# Did Paul hijack Christianity?
**URL:** https://boards.straightdope.com/t/did-paul-hijack-christianity/530342
**Category:** Great Debates
**Created:** [February 25, 2010, 1:48am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/did-paul-hijack-christianity/530342 "2010-02-25T01:48:27Z")
**Posts on this page:** 20
**Page:** 18
### Author:  [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Diogenes_the_Cynic)
#### Post date: [March 23, 2010, 12:26am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/did-paul-hijack-christianity/530342/341 "2010-03-23T00:26:39Z")
> [@Sage\_Rat](#):
>
> Well yes and no. My example was extreme compared to reality, but your statement is also extreme in the sense that once an opinion achieves majority status, that it’s simply the predominant position tends to glossed over in further usage. Only if some new evidence comes to the fore that sets it back does it become worthwhile to really question the state of things again.
>
> But, it does only get to that point if the predominant position is pretty strongly held to be probably accurate.
>
> If you went back in time and could actually verify stuff, I’d guess that we have…dunno 80-85% of everything correct for anything older than 1000 years? Obviously it will vary by region.
It’s true that prevailing opinions can attain an inertia thats difficult to overcome (as with any other scientific discipline), but if the evidence is convincing, people will be convinced.
I think this inertia is very much in play with the currently still overwhelming assumption that Jesus was a historical person and the inclination to marginalize mythicist positions.
---
### Author:  [@Sage\_Rat](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sage_Rat)
#### Post date: [March 23, 2010, 1:25am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/did-paul-hijack-christianity/530342/342 "2010-03-23T01:25:51Z")
> [@begbert2](#):
>
> Opposing comericalism in the temple, then getting picked up while engaged in a peaceful activity and then summarily railroaded and executed? It sounds like a heroic tale of being oppressed by the Man to me. (Which is kind of why I asked what the other representations of the situations were, if any. If he was arrested while publicly decrying Rome, that would be different maybe.)
He didn’t quite “oppose” commercialism. He went in, throwing everyone’s stuff about, letting people’s livestock go running free, and overturning their tables. Then he came back a few days later to preach, and the local priests came up to try and shut him up and he laid in on cursing at them, “Ye blind guides, that strain out the gnat, and swallow the camel!”
Whether this had anything to do with Jesus having a warrant issued against him is entirely unclear. All we know is that he seems to avoid leaving Bethany (which seems to be his base of operations) after that point in time.
Now when the police and various priests actually came to pick him up, they had to get Judas to actually point at who Jesus was of everyone. He simply wasn’t very well known, for presumably being this major force. More importantly, one of his own people had been only too happy to turn Jesus in. And when they came to get him, he had an armed guard who attacked the police, which seems a bit unnecessary when you’re nicely preaching amongst your own followers in a garden.
During his trial, many people came in to testify against him (though the NT calls them “false witnesses”). Almost all of his followers had fled to escape the eye of the law. Only Peter had come to see what was happening in the court, but as soon as someone recognized him as one of the Christian cultists, Peter denied it, denied knowing Jesus in any way (going so far as to use bad words), and then ran away.
Later, various people who were to be crucified that day were up before the local populace, and of all of them a guy named Barabbas was the one chosen. So obviously the general populace didn’t think to highly of Jesus either. Point in fact, they soon followed by mocking him for proclaiming himself King of the Jews and spat on him.
Overall, none of this says much of any positive value of Jesus, the opinion of anyone of him in town, nor even of the strength of his hold over his followers.
---
### Author:  [@Sage\_Rat](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sage_Rat)
#### Post date: [March 23, 2010, 1:38am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/did-paul-hijack-christianity/530342/343 "2010-03-23T01:38:47Z")
Addendum to my previous post:
The point isn’t that the Bible fails to present Jesus in a good light, it’s that even accepting that the martyrdom of Jesus is a good story, you could come up with far better endings than this with far less possibility for it to be read in a negative light. I mean frickin Jesus was killed for ranting about people _selling cows_. That’s just pathetic. Why not have him get killed for personally challenging the Emperor to a duel, by starving himself to death (a la Gandhi) unless Israel is freed from Imperial rule, or poisoned by priests as they fear they are losing all of the Jewish masses to Christianity? How can you propose that anyone cared about whether Jesus lived or died when his own followers don’t really seem to, the general populace has no idea who he is, and are only too happy to make fun of him as a loony? It’s just a really incompetent and plausible ending for a run-of-the-mill loony cultist. But it’s not a great story _minus_ the sugar coating.
---
### Author:  [@bbonden](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/bbonden)
#### Post date: [March 23, 2010, 2:24am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/did-paul-hijack-christianity/530342/344 "2010-03-23T02:24:12Z")
This is an interesting thread.
I have some amateur training in historiography, but I never had considered the historicity of Jesus. Having reviewed this thread and the cited links, I am surprised at how much evidence there is for historicity. If Jesus were not a religious figure, there would not be much doubt, I don’t think. The evidence I see:
1. The formation of a Jesus cult in Jerusalem in the first part of the first century (no earlier mentions, description of JJP as “pillars”).
2. The spread of that cult in the middle and latter half of the first century, with Jerusalem still recognized as the origin/focal point.
3. At least one (Mark), and perhaps several more, biographies written, apparently independently, within living memory of events in Jerusalem in the first part of the century. Further, the extant biography appears to have been preceded by, and consistent with, an earlier oral or written tradition.
4. A secondary biography (Luke) written as part of a two-part set, clearly intended as a historical or quasi-historical recounting of events. The second part of the set, Acts, recounts events within the direct personal knowledge or lifetime of its original readers. It stands up not perfectly, but passably. That lends credence to the first part of the set, as do the references to the known and verifiable historical figures (Pilate, Herod, John the Baptist). This secondary biography also places a historical Jesus at a precise time and place that is consistent with the rise of the Jesus cult.
5. Another biography (John) apparently arising from an independent history, or at least a quasi-independent faith tradition, that agrees on key particulars.
6. Other secondary sources (Josephus, Tacitus, Seutonius) recognizing either the individual or the movement.
7. No extant contemporary accounts disputing the existence of the individual at the center of the cult – and, indeed, quite the opposite, with the critics attacking the cult in part through the personal characteristics of its founder.
8. A recognition by one who had received direct revelation (Paul) that others (JJP) were authorities. What would the basis of that higher authority be, if not direct personal revelation?
9. A highly unusual name (Cephas/Peter) linking all of the sources together – no matter whether the sources were favorable, or unfavorable, to the Cephas/Peter being described.
Enough to “prove” a historical Jesus? Of course not. Not even close. But in terms of re-creating the lives of individuals two millennia in the past, it is pretty compelling.
Against this, I have seen the following:
A. The absence of discussion from Josephus. Here, the issue to me seems to be less about the possible or even likely interpolation of two passages, but rather the absence of a broader discussion of the Jesus cult. How did Josephus miss that? Perhaps he thought of it as a Gentile movement, or a Hellenistic one. Who knows? The whole area is a curious blind spot. Hard to say if it is pro-historicity or anti-, since we know that the movement existed well within the scope and geography of Josephus’s writing.
B. The absence of discussion about Jesus’s life from Paul. This one makes little sense. If you receive your wisdom through direct revelation, why would you be interested in the earthly travelogue? And if you give primacy to the earthly companions of Jesus, aren’t you ceding your seat at the big-boy table? Finally, to the extent that the author of Luke/Acts was a companion of Paul, wouldn’t the extreme historical approach of those records suggest Paul’s likely agreement in that approach?
C. The absence of contemporaneous records of Jesus’s life. As noted above, this is just makeweight; a rabble-rouser in Jersusalem was not likely to generate much paperwork.
---
### Author:  [@Sage\_Rat](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sage_Rat)
#### Post date: [March 23, 2010, 2:33am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/did-paul-hijack-christianity/530342/345 "2010-03-23T02:33:39Z")
> [@bbonden](#):
>
> I have some amateur training in historiography, but I never had considered the historicity of Jesus. Having reviewed this thread and the cited links, I am surprised at how much evidence there is for historicity.
You might consider reading this:
[http://www.dougshaver.com/christ/socrates/socrates.html](http://www.dougshaver.com/christ/socrates/socrates.html)
---
### Author:  [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Diogenes_the_Cynic)
#### Post date: [March 23, 2010, 3:24am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/did-paul-hijack-christianity/530342/346 "2010-03-23T03:24:13Z")
[quote=“bbonden, post:344, topic:530342”]
> [@](#):
>
> 1. At least one (Mark), and perhaps several more, biographies written, apparently independently, within living memory of events in Jerusalem in the first part of the century. Further, the extant biography appears to have been preceded by, and consistent with, an earlier oral or written tradition.
Mark was not based on any known prior, written tradition. Some oral sayings traditions, possibly, but none of the narrative components of Mark’s Gospel have any known prior or independent existence. The Gospels of Matthew and Luke copy directly from Mark, and both diverge wildly when they attempt to fill in narrative gaps left by Mark (completely different nativity and resurrection stories, for instance). Luke and Matthew also share a common Greek sayings source (Q), but that source does not contain any “biographical” information about Jesus. It’s just sayings. It doesn’t even have a crucifixion. Mark’s “biography” (not really an accurate description of the genre, but we’ll roll with it) is, as far as we can tell, original to Mark. All other similar narrative sources are derived either directly or indirectly from Mark.
Mark is also only barely within “living memory,” of alleged events, it was written at least 40 years after the events it claims to recount (not in the first part of the century as you claimed), and is further removed from any real “memory” by virtue of the fact that it was writtn outside of Palestine, in a Gentile language to a Gentile audience after Jerusalem had been destroyed in a war.
> [@](#):
>
> 1. A secondary biography (Luke) written as part of a two-part set, clearly intended as a historical or quasi-historical recounting of events.
Luke was written in the 90’s CE, and based its narrative primarily on Mark. It also uses the sayings source, Q, but, as with Matthew, those narrative comonents which are not copied directly from Mark are original to the author and unattested prior to or independent of Luke himself.
> [@](#):
>
> The second part of the set, Acts, recounts events within the direct personal knowledge or lifetime of its original readers.
Not really true since it was written 50-60 years after Paul died, but even so, it recounts the alleged career of Paul, not Jesus. No one disputes that Paul was a historical person.
> [@](#):
>
> It stands up not perfectly, but passably.
Stands up to what?
> [@](#):
>
> That lends credence to the first part of the set
How so? What part of Acts lends credence to Luke’s copied narrative from Mark, or his demonstrably ahistorical orginal additions (which sharply contradict Matthew, by the way)?
> [@](#):
>
> , as do the references to the known and verifiable historical figures (Pilate, Herod, John the Baptist).
How do you figure? There are real, historical figures in _Forrest Gump_. That doesn’t mean it’s not fiction.
> [@](#):
>
> This secondary biography also places a historical Jesus at a precise time and place that is consistent with the rise of the Jesus cult.
Mark dates the crucifixion to Pilate. Luke just copies Mark. Luke also dates the birth of Jesus ten years later than Matthew does, and none of the Gospels dating the crucifixion to the era of the the Jersualm cult means anything since, of COURSE they would date it to the Jesuralem cult. Why would any hyothetical attempt to historicize Jesus date it anywhere else?
> [@](#):
>
> 1. Another biography (John) apparently arising from an independent history, or at least a quasi-independent faith tradition, that agrees on key particulars.
Not very many, and it can’t really be called independent since it was written c. 100 CE (30 years after Mark). It’s also compltely circular to keep trying to use the Gospels as evidence for the historicity of the Gospels.
> [@](#):
>
> 1. Other secondary sources (Josephus, Tacitus, Seutonius) recognizing either the individual or the movement.
Recognizing the movement means nothing. Suetonius does not mention Jesus, by the way (I’m aware of the “Chrestus” passage. It has nothing to do with Jesus).
> [@](#):
>
> 1. No extant contemporary accounts disputing the existence of the individual at the center of the cult – and, indeed, quite the opposite, with the critics attacking the cult in part through the personal characteristics of its founder.
This means nothing. Critics would have had no reason to doubt the existence of their founder or any way to disprove it.
> [@](#):
>
> 1. A recognition by one who had received direct revelation (Paul) that others (JJP) were authorities. What would the basis of that higher authority be, if not direct personal revelation?
Not exactly sure what you’re getting at with this. Hallucinations don’t prove anything, and neither does the existence of a cult hierarchy prior to Paul.
> [@](#):
>
> 1. A highly unusual name (Cephas/Peter) linking all of the sources together – no matter whether the sources were favorable, or unfavorable, to the Cephas/Peter being described.
What does that prove? The existence of someone called Cephas/Peter is at the root of the Jeus cult, and Paul says he was the first person who Jesus appeared to. Yes, it is fairly certain that someone of this name and general description existed at the inception of the original cult. So what?
---
### Author:  [@bbonden](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/bbonden)
#### Post date: [March 23, 2010, 9:04am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/did-paul-hijack-christianity/530342/347 "2010-03-23T09:04:35Z")
Common sense said that there had to be a written or oral tradition before Mark. Early Christians had 40 years worth of beliefs and traditions by the time Mark showed up. If Mark did not find a receptive audience – that is, if it had found an audience that believed in a spiritual being, not a corporeal one – it would have been rejected, not cherished, preserved and emulated.
Paul clearly knew whether there was a historical Jesus. He may not have lived to see the gospels as written, but plenty – hundreds, thousands – of folks that he knew and proselytized did. How would a made-from-whole-cloth biography possibly fly with such a readership? Why would a close follower of Paul (assuming that is who Luke is) create his own gospel - much less a gospel closely intertwined with Paul’s own biography- if he did not believe in a historical figure?
Recognizing details like the birth of the movement and its timing, or the appropriate historical personages, establishes the authors’ attempts at accuracy. (Just as, to be sure, events that are deemed implausible, or miraculous, may undermine it.) If Mark’s author is just making stuff up for a Gentile audience across the sea, why bother? The timing makes this doubly so - why open the door to the possibility to someone showing up and saying, “hey - my dad (or grandpa or uncle) James never mentioned anything about a real guy named Jesus.” The son or grandson need not even show up in person - these folks corresponded, after all.
---
### Author:  [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Diogenes_the_Cynic)
#### Post date: [March 23, 2010, 3:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/did-paul-hijack-christianity/530342/348 "2010-03-23T15:41:56Z")
There were many warring sects and congrgations in the first two centuries of Christianity. The odds were low that anyone in Mark’s specific community (which would have been insular and small, not some broadband megachurch) would have known or contested anything about the earthly historicity of Jesus, but even if someone had said somthing about Jesus only being spiritual, no one would have cared since there were competing sects already saying just that. It wasn’t like that would have been some big shock to them. There were a wide variety of battling sects and communities with some wildly didfferent Christologies. All of them arising within the same time frame as the Canonical Gospels, so that, in itself, kind of refutes your reasoning that no community would devise a Christology which departed from Paul or the original Jerusalem cult. Contradictory Christologies existed in spades, and docetic Christologies (purely spiritual Christ) were some of the most common and popular. It was, in fact, a fairly bitter bone of contention whether Jesus had a physical body or not, and Mark was presenting one point of view among many.
I’m not trying to argue for a mythicist point of view, but how’s this for a hypothesis?
[ul][li]During the Roman occupation of Judea, expectations and desires are rife for the Messiah, the “one like a son of Adam,” described by Daniel to come down in glory from the clouds, drive out the Romans and restore the Davidic kingdom.[/li]
[li]A Galilean fisherman claims to have had visons of this Messiah and spoken to him. He believes this figure will soon come down from Heaven and bring about the Kingdom of God.[/li]
[li]He acquires a small following, some of whom also begin to claim to have had similar visons.[/li]
[li]An oral sayings tradition builds around this figure, with people attributing folk sayings, bon mots, adages and other bits of wisdom to Jesus. There are analogs to this. The Tao Te Ching is a collection of folk sayings (supplemented with commentaries) attributed to a fictional “Old Sage.” Mother Goose is also a fictional character credited with poems and stories taken from folk culture.[/li]
[li]Some of these sayings begin to take on some anecdotal framing devices, placing Jesus among the “apostles” (those who had “seen” him). These anecdotes and sayings form the basis of sayings Gospels like Q and Thomas.[/li]
[li]Somewhere along the line, whether it started with Paul or whether paul just popularized it, the idea of Jesus as a Pascal surrogate – The ultimate, unblemished “lamb of God,” sacrificed for the forgiveness of human sin comes into play.[/li]
[li]As time goes on, some communities devolp and expand on the germinal anedotal and narrative elements in the sayings traditions, literally “fleshing out” the Jesus character and beginning to literalize him as an earthly historical figure. Other communities accept some of the popular anecdotes, but still insist that Jesus was only on earth as a spirit, not with a physical body.[/li]
[li]In the miodst of these battling Christologies, Mark writes a gospel for his community portraying Jesus as a completely human and physical being (Mark takes an adoptionist view, having Jesus become invested by the holy spirit after his baptism by John, then abandoned by the spirit on the cross).[/li]
[li]The synoptics Gospels follow Mark’s historicism. Gnostic Gospels continue to present Jesus as pure spirit.[/li]
[li]The historicist view becomes more popular, and eventually wins out as the “orthodox” view of Jesus.[/ul][/li]This is obviously purely speculative, but is it completely unreasonable?
Personally, I think the biggest problem with it would be the incorporation of the crucifixion, which would have been a _prima facie_ disqualification for Messiaship to Jews, and not an exciting qualification for Gentiles either. I think Paul’s interpretation of the crucifixion looks more like the attempt to explain and refurbish a problematic historical fact than something that would be expected to be invented out of whole cloth (though perhaps he hallucinated it). I think the crucifixion and the baptism by John are both elements that meet what scholars call the 'criteria of embarrassment," which means they are things that seem unlikely to have been invented because they put Jesus in an unflattering light (crucified criminal, at least temporarily subordinate to John the Baptist). I think the crucifixion would have been amde an even harder sell to a Roman audience by virtue of the fact that it was a form of execution only used for crimes of sedition or rebellion against the Roman state. It’s not an exaggeration to say that Roman audiences would have viewed crucified criminals in Judea in much the same way as Americans view insurgent “terrorists” in Iraq or Afghanistan. Saying a crucified Judean “insurgent” was the son of God to Romans would have been like saying the same thing about a Gitmo detainee to Americans. It doesn’t seem on its face like something those promoting Jesus would make up. It sounds like something they had to explain.
---
### Author:  [@Measure\_for\_Measure](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Measure_for_Measure)
#### Post date: [March 24, 2010, 1:42am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/did-paul-hijack-christianity/530342/349 "2010-03-24T01:42:20Z")
I’ve seen the “Criteria of embarrassment” used to ID red letter parts of the Bible as well…
> [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](#):
>
> There were many warring sects and congregations in the first two centuries of Christianity. The odds were low that anyone in Mark’s specific community (which would have been insular and small, not some broadband megachurch) would have known or contested anything about the earthly historicity of Jesus, **but even if someone had said something about Jesus only being spiritual, no one would have cared since there were competing sects already saying just that. It wasn’t like that would have been some big shock to them.** There were a wide variety of battling sects and communities with some wildly different Christologies.
Emphasis added. Are you saying that we have good evidence that certain first century Christian sects claimed that Jesus was _not_ an historical person? What is that evidence? Or is it just that certain sects emphasized the Godly nature of Christ, as opposed to the human aspect? (I may be setting the bar somewhat high: lower it as you will.)
---
### Author:  [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Diogenes_the_Cynic)
#### Post date: [March 24, 2010, 1:48am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/did-paul-hijack-christianity/530342/350 "2010-03-24T01:48:13Z")
It depends on what you mean by “historical.” Everybody (at least by the latter half of the first century) thought that Jesus had interacted with people on earth. Some thought he did it as a spirit, and some as a person. Which version came first is not known. Was he a spirit figure later personified, or a human figure later spiritualized. Both are live hyotheses.
---
### Author:  [@ambushed](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ambushed)
#### Post date: [March 24, 2010, 9:17am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/did-paul-hijack-christianity/530342/351 "2010-03-24T09:17:23Z")
> [@Alan\_Smithee](#):
>
> I’m not **Dio** and I apologize in advance if I seem to be focusing on one part of the argument. I’m not trying to poke holes or take potshots, just trying at assess the credibility of some of your more interesting points. I’ll admit up fron that even if all of my objections are valid, it doesn’t necessarily demolish your argument, but I haven’t been participating as thoroughly as **Dio** and others and I’d like to start here.
**Alan Smithee** , I thank you for returning rational debate to the thread. I don’t know why **Diogenes** has effectively bowed out, saying he’s agnostic but defending the historicist position anyway. He’s posed valid arguments – even if they’re the same old ones he put out years ago without showing any movement – but then backs away and doesn’t address my rebuttals. I find that frustrating. Sure, his heart doesn’t seem to be in it, but then why pose the pro-historicist arguments at all? I’m rather confused.
In any case, you, **Alan** , make intelligent points that tackle useful, well-considered, and fair-minded portions of the debate. This has happened too rarely in this thread, and I’m delighted by the return of credible debate here. Thank you.
As to your later insult accusing me of allegedly only holding people who agree with me honest debaters, that, of course, is an obvious lie. Only **begbert2** has agreed with me and we’ve never even interacted! Everyone else has taken the opposing position. I don’t agree with **Diogenes** , but he’s certainly an honest debater. I don’t agree with **Skammer** , but he was an honest debater. **Captain Amazing** made valuable contributions. I don’t agree with **Sage Rat** now or the last time we debated this, but he’s an honest debater, too. **PBear42** doesn’t seem to agree with me, but he’s an honest debater who’s made valuable contributions. And there have been posters such as **raindog** and **Czarcasm** and others I’ve probably forgotten who’ve made valuable contributions as well even though it doesn’t appear they agree with me.
And it’s not a matter of an analysis by _ **poster** _, either; it’s an analysis by _ **individual argument or non-argument** _. **Measure for Measure** and **Cosmodan** and **ITR champion** have come up with legitimate and credible arguments, but clearly not all of their responses can be so categorized, as many of them have been fallacious, non-credible pseudo-arguments, insults, mockery, or the credulous repetition of their heedless cultural assumptions based on no evidence whatsoever. **Pleonast** was doing well until he fallaciously argued that a one-phrase _summary_ in my very first post here was magically a positive existential argument, and other gullible and irresponsible evaders jumped on that mind-reading bandwagon as well. I’ve had to deal with that sophomoric foot-stamping almost since the beginning, but sophomoric foot-stamping it remains. As I wrote to **Skammer** (as I stated above, he’s another credible and intellectually honest debater):
> [@](#):
>
> All I’m saying is that the default position – the null hypothesis – is that, like flying elephants, we should not assume the existence of something or someone for which there is no credible positive evidence. Your belief in a historical Jesus is an opinion / assumption based on no credible evidence at all. As such, you historicists bear the full burden of proof. What I’m doing in this thread is revealing all the fatal flaws in the positive historical evidence that has been brought out. That’s all a skeptic such as myself can do and has to do.
But I still have hope that any of the lax debaters can return to making credible arguments. They clearly have the intellectual capability, but whether they have the _desire_ to try to make credible arguments seems increasingly doubtful. Contempt for me doesn’t justify all that empty, non-credible rhetoric.
I repeat: I cannot control whether debate opponents provide rational arguments or whether they just rattle off empty rhetoric with no credible argument attached. The exasperation you’ve seen from me is for all the posts or comments which lack a cogent, well-informed, logical argument.
Back to your arguments:
> [@Alan\_Smithee](#):
>
> > [@ambushed](#):
> >
> > One of Paul’s many goals (in the ahistoricist, or mythicist, view) was to synthesize the various Jesus stories that arose from Q, conflations of fables and parables and sayings of Cynic and Stoic philosophers and sages and other itinerant preachers and teachers, Jewish Wisdom literature, the accretion of myth and stories retrospectively force-fit onto the name Yeshua/Jesus, and the so-called “Mystery Cults” (the Gnostics and so on) of the day, who had long already adopted the term _“adelphos”_ to refer to initiates of those gnostic and other mystery cults. Paul brought that meaning of the word into his writings as well as the mere courteous _TITLE_ “adelphos”.
> >
> > In 1 Corinthians 1:1, Sosthenes is called _adelphos_, and in Colossians 1:1, so is Timothy. And in Corinthians 15:6, 500 _adelphos_ receive a spiritual vision of the Christ. **Are they biological siblings of Jesus? Of course not!**
> >
> > That _alone_ makes it quite impossible for James to have been a biological sibling of Jesus, for if he had been, Paul would have used a different description to distinguish James from Sosthenes, Timothy, and 500 other people (no doubt many women among them), _ **NONE OF WHOM COULD BE JESUS’ SIBLINGS!** _
> >
> > So when we encounter the English phrase “James, the brother of the Lord” (not “James, the brother of Jesus”!) in Galatians 1:19 and recognize that Paul once again used the term _“adelphos”_, it is foolish to contend that Paul meant that James was Jesus’ biological sibling.
> >
> > Some will object: “Paul _does_ put special emphasis on James and his relationship to the Lord. How do you explain _that?_”
> >
> > Like this: James was the head of one particular Christian group in Jerusalem which focused exclusively on the spiritual Christ, as opposed to Jesus the alleged human teacher or minister (that also makes it tremendously unlikely that James would be Jesus’ sibling). This group called themselves the “_Adelphos_ of (or “in”) the Lord”. The leader of this group, whomever he or she was at any specific time (early Christians saw no problem with women leaders, to their great credit), was given the official title that was translated into English as “_ **The** _ brother of the Lord”. It was an honorary **title** , not a description of a biological sibling relationship to Jesus the man!
> >
> > That last is also made clear by the references to “brother of the Lord” rather than to “Jesus”.
>
> Is this fact or speculation? How do we know these things about the group that James belonged to? I admit up front that if these statements are true, that it does indeed make a very strong piece of evidence in favor of the mythicist position. But only if they are true. If they are not true, the reference to James is a strong piece of evidence in favor of historicity. In neither case is it definitive, but as I said, I’d like to start somewhere and these are very interesting points that I hadn’t heard previously.
The evidence is in the arguments I’ve presented there and elsewhere in several places upthread. Had James been a biological sibling of Jesus, he would have been described very differently than just as another _adelphos_, like more than 500 other people. Not just Paul, but all the others _would_ have used a different term than just _adelphos_. **Diogenes** knows Koine Greek and I don’t, but surely there’s a Koine Greek term or phrase that’s more precise than _adelphos_ that would be used to unambiguously identify a biological sibling. Yet it wasn’t used, and that’s not only clear from the language, that’s clear from the behavior: Look how important bloodlines and blood relatives were to the Jews of the age, authoritarians as they were, and also look at how important bloodlines are in terms of the leaders of religious sects when the original leader dies or is otherwise removed from the scene, such as we see in Islam and in Mormonism. The blood relative doesn’t necessarily end up the _sole_ leader, but the blood relative is an extremely important and noted personage in the remaining movement.
No, had James been a blood sibling of Jesus, he would have been celebrated as such and would have been seized upon as an authority by dint of his bloodline or someone else would have capitalized on being the friend or special associated of the blood relative. Sociobiology is powerful indeed in such situations, as religious history has shown over and over again.
Recall that Paul was an avid persecutor of the “Son of God” faith, and like all zealous anti-zealots, the blood relations of any alleged “founder” of such a faith would be subject to special attention and control. But Paul never indicated any such special attention. Instead, he refers to both James -and- Cephas as “adelphos”, showing no special interest in James as he _would_ have done if James were a biological sibling of Jesus. Over and over again, a biological sibling would **absolutely** have been repeatedly called upon to interpret his biological brother’s words and ideas, just as we see every time there is a biological relationship to call upon.
While the Jerusalem Church headed by James as “the” _adelphos_ of “the Lord” (never _adelphos_ of Jesus!) was important, it was by no means the central authority of the new church, which instead was Paul. That’s simply not credible if James has been a biological sibling of Jesus!
That’s _not_ “speculation”; it’s reason and logic and knowledge of human psychology.
James’ group in Jerusalem had the following name: “Adelphon en Kurio”, Brothers In the Lord. Never are they called “Brothers in Jesus”. This is compelling evidence that no historical or other Jesus was known of or referenced, else they would have either named themselves so or they would have written or asked James or Paul about this Jesus, but that never happened. Clearly, this was a church that worshiped a spiritual Lord rather than any historical figure. If “Adelphon en Kurio” referred to biological siblings, they would _all_ have to be biological siblings of some unnamed “Lord”! You cant’ arbitrarily claim _adelphos_ means “biological sibling of Jesus” in _some_ instances and “members of a like-minded community who believed in a spiritual Lord” in others.
Arguing that a tiny difference in one passage can only mean a reference to a biological sibling is quite absurd and fallacious given that this is never followed up upon. Had James been a biological sibling, much more would have followed, including the kind of special treatment I’ve already described. It’s far too little a thing to base a historical argument upon given all the changes made by copyists that Ehrman brings out in _Misquoting Jesus_. Your assertion that this single solitary word is magically “a strong piece of evidence in favor of historicity” simply isn’t credible, given what we know of how unreliable the copyists are.
You write:
> [@Alan\_Smithee](#):
>
> … The lack of attestation from the later epistles makes this less likely, but without the alternative explanation of James’ relationship with Jesus, they aren’t enough to go on.
The shoe’s on the other foot, actually. The word “the” is far too little a thing for such a sweeping and profound interpretation given all the powerful and compelling arguments _against_ the reading of a biological sibling into that.
Later, you write:
> [@Alan\_Smithee](#):
>
> … I agree that most or all of the stories of the Twelve from the Gospels are fictional, but ti doesn’t follow that Jesus is fictional…
You’ve inverted the argument. The argument is that Jesus existed as a historical person _because_ the Twelve are asserted to be biological followers of such a biological person. But since there’s no evidence or even the tiniest hint that the Twelve were biological followers of a biological Jesus before the Gospels finally came around, one can’t argue that Jesus was historical merely because the Gospels assert the Twelve were biological.
As for Paul’s bizarre reference to being as one aborted (which you’ve cited the NRSV as saying “one untimely born”), see upthread for a discussion of that between **Dio** and myself.
-
-
---
### Author:  [@ambushed](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ambushed)
#### Post date: [March 24, 2010, 9:21am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/did-paul-hijack-christianity/530342/352 "2010-03-24T09:21:14Z")
> [@Alan\_Smithee](#):
>
> BTW, here is [a much more nuanced and reasonable presentation](http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/richard_carrier/jesuspuzzle.html) of Doherty’s arguments. I’m not familiar with Richard Carrier, so I can’t vouch for his honesty or credentials, but he presents the arguments and criticisms of mythicism in an apparently balanced way, while acknowledging that he ultimately does find the mythicist argument convincing.
Carrier is sharp, but not nearly as sharp as Doherty. On what do I base that evaluation?
**Carrier was convinced by Doherty to hold the mythicist position!**
-
-
---
### Author:  [@ambushed](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ambushed)
#### Post date: [March 24, 2010, 9:26am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/did-paul-hijack-christianity/530342/353 "2010-03-24T09:26:15Z")
> [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](#):
>
> Richard Carrier is a solid scholar and (unlike Doherty himself) has a relevant PhD.
So what? Why the PhD reference? Why the blatant authoritarianism implicit in that statement?
The validity of an argument is totally independent of the degree or lack of degree of the arguer, surely. But I’d give far more credence to someone like Doherty who has dedicated his life to his work rather than a dilettante like Carrier.
-
-
---
### Author:  [@ambushed](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ambushed)
#### Post date: [March 24, 2010, 9:35am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/did-paul-hijack-christianity/530342/354 "2010-03-24T09:35:34Z")
RESPONSE PART “C”:
I REPEAT: **PLEASE, ALL OF YOU: ADDRESS THE WHOLE ARGUMENT, DON’T JUST TAKE POTSHOTS AT EXCERPTS AND FRACTIONS!**
Thank you.
I’ll now continue on with my debunking of **Diogenes the Cynic** ’s post 267…
There are other fatal flaws in considering the _Testimonium_ to be a genuine footnote/digression (_let alone a genuine passage!_). One is that Josephus generally explicitly indicated digressions, and the _Testimonium_ lacks such an indication. For example, in the very next paragraph Josephus indicates a digression by writing: “I will now first take notice of the wicked attempt about the temple of Isis, and will then give an account of the Jewish affairs.” Then he writes his digression, then concludes it by writing: “I now return to the relation of what happened about this time to the Jews of Rome, as I formerly told you I would”.
No such thing exists for the _Testimonium_!
There’s another context problem, too. All other anecdotes in that part of the work are described as “outrages” or “uprisings” or “tumults”. None of those apply to the _Testimonium_, yet more compelling evidence piled on to the already crushing debunking of **Dio** ’s and anyone else’s claim that even an arbitrarily edited version of the _Testimonium_ is genuine.
**Diogenes** and other historicists: **How can you credit this ludicrous historicist credulousness?** I’d like a full answer, please. Why do you credit it at all?
> [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](#):
>
> … Josephus also includes a refernce to the execution of James, “the brother of Jesus, the [so]-called Christ.” This passage is generally _not_ believed to be interpolated, but it’s not undisputed…
Sure, it’s generally believed by gullible historicists, but not by those who bring critical thinking to the question.
First, it never appeared and was never, **ever** referenced by any apologist or church father **until the 11’th century!** The idea that no one would have mentioned that over the course of over 1000 YEARS _is_ compelling evidence – arguably even _proof_ – that it wasn’t there before then. And I’ve already explained above how market forces compelled copyists to include popular, mass-approved forgeries lest their audience choose more popular (and fanciful) versions over more accurate versions.
Consider: How would it help to identify a person as a “brother” of someone the audience never heard of? It would be exactly equivalent to “identifying” James as “the brother of Henry, the so-called Christ”. _Who the hell is “Henry”?_ Josephus **NEVER** makes that mistake in the entirety of his writings! He **always** fully identifies someone he references whenever he hasn’t identified that person recently (and certainly not two entire books away in the _Testimonium_ even if it _wasn’t_ such an obvious forgery). Historicists merely bring their basic cultural baggage into the equation instead of looking at this objectively with critical thinking and putting yourselves in the position of a 1’st or 2’nd century Roman reading this and wondering “who the hell is this James guy and who the hell is this Jesus guy and what the fuck is a ‘Christ’?” What a moron you make Josephus into!
And in the Greek version, the description of James is very different: it’s “a man named James” or some close variant, which makes the obvious forgery stand out more clearly.
But the most salient point is that **no such statement was mentioned for more than 1000 YEARS** , making a late Christian interpolation the **only** rational view; anything else is far too gullible a view for any rational, critically thinking person to hold.
> [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](#):
>
> … We also have a reference by Tacitus…
We have no such thing. What nonsense! We have a mistaken reference to a person named “Christus”, **NOT a reference to Jesus at all!** Sheesh.
There are some who argue that Tacitus’ _Annals_ was entirely forged during the Italian Renaissance, but I don’t buy those arguments. What we clearly have is a genuine reference by Tacitus to a cult he’d heard of called Christians which Tacitus foolishly believed was founded by someone with the proper name “Christus”; an assumption that would be accidentally correct for many cults but obviously not for this one. He never mentions the name “Jesus”, only this mistakenly assumed proper name “Christus”.
Here is an English translation of the relevant words:
> [@](#):
>
> Consequently, to get rid of the report, Nero fastened the guilt and inflicted the most exquisite tortures on a class hated for their abominations, called Christians by the populace. **Christus, from whom the name had its origin** , suffered the extreme penalty during the reign of Tiberius at the hands of one of our procurators, Pontius Pilatus, and a most mischievous superstition, thus checked for the moment, again broke out not only in Judaea, the first source of the evil, but even in Rome, where all things hideous and shameful from every part of the world find their centre and become popular. Accordingly, an arrest was first made of all who pleaded guilty; then, upon their information, an immense multitude was convicted…
It’s clear that there _is_ a Christian forgery there about Pilate and all that, and it’s obviously a forgery given the reference to “an immense multitude” of Christians being convicted, since at that time in Rome only a teeny, tiny few Christians even existed! Josephus, for example, makes no reference at all to Jesus or to Christians being blamed for the fire, and he was in the perfect position to know of such a thing, having visited Rome just after the fire.
Summary: There’s not a single reference to Jesus **ANYWHERE** in Josephus’, and if there had been, it would have been found in _Jewish War_. This is damning stuff!
The Josephus fragment you bring out – “the brother of Jesus, (the one) called Christ [_ton adelphon Iesou tou legomenou Christou_]…” is from his _Antiquities of the Jews_, Book 20 (9, 1 / 197-203). But while all still-extant manuscripts contain that or a very similar phrase, none of them come to us from before the 11’th century! As Erhman and others have pointed out, earlier copyists would routinely gather all the copies they could put their hands on and pick and choose among all the copies to favor those they liked down to sentence fragments. Their choices were usually constrained to choose the most popular fragments else they would not sell as many copies because potential buyers would look for their favorite passages before chucking over the change. The free market at work, ruining the accuracy of most things as usual. That practice would have ensured that this reference to Jesus would have been found in all later copies, but there is no reason to conclude that Josephus ever wrote that. Again, had he known of such an individual, even leaving out the miracles, Josephus **would** have known and written far more about him. This is yet another case where the forgers would have been better off not mucking with the text in the first place because an utterly not followed-up-on single reference stands out as a glaring forgery, hurting their case in the process. See what I wrote above concerning the 20 references in Josephus to other Jesus’ that follow a strict pattern versus the one that didn’t and so stands out as the forgery that it is.
Also, the phrase in question, “the brother of Jesus, (the one) called Christ” serves as an identification of James, but what good is an identification based on someone Josephus wrote nothing about? Some have argued that the utterly bogus forgery known as the _Testimonium Flavianum_ that **Dio** speaks of some two books earlier would be enough to serve as a reference to the Jesus in question, but expert Josephus scholars insist he’d never done anything like that ever before in any genuine work! If he makes a reference to someone he hadn’t mentioned recently, he was smart enough to know that not everyone would have all portions of his works and so **every time** he made a distant reference he would repeat the identifying details again to re-orient the reader. Josephus was an excellent writer and would never have made such a rank amateur mistake!
All of this very much _ **screams** _ Christian apologetic forgery at work!
See [Supplementary Article No. 16, JOSEPHUS ON THE ROCKS](http://jesuspuzzle.humanists.net/supp16.htm) and [Supplementary Article No. 10, JOSEPHUS UNBOUND: Reopening the Josephus Question](http://jesuspuzzle.humanists.net/supp10.htm)
for more detailed rebuttals.
**Diogenes** and other historicists: **How can you credit this ludicrous historicist credulousness?** I’d like a full, detailed answer, please. Why do you credit it at all? How can something so pitifully weak and laughably non-credible keep you from averring the mythicist position?
Neither **Dio** nor anyone else here has yet provided the slightest bit of credible historical evidence for the existence of Jesus. This historicist position has thus failed, and so the null hypothesis remains ascendant and Jesus remains a myth.
-
-
---
### Author:  [@ambushed](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ambushed)
#### Post date: [March 24, 2010, 9:40am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/did-paul-hijack-christianity/530342/355 "2010-03-24T09:40:13Z")
> [@bbonden](#):
>
> Common sense said that there had to be a written or oral tradition before Mark…
Yes, starting at least 40 to 100 years prior to give enough time for Mark to include accreted myth on top of his recasting of Homeric myth, which destroys your own arguments.
-
-
---
### Author:  [@Alan\_Smithee](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Alan_Smithee)
#### Post date: [March 24, 2010, 2:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/did-paul-hijack-christianity/530342/356 "2010-03-24T14:43:29Z")
> [@ambushed](#):
>
> As to your later insult accusing me of allegedly only holding people who agree with me honest debaters, that, of course, is an obvious lie.
Please, please, please tell me you can see the irony in this line!
---
### Author:  [@Alan\_Smithee](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Alan_Smithee)
#### Post date: [March 24, 2010, 3:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/did-paul-hijack-christianity/530342/357 "2010-03-24T15:16:51Z")
> [@ambushed](#):
>
> The evidence is in the arguments I’ve presented there and elsewhere in several places upthread. Had James been a biological sibling of Jesus, he would have been described very differently than just as another _adelphos_, like more than 500 other people. Not just Paul, but all the others _would_ have used a different term than just _adelphos_. **Diogenes** knows Koine Greek and I don’t, but surely there’s a Koine Greek term or phrase that’s more precise than _adelphos_ that would be used to unambiguously identify a biological sibling. Yet it wasn’t used, and that’s not only clear from the language, that’s clear from the behavior: Look how important bloodlines and blood relatives were to the Jews of the age, authoritarians as they were, and also look at how important bloodlines are in terms of the leaders of religious sects when the original leader dies or is otherwise removed from the scene, such as we see in Islam and in Mormonism. The blood relative doesn’t necessarily end up the _sole_ leader, but the blood relative is an extremely important and noted personage in the remaining movement.
>
> No, had James been a blood sibling of Jesus, he would have been celebrated as such and would have been seized upon as an authority by dint of his bloodline or someone else would have capitalized on being the friend or special associated of the blood relative. Sociobiology is powerful indeed in such situations, as religious history has shown over and over again.
>
> Recall that Paul was an avid persecutor of the “Son of God” faith, and like all zealous anti-zealots, the blood relations of any alleged “founder” of such a faith would be subject to special attention and control. But Paul never indicated any such special attention. Instead, he refers to both James -and- Cephas as “adelphos”, showing no special interest in James as he _would_ have done if James were a biological sibling of Jesus. Over and over again, a biological sibling would **absolutely** have been repeatedly called upon to interpret his biological brother’s words and ideas, just as we see every time there is a biological relationship to call upon.
>
> While the Jerusalem Church headed by James as “the” _adelphos_ of “the Lord” (never _adelphos_ of Jesus!) was important, it was by no means the central authority of the new church, which instead was Paul. That’s simply not credible if James has been a biological sibling of Jesus!
>
> That’s _not_ “speculation”; it’s reason and logic and knowledge of human psychology.
>
> James’ group in Jerusalem had the following name: “Adelphon en Kurio”, Brothers In the Lord. Never are they called “Brothers in Jesus”. This is compelling evidence that no historical or other Jesus was known of or referenced, else they would have either named themselves so or they would have written or asked James or Paul about this Jesus, but that never happened. Clearly, this was a church that worshiped a spiritual Lord rather than any historical figure. If “Adelphon en Kurio” referred to biological siblings, they would _all_ have to be biological siblings of some unnamed “Lord”! You cant’ arbitrarily claim _adelphos_ means “biological sibling of Jesus” in _some_ instances and “members of a like-minded community who believed in a spiritual Lord” in others.
>
> Arguing that a tiny difference in one passage can only mean a reference to a biological sibling is quite absurd and fallacious given that this is never followed up upon. Had James been a biological sibling, much more would have followed, including the kind of special treatment I’ve already described. It’s far too little a thing to base a historical argument upon given all the changes made by copyists that Ehrman brings out in _Misquoting Jesus_. Your assertion that this single solitary word is magically “a strong piece of evidence in favor of historicity” simply isn’t credible, given what we know of how unreliable the copyists are.
**ambushed** , one of the signs of a crank is that they continually calim that things are obvious that are obvious to no one else. You may be right, but you are NOT obviously right. Very few things in life are obvious to everyone and nothing worth debating is. You may be so confident in your knowledge of human psychology that it seems obvious to you exactly what Paul _would_ have written if Jesus had been historical, but I don’t share that confidence, neither in my judgement nor yours. The fact that you keep judging people’s motives poorly, even accusing me of lying when I’ve done nothing of the sort, doesn’t inspire in me any greater confidence in your psychological ability.
Furthermore, my question was specifically about the claim that James was leader of a group that called themselves “Brothers in the Lord” and that their leader was called “Brother of the Lord.” So far you’ve presented absolutely no evidence that either of these claims is true. If you don’t have any evidence for this at all, you’re right it isn’t speculation, but it isn’t psychology and logic, either. It’s bullshit.
> [@](#):
>
> As for Paul’s bizarre reference to being as one aborted (which you’ve cited the NRSV as saying “one untimely born”), see upthread for a discussion of that between **Dio** and myself.
I did. Neither one of you had a convincing explanation for it, although **Dio** admitted as much. His comment that the passage was something already familiar to readers refered to the list of people Jesus had appeared to. He didn’t mean that the phrase “one aborted” (or “one untimely born”) is liturgical. The plain reading of it is that Paul was born too late to meet the living Jesus and had his revelation without having known Jesus in the flesh.
---
### Author:  [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Diogenes_the_Cynic)
#### Post date: [March 24, 2010, 3:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/did-paul-hijack-christianity/530342/358 "2010-03-24T15:20:27Z")
> [@ambushed](#):
>
> So what? Why the PhD reference? Why the blatant authoritarianism implicit in that statement?
>
> The validity of an argument is totally independent of the degree or lack of degree of the arguer, surely. But I’d give far more credence to someone like Doherty who has dedicated his life to his work rather than a dilettante like Carrier.
>
> -
> -
I didn’t mean it as a knock against Doherty, but I mentioned that Carrier is a relevantly credentialed scholar because Doherty’s lack of a doctorate (he has a BA in Religion and Classical Languages which is exactly what I have) gets used against him.
---
### Author:  [@cosmosdan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/cosmosdan)
#### Post date: [March 25, 2010, 5:01am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/did-paul-hijack-christianity/530342/359 "2010-03-25T05:01:13Z")
> [@alan smithee](#):
>
> please, please, please tell me you can see the irony in this line!
:d:d:d:d:d Hey!! Where are my big grinny faces?
---
### Author:  [@cosmosdan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/cosmosdan)
#### Post date: [March 25, 2010, 5:06am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/did-paul-hijack-christianity/530342/360 "2010-03-25T05:06:51Z")
> [@Alan\_Smithee](#):
>
> **ambushed** , one of the signs of a crank is that they continually calim that things are obvious that are obvious to no one else. You may be right, but you are NOT obviously right. Very few things in life are obvious to everyone and nothing worth debating is. You may be so confident in your knowledge of human psychology that it seems obvious to you exactly what Paul _would_ have written if Jesus had been historical, but I don’t share that confidence, neither in my judgement nor yours. The fact that you keep judging people’s motives poorly, even accusing me of lying when I’ve done nothing of the sort, doesn’t inspire in me any greater confidence in your psychological ability.
thank you
> [@](#):
>
> Furthermore, my question was specifically about the claim that James was leader of a group that called themselves “Brothers in the Lord” and that their leader was called “Brother of the Lord.” So far you’ve presented absolutely no evidence that either of these claims is true. If you don’t have any evidence for this at all, you’re right it isn’t speculation, but it isn’t psychology and logic, either. It’s bullshit.
thank you with 🙂
[Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/did-paul-hijack-christianity/530342.md?page=17)
[Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/did-paul-hijack-christianity/530342.md?page=19)