sschlichter

couple thoughts. A) I would consult Einstein on what Newton thought. B) Your whole premise is based on the assumption that later writings are always influenced by earlier writings when you cannot prove timeframe of the writings and the relationship of the authors to the event.

However, those are all just clues. the main reason that spin is wrong is because it is grammatically awkward to refer to a member of a group called the brothers of the lord with the definite article on the member. It is like referring to lancelot of the knights of the round table as lancelot, the knight of the round table.

i.e. James, the brother of the Lord, not james, a member of the brothers of the Lord.

show_no_mercy

Wow. This says a lot.

Chaucer

I never thought of that -- Bravo! Well done! Stupid me for not having seen this before. With that in hand, suddenly the concurrence of all the other texts referencing James as Jesus's family brother becomes stronger. Even Josephus is no longer essential, merely a corroboration that one can take or leave. Jesus was an historical human being.

Congratulations!

Chaucer

aa5874

Even if you think that Antiquities of the Jews 20.9.1 was written by Josephus, there is not enough information about this Jesus called Christ to claim thatr he was the Jesus of the NT.

When did Josephus say that Jesus called Christ died or was he alive whrn his brother James was stoned? Who was the father and motherr of this Jesus called Christ in AJ 20.9.1.

Josephus wrote about many persons called Jesus, it just cannot be assumed that the name Jesus only referred to Jesus of the NT.

And it almost certain that Josdephus would not have written nothing about a messianis figure except that he had a brother.

It is inconceivable that Josephus would write more about a madman, Jesus the son of Ananus, who only said "Woe unto Jerusalem" when Jesus of the NT supposedly predicted that every stone of the Jewish Temple would be thrown down..

And later, Jerome would claim Jesus could not have had a brother called James since James was the son of the sister of Mary, and Jesuis himself had no eartly father.

Antiquities 20.9.1 does not in anyway corroborate anything about Jesus of the NT.

Toto

This sounds awkward in English, but what about Koine Greek, which has a different usage of the definite article?

In any case, if Jesus was historical, he had more than one brother. What makes James "the" brother of the Lord in this case? Why is it not equally awkward to refer to James as the brother when there are many brothers?

sschlichter

It is the same thing. If you are describing a member of a group you would say james, a brother of the Lord, or one of the brothers of the Lord

such as (John 19:38) wn maqhthj tou ihsou

Joseph of Arimethea, a disciple of the Lord, not the disciple of the Lord.

Acts 9:10 (tis mathetes), 9:36, a disciple.

If you are suggesting that the brothers of the Lord is a group then there is no such thing as the brother of the Lord, only a brother of the Lord or one of the brothers of The Lord.

ton adelfon iakwbou, the brother of james (as in mark 5:37)
ton adelfon tou kuriou, the brother of the Lord.

There is no other way to say he was Jesus brother, there is other better ways to say he was a member of a group called the brothers of the Lord.

spin

An obviously false analogy. Doh! Would you use Quo Vadis to tell you something meaningful about 1st c. Rome? The Prince of Egypt for pharaonic Egypt? Shakespeare's "Richard III"? Because M is a woman in the recent James Bond movies would you retroject that fact into Ian Fleming's books?

You simply don't know anything about the developments in christian traditions between the time of Paul and the writing of the gospels and Acts. They simply represent different moments in a tradition, in history, in time. There are obvious relations between them because of the subject matter and some of the characters mentioned. But what those relations are is simply beyond your knowledge. You cannot say whether they are based on real developments or attempts to rationalize information or some other range of possibilities.

Your approach has been ass up from go to whoa.

"[G]rammatically awkward"? Utter rubbish. Stupid criterion for how Paul should have addressed James if he were one of the brothers of the lord? Total fantasy. Perhaps you'll try to do the same with the HB: not "the priest of Baal", but "a member of the priests of Baal"; instead of "the guard", "a member of the guard". Why make stuff up? :huh: If you must respond, please do so with a modicum of rationality. Call me when you find the brain switch.


spin

spin

Who exactly would you call "the disciple of the Lord"?

According to you James is just one of the brothers of Jesus, so he should be referred to as "James, a brother of Jesus". Your grammar game is a non-argument, as it doesn't explain the observed phenomenon.

Balderdash.

adelfos de iakwbou kai iose... (referring to Jesus in Mk 6:3)
adelfos de iakwbou (Jude 1)
Beware of people selling snake oil.


spin

sschlichter

there is not any one person that I would call the disciple of the Lord, that is the point. there is no one person that Paul would call the brother of the Lord except where referring to his brother james.

there is no grammar game, there is also no phenomena to observe. you made up the phenomena when you made up the 'brothers of the Lord'.

had James and Jesus not existed, it is still a better argument that Paul belevied they did and were brothers then it would be to make up the 'brothers of the Lord' and squeeze that out of this phrase which is obvisouly referring to the same brother of Jesus that Josephus and others are referring to. You go ahead and contest Josephus all you want, it will not help you find the brothers of the Lord.

sschlichter

I am sure when referring to James, you meant to say 'the brother of The Lord' instead of one of the brothers of the Lord.

You apparently understand the concept better than you are letting on.