Posted: Aug 13, 2013 10:21 pm
tanya wrote:
I seem to recall, maybe my memory is faulty, something like this: "well, we know from Paul, that Jesus had a brother, so, how could Jesus not be historical?"
Beware rhetorical questions from HJers with an agenda to defend the belief that Jesus existed.
We don't and can't know that "Paul", whoever he was, ever said any such thing and there are several good reasons to think that maybe he didn't. Ehrman doesn't go into any of those and instead asks another rhetorical question: "wouldn't James know if Jesus was his brother or not?" Well, duh, he would and should have mentioned that little "factoid" in the epistle he supposedly wrote in his own name. Here are 3 more reasons "Paul" may not have said "James the Lord's brother":
1.) The epistles of Paul were first presented by Marcion, who did not believe Jesus was a flesh and blood man.
2.) James, the brother of Jesus in the gospels, was not a disciple of Jesus and not an apostle.
3.) James, the brother of Jesus in the gospels, did not visit the empty tomb nor was he among the witnesses when Jesus appeared to his disciples after his resurrection in the closed room.
A fourth and fifth reason might be that the early Christians were notorious for interpolations and alterations of texts and "Paul" was not exactly honest and pretended to be who he wasn't, by his own admission, and was prone to invent bullshit allegorical interpretations of passages of the Septuagint.
In fact, it looks as though the whole NT story is allegorical interpretations of the OT which is plenty good reason for Ehrman not to even ask such intentionally misleading rhetorical questions. Seems dishonest to me...