Layman

I think if you are going to dismiss the overwhelming consensus then some serious evidence is appropriate. So far you have simlply asserted it and mentioned one scholar who agrees with you.

There is much more speculation involved in the Jesus Myth theories than in the HJ theories.

I've heard the "we can't be certain" speal before. It's usually played by the person with the worst hand. We are dealing with probabilities. We are arguing about probabilities.

I think BM smashed this idea above.

I asked for evidence that "Brother of the Lord" was a title, rather than a relationship. That James was a leader of the Church in Jerusalem is undisputed. That Paul and John were also "pillars" there is equally well established. Yet Paul only refers to one of them as brother of the Lord.

Hmm, I think it was you. BM seemed surprised as the suggestion:

"James the brother of the Lord" with "Lord" being a reference to God.

You misunderstood. I am arguing that Photius is worthless to the argument. He adds nothing.

Are you claiming that because something is found in Antiquities but not in Jewish Wars, that is it likely an interpolation? You just wiped out most of the Antiquities with that kind of methodology!

The ancients were not as rigorous about citations as we are. That they are all talking about the same passage is the point. And they are. And they say it comes from Josephus. This adds nothing to the theory that 20.9 is an interpolation.

Rather than throw up our hands and declare that, therefore, Jesus was a myth, we should wade through it, understanding that our contempary standards of citation are hardly ancient.

I have not said that a consensus necessarily establishes the truth of the matter asserted. I said it's probative evidence of it. When dealing with areas that require expertise, the opinions--and especially consensus--should not simply be ignored.

This concept is hardly novel. It's part of the standard for the admission of scientific evidence into our court system.

I think that understanding of Greek and a widespread knowledge of ancient literature is properly classified as expertise.

Please, stop with the red herrings. If you want to argue for Doherty's theories, please do so.

I undrestand very clearly the basis of the consensus behind Anti. 20.9.


Please, stop with the red herrings.

I'm here to wade through the evidence and etsablish what is most likely. It is irrelevant whether we reach certainty or not through our inquiry if we establish that Doherty's theory is untenable.

Bernard Muller

Amaleq13 wrote:
So Paul wrote this way because he didn't want anybody to get the mistaken impression that this was the first time Jesus had been born?

Ya, you got it!

Amaleq13 wrote:
How is that reconciled with the Gospel depiction where Jesus performs miracles and attracts a following?

Credited to be a healer (by some flukes) and provoking a short-lived hysteria in Capernaum do not make anyone historic, or someone to brag about. More so that in the miracle department, there were very noticeable failures. The following was small and soft. But the hysteria was enough to impress some non-Galilean Jews in despair over the execution of JB.

For Jesus' public life:
http://www.concentric.net/~Mullerb/hjes2.shtml

Amaleq13 wrote:
What do you think got Paul's Jesus crucified?

From some activist hellenistic Jews, a replacement for JB had to be found in order to keep alive the myth of the Kingdom to come soon, with a human King (Messiah).
So the royal welcome, and with the disturbance in the temple, that was enough to expedit HJ to the cross.

As explained on:
http://www.concentric.net/~Mullerb/hjes3.shtml

Amaleq13 wrote:
Cut me some slack! It was a few years ago and I was focused on your John the Baptist stuff. I'm clearly going to have to visit again. Do you have a book out or are you planning one?

Sorry! No plan for book yet.

Amaleq13 wrote:
What requires Jesus to die so recent to Paul's conversion? Isn't the already established Jerusalem Church (and the ones Saul persecuted) a problem for a recent Jesus? Along those same lines, isn't the fact that the Romans allowed such an institution to exist an argument against accepting James as the literal brother of an executed rebel continuing the same movement?

First question: I did not go by requirement.
Second question: Not really because the first proto-Christians were very much apocalyptic, in fast-forward and impatient. Actually the fast movement can be argued as a proof the start of the sect was not long before.
Third question: HJ's execution was more to set an example, take the wind out of the belief of the Kingdom to come soon, rather than to punish a rebel. The first leaders and most of the following of the earliest Church of Jerusalem were not the Galileans. They were mostly Greek-speaking, and sure enough, when their number grew, a persecution chased them away from Jerusalem.
Then the Galileans took over what was left, but under Peter first, not James. Once again, since Jesus was not a confirmed rebel, nor they, they were allowed to stay. Furthermore, their beliefs were different from the "Greeks" and a lot less objectionable.

That part is explained on:
http://www.concentric.net/~Mullerb/hjes3x.shtml


Best regards, Bernard

Amaleq13

I didn't dismiss the consensus, I dismissed what I understood to be an appeal to the majority when you wrote:
It still seems like an example of a logical error and your persistent defense of it doesn't make it appear that I was incorrect.

I am familiar with what I believe are the primary arguments both for and against the authenticity of this passage and I find the latter to be more persuasive even if I accept the existence of an historical Jesus. If you want to debate this topic, I would be willing to participate but I think it deserves its own thread. It probably already has a thread for that matter.

Agreed.

It is also "played" by anyone holding a rational view.

I wrote:
The real question is whether the reference to James should be understood literally despite these apparent non-literal, similar references.

I agree that his argument seems to seriously undermines the claim.

I finally found my original post with "James the brother of the Lord" with "Lord" being a reference to God.

I did make that suggestion. Bernard rejected it claiming it would have not have been something an ancient Jew would have tolerated. I asked for the basis of this conclusion but I think he either missed the question or forgot about it in the subsequent flurry of activity because I can't find a response. I'm still interested in why this isn't a possible interpretation.

You are wrong. He adds the existence of a very late copy of Josephus (Ant) that had "James, the brother of the Lord" instead of "the brother of Jesus, called Messiah, James by name" which is what is in all extant copies.

No, I am claiming that when we find a reference to Jesus in Ant. but fail to find a similar reference in the same context in JW, we should be suspicious. This is especially true when it is recognized that JW was written much closer to when Jesus is supposed to have been alive.

I wrote:
Origen provides a similar reference (his adds "the Just" in reference to James which is not found today) but in a context that cannot be found in extant manuscripts. Elsewhere, Origen repeats this referene to Josephus but ommits "the Just". How is this evidence for authenticity? It is in this same reference that Origen tells us about the reason for James' title.

You replied:
Origen and Eusebius share a context but that context is not repeated in any extant copy of Josephus and neither is the wording of the phrase. Origen has Josephus referring to "James the Just, who was a brother of Jesus (called Christ)" as the cause of the destruction of Jerusalem because "the Jews having put him to death, although he was a man most distinguished for his justice." He later repeats this claim but alters the reference to read "James the brother of Jesus who is called Christ".

Eusebius repeats that Josephus considered the murder of "James the Just, who was brother of Jesus, that is called the Christ" to be the reason for the destruction of Jerusalem. He tells us that Josephus said: "For the Jews slew him, although he was a most just man."

Our copies, on the other hand, have the phrase "the brother of Jesus, who was called Christ, whose name was James". What happened to "the Just"? What possible reason could any copyist have for deleting such a reference? That isn't the most problematic aspect, however, because the context in which this phrase appears is entirely different!. Rather than attributing the fall of Jerusalem to the murder of James, our Josephus identifies this as the reason Ananus lost his job!

That is hardly a consistent line of evidence, Layman. The first two claim Josephus blamed "the Jews" for killing James and that he also believed this was the reason for the destruction of Jerusalem. Our Josephus specifically blames Ananus and makes absolutely no connection to the destruction of Jerusalem. In fact, our Josephus seems to blame that destruction on the revolutionary movement in general beginning with Judas the Galilean.

How can you take this mess as evidence that our short reference is genuine? That make no sense to me but, perhaps, you can explain it.

When we throw in the fact that Photius' Josephus apparently only reads "James, the brother of the Lord", the credibility can only decrease.

Toto

Ant. 20.9.1 (for Bede)

"called Christ" ONLY was added to Ant. 20.200

among others

NOGO

No! Paul did not use the word born because he is not talking about a human. He is talking about the "Word of God" which came to earth after the resurrection through descendant(s) of David. (note that this is exactly what the Gospel of John describes)

You quote Romans 1:3, if you read on you will see that Jesus was called Son of God after the resurrection not before as it is in the Gospels.

... and all this was derived from scriptures not from historical events as Paul states at the begining of Romans 1.

Bernard Muller

NOGO wrote:
No! Paul did not use the word born because he is not talking about a human. He is talking about the "Word of God" which came to earth after the resurrection through descendant(s) of David. (note that this is exactly what the Gospel of John describes).

Came to earth after the resurrection?
Can you elabotate?
GJohn describes the Word coming on earth **before** the resurrection.

NOGO wrote:
You quote Romans 1:3, if you read on you will see that Jesus was called Son of God after the resurrection not before as it is in the Gospels.

But in Gal4:4 and Ro8:3, the Son already exists before he is sent as a man.
I think that in Ro1:3-4, Paul meant Jesus was revealed as the Son by his (alleged) resurrection:
Darby Ro1:3-4 "concerning His Son, (who is come of the seed of David according to the flesh, who is marked out Son of God in power, according to the Spirit of sanctification, by the rising again from the dead,) Jesus Christ our Lord;"

NOGO wrote:
... and all this was derived from scriptures not from historical events as Paul states at the begining of Romans 1.

I think what is derived from the scriptures is mostly the gospel:
Darby Ro1:1-2 "Paul, bondman of Jesus Christ, called apostle, separated to God's **glad tidings** [gospel], (which he had before promised by his prophets in holy writings"

As for the Son being part of that gospel, Paul in tidbits but more so 'Hebrews' demonstrate that very nicely. BTW, I do not consider the Son, descendant of David, the Word and the resurrection as historical, but derived from the scriptures, through a midrashic process (speculative extrapolations).

Best regards, Bernard

NOGO

Poor choice of words. I meant that he appeared to Paul and others after the resurrection but also one can say that his presence was felt in the Christian community. Jesus, the word of God, resurrected into the community of believers.

I am not convinced that what is meant here is a human incarnation.

I base myself on Hebrews 1

Hebrews 1:3:6
And He is the radiance of His glory and the exact representation of His nature, and upholds all things by the word of His power. When He had made purification of sins, He sat down at the right hand of the Majesty on high, having become as much better than the angels, as He has inherited a more excellent name than they.
For to which of the angels did He ever say,
"YOU ARE MY SON,
TODAY I HAVE BEGOTTEN YOU"?
And again,
"I WILL BE A FATHER TO HIM
AND HE SHALL BE A SON TO ME"?
And when He again brings the firstborn into the world, He says,
"AND LET ALL THE ANGELS OF GOD WORSHIP HIM."

I believe that this says that Jesus was declared "Son of God" after the resurrection. "purification of sin" is a reference to the sacrifice of death for sin. "He sat down at the right hand ..." refers to the resurrection afterwhich he "became much better than the angels ..." etc.

I agree! All one has to do is look at some of the so-called prophecies concerning Jesus and you know it is all midrash.

Amaleq13

NOGO,

I think I'm following your reasoning but how does Paul's "woman" fit in the picture?

Amaleq13

In what context do these men place the Jesus reference in Josephus?

Anybody know of an online source for their works? How about Photius? I don't have the context of his "James, brother of the Lord" either.

So far, we have attestation from the 3rd century of a Josephus reference to James as the brother of Jesus given in the context of Josephus blaming the destruction of Jerusalem of the murder of James. From Eusebius, we also have the claim that Hegesippus (2nd century) attests to a belief that the death of James resulted in the destruction of Jerusalem.

We also have attestation, apparently no earlier than the 10th century of a Josephus reference to James as the brother of Jesus given in the context of Josephus blaming the fall of Ananus on the murder of James.

NOGO

I agree that it does not seem to fit it in the picture.
The question really comes down to whether this outweighs all the other evidence.

In my opinion Paul is bound to a few reference points derived from his midrashing of the scriptures.

The Chirst must
a) be of the seed of David.
b) under the law
c) of a woman
d) spent three days in sheol (Jonah)
e) created the world (the word of God)
f) protects you from death (psalms)
g) existed with God from the start
h) all will be subjugated under his feet (psalms)
i) was declared Son of God with his resurrection
etc.

Paul simply tries to make sense of all this.
It does not need to be totally logical.
It would be a mistake on our part if we demand that all points be on a perfect straight line.