Originally Posted by ApostateAbe

is point about James was part of a larger point about the corroboration of many people between the letters of Paul and Luke-Acts. If he was a regular member of the debates here, then he may have been familiar with the objection that we don't know who "James" is in the Acts. It may be an established belief in the scholarship, but I don't think a mythicist or a normalskeptic is likely to accept the premises that lead to such a belief. If Hurtado were more familiar with such a way of thinking, then he may have said, "...all of whom are also mentioned in Luke-Acts, Mark and Matthew," since James the brother of Jesus is most certainly mentioned in Mark and Matthew, though I know that the mythicists and the normalskeptics hold that Paul's mention of James, the brother of the Lord, still isn't the same James, which is where it really starts to look ridiculous for impartial observers. Come to think of it, if Hurtado really were familiar with such debates, I figure that he would have dismissed Steven Carr much more hastily. Hurtado seemed to be especially generous with Steven Carr.