Grog

Well, the same stories you refer to. All I said is it is plausible, which is more than a step away from a "proposal."
I think it likely that later confusion surrounding the James reference in josephus largely stems from this mention. Where did Hegesippus get his story? What was his source? It does not seem plausible that there was actually a James the Just, Christian leader, brother of Jesus the Messiah, who was entering the Holy of Holies on his knees. A figure honored by Jews and nascent Christians alike, the execution of whom led to the stripping of office from a high priest. Not only does it seem unlikely but the story in Hegesippus does not match the story in Josephus. I follow others who speculate that Origen's "lost reference" may be based on Hegesippus, not on Josephus. I find that a plausible explanation for why we have a reference in Origen, sourced to a passage in Josephus that does not exist, but is more suggestive of the Hegesippus reference.

I think it is plausible and the best explanation of the evidence, that the James reference that is found in Josephus is the incorporation of a speculative scribal note relating the passage about a James, brother of Jesus ben Damneus to James the brother of Jesus of Nazareth found in Hegesippus and later referenced by Origen.

Since I have accepted the evidence against any authenticity of the TF and recognizing that the James reference in Josephus is dependent on the earlier reference to Jesus in Book 18, I do not find it plausible that the Josephus passage was originally included by the name author of the text.

yes

There are no James the Just stories in the NT. There is a character named James.

yes. With the caveat that I do not know what the source for Hegesippus' reference is and it is different enough to suggest that it is not Josephus. I do believe that the reference in Josephus to James the brother of Jesus ben Damneus and Hegesippus' reference were confused which led to a later corruption in the text.

Also, Origen.

aa5874

People in the Roman Empire knew the difference between cousin and brother/sister in the 1st century which is around the time frame in which the Lord Jesus was placed.

Philo and Josephus demolish you.

You always "run away" when your fallacies are exposed. I hope when you come back that you do not regurgitate the same debunked fallacies about cousins/brothers.

TedM, we are dealing with the 1st- 4th century--between the reign of Tiberius to Constantine---Not Alexander the Great and earlier .

Genesis, Leviticus, and Chronicles are sources which were composed hundreds of years before the reign of Tiberius.

TedM you seem not to understand the time period when the Pauline Corpus and the NT Canon were presumed to be composed.

There are fragments of manuscripts of Genesis, and Leviticus dated to 1st and 2nd BCE at which are least 100-200 years before the story of Jesus and the Pauline Corpus.

See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Septuagint_manuscripts

Your cousin/brother argument has been thoroughly debunked since it was known that the Pauline Corpus and the Gospels were composed when the use of the word cousin and brother was well established in the Roman Empire.

TedM

AA, some scholars argue strongly for Aramaic origins for some of the NT writings (Mark and Matthew being 2 of them). IF they are right then 'cousin' would originally have been written as 'brother', so it is likely it never was changed when translated into Greek. Similarly if there was no original Aramaic writing but the Greek 'came from' an Aramaic source which is comfortable with using the word 'brother' in a broader sense, then again we have another explanation for a wider usage for brother than what the Greek requires.

You have not demolished me. But, it has been delightful nonetheless..