Posted: May 04, 2012 8:21 am
proudfootz wrote:
I guess it doesn't matter if the methodology of bible students gets diametrically opposite results from the same 'evidence' so long as the bible is upheld as history.
It gets better the more you delve. Bauckham's main piece of evidence regarding the brothers who were travelling missionaries (other than his own interpretation of 1 Cor 9:5) is a corroboration (using the term loosely) from a guy called Julius Africanus, via Eusebius I believe, even though Africanus is late on the scene by about 150 years at least.
Here is the passage. It is worth noting that it comes just after some rather dubious geneaology and just before an account of happenings in Persia at the time of the birth of Christ (falling stars, the usual stuff):
'Herod, knowing that the lineage of the Israelites contributed nothing to him, and goaded by the consciousness of his ignoble birth, burned the registers of their families. This he did, thinking that he would appear to be of noble birth, if no one else could trace back his descent by the public register to the patriarchs or proselytes, and to that mixed race called georae. A few, however, of the studious, having private records of their own, either by remembering the names or by getting at them in some other way from the archives, pride themselves in preserving the memory of their noble descent; and among these happen to be those already mentioned, called desposyni, on account of their connection with the family of the Saviour. And these coming from Nazara and Cochaba, Judean villages, to other parts of the country, set forth the above-named genealogy as accurately as possible from the Book of Days. Whether, then, the case stand thus or not, no one could discover a more obvious explanation, according to my own opinion and that of any sound judge. And let this suffice us for the matter, although it is not supported by testimony, because we have nothing more satisfactory or true to allege upon it. The Gospel, however, in any case states the truth.'
http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/0614.htm Chapter v.
Well that settles that then. Clear reference to siblings as travelling missionaries. Minus any clear reference to siblings or missionaries or travelling. And one can only note what thoroughly balanced and rational apologetics underpinned the growth of the early cult. When something isn't supported by testimony, believe it anyway.
And so, using this same methodology, I feel warranted to say that the reason these supposed siblings don't appear on Paul's list of witnesses to the risen Jesus starts to crystallize. Obviously, Paul was happy to mention one sibling, but mentioning more than one would have been seen as over-doing it, when addressing gentiles. Kind of a Bauckham-Wallace compromise position if you like.