Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Clivedurdle · 05-03-2006, 01:27 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by McDuffie

Paul knew James the brother of Jesus.

Josephus knew of James the brother of Jesus.

There are three possible, realistic explanations for the reference to James the brother of Jesus (or brother of the Lord).

1. There was a guy who headed the Jerusalem church named James who was the brother of Jesus.

2. There was a subset of the Apostles named the Brethren of the Lord and this was later taken to mean that they were literally Jesus' brothers.

3. It was written in the margin of an early manuscript and a later copyist thought it belonged in the text.

It seems to me that, given the lack of evidence for '2', 1 & 3 seem the most likely, and 1 seems far more parsimonious to my mind.

Umm there is a tiny weeny difference between brother of Jesus and brother of the Lord! And actually, the various names used in the NT, their inconsistency and the ease with which a scribe can alter them is further evidence for myth - they haven't even got any consistency over the name!

According to the flesh as a clincher that we are talking about a human - who can walk through walls and survive wounds in the side?

Clivedurdle · 05-03-2006, 01:33 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by God Fearing Atheist

In many ways my experience has been the opposite of Doug and Sparrow's. I was first exposed to HJ/MJ issues via the internet, and having no particular interest in the field, uncritically swallowed the most base sort of Jesus Mysteries pagan-shoplifting thesis. In my naiveté I just assumed it was a legitimate historical contender which, in any case, helped me "score points" against (most) Christians.

Like every internet-enabled atheist it seems, I would eventually stumble onto Doherty. I was (and still am) impressed by his forthrightness in offering an explicitly formulated mythicist hypothesis. Unlike the others, Doherty had an idea of what Paul and other early Christians might have actually believed; Jesus is mythical not because every early Christian document was just "made up" or because Christians had somehow hodge-podged pagan religions together, but because their own writings betray an understanding of Jesus as an unworldly denizen of the contemporary Middle Platonic cosmos.

My recently renewed interest in the subject has lead to alot of reading. Though the great majority has obviously been in the form of primary texts, books and scholarly journals, poking through BC&H has only helped to cement my position strongly in favor of HJ and against MJ (contra Sparrow). This is due in no small part to the penetrating analyses of guys like my ol' pal Rick, Kevin Rosero, Ben Smith, GDon, and (once you get past the invective evident from both sides) Jeff Gibson. The inadequacy of MJer response, where there is any, hasnt hurt either.

So it wasnt any one thing, really. I've just come to accept that HJ (HJ as prophet of the Jewish eschaton) makes the best sense of the data as we have it.

But which model HJ are you proposing and when did he live?

Clivedurdle · 05-03-2006, 01:44 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by guy_683930

I was wondering, for Jesus Mythers (and also for Jesus Historicists), what was there a specific piece of evidence that made you favor the MJ or the HJ. As a mythicist, I would say for me it was Hebrews 8:4 combined with the fact that the term "disciple" is NEVER used in any of the epistles but used heavily in the gospels and Acts. Or was there no one or two pieces of evidence, was it merely considering the evidence as a whole?

I think we see as a glass darkly here, but I do see classic gnostic, heroic, epic, alchemic - water into wine - themes.

I see a people groaning for the revelation of the Christ - a first coming!

Atheos · 05-03-2006, 01:49 PM

I must say I'm still pretty much open minded about the issue. I'm inclined to believe that there was actually a historical kernel somewhere inside all this mess but that the legend building began early and continued in a frenzy for many decades before petering out.

My gut feeling is that Joshua (Jesus) may have lived and was a charismatic teacher/messiah type and ended up (as many did in his day) with a modest following of people. He probably got deluded into believing he was the messiah, started feeling invulnerable, pushed the wrong buttons and ended up getting his ass crucified (not too terribly hard to do when branded as an insurrectionist and thus a threat to the Pax Roma).

In all likelihood the whole thing would have died the same death many similar movements had were it not for the considerable intellectual abilities and charisma of Paul and the written tradition he began. I'm as skeptical about the details of Paul's "conversion" (as recorded in "Acts") as I am about Jesus's legendary stroll on the sea of Galilee during a storm one night.

Just my impressions from considering the evidence (such as it is) over the years.

-Atheos

blastula · 05-03-2006, 01:59 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by guy_683930

As a mythicist, I would say for me it was Hebrews 8:4

I have never found that verse strong evidence for the mythicist. I take "For if he were on earth" to mean if he were on earth at the time of the writing of the letter, not as to whether he ever lived on earth. But I am just going by the English translation. Is there something about the original language that is more probative?

There are enough references to actual events (like crucifixion) that lead me to believe the letter writers were talking about someone they thought was real.

I think there was a Jesus, but he didn't do everything that they said he did, like George Washington and the cherry tree.

McD · 05-03-2006, 02:40 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Clivedurdle

Umm there is a tiny weeny difference between brother of Jesus and brother of the Lord!

I knew a guy who was trained in JKD by Bruce Lee. He called Bruce Lee 'Bruce', Mr. Lee', 'Lee', 'Sifu' 'Sifu Bruce' etc. If 'Lord' is a title, which Paul apparently thought it was, then it would not be suprising that Paul would have called James the brother of the Lord but Josephus would have heard him called the brother of Jesus, since Josephus would have not regarded Jesus as any kind of Lord

Quote:

Originally Posted by Clivedurdle

And actually, the various names used in the NT, their inconsistency and the ease with which a scribe can alter them is further evidence for myth - they haven't even got any consistency over the name!

Non sequitur

Quote:

Originally Posted by Clivedurdle

According to the flesh as a clincher that we are talking about a human - who can walk through walls and survive wounds in the side?

Non sequitur

jeffevnz · 05-03-2006, 03:11 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by james-2-24

An Apocolyptic Jewish prophet living in 1st century Palestine seems very probable to me. I favour an HJ due to 'embarrassing' details in the gospels (baptism, family rejection, lack of miracles in home town), and the references in the letter of Galatians (born of a woman, lords brother).

Good point. Add Joseph's suspicion about how Mary became pregnant to the list of embarassing details.

God Fearing Atheist · 05-03-2006, 04:45 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Clivedurdle

But which model HJ are you proposing...

Umm...

Quote:

Originally Posted by God Fearing Atheist

...HJ as prophet of the Jewish eschaton...

Quote:

...and when did he live?

Umm...

End of the last century BCE to Pilate's reign in the early first century CE?

The Bishop · 05-03-2006, 05:36 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by darstec

The paleographer may have the utmost integrity yet still be wrong. A forger intent on utilizing a certain handwritting style might be able to fool the most discerning document examiner. As a recent example, Hoffmann fooled a lot of experts in an age when science abounds and handwritting (though much of his deception involved printed material) changes by the decade.

The assumption of dating by peleography as inviolate fact is as much of a pet peave as "quoting" Papias or Africanus when one really means Eusebius. This probably holds true of a good majority of early Christian writings where nothing original exists.

WARNING - WARNING - Argument as used by Young Earth Creationists being deployed in the service of Atheism.

I had this about a year ago from a YEC who basically stated that it was possible that tree-ring counters had miscounted by a factor of 2. That is, tree-ring counters - the guys that knew trees and had discovered the process of dating a tree by its rings - had got it all wrong.

Lets please give palaeographers - the people who have studied different handwriting styles across a large number of documents, many with confirmatory dating either in the text itself or by C14, across decades of intensive study and work - the benefit of the doubt, huh?

Also, let's not try to picture someone in, say, the 4th Century, consciously writing in a 250-year old style in order to fool handwriting experts 1500+ years hence! :banghead:

ChandraRama · 05-03-2006, 05:47 PM

I was just reading The Shepherd of Hermas. Not a single reference to Jesus or Christ. There are references to Son of Man. But, no Jesus or Christ.

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

05-03-2006, 01:49 PM	#24
Atheos Talk Freethought Staff Join Date: Sep 2004 Location: Heart of the Bible Belt Posts: 5,807	I must say I'm still pretty much open minded about the issue. I'm inclined to believe that there was actually a historical kernel somewhere inside all this mess but that the legend building began early and continued in a frenzy for many decades before petering out. My gut feeling is that Joshua (Jesus) may have lived and was a charismatic teacher/messiah type and ended up (as many did in his day) with a modest following of people. He probably got deluded into believing he was the messiah, started feeling invulnerable, pushed the wrong buttons and ended up getting his ass crucified (not too terribly hard to do when branded as an insurrectionist and thus a threat to the Pax Roma). In all likelihood the whole thing would have died the same death many similar movements had were it not for the considerable intellectual abilities and charisma of Paul and the written tradition he began. I'm as skeptical about the details of Paul's "conversion" (as recorded in "Acts") as I am about Jesus's legendary stroll on the sea of Galilee during a storm one night. Just my impressions from considering the evidence (such as it is) over the years. -Atheos

05-03-2006, 05:47 PM	#30
ChandraRama Regular Member Join Date: Feb 2006 Location: US Posts: 107	I was just reading The Shepherd of Hermas. Not a single reference to Jesus or Christ. There are references to Son of Man. But, no Jesus or Christ.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.