People can say whatever they like, but when they make a case for something without providing any evidence for that thing, then we ought not to waste too much time arguing with such people.  Apparently, Mr Carrier has some sort of philosophical reason to wish that Jesus did not have a blood brother named James.  What Carrier’s reason for wishing this were not true does not matter to me.  The fact is that Carrier, as well as this author, are literally arguing for an interpolation when there is no evidence for an interpolation.  How can a person who does not believe that there was an interpolation argue against such a speculative statement?

Let me give an example.  That herd of sheep has no black sheep.  Most herds of sheep have at least some black sheep.  Conclusion: Someone removed all the black sheep from the herd.  The first statement may be true.  The second statement may also be true.  But the two statements, taken together, are not evidence for the third statement.  This is the kind of argument this atheist gentleman is making. What we can say is that this herd has no black sheep and that most herds have black sheep.  Then, what we ought to say is that at this point we do not know why this herd has no black sheep.  Maybe none of them carry the gene for black wool.  Maybe it is a statistical matter.  Or maybe someone carried off all the black sheep.   If we propose an evidence-free explanation, we ought to tell our hearers that we are speculating at best, and warn them that we have no evidence for this conclusion, but are merely throwing out a possibility.

This is what Carrier and his ally that you read from are doing.  They have presuppositional reasons to believe that Jesus had no physical brothers.  You can ask them why they are so convinced of this, but I suggest it is not for evidential reasons, but for reasons aligned with their atheist assumptions.  Be that as it may, because they are philosophically predisposed to the idea, for whatever reason, that Jesus had no physical brothers, I suggest that this is the reason that they conclude that someone must have added the statement about Jesus’ brother James, or someone must have altered the text.  However, Carrier and friends are not willing to remind their readers that they are simply speculating, and they do not seem willing to propose alternative explanations (such as the possibility that Jesus did indeed have a physical brother named James). A requirement for good argumentations, especially in areas of weak evidence, is to spin alternative conclusions.  This Carrier and his ally do not do.  Therefore, we would do well to reject their conclusion, or at least put it in the highly unlikely category.

The author pleads “not fair” when scholars are unwilling to engage in a debate over an evidence-free interpolation claim.  Let me come to the defense of these scholars. I am not interested in debating speculative theories with people who bring in unadmitted presuppositions to the discussion.  Having an unadmitted and wrong presupposition (that the supernatural is ruled out a-priori), combined with willingness to put out evidence-free speculation, and an unwillingness to spin alternative theories, is a formula for time-wasting debate.

Is it possible the statement by Paul in Galatians 1:19 is an interpolation?  I suppose it is possible.  But then, maybe John 3:16 or Matthey 5:4 or any other passage anywhere in Scripture is an interpolation.   Show me a shred of direct evidence or a strong argument based on other actual corollary evidence (such as a statement in another canonical text or even by an early Christian that Jesus had no physical brothers), and we can have the discussion.  In the meantime, I conclude, at least for now, that this passage is not an interpolation.  Or more precisely, I will proceed on the assumption that Paul actually wrote this passage, at least for now, unless I am given evidence to the contrary.

Final piece of advice:  Always be aware of the presuppositions of those you read, and always ask yourself if the writers are self-aware of the potential effects of their presuppositions.  This advice applies to all writers, be they atheist, Christian or any other predisposition.

John Oakes