Chaucer

It's barely possible that -- although I don't see any direct evidence that would point to its being more likely than not -- some scribe might have labored under such a misunderstanding when the referenced James was someone else. But such misunderstanding could only have happened _before_ the church adopted the stance that Jesus had no real brothers because his mother really had no other offspring. If we can pinpoint the time when the church adopted the stance that Jesus had no real brothers because his mother really had no other offspring, then that would narrow the period when the imputed mistake was made -- i.e., between the time that Josephus wrote the Antiquities (the 90s in the 1st century c.e.) and the time when the church adopted the stance that Jesus had no real brothers because his mother really had no other offspring.

Is there any research on the exact point when the church adopted the stance that Jesus had no real brothers because his mother really had no other offspring?

Chaucer

Toto

Here, let me google that for you.

Perpetual_virginity_of_Mary

But note that, even after the idea developed that Mary was a virgin before, during, and after giving birth to Jesus, James was still referred to as Jesus' brother.

aa5874

Your question is just a waste of time. How many times must you be shown that in the NT Jesus was NOT regarded as HUMAN but the Creator, the Child of the Ghost of God, equal to God and was raised from the dead?

1. The supposed mother of Jesus was regarded as an EARTHLY HUMAN VIRGIN in the NT.

2. The supposed Jesus was regarded as the son of an EARTHLY HUMAN VIRGIN and the OFFSPRING of a HOLY GHOST of GOD in the NT.

3. The supposed mother of Jesus, a EARTHLY HUMAN VIRGIN in the NT, was supposedly married to another EARTHLY HUMAN MAN in the NT.


If the EARTHLY HUMAN VIRGIN and the EARTHLY HUMAN MAN in the NT stories had EARTHLY HUMAN CHILDREN then it does not matter or ALTER the Conception or NATURE of JESUS.

In the NT stories Jesus SIMPLY had a HOLY GHOST of GOD as his FATHER.

It is just a STORY. You can't change the story it is too late.

Read the STORIES of the CHILD of the Ghost of God in gMatthew 1.18 and gLuke 1.35, the Creator in gJohn1.1 and the STORY that "PAUL" and "JAMES" saw the resurrected Creator in 1 Cor. 15.3-8.

The Jesus story is a basic MYTH fable of antiquity.

Don't you even understand that in the REAL WORLD that it is the NATURE of the PARENTS that determines the NATURE of the offspring NOT another supposed child who could have a DIFFERENT father or mother.

And look, according to the Church writers, James the apostle had completely different parents to the Ghost of God, without a human father. See Papias "Fragment 10 and "De Viris Illustribus 2.

And you should know that in the NT stories that ONCE Jesus was ALREADY regarded as the OFFSPRING of the HOLY GHOST of God that it did not matter if Mary had NO more or 100 children afterwards.

Chaucer

The linked article implies that two second-century works, Nativity of Mary and The History of Joseph the Carpenter, may be the first with the idea of perpetual virginity (also, the notion that these siblings are from a previous marriage of Joseph's is mooted as well). And those two works are viewed as carrying with them the very strong implication that the notion of perpetual virginity already reflects a generally and widely prevailing assumption throughout the growing Christian communities of the time. If so, that would mean that this perpetual virginity idea was already a securely entrenched second-century notion at the very latest and therefore already around long before Christianity was even "mainstreamed" a few centuries later (whether by Constantine or anyone else).

So there was no Christian hegemony around yet to make a scribal misunderstanding of one James for a brother of Jesus happen in the second century when perpetual virginity as a given was already firmly established. If that misunderstanding did happen in the second century, it can only have come from a scribe who was Christian at the very start of the second century at the latest, but from a non-Christian scribe if it happened later. After all, Christianity was still partially underground when the notion of Jesus having no blood brothers already got firmly entrenched, and since it looks like perpetual virginity was firmly entrenched by the middle of the second century, any scribal error mistaking James for a brother of Jesus in the middle or the late second century has to have come from a non-Christian.

That leaves only two possibilities: The passage was corrupted (inadvertently or not) at a time when some still thought that it was O.K. to think of Jesus as having brothers and sisters, arguing for the change having happened no later than the very early second century at the latest if the scribal error came from a Christian. Or the reference came from Josephus's own hand in the late 90s of the previous century.

It probably cannot have landed there at a later time of any Christian hegemony worthy the name, since by the time of Constantine -- heck, even by the earlier time of the extremely tolerant third-century Emperor Alexander Severus who would occasionally pray to all the gods, including the Christian one -- the notion of a Jesus without any blood siblings was well entrenched. Only a non-Christian could have made that sort of change that late. Even that is unlikely since the Christian hegemony probably folded in the notion of perpetual virginity with it by that time, making any erroneous Jesus brother notion unlikely by then.

This citation, then, whoever it came from, is more likely to have come from early in the second century at the latest rather than any later. And if it was that early but still a misunderstanding, with no hegemony yet developed, then we must suppose the presence of a scribe who personally had a propensity to leap to conclusions, imagining a Jesus relative under every rock. No general hegemony need apply. Whether or not the scribe was a secret Christian or a pagan (Christians were, for the most part, secret Christians only at that time) is hard to say.

Now all that is not impossible, but it is still unlikely. It's more likely that since it makes more sense anyway for someone to have accepted Jesus as having a brother only early in the second century rather than any later, that someone could just as well be Josephus himself rather than some hypothetical scribe a bare generation or so later, laboring under no Christian hegemony at all.

Chaucer

aa5874

Your assertion is completely illogical and absurd. If your hopelessly flawed illogically assertion is applied to any writing then we don't who wrote a single word in any writing or know who they wrote about.

Jesus Christ in the NT was on trial before the Sanhedrin and "Paul" referred to the very Jesus Christ over 150 times.

1. Jesus Christ in the NT was born of a woman. See Matthew 1.18, Luke 1.35

In the Pauline writings Jesus Christ was Sent by God and made of a woman.Gal.4.4

2. Jesus Christ was the Creator in the NT. John 1

In the Pauline writings it is claimed Jesus Christ was the Creator.Ephesians 3.9

3. In the NT, Jesus Christ was betrayed in the night after he had supped. See ALL the Gospels.

In the Pauline writings, it is claimed Jesus Christ was betrayed in the night after he had supped. 1 Cor. 11.23

4. In the NT, Jesus Christ was crucified, died, was buried and was resurrected on the third day. See ALL the Gospels.

In the Pauline writings, Jesus Christ was crucified, died, was buried and was resurrected on the third day. 1 Cor. 15.3-8.

5. In the NT, people SAW Jesus Christ after he was resurrected. See gMatthew, gLuke and gJohn, and the late long ending of gMark.

In the Pauline writing, people SAW Jesus Christ after he was resurrected. 1 Cor. 15.3-8.

It is COMPLETELY reasonable to deduce that the Jesus Christ mentioned by the Pauline writers is the same MYTH character who was before the Sanhedrin in the NT.

If you want to get the COMPLETE story of the MYTH Jesus you cannot read only parts of the NT.

Now, based on YOUR flawed logics, Tiberius, Caligula, Claudius and Nero were NOT emperors of Rome because "PAUL" did not claim they were Emperors or mentioned any Emperors of Rome.

You must understand that there is a written source which claimed Marcion preached ANOTHER GOD and ANOTHER SON.

Justin MARTYR claimed HE WAS ALIVE when MARCION preached ANOTHER GOD and ANOTHER SON.

"First Apology" XXVI "First Apology" LVIII
Marcion's SON of GOD did NOT die. How many times do I have to tell you that? Please read "On the Flesh of Christ" or else you are going to say the same things over and over.

MARCION'S SON OF GOD was NOT BORN OF CORRUPTIBLE FLESH, IT WAS PURELY DIVINE.

MARCIO'S SON OF GOD WAS NOT SACRIFICED. THE SO-CALLED PROPHECIES IN HEBREW SCRIPTURE DID NOT APPLY TO MARCION'S GOD OR SON OF GOD.

I will apply your own flawed illogical assertion. Please answer the question?

How do you know what Tacitus or Josephus wrote? Antiquities of the Jews 18.3.3 does not contain the word Josephus. Annals 15.44 does not contain the word Tacitus.

Let me first apply your flawed illogical assertion. How do you know what Marcion wrote? How do you what Marcion Jesus did? Where did MARCION TALK about an ADULT?

Please read the written sources that I showed you. MARCION PREACHED ANOTHER GOD and ANOTHER SON.


Again, FIRST read the written sources of Antiquity.

How many times must you be shown the evidence that Justin Martyr provided in "First Apology" that MARCION PREACHED ANOTHER GOD and ANOTHER SON?

And you cannot actually PUBLICLY crucify an ILLUSION after a PUBLIC trial in the presence of your ENEMIES, the Jews and Romans, only the HALLUCINATOR will "see" the ILLUSION while he hallucinates.

PLEASE EXPLAIN HOW the ROMANS CRUCIFIED AN ILLUSION?

PLEASE EXPLAIN HOW JOSEPHUS and TACITUS managed to get historical records of the PUBLICLY CRUCIFIED ILLUSION?

Toto

It doesn't take a Christian hegemony. All it takes is one Christian scribe.

This does not follow. Even after Christians decided that Mary was a perpetual virgin, they still had their scriptures that referred to James as one of Jesus' brothers, and they still thought of James as Jesus' brother. Consistency was not a Christian value, then or now.

Chaucer

And the very fact that that was awkward for them suggests that it's more unlikely than not that they'd ever be eager to advertise that family detail in scribal clarifications of Roman chronicles. Such non-scriptural references more likely survive in spite of a Christian hegemony rather than because of it.

Chaucer

Toto

Do you have any indication at all that it was awkward? Hegesippus has a long recount of James' death. One of the noncanonical gospels has James helping out with the pregnant Mary. It was sufficient to call James a brother and say that he was one of Joseph's sons by a previous wife. No problem.

Juststeve

With regard to Josephus, I think it very likely that a Christian hand embellished what Josephus had to say about Jesus in the TF. Like most scholars New Testament or Josephus scholars, I think Josephus originally made reference to Jesus and Christians embellished it later. I think it most unlikely that some Christian inserted the name Jesus into Josephus where it had previously not been found. I base this on the fact that every known copy of the TF, whether in Christian hand or Muslim hands contain a reference to Jesus. Absent some textural evidence you contention to the contrary is just speculation.

Steve

spin

What makes you think that christians didn't insert the passage first (as reflected in the Arabic, with its miraculous resurrection after three days and a statement indicating the possibility of Jesus being the messiah), then later embellish it?

The change of view is a recent conservative push to sanitize the TF. Everyone at the time of Schuerer had rejected it as totally bogus.

When does the Josephus manuscript tradition kick in? If you knew, you'd also know that your argument here has no weight.

I think you mean "manuscript evidence". I have already pointed out the damning textual evidence in post #19 of this thread. I needn't look at any of the other evidence, for the markers I point to show that the TF wasn't there.


spin