didn't come from others. Notice that 1 Cor. 15 does not meet that criteria. Also, in 1 Cor. 15:3-8, Paul is giving us details that serve an historical (or some other non-theological) purpose as opposed to a theological one. Notice that the following details have nothing to do with being saved but yet Paul includes it as part of the sequence:

5 and that he appeared to Cephas,and then to the Twelve. 6 After that, he appeared to more than five hundred of the brothers and sisters at the same time, most of whom are still living, though some have fallen asleep. 7 Then he appeared to James, then to all the apostles, 8 and last of all he appeared to me also, as to one abnormally born.

Are these details that someone would receive from "revelation" alone? Those details are so basic (and none of it is essential to salvation) that anyone who encountered the early Christians could've found out about it. And Paul encountered Christians and knew about their beliefs before his conversion to Christianity.

Smith & Helwys Bible Commentary: Galatians by Marion L. Soards and Darrell J. Pursiful:

In this case, what Paul wants the Galatians to know about is “the gospel that is preached by me.” English translation does not usually capture and communicate the nuance of Paul’s remark, for literally he says something like “the gospel that is gospelled by me,” thereby using both the basic noun and verb from the Greek word group, euangeli. Thus, the substance of the gospel determines the manner of the action of proclamation of the gospel; in other words, there is an assumed consistency between what is preached and how it is preached.

You can certainly argue that the similarity and formulaic appearance are a coincidence and when Paul wrote to the Corinthians, he didn't remember what he wrote to the Galatians. That doesn't seem very "likely" to me, though.

There are similarities but there are also differences. And again, I can't help but notice that you're citing commentary that goes with Galatians and not 1 Corinthians 15. My point about Paul referring to an tradition (as opposed to revelation) has to do with 1 Corinthians 15.

Can you cite what your source says about 1 Corinthians 15 (especially since they have a book that's devoted to 1 Corinthians by Robert Scott Nash)?

So far, most of the expert material I've read, including that of skeptics such as Dr. Richard Carrier, all view 1 Corinthians 15:3-7 as being an early Christian creed that even predates Paul.

Perhaps it is. Perhaps Paul's phrase "not according to a man" means something completely different than how I'm imagining it. Perhaps he was lying.

Paul does not bring up those words in 1 Corinthians. In 1 Cor. 15, he does not say that he received something from God. There are different aspects of the Gospel. So perhaps Paul gospel to the Gentiles contained additional details and that is the type of gospel details that he's referring to in Galatians 1:11-12. I brought up that point towards the end of my last post.

On the other hand, regardless of who he heard it from or how early, you're trying to derive historical information out of what you, yourself keep calling a creed. By their very nature, creeds are polemic in nature, separating one group from another. If it's based on well-known historical information and something all Christians believed, then from whom were the Pauline churches separating themselves?

I don't accept that all creeds are meant to be polemic. They serve the purpose of summarizing a religion's core tenets at the least. Some may serve a purpose beyond that but not in all cases.

If such a creed existed before Paul, then he did not have to get it from divine revelation. Let's look at 1 Corinthians 15 again:

3 For what I received I passed on to you as of first importance[a]: that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures, 4 that he was buried, that he was raised on the third day according to the Scriptures, 5 and that he appeared to Cephas.

This clearly shows Paul alluding to information that is found in "Scripture" and not divine revelation. Divine revelation is not needed for something that's already documented.

I'm not sure what this argument is supposed to support. First, I'm pretty sure Paul would have considered the Jewish scriptures to be divine revelation. Second, if Paul constructed the "facts" of Jesus' death and resurrection out of Jewish scripture, then that hardly implies that they were based on a historical source.

Are you claiming instead that the creed came from some lost, New Testament-era work containing historical data about Jesus that Paul considered to be both "Scripture" and "not according to man?"

I already elaborated on this point at the beginning of my last post (post #191)

[bluegreenearth]

[Replying to Difflugia in post #195]

Your constructive criticism of the NT is so well reasoned and thoroughly researched that I am compelled to ask if you've thought about publishing a book on the subject? I am challenged to think and learn something new from almost every post you submit to the thread. Thanks.

[Difflugia]

That's just an argument for accepting speculation as evidence.

How is saying that we don't know if it is or isn't from contemporary sources speculation?

What you said is that it's misleading to claim that we don't have sources contemporary with Jesus. Your reasoning is that Paul might have been based on some contemporary sources.

Since we don't have Paul's sources and don't have any other contemporary sources, then it's accurate and not at all misleading to say that we don't have any contemporary sources. Even if Paul did have contemporary sources, we don't have them. That just means that we have a near-contemporary, secondary source.

If your claim (or non-claim, as it were) is that we don't know Paul's sources, then that's the end of it. It's not misleading to say that we have no contemporary sources. If, on the other hand, you're still trying to slide in the idea that since Paul might have had sources contemporary with Jesus, then we also have those sources in some meaningful way, then you're the one being misleading.

While you seem focused on just the mention of "brother", "brother of Jesus", "brother of the Lord", I'm also focusing on if the phrase is applied generically or to one specific individual. In Galatians 1:19, Paul applies it to a specific person named James.

Paul does that metaphorically, as well (2 Cor 2:13, "I did not find my brother Titus there;" Php 2:25, "Epaphroditus my brother").

We know that Jesus had a brother. We also know that Jesus's brother was named James.

So you keep saying.

I mean we know that Paul made a distinction with James in Galatians 1:19 because if everyone was the brother of the Lord, then why didn't he also refer to Peter in the same way just one verse before (i.e. Peter, the brother of the Lord)?

Who said that every Christian qualified as "brother of the Lord?" He also apparently excludes the other apostles and Peter in 1 Corinthians 9:5. Or maybe he's just separating them for emphasis. Paul writes a lot of confusing things and mixes literal expressions with metaphors, often with no clear indication that he's done so.

Looking at it another way, if everyone was referred to as brothers of the Lord, then Paul would've just referred to "James" without any distinctive title (unless you expect him to add the title "brother of the Lord" after every Christian person he mentions by name which he did not).

Looking at it another, another way, if Paul meant that James was the literal brother of Jesus, why didn't he qualify it with "according to the flesh" (κατὰ σάρκα) like he did every other time he meant a literal relationship?

You said "might" so your speculation is dismissed as a valid argument or view.

That's the joke, yes. I'm glad you get it.

Not to mention that the overwhelming majority of scholars today view the Josephus reference to James as being authentic.

I've posted a summary of the scholarly opinion. I'll leave it as an exercise for the reader to decide if it's "overwhelming" and if the justification is sufficiently robust for the linchpin of the historical Jesus argument.

Thanks for revealing your sources .

My source is the New Testament in Greek, where it really is obvious. I didn't look up those particular references until you asked for scholars to corroborate my reading of the Greek.

I presume that you have no disagreement or no comment on the sources I posted earlier, sources that come from scholars of all stripes (atheist, skeptic, and Christians).

I didn't notice your addendum. I'll address it at the end of this one.

The reference that you brought up is a commentary on Galatians but our dispute is about 1 Corinthians 15, and if Paul is citing tradition or revelation.

You weren't clear about what part of my reading needed scholarly confirmation. I'm sorry I didn't answer the question you didn't ask.

Your author lists 3 expressions that Paul tends to use when he is referring to a gospel that didn't come from others. Notice that 1 Cor. 15 does not meet that criteria.

I'm not sure what your argument is here. 15:1 uses the phrase "the gospel that I preached to you." Are you claiming that he must use all three before it's "the true gospel" or the one that is "not according to man?" Paul brackets his presentation of the gospel between the phrases "the gospel that I preached to you" and verse 11, "Whether it was I or they, thus we preached and thus you believed."

Also, in 1 Cor. 15:3-8, Paul is giving us details that serve an historical (or some other non-theological) purpose as opposed to a theological one. Notice that the following details have nothing to do with being saved but yet Paul includes it as part of the sequence:

5 and that he appeared to Cephas,and then to the Twelve. 6 After that, he appeared to more than five hundred of the brothers and sisters at the same time, most of whom are still living, though some have fallen asleep. 7 Then he appeared to James, then to all the apostles, 8 and last of all he appeared to me also, as to one abnormally born.

With all due respect, I don't think you're reading this right. The whole point of the "historical purpose" is to establish that there is, in fact, a resurrection of the dead. The creed is an affirmation that Jesus died and came back from the dead, the proof within the creed itself being his appearance to members of the sect afterward. That's both theological and soteriological.

Are these details that someone would receive from "revelation" alone?

That Jesus was raised from the dead and appeared to hundreds of people? Yes.

Those details are so basic (and none of it is essential to salvation) that anyone who encountered the early Christians could've found out about it. And Paul encountered Christians and knew about their beliefs before his conversion to Christianity.

You do realize that Paul is our only source about these pre-Pauline Christians, right? Remember that Galatians is about at least one group of Christians (perhaps two if the "false brothers" of 2:4 and "men from James" of 2:12 aren't the same group; I think they are) is preaching a different gospel. Galatians 3:1 reads to me as though one of the points of contention is that Jesus was crucified in the first place. Remember that when Paul preaches "Christ crucified," it's a "stumbling block to the Jews" (1Co 1:23) and the men from James are arguing for circumcision and observing Jewish law.

There are similarities but there are also differences. And again, I can't help but notice that you're citing commentary that goes with Galatians and not 1 Corinthians 15. My point about Paul referring to an tradition (as opposed to revelation) has to do with 1 Corinthians 15.

As far as I could tell, that's what you were asking for. Aside from the statement that you "tend not to put too much stock into personal interpretations" of Greek, you just said that 1 Corinthians itself doesn't make the same claim about Paul's gospel that Galatians does.

Can you cite what your source says about 1 Corinthians 15 (especially since they have a book that's devoted to 1 Corinthians by Robert Scott Nash)?

No. That particular volume isn't in the online library where I found the Galatians one. If you're in Michigan, click "E" and then "eBook Academic Collection." Amusingly the Anchor Yale Bible volume for 1 Corinthians is in there, but not the one for Galatians. Logos made Galatians the free book of the month a couple of years ago, though, and I was lucky enough to snag it.

Paul does not bring up those words in 1 Corinthians. In 1 Cor. 15, he does not say that he received something from God. There are different aspects of the Gospel. So perhaps Paul gospel to the Gentiles contained additional details and that is the type of gospel details that he's referring to in Galatians 1:11-12. I brought up that point towards the end of my last post.

This just strikes me as the standard inerrantist apologetic that plays literalist word games while ignoring context.

For the sake of argument, let's say that Galatians and 1 Corinthians are as different as you claim, Paul has two completely different gospels, and his statements between the two are completely unrelated. You still just have a creed that, despite your assertions otherwise, is used by Paul specifically in the context of the theology of salvation. In its essence, the creed is that Jesus died, was raised to life, and after that appeared to a bunch of people. Two out of those three are impossible. Is the remaining part history because Paul heard it from a person instead of God?

I don't accept that all creeds are meant to be polemic. They serve the purpose of summarizing a religion's core tenets at the least. Some may serve a purpose beyond that but not in all cases.

OK.

I already elaborated on this point at the beginning of my last post (post #191)

So, let's look at that post now.

Based on further research, I'm convinced that the "Scripture" Paul refers to in 1 Corinthians 15 is most likely the OT, particularly the prophets, like Isaiah 53:5.

I'm with you.

The majority of evidence for 1 Corinthians 15:3-7 being pre-Pauline tradition is linguistic evidence. I'll provide a source that does a good job listing some of the commentary on the 1 Corinthians 15 passage. I would also recommend that Difflugia compare his personal interpretation with that of expert commentary before making claims that Paul is alluding to revelation as opposed to tradition.

Difflugia assures you that Difflugia is aware of the expert commentary.

Here's one of my sources:

Is the 1 Corinthians 15 creed pre-Pauline?
According to most scholars, the 1 Corinthians 15 creed is a traditional formula that early Christians would often recite. Paul claims to be reciting it here in his letter to the Corinthian church.

Paul says he “delivered” [paredoka] what he “received” [parelabon]1 This is relevant because these are technical Rabbinic terms indicating something carefully preserved and passed down from mentor to students.2

The only mentor Paul ever mentions receiving anything from is Jesus. Galatians 1:11 says that his gospel was "neither received (παρέλαβον, parelabon) nor taught by a man, but by revelation (ἀποκαλύψεως, apokalypseos) of Jesus Christ."

You may find 1 Corinthians 11:23-24 interesting in light of the scholarship you quoted:

For I received (παρέλαβον) from the Lord what I also delivered (παρέδωκα) to you, that the Lord Jesus on the night when he was betrayed took bread, and when he had given thanks, he broke it, and said, “This is my body which is for you. Do this in remembrance of me.”

You'll note that the quoted verses not only use the "technical Rabbinic terms," but are the only verses in 1 Corinthians that specify a source for the "tradition" that he's receiving. If Paul himself is using the "technical Rabbinic terms" to refer to traditions from "the Lord" both here and in Galatians, then attributing others to human beings can only be speculation.

So there we have it! Difflugia thinking does not factor in rabbinical and other Greek literature beyond the New Testament.

I don't know what that means.

The experts factor in all of that. For now, until I receive peer-reviewed evidence that says otherwise, my conclusion on 1 Corinthians 15:3-7 is that Paul is making reference to a tradition or creed (both signify shared beliefs/customs) as opposed to some unique revelation that was delivered to him alone.

I have little doubt of that.

In fact, I'm willing to accept that Paul received some unique information about the Gospel. The information in 1 Corinthians 15:3-7 is not an instance of that for reasons I stated above.

If you say so.

Some would argue that the Paul and Peter dispute would be one instance of Paul's unique revelation. The apostle Peter did not know about the Gentiles not needing circumcision based on his actions described in Galatians 2:11-16. Paul had to set him straight on uncircumcision. This would indicate that Paul had unique information (presumably based on unique revelation and not tradition) and that he had to instruct Peter on it.

OK.

[JoeyKnothead]

...
You said "might" so your speculation is dismissed as a valid argument or view. Not to mention that the overwhelming majority of scholars today view the Josephus reference to James as being authentic.
...

Belief does not establish fact, no matter by how many, or how proud they are for their alma mater.

[Goat]

Note what it says. Ananus ben Ananus was the "bold" and "insolent" Jewish high priest. He had James, "brother of Jesus" executed, for which the King removed him as high priest and replaced him with Jesus "son of Damneus."

If "who is called Christ" is removed, then we have the story of Ananus being punished by the king for executing James ben Damneus by having James' brother, Jesus, made high priest. It's not certain, but it fits both the context and the form of a potential Christian interpolation. It might even be "likely."

One thing I will point out is that the Jewish society from around that time, there were two different people that were 'anointed' in the temple. Christ means 'anointed one' . The two positions that were anointed were 1) The king of the Jews', and 2) The high priest.

So, Ananus was an 'anointed one' (christ in Greek)

[Difflugia]

One thing I will point out is that the Jewish society from around that time, there were two different people that were 'anointed' in the temple. Christ means 'anointed one' . The two positions that were anointed were 1) The king of the Jews', and 2) The high priest.

So, Ananus was an 'anointed one' (christ in Greek)

You know, I knew that in an abstract sense, but never connected its significance to this passage in Josephus. If nothing else, that's a reminder to me of how difficult it is to shake a Christian theological bias even when I'm actively aware of it.