Board index ‹ Bible

[Sister Toy]

Most of the patriarchs and prophets never actually existed, so abrahamic religion is automatically man-made mythology.

A few that existed:

* Baha'u'llah - a follower of a Persian merchant called the Báb who had been going around preaching that god would soon send his messiah. The Baha'u'llah started a splinter cult in which he was the promised messiah, the reincarnation of Jesus and Muhammad.
the Báb - the aforementioned guy going around preaching that he was the reincarnation of Elijah clearing the way for the messiah.
Joseph Smith - a guy with a criminal record in fraud who claims to have found golden plates that came from the original native Americans, Egyptian speaking Hebrews.
* Muhammad - much of what is said about him is myth but he is the central figure of the rise of Islam, who was illiterate and did not write the Quran himself, with his followers claiming to speak for him.
* Paul - a persecutor of Jewish Christians who starts his own brand of Christianity suitable for gentiles and writes many letters establishing his theology.
* king Hezekiah, his immediate predecessors and kings that existed after him, such as the Maccabeans
* king Pekah of Israel and his immediate predecessors

Almost everyone else is a mythical figure or unrelated directly to the people who claimed to be the chosen ones, based on a covenant between Abraham and God. All but the kings claimed to have a direct connection to god either directly or through angels like Gabriel, Moronai, and Jesus. Paul refers to Jesus as an angel in Galatians 4:14, so all of these people claimed to get truth via angels.

Everything written about Jesus pertains to a dozen other people, demigods, and an esoteric understanding of old testament prophecy from his birth to his death to the city he was raised to the city he was born to the miracles he performed. The Quran already questions the crucifixion, but now he does something even more miraculous by ascending into heaven without dying like Elijah or Enoch. If there was "some guy" behind the myths you can't establish what that would be with any certainty as the text allows for multiple rationalizations of him from an apocalyptic rabbi to an exorcist to a lunatic preacher. None of these ideas lay credence to him being the divine son of God or the chosen messiah. This really only presents a problem for Christianity and Islam, though, so we need to delve into the old testament, because even Baha'i uses their existence as well as the existence of Krishna and Zoroaster to justify the messengers of God which it is based upon. Judaism and Samaratinism disregard the new testament, Quran, Upanishads, and other religious books as being divine scripture.

Elijah - name means "Yahweh is my god" - a mythical prophet who performs many miracles to combat polytheism and is taken up to heaven in a whirlwind.

David and Solomon - mythical or insignificant rulers as Jerusalem was a small village during the time they were supposed to reign. Given biographies to establish Israel and Judea as two parts of an otherwise unified kingdom. Almost nothing to back up their existence except for a stele from the time of Hezekiah that puts him within the "House of David." The majority of the old testament besides the prophetic literature and the works traditionally ascribed to Moses are based on these two mythical kings.

The judges - any that existed were various tribal leaders trying to hold a society together after the Egyptians abandoned the area of Canaan following th battle of Kadesh. Samson is a clone of Hercules and acts like one of various models for the promised messiah, which Jesus copies, but in an updated form.

Moses - the patriarch who led the Israelites out of captivity in Egypt while performing miracles, getting laws from atop a volcano, and speaking to a burning bush. This character introduces Yahweh into canaanite polytheism and copies Sargon of Akkad and Hammurabi. The reality of the situation is that Egypt was spread across the Levant all the way to the Hittite and Assyrian Empires so there is no logic behind the story about escaping Egypt to go to Egypt after getting lost for 40 years in the desert. The books generally ascribed to him were written over the course of multple centuries and borrow a lot from surrounding religions. In some stories Yahweh is just a jealous god among many gods and in others he is the only god there ever was. These stories were not written by Moses, the narrative is illogical, and he is a rip off of mythologic stories written about two historical kings in Assyria dropped into a narrative about Israel's struggle with the Egyptians that never happened.

Abraham - depending on the source he is a representative of the entire land of Canaan and a pact establishing a covenant where the Israelites would be given the promised land as long as they obey the rules imposed by the priestly sect which they claim came from god. At least one guy sees him as a patriarch who actually existed but the Lord he made a pact with was a Babylonian king such as Hammurabi. Otherwise, there is nothing to suggest he was a real person, and was actually just a representative of the chosen people. In judeo-christian religion they trace this back through Isaac, while the Muslims go with his other son who was cast into the wilderness, Ishmael. Whichever son is seen as the way in which the chosen people would be declared have Abraham nearly murder him upon the alter and his life is replaced with a lamb instead leading to the Jewish Yom Kippur rituals and the move away from human sacrifice that the christians return to with Jesus. Jesus is this lamb and you no longer have to make animal sacrifices on an annual basis.

Noah - unless you are a young earth creationist, you're aware there was no global flood and that Noah is just a rip off of Utnapishtim, Ziusudra, and Atrahasis. Everything that occurs before or immediately after Noah is from Assyrian and Babylonian mythology as well. This includes the creation narratives, the garden, the promise of eternity that humanity failed to obtain, a global flood, and the confusion of language atop a tower dedicated to Innana and Marduk. Interestingly enough, Inanna is also the oldest idea of a child of God who descends into hell, has her dead body hung on a wall, and is revived from death via food offerings. Obviously not identical to Jesus, but died, gets crucified (hung up), raises from the dead, ascends into heaven, and shares victory over death through baptism and communal food gatherings.

Tracing everything towards the origins of this type of monotheism drops it square in canaanite polytheism heavily influenced by Mesopotamian polytheism, in a region subordinate to Egypt, which establishes itself as a strong kingdom until they are destroyed by the Babylonians, Persians, Greeks, and Romans gaining theological attributes from their oppressors all along the way. This leads to the monotheistic nature in all of them, the apocalypse in Christianity and Islam which came from Zoroastrianism, the dying and rising child of God found in Christianity rejected in Islam, and various other ideas that leads Baha'i to come to the exact opposite conclusion as what I've found.

Religion is a man-made construct to describe the world and control the subjects based in ignorance, metaphor, and magic. Over time religions evolve to fit the cultures in which hold them in high regard. In the last 200 years a resurgence in literalism and death cult behavior has led to Mormonism, Bábism, and Baha'i to modernize mythology and make excuses for the obvious problems while creating new ones of their own.

The few people that did exist listed first merely follow the same pattern of a man who was all by himself and gets divine information from an angel before his teachings are written down as theology. At first there will be a very small following but as the religion gains traction it grows in popularity and employs various methods for keeping those in power prosperous and remembered as time goes on, with no real justification for the lies and empty promises along the way.

[jimwalton]

Thanks for your post, but you've made a logical fallacy called an “Appeal to Ignorance.” In this fallacy, the premises show that nothing has been proved, but someone still makes a firm negative conclusion. “You cannot prove you had a headache yesterday, and therefore your claim is false.” This is a fallacy. If no one has proved that X is true, we cannot therefore claim X is false, since no one has proved it is false, either. In this case, absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. Because there is no evidence doesn't mean it's automatically man-made mythology.

But let's deal with your specifics.

> Jesus

There is enough historical evidence about the existence of Jesus to make his historicity plausible if not as certain as is attainable. Between Tacitus, Suetonius, Ignatius, Paul, and others, we have attestation of Jesus's existence.

You mention various similarities to other traditions, but (1) the similarities are not as tight as you claim, and (2) similarity doesn't mean derivation.

> Elijah

There is no material evidence in the archaeological or documentary record for Elijah. It doesn't mean he didn't exist, but only that we can't make a case one way or the other.

> David and Solomon

The Tel Dan Stela proves the existence of a Davidic dynasty. Archaeologists are divided about the extent of the kingdom during the alleged Davidic era. A growing body of evidence, particularly from Qeiyafa and the work of Eilat Mazar in Jerusalem reveal central authority and administrative buildings characteristic of far more than "a small village." Kathleen Kenyon, Shiloh, and Mazar all agree that Jerusalem was a significant city in the 10th century BC. it was fortified, was served by two complex water supply systems, and was populated by a society that constructed at least two royal residential structures both inside and outside the city.

> The judges

The time of the judges in Canaan is one of the least known and minimally attested eras. Hardly any conclusions can be made about history, and certainly none about fiction as you have claimed. Your theory about Samson and Hercules is nothing more than a speculative opinion.

> Moses

There is evidence of Moses in proto-consonantal inscriptions of Sinai 360-361 & 377, dating to c. 1200 BC. Moses and references parallel to the biblical stories are written there. You certainly have no proof that "This character introduces Yahweh into canaanite polytheism and copies Sargon of Akkad and Hammurabi."

> Abraham

There is no evidence of Abraham, but many details recorded in the lengthy narrative of him are true to the history and culture of the time. We have no particular reason to doubt his historicity, though we have no evidence of it, either.

> Noah

There was no global flood but rather a largely regional one. The similarities of the account with those of Utnapishtim, Ziusudra, Gilgameshand Atrahasis could speak to such an event actually occurring rather than to a cribbing of material. There is no reason to doubt that the ancient Near Eastern accounts and Genesis refer to the same flood. This would certainly account for the similarities. The differences exist because each culture is viewing the flood through its own theology and worldview.

> and the confusion of language atop a tower dedicated to Innana and Marduk.

There is plenty of history in the tower of Babel story (Gn. 11.1-9) to let us hone in on the era (3rd millennium), the event (the Ur III period), and the Babylonian invasion and dispersion of Sumer. It's not just a Babylonian myth, but the theological interpretation of historical narrative.

> Tracing everything towards the origins of this type of monotheism drops it square in canaanite polytheism heavily influenced by Mesopotamian polytheism

Again, you have no proof of this. Much of the alleged evolution is speculation. It's quite impossible to claim with any certainty, for instance, that the ancient Israelites derived their concept of El from the Canaanite concept of El. While both religious groups used the moniker El for their deity, proving not only association but also derivation is quite impossible. Similarity does not guarantee derivation.

> Religion is a man-made construct to describe the world and control the subjects based in ignorance, metaphor, and magic.

Again, you have no proof of this. It is pure speculation and opinion. No one knows the origin of religion. The oldest known temple complex is at Gobekli (Turkey), dating to about 9500 BC and shows that religion appears so early in civilized life that it basically preceded civilized life. You can't begin to sustain a case about the origins of religion.

In other words, in point after point your case has not been made, and it fails. You have not, and cannot, substantiate this positions. There is even evidence contrary to your positions.

[Yunch]

While I agree with much of your post, I do have a several points of contention

> You certainly have no proof that "This character introduces Yahweh into canaanite polytheism and copies Sargon of Akkad and Hammurabi."

The birth narratives of Moses and Sargon are very similar.

> There is no reason to doubt that the ancient Near Eastern accounts and Genesis refer to the same flood. This would certainly account for the similarities. The differences exist because each culture is viewing the flood through its own theology and worldview.

A historical flood accounts for similarities like packing all the animals on a boat, sending birds to look for dry land, and offering sacrifices after landing? Unlikely. Much of the Torah is a reimagining of earlier myths in relation to Israelite's unique religious traditions. I think it's safe to trace flood mythology to Sumer. Might there have been a historical flood in the region that inspired the initial myth? Sure, but the Biblical account didn't develop in isolation.

> It's quite impossible to claim with any certainty, for instance, that the ancient Israelites derived their concept of El from the Canaanite concept of El. While both religious groups used the moniker El for their deity, proving not only association but also derivation is quite impossible. Similarity does not guarantee derivation.

It's entirely likely that Yahweh merges with and subsumed aspects of the Canaanite El, and that El is the original chief deity in IsraEL. See: Yahweh and the Gods and Goddesses of Canaan by John Day or Mark S. Smith's work, including The Early History of God and The Origins of Biblical Monotheism.

[jimwalton]

> The birth narratives of Moses and Sargon are very similar.

Similarity doesn't mean derivation. The story of Abraham Lincoln has quite a bit of similarity to Thomas Edison. Both born poor, lived lives of repeated failures and rejection, eventually through persistence made themselves spectacular successes. We should not, therefore, assume these are really the same stories wrapped in different traditions.

As far as Moses and Sargon, though there are some similarities (mother hid him in a reed basket in the river, raised by royals, became leader of the nation), there are also differences. Most of the ancient hero stories feature a royal person who set aside their royalty to become commoners. The story of Sargon is raised by a gardener. Moses is raised by a daughter of Pharaoh.

Another interesting perspective is: Which story do you believe, or neither, or both? Why? Many of the elements of the Sargon story are historically plausible, but so are those of the Moses story. Certainly stories of beggar children being raised as royals are common in folklore, but they actually happen in real life, too. The story of Sargon doesn't make the story of Moses untrue. If anything else, it may show that the abandonment of babies was somewhat common in the ancient world, that in riverine cultures a common way to "leave the baby on the steps of a hospital" was to put them in the basket in the river.

> A historical flood accounts for similarities like packing all the animals on a boat, sending birds to look for dry land, and offering sacrifices after landing? Unlikely.

But suppose it actually happened. A guy built a big boat (not as large as hyperbolically claimed), saved animals, etc. The oral stories of this man could easily survive for centuries and across cultures. Why is it unlikely?

> Much of the Torah is a reimagining of earlier myths in relation to Israelite's unique religious traditions.

Whoa, now THIS I know you can't prove.

> Sure, but the Biblical account didn't develop in isolation.

Of course it didn't. But very possibly it developed from a historical event.

> It's entirely likely that Yahweh merges with and subsumed aspects of the Canaanite El, and that El is the original chief deity in IsraEL. See: Yahweh and the Gods and Goddesses of Canaan by John Day or Mark S. Smith's work, including The Early History of God and The Origins of Biblical Monotheism.

Similarity doesn't mean derivation. As far as YHWH, Baal, and El, it depends who you talk to. Yehezkel Kaufmann argued in an 8-volume Religion of Israel that Israel knew nothing of the polytheism, magic, or idolatry of its Canaanite neighbors. William Albright argues in Yahweh and the Gods of Canaan that Israel was monolatrous. While Mark Smith has published a respectable work, it doesn’t address the difficult but necessary question of how widely and when monolatrous or monotheistic beliefs took hold, or whether those beliefs developed in a linear fashion. Such things are impossible to know. It depends on one’s view of the date and manner of the composition of the OT. Just because an inscription has been found referring to “YHWH and his Asherah” tell us little about what the vast majority of Israelites believed, and is itself unclear on whether its writer refers to YHWH’s consort or to YHWH’s cultic symbol.

There is no clear or definitive evidence of monotheism's origins, though the theorizing is endless. Terminology is also a problem. Biblical writers express YHWH's uniqueness within any system. It's simply impossible to create a reliable chronology or evolution of terminology, concepts, or practice.

While it's possible that "YHWH merges with a subsumed aspects of El," it is by no means "entirely likely." The revelation of the Israelite God is different than that of the ancient world, and there's no arguing that it was a process. How much this process was affected by cultural exposure is just impossible to know. The Bible portrays the evolutionary process as the result of the progressive revelation of YHWH to his people, not to any kind of assimilation or syncretism. It is also quite obvious that the Israelites were habitual compromisers. So how much of the record is their flaws as opposed to the derivation of ideas? IT'S IMPOSSIBLE TO KNOW. At the very least we can say it doesn't easily qualify as "entirely likely."

[Koine]

I know this isn’t much of a reply, but you’re relying on some super fringe research when you talk about Moses in Egyptian sources and people like Kaufmann.

And Mark Smith’s work (and other related work) absolutely does address the evolution of Israelite mythology and religion in terms of henotheism and monotheism, etc.

[jimwalton]

I know that the evidence about Moses is little known and the translation is still debated, but in conjunction with the other pieces of evidence I gave, there is at least some substantiation for the biblical position, but none at all for the OP's position. He or she is spouting opinions with no support.

As far as Mark Smith's work, I didn't say that he doesn't address the evolution of Israelite mythology and religion in terms of henotheism and monotheism. He certainly does—that's what his position is all about. What I said is that he "doesn’t address the difficult but necessary question of how widely and when monolatrous or monotheistic beliefs took hold, or whether those beliefs developed in a linear fashion."

Again, my point is that there is little to no support for the OP's thesis.

[Take Axe]

Thanks for taking the time to do that to this head-shaker post.

[Sister Toy]

Could you present this with evidence? Gobleki Tepe has signs of animistic practices that predate classical polytheism and personal gods. If you go beyond this you'll find older practices of ritual burial, Neanderthal bear worship, and ancestor worship. My main point was that it has been established that most of the bible, Quran, and other abrahamic religions are based on a religion of strict monotheism with mythical characters and events. You apparently know a little bit about some of the things I presented but you make some pretty wild claims otherwise. The book of genesis is typically dated to the Babylonian exile around 600 BCE and perhaps 539 BCE. The tower of Etemanaki is also dated to around 604 to 534 BCE and the reign of Nebuchadnezzar II.

There was definitely a regional flood, but the birds being released and other things point to Noah being the copy of the older ideas. In those multiple gods set out to destroy humanity because we are too loud and they can't sleep. That sounds reliable . So when determining what is actually true it requires a bit of evidence and a bit of logic. When you can't be scientifically certain you rely on probabilities such as with the historicity of people said to live 3000 years ago, wrote about 2500 years ago, and portrayed in fantastical ways with little to no evidence to back their existence. If they were completely ordinary claims like king Hezekiah then we have little reason to doubt but when they start raising people from the dead and walking on water we should be at least a little bit skeptical. Then with a few of these we can attest to their existence so that it relieves us of our doubts.

Certainly people can exist we can't prove, so we look at what their purpose is in the only stories we have about them. What is Moses for? When we find out that never happened we have nothing left for Moses. What was jesus supposed to be and do? When you can't even get a consistent story about his birth and ministry you have reason to doubt. There is more to it of course, when it comes to Jesus where we can doubt he had a biological family, got baptised or that he was crucified. Even nazareth creates some complications. We have nothing to go on but a dozen possible people who might have existed and none of them that have to for the rise of religious propoganda. It is based on what is more likely, and a lot of people are certain he was an apocalyptic preacher, an exorcist, or a lunatic but even those ideas don't lend credence to a guy who was the dying and rising child of God in Christianity.

[jimwalton]

> Could you present this with evidence?

That's an odd request. My post was replete with various evidences, though brief due to the quantity of material covered and the word limitation of the forum.

> Gobleki Tepe has signs of animistic practices that predate classical polytheism and personal gods. If you go beyond this you'll find older practices of ritual burial, Neanderthal bear worship, and ancestor worship.

This is correct, mostly. The concept of ancestor worship in other cultures is theorized based on material remains but not proved. In any case, what you most certainly cannot substantiate is that "Religion is a man-made construct to describe the world and control the subjects based in ignorance, metaphor, and magic."

> My main point was that it has been established that most of the bible, Quran, and other abrahamic religions are based on a religion of strict monotheism with mythical characters and events.

It's true that you asserted this, but you have no evidence that Abraham, Elijah, Solomon, et al. are mythical characters. The lack of evidence does not prove a negative conclusion.

> The book of genesis is typically dated to the Babylonian exile around 600 BCE and perhaps 539 BCE.

The Jews and Samaritans of the 5th c. BC, as confirmed by the Samaritan Pentateuch, held the view that Moses was the author, as did the Jewish traditions of subsequent centuries. The OT authors consistently viewed Moses as the author. The NT writers considered Moses as the author, as did the early Christian Church. Most biblical scholars until the 19th c. considered Moses as the author. So there is consistent and widespread internal and external evidence of Mosaic authorship. Modern scholarship has based their dating of Genesis on speculation.

Now, there's no contest that the Pentateuch may not have been completely assembled in its present form until later centuries, but there is enough consistency in the 5 books to discern that it had an author with distinct purpose, focus, and message. The whole of the Pentateuch has a definite shape and structure. The most plausible perspective is to consider Moses as the tradent, the authority, behind the work, with later generations assembling and editing as deemed beneficial.

> There was definitely a regional flood, but the birds being released and other things point to Noah being the copy of the older ideas.

If the press says Donald Trump is a twit, and I say he's a twit, that doesn't mean I'm copying their ideas. We may just be observing the same phenomena. If I research and discover that Abraham Lincoln was the 16th president of the United States, it's unfair to conclude I am copying older ideas. Just possibly we are all recording a historical reality.

> In those multiple gods set out to destroy humanity because we are too loud and they can't sleep. That sounds reliable

Yep, I agree that the ancient mythologies can sound humorous. But you must consider that mythographies were never thought of as historical, but theological. Mythography, in general, shows less interest in portraying historical events than it attempts to render the world meaningful through addressing how the world works and how it got that way. Though mythography often adopts a narrative form by recounting events (Zeus having a battle, for instance), it is generally not interested in those events as events that can be connected with the real world. They use mythographical narrative to explain the core reality of their beliefs and perspectives.

The Bible is different. The Bible is distinctively set in a historical environment and posits a theological interpretation of space/time history.

> When you can't be scientifically certain you rely on probabilities such as with the historicity of people said to live 3000 years ago, wrote about 2500 years ago, and portrayed in fantastical ways with little to no evidence to back their existence.

We know that humans have been around for hundreds of thousands of years, but we also know that human history, for all intents and purposes, started in about 10,000 BC. Obviously, the further we retreat in time, the fewer our records and evidences and the less we know. We are simply not in a position to assert that Noah was fictional when we do at least have scant evidence in the Bible and in ancient mythographies that there was such a character. In other words, the evidence we have, as tenuous as it is, points minimally to his historicity. We have no evidence pointing to a conclusion that he is fictitious.

> What is Moses for? When we find out that never happened we have nothing left for Moses.

When we find out that what never happened? Are you speaking of the presence of Israel in Egypt and of the subsequent Exodus? It has never been proved that didn't happen. The references and evidence of the Exodus account are all quite credible, though we only have one questionable reference to Moses and no material evidence of the Exodus itself. Again, absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. It's academically irresponsible to claim that a lack of evidence proves it never happened. It does no such thing. We can't prove it did happen either, so that leaves us on the fence, not in that we "[found] out that never happened."

> What was jesus supposed to be and do? When you can't even get a consistent story about his birth and ministry you have reason to doubt.

The evidences for Jesus's historicity are beyond a reasonable doubt, and we do have consistent stories about his birth and ministry. We have four reliable sources of information that corroborate in many details.

> we can doubt he had a biological family, got baptised or that he was crucified.

Since Jesus was a historical figure, there's no doubt he had a biological family. We can't prove Jesus's baptism, but John the Baptist is corroborated in historical accounts. And the crucifixion of Jesus is corroborated by Tacitus (strong), Thallus (weak), Ignatius (reasonable), Mara bar Sarapion (weak), Lucian, and Paul (strong).

> Even nazareth creates some complications.

You're really reaching.

> We have nothing to go on but a dozen possible people who might have existed and none of them that have to for the rise of religious propoganda.

This is far from true. There is no credible evidence to doubt the existence of Jesus, the 12 apostles, James as the leader of the church, Paul, the apostolic fathers, the witness of Tacitus, Josephus, Suetonius, et. al. The rise of the Christian Church out of the core of Judaism is unexplainable aside from a verifiable empty tomb, physical appearances of the resurrected Jesus, and a large body of people who saw the evidence and were convinced.

> It is based on what is more likely, and a lot of people are certain he was an apocalyptic preacher, an exorcist, or a lunatic but even those ideas don't lend credence to a guy who was the dying and rising child of God in Christianity.

To quote a peer: " *That* sounds reliable ." This perspective not only not "more likely," but is a rather minimalist and minority mindset, especially since the case you have presented is without support and is guilty of the logical fallacy of "Appeal to Ignorance." Essentially you have presented your opinion, but not a supported or supportable position.

[sister Toy]

It looks like you need to go do some reading on these subjects and come back to me. There are no many problems with your post, including the accusation of me appealing to ignorance.

> This is far from true. There is no credible evidence to doubt the existence of Jesus, the 12 apostles, James as the leader of the church, Paul, the apostolic fathers, the witness of Tacitus, Josephus, Suetonius, et. al. The rise of the Christian Church out of the core of Judaism is unexplainable aside from a verifiable empty tomb, physical appearances of the resurrected Jesus, and a large body of people who saw the evidence and were convinced.

I'll start with this claim.

https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1+Corinthians+4%3A1-13&version=NIV
https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1%20Corinthians+1:6-8&version=NIV
https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Galatians+1%3A6-24&version=NIV
http://www.jesusneverexisted.com/sepulchre.html

And the other stuff you mentioned comes after 110 CE, including the passage forged by Eusebius in the antiquities of the Jews talking about the crucifixion of Jesus. The other passage just says James, the brother of Jesus, called the Christ was executed. He doesn't say which Jesus Christ he refers to and it is generally accepted that this passage is about the murder of James the Just, an early church leader following around an apostle called Peter who was the first to obtain the divine revelation about Jesus. Peter is the first among the apostles and there are twelve besides him not counting Paul who is wrote the letter. James is not one of the apostles, and apparently is not of biological relation either, so that leaves only one kind that makes any sense within the full context of the passage it is found in.

I even heard that this passage didn't exist when Marcion was compiling his version of the Christian bible, but that isn't important and I don't have anything to back that part up yet.