Amaleq13

Motive for the creation of the myth? In the context of the MJ view, a supposed motive was the belief that the true nature/identity of the Messiah had been discovered "hidden" in Scripture.

While you might be able to argue "the same amount", you certainly cannot argue that the literary evidence for both has the same integrity/reliability. Josephus provides a completely reasonable political context explaining the presence of a Roman governor and the resulting need for a census. This dovetails nicely with what the author of Luke writes but, unlike the TF, shows no indication of Christian tampering and, therefore, no similar doubts about what was originally written or if anything was originally written occur.

Unless you wish to suggest that the entire history of the region as told by Josephus is a clever interpolation (certainly much more clever than the extant TF), there doesn't appear to be much reason to doubt that Pontius Pilate held the position and for the reasons Josephus gives.

ETA: Great minds again, Toto.

Toto

1. Maybe you've triangulated James. But we only know about James through documents that have passed through Christian hands.

2. Mark apparently had Paul's letters to use as a source, so your triangulation is lacking at least one leg.

3. Your case hangs on a few words in Josephus' Antiquities, which we only have because Christians preserved and copied it. We know of at least one passage that was interpolated - why should mythicists bear a heavy burden of proof that the other mention of Jesus Christ was an interpolation?

dongiovanni1976x

1. If Jesus was alluded to in each of the three references then by triangulating this James to Jesus it is still a credible source.

2. If only because he post dates Paul- then yes, but there seems to be little, if any evidence that Mark used Paul for anything. If you have some evidence I would be interested.

3. It seems like you are implying that only Christians copiests copied Antiquities 20.9.1 but the references to Pilate were copied by more secular sources...Is this correct and if so what is this based upon? The burden is always upon the the one making the claim and the fact that the TF is very likely to be an interpolation adds credibility to the possibility that the reference to James is as well. But the sotry is internally coherent on its own merits so the burden still remains on the Mythicist to provide evidence as to why this is an interpolation.

I am just struck that there is any motive to create this James when it is an embarrasment for the Roman Catholic Churhc that tries to suggest they were only cousins in some weak way. Had this been an invention there would be no need for such an embarrasing detail as Mary;s virginity would have been protected from the get go of the mythic account. As Bart Ehrman suggests it is embarrasments such as these that add historical credibility to the HJ position.

dongiovanni1976x

Good point. There is a consistent storyline that only makes sense with Pilate in this context. However this can be said about James being executed in that the story is internally coherent and placed in the proper context. And if the TF is not ENTIRELY tampered with (in that there was SOME mention of Jesus) then this would only add weight to the mention of Jesus in the account of James' death.

jakejonesiv

The way the passage backs into James is evidence that someone messed with it. Rather than the straightforward James, the brother of Jesus, who was called the Christ, we have the backasswards, the brother of Jesus, who was called Christ, whose name was James,

Let's assume for a momement, along with Zindler, that the original in Josephus 20:9:1 was "James, brother of the Lord." There would be no connection at all to Jesus Christ, rather brother of the Lord would be a religious title equivalent to "Brother of Yahweh."

Then along comes a pious Christian scribe, who under the influence of Philippians 2:11 and similar texts believes that only Jesus is Lord, "corrects" Josephus' text to its "obvious" meaning. But he gives his hand away in reverence to the Lord, by naming Jesus and his title the Christ before ever getting to the natural object of the sentence, James. It is an example of the tail wagging the dog.

Is there any evidence of this? According to Frank Zindler, there is. The original reading of Josephus was Brother of the Lord. This was preserved in Photius, Codex 238. I think Roger Pearse has this online, but I can't recall the URL right now. Anyway, according to Zindler, the original reading was interpolated into Gal. 1:19. (whew!). if this is true the triangle only has one leg.
See Jesus the Jews Never Knew: Sepher Toldoth Yeshu and the Quest of the Historical Jesus in Jewish Sources (or via: amazon.co.uk) page 80.

Jake Jones IV

Toto

But we don't know that. It is entirely possible that James was a Jewish figure appropriated by the early Christians, whose title was "Brother of the Lord." Mark later read about James in Paul's letters, and named one of Jesus' brothers "James."

Vorkosigan found some textual evidence lurking in the chiasmic structure of Mark. Link.

We only have the text of Josephus because Christians copied it. At times it was bound with the text of the Bible.

I don't know what you mean by the story being internally coherent - the story makes perfect sense if the phrase "called the Christ" is omitted, and Jesus refers instead to the High Priest Jesus mentioned at the beginning of that section.

The perpetual virginity of Mary is a later Catholic doctrine - Paul knows nothing about a virgin birth, and the gospels only talk about a virgin birth, not what happened later. I don't have time now to check the date of the perpetual virginity doctrine, but it developed after the gospels were written.

aa5874

If the claims of the NTabout Jesus Christ is 95% myth and 5% historic then any number of persons can qualify to be Jesus Christ. Any person who lived in Nazareth and was crucified could qualify. It is known that many persons were crucified, it is known that more than one person was named Jesus. It cannot be determined, without question, that the Jesus in Matthew is the same in Luke or if they were crucified on the same day.

If 5% of the NT's claims about Jesus Christ is historic, who determines this 5% and how can it be verified?

That is a reasonable statement. At this point, the historicity of Jesus Christ appears to be mythical.

dongiovanni1976x

It is also possible that the Mormons have a stranglehold on the truth…Why should we believe such a scenario?

Thank you Toto…I have some reading to do.
What if the phrase said, the "so-called Christ"? Would that sound more like a pious Jew talking?
And where is this High Priest Jesus mentioned in the beginning of section 1 of Chapter 9?
Obviously much of the MJ position is founded upon later interpolations. My point is that if the Catholic Church wanted to bolster support for this doctrine they would have wanted to limit any ties between Jesus and James- not promote them. It seems like the argument is suggested that Josephus was interpolated here when it benefits the MJ position and Paul was interpolated here when it benefits the MJ position but when I ask why the embarrassing detail was left alone when this perpetual virginity doctrine was coming about it is enough for you to state that it just arose later…? Why is this not a double standard? What are the criteria we are using here for what is and what is not an interpolation? So much seems to hang on the initial assumption you begin with (i.e. whether you want to support the MJ or HJ position). My argument is that the HJ position simply requires fewer assumptions to make a coherent theory. James was the brother of Jesus who was called the Christ. I spoke to Paula Fredriksen last night and she summed it up nicely, Speaking of Jesus who was called the Christ, Jake Jones presented an interesting theory which actually prompted me to contact Dr. Fredriksen. Jake stated that Zindler claimed that the original reading of Antiquities 20.9.1 read, and that this was later interpolated into Galatians 1:19. This is an astonishing claim. For one since Paul predates Josephus by a good half a century the only way Galatians was changed as a result of Josephus was by an intentional interpolation- a burden placed upon the MJ claim maker. Also, according to Paula Fredriksen, Antiquities 20.9.1 reads: It makes entirely more sense that a later copyist might make this MORE PIOUS but not that they would take Josephus as a guide and change Paul… This also explains why Jake sees this as the tail wagging the dog. This is because Jake makes a good point that if Zindler is correct and the original reading was James, the Brother of the Lord” and this was later interpolated into Galatians then there is a conspiracy…however if James’ brother Jesus was the more famous of the two then saying “the brother of Jesus the so-called Christ, who was called James” is entirely plausible, if not very sensible for a pious Jew. And it is obvious why some later Christian scribe may have desired the “so-called” part to have later been made “more pious”. But to suggest some conspiracy that Galatians 1:19 was interpolated when it is undisputed placed yet another burden upon the shoulders of the MJ camp.

Toto

There is hard evidence refuting the Mormon myth. What hard evidence do you have against the idea of early Christians appropriating a Jewish leader - especially from a time when Christians were virtually a Jewish sect, according to most people?

It is generally agreed that legomenos is better translated as "called" and not "so-called." (Sorry, the reference to the High Priest Jesus Damneus is at the end of the section, not the beginning.)

From Peter Kirby's exhaustive essay on the Testimonium

By the time there was a Catholic Church with a doctrine of perpetual virginity, I think that the text was fairly well set.

I didn't have time to look it up, and I thought it was obvious. Wikipedia dates it to the very late 4th century. Any interpolations in Paul would probably date to the 2nd century, and interpolations in Josephus to the time of Eusebius.

Read this: Interpolations in the Pauline Epistles

I would argue that it is not more coherent and does not require fewer assumptions - it is only more familiar to you. Have you read the account of James' death in Hegesippus? Does it sound like Josephus? Does Josephus indicate that James was a Christian in any sense, other than the awkward reference to the Christ? Is the James in Mark at all consistent with this James?

I don't know what you mean by "undisputed." Just google <galatians interpolation> and you will find various points of dispute.

aa5874

The HJ position is fatally flawed.

The authors of the NT are not known, it cannot be verified that each unknown author described the same person, referred to as Jesus Christ.
Since the authors are unknown, no-one can vouch for their authenthicity.
The NT contains contradictory information about Jesus Christ. No-one can tell if the person called Jesus Christ in Matthew was crucified 10 years before the Jesus Christ in Luke, or 10 months for that matter.

The parents of Jesus Christ in Matthew is definetly different to the ones described by Luke, so this surely means that we have at least 2 distinct characters called Jesus Christ.
The unknown author of Mark writes about someone he calls Jesus Christ, but we cannot assume it is the same as the Jesus in John.

We cannot use the virgin birth, the miraculous acts, the raising of the dead, the ressurection or the ascension to link all these persons as one, these events never occurred.

So all we can assume is that at least four persons died, at different occasions and were all called Jesus Christ. The 27 books of the NT failed to give their identity, when they died or their real names. However, as the NTwarns continuously, if you do not believe that they were Jesus Christ, you will be punished in eternal damnation.

The HJ is hopeless flawed, one must assume veracity of the NT before proof is acquired, and this assumed veracity must be done despite repeated false and contradictory statements in the same book.