Posted: Feb 27, 2010 1:52 am
by TimONeill
Pierce Inverarity wrote:
Given that Paul tells us he had met and known Jesus' friend Peter and his brother James, I can't see how this works.


We'll have to have a debate some time later. I'm afraid I simply can't do it justice right now.


Fine.

However, you are assuming your conclusion here.


No, I'm doing nothing of the sort. Paul TELLS us he met these people. And what he tells us fits with other evidence we have about these people (eg Josephus also mentioning that Jesus had a brother called James). If the Myther wants to argue he meant something else, then the onus is on them to provide evidence that the clear meaning of what Paul said actually means something else. I've seen Mythers try to do this and Occam's Razor makes short work of their efforts.

Only if there was a historical person for James and Peter to have been brother and friend to, which isn't indicated by anything else Paul says about them, is this a problem.


See above.

"Brother of the Lord" is possibly an honorific,


And here's where the attempts to explain the clear meaning of the phrase away begins to come unglued. It's "possibly" an honorific? Sorry, but "possibly" doesn't cut it on its own. Where is the evidence that it's an honorific? Because we have multiple attestation that Jesus had a brother called James. We have that evidence in the NT (the gospels, Acts, Galatians), in the Patristics (Eusebius, Hegesippius) and in Josephus. So unless you can come up with an example of ἀδελφὸν τοῦ κυρίου being used as an honorific, simply waving a hopeful "possibly" doesn't make that evidence disappear. All too many Myther counter-arguments are like this - they seem to think presenting some other possible interpretation is enough. It isn't.

Insisting otherwise is reading the Synoptics back into Paul, which is assuming what you wish to prove.


Nope - see above. I'm reading what Paul says in the context of the evidence we have. Unless you have better evidence that indicates my reading is wrong and that ἀδελφὸν τοῦ κυρίου was used as an honorific then my reading is solidly-based and yours is hopeful hand waving based on wishful thinking and an a priori assumption of a conclusion. Do you have actual evidence to back this weak, hopeful "possibly" up? Then let's see it.