Iveintendedforsometime(andseveraltimestarted)towritearebuttaltoDohertyscaseforthe

mythicistargument,butthelengthrequiredwasjusttoomuchforaforumthread.SoIvedecided
(particularlygivenDohertysrecentpostswhichtouchedontheseissues)tofocusinsteadonlytwo
argumentsDohertymakesbothinhisTheJesusPuzzleandinrecentonlinearticles(suchashis
responsestoEhrmansnewbook).OneargumentconcernsDohertystreatmentoftherelation
betweenacertainJames,thebrotherofthelord/Jesus.Theotherishistreatmentofthealleged
referenceswithinPaulsletterstoteachingsofJesus.
Illstartwiththelatter,becausealthoughtheissueofwhetherornotPaulreferstowhathebelievedto
beteachingsofanearthlyJesus(andwhyhedidnotdosomoreoften)ismorecomplexthantheissue
ofJamesrelationtoJesus,thewayDohertytreatstheissueis,Ibelieve,instructive.Dohertymentions
severalexplanationstypicallyofferedbyvariousauthorswhohavewrittenonPaulsdiscussion(orlack
thereof)ofJesusteachingsandactions,andsoIneednotrepeatthemhere.Rather,Iwillfocuson
piecesofDohertysargumentIthinkareproblematic.ThefirstishisassertioninTheJesusPuzzlethat
therewasnotmuchopportunityinevidenceforhim[Paul]tohaveacquireddetailsaboutJesuslife.
DohertythenreferencesPaulsvisittoJerusalem.However,thereareproblemswithDohertys
descriptionhere.First,hestatesthatPaulwenttoJerusalemexactlyonce.However,itisunclearwhat
hisbasisisforthisclaim.IntheveryletterDohertyreferences(Galatians),Paulmentions(Gal.2.1)a
secondtrip.NorisitclearthatthereferencestoatriptoJerusalemin(forexample)Romans
correspondswitheitherofthetwotripsmentionedinGalatians.ThenthereisDohertysdescriptionof
Pauls15daystaywithPeter.Hestatesthat[a]llhedidatthattime,sohesays(1:18)wasgettoknow
PeterandseeJames.Thisisattheveryleastsomewhatmisleading.First,thereisthelengthofthe
stay:15days.AsC.H.Doddputitsolongago,wecansafelyassumethattheydidnotspendallthe
timetalkingabouttheweather.Theonlyclue(otherthanthelengthofthevisit)forwhattookplaceis
theinfinitivePaulusestodescribehisactionduringthevisit:historesai.Thisword,whencecomesour
Englishhistory,wasforeverchangedbytheworkofHerodotus,whobeganhisworkwitha
nominalizedversionhistoria,meaning(atthattime)inquiryorinvestigation.However,Herodotus
workbegananewgenre,thatofhistoriography,andinGreektheverbhistoriagrapheinmeanstowrite
history.ThereareseveralGreekwordsPaulcouldhaveusedhere,whicharelessformalandfarmore
common(e.g.,gignoskein),butheusedonefoundnowhereelseintheN.T.andrarelyinGreek
literatureatall.Itiscommonlyfoundwithintheworksofhistorians,fromHerodotustoDiogenes
Laertius(Plutarchusesitquitefrequently),butisalmostcompletelyabsentfromdramaornontechnical
texts.Inotherwords,forPaultousethisword,thereisprobablysomethingspecialabouthisvisit,at
leastmorethanasimplegettoknowPeter.Abettertranslationwouldprobablybeinquire,and
indeedmostanalysesofthewordasusedinGalatians(forreferences,seetheBDAG)arguethatthe
wordmeanssomethinglikegetinformationfromratherthangettoknow.Andthatwouldbetter
explainthelengthofthestay.
AlsoproblematicisDohertysexplanationfortheWordsoftheLord(thetitleoftherelevantsectionin
hisbook)whichPaulreferences.Hewrites(p.29)[m]anyscholarsidentifythesepassagesasreflecting
aphenomenoncommontotheearlyChristianpreachingmovementPaulispassingontohisreaders
directivesandpromiseswhichhehasreceivedthroughinspiration.Dohertyincludesanendnotehere,
inwhichhereferencesMack,Kelber,andBultmann.Infact,hequotesKelberhere.However,whathe
doesnotdoisinformthereaderastowhatKelberactuallymeantorthecontextofDohertysquotation
ofhim.Infact,hedoesnotevenindicatethathehasnotquotedKelbersentiresentence,butstarted
midwayintoone.Kelber(whoreliesagreatdealontheHomericmodeloforaltransmissionpioneered
byParryandLord)infactstatesonthesamepageDohertyquotesfrom,Whetherasayingisfromthe
earthlyJesus,propheticallytransmittedasawordoftherisenLord,orPaulsownwordspokenor
writteninapostolicpropheticselfconsciousness,itisalwayslegitimizedbytheauthorityoftheLord.
KelbersargumentdoesnotreallysupportDohertyspoint,inthatwhileKelberarguesthatwecannot
knowwhetherorwhenPaulisactuallyreportingateachingofJesusorsomethingreceivedthrough
inspiration,hecertainlydoesnotarguethatthisISwhatPaulisdoingperiod.Alsointeresting,given
thatDohertyspendsmoretimeonBultmannthanonMackorKelber(anddoessoagaininhisThe
PaulineEpistlesPartTworesponsetoEhrman),isthefactthathavingreadKelber,henonetheless
referstoBultmannsclassicstatementconcerningtheprocesshedescribes.Whathedoesnotdois
notethatevenKelberexplicitlyrejectsBultmannsarguments,stating(p.8),Todayitisnoexaggeration
toclaimthatawholespectrumofmajorassumptionsunderlyingBultmannsSynopticTraditionmustbe
consideredsuspect:Easterfaithaswatershedandpointofdepartureforthetradition,thenotionofthe
originalformanditscompulsorydevelopmentintoprogressivelymorecomplexandhybridformations,
collectiveconsciousnessastheshapingforcebothoforalmaterialsandgospeltextuality,theconceptof
settinginlifeasthesociologicaldeterminantoforalforms,theheuristicvalueofthecategoriesof
PalestinianversusHellenistic,andthethesisofanintrinsicgravitationalorteleologicalpulltoward
gospelcomposition.Infact,bothwithinandoutsideofNT/Biblicalstudies,researchonoralityandoral
transmissionhasflourished.ThemodelBultmannused,whichwasthethencurrenttheoryoforality
withinGermanfolklorestudies,isnolongerevenapplicabletothatfield,letaloneNTstudies.Andthe
workofnumerousanthropologists,sociologists,andotherspecialists(RuthFinnegan,WalterOng,E.A.
Mackay,CraigCooper,JanVansina,WilliamSchneider,etc.)hasvastlyincreasedourknowledgeofthe
range,scope,andgenresoforaltraditions/transmissions.Infact,itwasnotlongafterBultmanns
workthatanentirelydifferentmodeloforaltradition,onefarmorelikelyaprioritobeapplicable,was
constructed:BirgerGerhadssonsmodelbasedonoralitywithinrabbiniccircles.AlthoughGerhadssons
work,initiallysubjecttomuchcriticism,hasbecomefarmorewidelyaccepted(oratleastmuchofit),
hismodelishardlywithoutcritics(includingKelber).However,Dohertybarelytouchesonany
scholarshipconcerningoraltransmission,contenttocitethethreehedoes,despitethefactthatthey
disagreebothwithhimandwitheachother.
EvenmorecuriousishisownanalysisofPaulslanguage.Heclaimsthatitpointstoaheavenlysource
andtosupportthisclaimcites1Cor.7:25.HeusesPaulswordstoclaimthatPaulisindicatinga
generalcategoryofthings[he]isaccustomedtopossessingforhimself,notaspartofawider
communityknowledgeorinheritancefromtradition.How,Iwonder,doesPaulsstatementthata
particulardirectioncomesfromhim,nottheLord,indicatesomeheavenlysourceunlessoneassumes
alreadythattherewasnoearthlyJesus?ThereisnothingwithinPaulslanguagetoindicateaheavenly
source,andinfactifonelooksat1Cor.7infullsuchaninterpretationisproblematic.Earlier,in1Cor
7:10,PaulexplicitlyseperateshisinstructionfromthatoftheLord:toisdegegamekkosinparagello,ouk
egoallahokurios/totheunmarriedIcommand,orrathernotI,buttheLordPaulsassertionthat
thisprohibitionofdivorceisfromJesusisalsoechoedinQandMark.Almostimmediatelyfollowingthis,
however,Paulstates(1Cor.7:12),toisdeloipoislegoegoouchhokurios/totherestIsay,notthe
Lord,HegoesoutofhiswaytoindicatethatthefirstpartisateachingfromJesusChrist,ashedoesin
thelinequotedbyDoherty(wherehestateshehasnocommandfromtheLord).Ontheassumption
thattherewasnoearthlyJesus,theselinesbynecessityarefromsomedivinerevelation.Ofcourse,if
Paulreceiveddivinerevelationsonewonderswhyhewouldeverneedtoindicatethataninstruction
orcommandwashisown,nottheLords.Afterall,ifhereceivesdivineinstructions,anditisunderstood
byhisaudiencethathedoes,whywouldtheygivecredencetohisownthoughtsonsomematterwhen
hemakesitclearhedidntreceiveanydivineinstruction?Whydidnthe?ItsratheroddthatPaulhasa
divinedecreeconcerningdivorce,onethatisrathergeneral,butwhenitcomestohowfollowersof
Christshoulddealwithunbelievingspouses,divineinspirationdriesup.ThismakesperfectsenseifPaul
isactuallypassingonthesameteachingrecordedinthegospelsandcomingfromanearthlyJesus,who
didnothavetodealwithissueswhichoccurredintheearlychurch,butishardertoexplainifall
teachingsofJesusaredivineinspirations.

ButwhyshouldwethinkthatJesushadanearthlypresence,orthatPaulthoughtofhimashavinglived
andpreachedonEarth?Passingover(forthesakeofbrevity)boththestatementsPaulmakesabout
fleshanddescendedfromDavidaswellasthereferencesDohertyandothersusetoarguethatPaul
didnotconceiveofJesusaseverlivingonEarth,thereistheissueofJames,identifiedatonepointby
PaulasthebrotherofJesus.WithinboththegospelsandJosephusJamesisalsoidentifiedasJesus
brother.ItiseasiestheretostartwithDohertystreatmentofJosephus.First,itisimportanttonote
howscholarsoverthedecades(especiallyJewishscholarsofancientJudaism)havedealtwiththe
referencetoJameswithinJosephus.TheienandMerz,intheirreview/textbookonthehistoricalJesus
(DerhistorischeJesus:EinLehrbuch)includeanenormousreferencelistandsumuptheconclusionof
100orsoyearsofworkbystating,DieAuthentizittderStellekannalsgesichertgelten(p.74;the
authenticityofthetextcanbeconsideredcertain)notingasingleexceptiontothenumerous
commentatorsandJosephanscholars:Schrersworkfrom1901.SowhydoesDohertyquestionits
authenticity?Inhisbook,heconsider[s]thematterinpointform.Thefirstpointhastodowiththe
dateofourearliestmanuscript.However,thereisneitheranythingremarkableaboutthis(infact,ifwe
hadanearliermanuscript,itwouldbesurprising),noristhisanyreasontodoubttheauthenticityofthis
line.Hissecondpointhastodowithwhatheclaimsisanextraneous,unnecessaryfeeltothereference
ofJesus.However,thisanalysisisfundamentallyflawed.AsDohertyisnodoubtaware,firstnameswere
commonandcouldnotservebythemselvesasidentifiers.Somethingelse(context,apatronymic,atitle,
etc.)hadtoserveifsomeoneinatextlikeJosephuswasintroduced.Josephususesaquitecommon
formofidentification:kinship.Themostcommonmethodwasbythefather,butothermethods
(includingmetronymics;seee.g.DepauwsarticlefromthejournalTheLanguageofthePapyri)were
alsousedfrequently.SoDohertyisnotcorrectinsaying(inpoint2)thattheGreekIakobosonomaauto
orJamesbynamewouldbeaphrase[which]couldhavestoodperfectlywellonitsown(withaslight
changeingrammaticalform)Infact,quiteapartfromtheintroductionofvariouscharactersinhis
work,JosephuselsewhereintroducesacertainindividualnamedJames.In6.92,hefirstintroducesthis
James,identifyinghimbyhisfather.Whatisalsointerestingaboutthisreferenceisthattheintroduction
readsSosahiousIakobos,beginningwiththefatherandendingwiththenameoftheperson
identified.InDohertysthirdpointhebringsupthesuspiciouswordorder,inwhichJesusisnamed
first,beforeJames,ratherthanthereverse.OnlythisisactuallyidenticaltothemethodJosephususes
toidentifythisotherJames:namethekinfirst.QuiteapartfromthefactthatGreekwordorderismuch
moreflexiblethanEnglish,asreviewofscholarship(atleastbeforewritinghisresponsetoEhrmans
book)concerningidentificationwouldhaveinformedhimthatvariationinwordorderwhenitcomesto
identificationwasquitecommon.InapaperpublishedinthejournalStudiesinLanguage(32:5;pp.894
915)entitledRhemebeforethemeinthenounphrase:AcasestudyfromAncientGreekCarlottaViti
addresses(amongotherthings)thisveryissue.Onpage908shewrites,Inparticular,therelationof
kinshipistheprivilegeddomainofpreposedgenitives(e.g.Il.1.9LtouskaiDioshuiosLatosandZeus
son),aswellofpreposedadjectives(e.g.Il..1PelydesAchilles).Kinshiprelationsareafavoredstrategy
oftextualcohesion,wherebytheauthorintroducesnewcharactersbyanchoringthemtocharacters
thathavebeenalreadypresentedorthatbelongtothegeneralknowledgeofhispublic.Shedelvesin
somedetailintotheissueofpostvs.prenominalgenitives,andtheflexibilityanduseofboth.Andshe
isdealingwithwordorderpriortotheGreekofPaul,inwhichmethodsofaddressbecameevenmore
flexible.EleanorDickeyisperhapstheforemostauthoritywhenitcomestoGreekformsofaddress,
kinshipterms,andsimilartopics.Herbookonthesubject,aswellassubsequentarticles,areamongthe
mostcitedandauthoritativeworksonthistopic.Intwosucharticles(TheGreeksystemofaddressof
theRomanperiodanditsrelationshiptoLatininthejournalTheClassicalQuarterlyandLiteraland
extendeduseofkinshiptermsindocumentarypapyripublishedinthejournalMnemosyne)shenotes
theshiftsinformsofaddress,useofkinshipterms,andsimilarshifts/changesinpostclassicalGreek.
HeretheonlysalientpointsarethefactthatDohertysassertionsaboutwordorderaremisleadingat
best,butDickeysworkwillbecomemoreimportantwhenthereferencetoJamesinPaulisdiscussed.

Inpoints3through6(hisfinalpoint),Dohertydiscussestheconstructionusedandthelikelihoodof
interpolation.HisfirstargumentconcernsthephrasetoulegemenouChristouwhichheclaimsisa
phraseinusebyChristians.Asevidence,hepointstoMatt.1:16andJohn4:25.Therearetwo
problemswiththisclaim.ThefirstisthatearlyChristianliteratureisFILLEDwithvariousmethodsof
referringtoJesus,yetDohertycitesonlytwowhichmatchJosephusandclaimsthatthisissomehow
evidenceforuseofthephrasebyChristianstotheextentthatweshouldsuspectaChristianhandat
workinthereferenceinJosephus.Yetofthetwohecites,onlyonecouldbecalledChristian.Matthew
endshisgenealogyofJesuswiththisphrase.However,theuseinJohnisquitedifferent.Jesusis
speakingtoaSamarianwoman.InthelineDohertycites,theauthorofJohnwriteslegeiautohegune,
OidahotiMessiaserchetaiholegomenosChristos/thewomansaystohimIknowthatMessiahcomes,
theonereferredtoasChrist.ThepurposeofthelinelegomenosChristoshereissimplytotranslatethe
HebraictermanointedintoGreek.Infact,onecouldtranslatethelineIknowthattheMessiah,which
meansChrist,comesandwhilethiswouldbeafarlessliteraltranslation,itwouldbeamoreaccurate
renderingofthemeaning.TheonlypurposeofthephraseDohertyidentifiesasChristianhereisto
translatetheHebraicterm.ItisnotintendedasadesignationforJesus.Alsointerestingisthefactthat
DohertychosenottoincludetwootherusesofthismethodofreferringtoJesuswhichareinthe
gospels.Matthewtwiceusesthisveryconstruction,inMatt.27:17and27:22.However,inbothcasesit
isPilatespeakingtothecrowdaboutwhotoexecuteorrelease:BarabbasortheonecalledChrist.In
otherwords,thetwousesofthisconstructionDohertydoesnotmentionareplacedonthelipsofnot
onlyanunbeliever,buttheonewhoordersJesusexecution.NorationalanalysisofthisuseinMatthew
couldconcludethattheauthorsuseisChristian.ItisexplicitlyNONChristian:awaytorefertoJesus
bynonbelievers.ThatisexactlyhowJosephususesit.ThereasonthattheTestimoniumFlavianumisso
obviouslyatleastcorrupted(andperhapsinterpolated)isbecauseJosephusstatesJesusISChrist.Ifnot
forthisandatwoothershortcomponentsofthepassage,therewouldbelittlereasontosuspecta
Christianhandatall.IfJosephushadreallysaidJesuswastheMessiah,hedbeaChristian,soclearly
thatpassagehasbeenattheveryleastaltered.Yetinthelaterreference,inwhichJesusisusedto
identifyJames,wefindadifferentconstruction.WhereasintheTestimoniumJesusisChristhereheis
onlyknownasorcalledChrist.AsTheienandMerzputit,DieRedevonJesus,derChristus
genanntwird,spiegelteherjdischenalschristlichenSprachgebrauch,daChristosimChristentumbald
zumEigennamenwurde(undindenrmischenQuellenalssolchererscheint(TheaddressofJesus,
calledChrist,reflectsaJewish,asopposedtoChristiandesignation,forChristinChristianitysoon
becameapropername(andshowsupintheRomansourcesassuch).

ThefactthatitdoesshowupinRomansourcesassuchisanotherproblemforDoherty,whoassertsthat
JosephusaudiencecouldnotbeexpectedtoknowthisJesus,calledChrist.First,ifthemajorityof
scholarsarecorrect,andtheprevioussectiononJesusisacorruptversionofapassagewhichdid
originallydiscussJesus,thenthatissuewouldberesolvedwithoutreferencetoTacitusorotherRoman
sources.Yetevenifitisaninterpolation,theRomansourcesindicatethatbythetimeofNerothis
ChristandhisfollowerswereknownwelloutsideofJewishandearlyChristiancircles.Dohertys
assertionthatJosephuswouldhaveidentifiedJesusastheonecrucifiedbyPilateisasspeculativeas
anythingIvereadfromconservativeChristianscholarshiponthehistoricalJesus.Dohertys
interpretationsofOrigenandEusebiusmentionofJosephusandJamesarealmostasoutlandish.There
isnoreasontoassumethatbecausetheirdiscussionofJosephusandJamesdoesntreflectmuchof
whatJosephusactuallysaidthattheythereforemustbereferringtoadifferentpassageorcantbe
referringtothepassageinquestion.Whilepropercitationisanissuetoday,itwascertainlynotatthe
time,andparaphraseswhichblatantlydistortedoriginalmeaningswerehardlyrare.

Tosumup,thereisabsolutelynothingtosupportDohertysclaim(p.221)that[t]hephasetheone
calledtheChristisdemonstrablyChristian,asinthevastnumberofconstructions,titles,andsoforth
usedtoidentifyJesus,thisoneishardlyusedatall,andwhenitisthereisonlyasingleusagein
MatthewwhichmightbecalledChristian.ToarguethatadesignationortermusedtodescribeJesusis
ChristianbecauseitappearsintheNTisobviouslyfallaciousbecauseJesusisreferredbyvarious
derogatorytermsmorethanoncebynonbelievers,inthesamewaythatPilateandJosephusreferto
himascalledChristratherthanChrist.

ThenthereistheissueofJamesinPaulandthegospels.Dohertyperformsanicelittlesleightofhand
maneuveronp.57byreferringtotheconstructionadelphonenkurio/brothersinthelordand
equatingitwiththegenitiveconstruction.Paulclearlyusesthetermsbrotherandsisterwithout
intendingtorefertoactualkin.EleanorDickey,inherpaper(referredtoabove)onextendedandliteral
useofkinshiptermsnoteshowcommonthiswas.However,shenotesimportantexceptionstothe
metaphoricaluseofkinshipterms,especiallyanytimeanauthorusesakinshiptermtoconnectan
individualwhoisnttheauthorortheaddressee.Insuchinstances,sheconcludesthatthetermis
alwaysaliteralusage,anditisexactlythisusagewefindinPaulsGalatians.Dohertyalsoreliesonthe
useofLord/kuriosratherthanJesusasevidencethatthereferencetoJamesitintendednotto
meanaliteralbrotherbutratherthefamilyofbrothersandsistersinChrist.However,thisisagain
indicativeofalackofreferenceto(orknowledgeof)scholarship.HadDohertyspentsometimereading
letterswritteninGreekduringRomanrulehewouldhaveknownthatevenoutsideofChristianity,the
termkurios/Lord(amongothers)wasoftenusedbypeoplewritinglettersandtoorwithreferenceto
family.InherarticleTheGreekaddresssystemoftheRomanperiodDickeynotesthatoneofthe
majorchangesfromclassicalGreektotheGreekduringPaulstimewastheuseofkuriosevenwithout
specialintimacy,affection,orrespectwithinletters.Anditwascertainlynotuncommonforauthorsof
letterstorefertofathersandotherauthoritativeorrespectedfiguresbythetermkuriosratherthan
theirname.AsinJosephus,theusagewithinPaulisquiteclear:identificationthroughagenitivekinship
construction.ThisJamesisthebrotherofJesus(notthepillarreferredtoelsewhere).Heistheonly
onereferredtoasthebrotherofJesus,andonlyinoneotherplacedoesPaulrefertothebrothersof
Jesus(i.e.,useagenitiveconstruction).Elsewhere,hisuseofbrother(s)andsistersfallsunderthe
categoriesDickeyidentifiesascommonmetaphoricaluseofkinshipterms.

Paul,Mark,Matthew,andJosephus(andperhapsLuke)allrefertoaJames,thebrotherofJesus.Itis
possiblethatMatthewisdependentonMark,buteitherway,thatstillleavesatleastthreeindependent
referencestoJesusbrother.Andwhateveronesviewonthehistoricalreliability(ifitexistsatall)ofthe
gospels,thereferenceswithinJosephusandPaultoJesusbrotherremain.AnddespiteDohertys
arguments,thereiseveryreasontobelievebothwereauthenticreferencestoaliteralbrotherofJesus.