Vorkosigan

Yes, that is really what the argument is about -- what presuppositions to hold.

This is not really surprising, since by some accounts Acts represents an attempt to reconcile all of these conflicting positions and produce a history that unifies a truly catholic Church. Naturally, it would, simply by striking a middle ground, appear less flattering to Paul than Paul himself does.

Vorkosigan

capnkirk

TOTALLY CORRECT!! ...as I stated in my post to this thread (near the top of this page and tagged 3/6/04 1:43pm CST). But what I was specifically trying to point out is this. For each side, some scriptures point decidedly or even exclusively in favor of one side...but this is not one of them.

Bernard Muller

Hello there. I am back into the fray!
I would like to request comments on two new pages of mine:

Critique of Earl Doherty's book, 'The Jesus Puzzle':
Part 1, Introduction & "Who crucified Jesus and where did that happen?"
Part 2, "Do Paul & 'Hebrews' not mention an earthly Jesus?" & Conclusion"
A revealing sample of Doherty's work on the mythicist case, as examined through the evidence!

Best regards, Bernard

Vinnie

:notworthy :notworthy :notworthy

Good to see you back Bernard.

Vinnie

Gregg

"But because Doherty's mythicist case wipes out, from the start, any legitimate historical origin for Christianity, he has and will have enthusiastic takers among non-Christians and atheists!"

In my case, this assessment of Bernard's is completely wrong.

I accept Doherty's case because it is a powerful case. It would not bother me in the least if it turned out that there really was an HJ, but the MJ case explains the evidence much better.

In any event, the MJ case does not "wipe out...any legitimate historical origin for Christianity." I fail to understand how anyone can see it this way. Christianity has historical roots just like any other religion, in that somebody (or several people) had idea(s) that got turned into a belief system.

Sorry, Bernard.

Bernard Muller

Hello Vinnie.
Greg, why don't you read my two pages and comment later?
Best regards, Bernard

Vinnie

There isn't a necessary reason for such a bifurcation. Bernard's statement is true, whether the mythicist case is powerful or not. The fact that it undercuts Christianity, and the fact that some people are biased against Christianity simply because they don't like it/were hurt by it easily lead to this conclusion when merged together.

I know that last sentence I quoted is objectionable and flammable to many here but I would reccomend reading Bernard's study as that is only the final sentence. His arguments (the important parts) are found throughout the article and can be judged disconnected from his end comment.

Vinnie

Amaleq13

Welcome back Bernard!


I haven't had time to do much more than quickly read your essay against Doherty. I'm trying to sell my house and it is a huge pain in the ass. However, I did see a couple things that caught my eye:

Could a group or individual be titled "brother(s) of the Lord" in Jerusalem then? That would be understood as "of God" by Jews and consequently extremely sacrilegeous & liable of execution!

I'm pretty sure I asked you to support this assertion just before you left but our own spin provided some information shortly after that which seems to cast significant doubt on the truth of the claim. The Hebrew name Ahijah or Ahiah literally means "brother of Yahweh". That would seem to argue against your claim of sacrilege or blasphemy.

3.3.2.1. ...why would an interpolator identify a 'James' as Jesus' brother, making a passage from Josephus' work conflicting with a text written earlier (around 165), raising doubts about the veracity of a text written by a Christian (Hegesippus)?

The passage referenced by Hegesippus was subsequently deleted either because it was recognized as a fraud or because it suggested the death of James was given more consideration than that of Jesus (IMO the latter is more likely given the survival of the ridiculous Testimonium). Not wishing to completely eliminate a reference to Jesus from Josephus, the descriptive phrase is moved to a different reference to a man named "James" elsewhere in Josephus. Absent this phrase, there is no reason to assume that this "James" is the same person (i.e. James the Just).

3.3.2.2. Doherty speculates that "James by name" was originally on its own. But Josephus had the habit (with very few exceptions) to provide some further identification for any new character.

Since, as you admit, there are exceptions, the appeal to Josephus' "habit" is meaningless. This could very well be yet another example of him deviating from his typical practice.

3.3.2.3. Doherty mentions "him called Christ" ('tou legomenou christou') appearing also in Mt1:16 & Jn4:25. But there, it is slightly different ('ho legomenos christos'). Then he proceeds "The second suspicious aspect of the reference to Jesus is that it comes first in the text.". But Josephus did just that a few times:

As I believe I've pointed out to you before, the examples you provide are all quite similar to each other in that they identify the father of the individual before naming the individual. You provide no examples that are similar to the passage in question (i.e. of a brother being identified before the individual is named). Naming a father first is chronologically correct as well as a sign of respect. In fact, you do provide an example of Josephus identifying someone by reference to his brother but, since it supports Doherty's observation, you don't mention it here but elsewhere:

"After this Caesar sent Felix, the brother of Pallas, to be procurator of Galilee, and Samaria, and Perea ..." (Wars, II, XII, 8)

Note that the primary individual is mentioned first followed by a reference to his brother. This is what Doherty says we should expect and this passage suggests he is justified in that expectation.

3.3.2.4. It has been argued a Christian interpolator would have mentioned Jesus with more than a few words...<snip>...
- If done before, possibly not: why exxpand on Jesus, when it is James who was executed? Doherty commented about the same. But still, most Christian interpolators had a tendency to embellish (or Christianize) on anything they would insert (as for the TF) in a non-Christian text!

I think the short reference came first and the size was established by its first introduction into Josephus (i.e. the "lost" reference). The interpolator wanted to retain the reference to Jesus and simply moved it to different reference to a "James".

3.3.2.5. Doherty relates the double identifications: one for James by way of 'Jesus', the other for Jesus through "the one called Christ". First, he writes: "it implies that the historian had explained just what "the Christ" was at some previous point."

I agree with you that this "implication" is not as secure as Doherty suggests but I disagree with your contention that Josephus could assume his audience would know what "Christ" meant. While you are correct that both Pliny and Tacitus seem aware that the group was named after someone called "Christ" or "Christus" neither shows any understanding that it isn't a name but the Greek word for a Hebrew title meaning "Messiah". You seem to ignore the fact that Josephus never uses this word anywhere else in his writings even when he is talking about apparent messianic claimants. If Josephus truly decided, for whatever reason, to deviate from his avoidance of the term, it does seem reasonable for him to provide some explanation of the meaning. We have no good reason to assume that his audience would know what it meant.

3.3.2.6. Doherty speculates the Christian addition "began as a marginal gloss", to be later "transferred into the text itself". Nothing is new here, because Earl has been pleading for an interpolation all along.

I note you offer no true argument against this speculation but I tend to disagree with Doherty here and consider it, as I've already explained, a deliberate choice on the part of an editor who didn't want to completely eliminate any reference to Jesus in Josephus. I think the reference to James in Paul as "the brother of the Lord" is a much better example of an interpolation by way of marginal gloss.

On that topic you wrote:
c) For what other reason Paul did not write "James, the brother of Jesus"?
I think such an expression would have raised James' status and, at the same time, lowered the one of Jesus (Christ).

This clearly holds true for the phrase as it stands. Arguably more so given the use of a post-resurrection title rather than the human name. The real question is why did Paul make such a reference at all? There is no need for it in the context in which it is given and your own argument makes it clear that he would try to avoid such a reference unless he felt compelled to include it.

The word 'brother' suggests equality & similarity, and Paul certainly was not interested in pairing James with the 'Son of God' (Paul never accepted the leadership of James -- Gal2:6,11-14).

Yet that is precisely what calling him "the brother of the Lord' does in a way that "the brother of Jesus" would not!

So "brother of the Lord", suggesting the inferiority of James as compared with his brother, would be called for.

On the contrary, what your argument clearly calls for is for Paul to never make any such reference!

Furthermore, Paul was not the one to stress the humanity of his mostly heavenly Jesus, via having him , by his human name, as brother of a mortal.

Again, you seem to me to argue strongly and persuasively for this phrase to be understood as an interpolation. I do not understand why you don't follow your own reasoning to its logical conclusion. I can't discount the possibility that it was a title, either indicating James' great piety and Yahweh (i.e. Ahijah) or his piety and Christ, but I tend to consider it more likely as interpolated marginal gloss.

NOGO

Thanks for the reply. I certainly have a much better appreciation of where you stand.

First, you have no proof that the Jerusalem group focused on Jesus' teachings. You assuming this because you hope it will salvage your point of view.

You make it sound as though there was two views of the same reality. The evidence, however, does not bear that out.

We already discussed the Lord's Supper and how Paul believes that all Christians have access to Jesus' mind.
So of what use is an earthly Jesus to Paul?
Paul has a view of Christianity which excludes an earthly Jesus.
If Paul believed that a man named Jesus started Christianity then you cannot justify the almost complete and deliberate exclusion of his teachings.

except when needed to make a point (e.g. "born of a woman", "seed of David", etc).

We have already gone through this. Paul tells his people to love each other three times (among other things) but fails to credit Jesus for this saying. Paul keeps refering to the OT for authoritative support and excludes the earthly Jesus. So Paul makes many points which he should have quoted the HJ but fails to do so every time.

John 6:63
"It is the Spirit who gives life; the flesh profits nothing; the words that I have spoken to you are spirit and are life.

This is but one verse but it well represents the idea behind the Gospels. Jesus' teachings bring salvation. Before this verse in chanpter 6 of John's Gospel Jesus is speaking of the bread from heaven. The same bread which is referred to in the Last Supper.
The bread is the body of Christ. It is the words spoken by Jesus that are spirit and life.

The focus is therefore not on the man but his teachings.
The very thing which Paul almost totally ignores.

When the priest give holy communion he says "Corpus Christi"
The body of Christ which for Paul is the inspired word while for the Gospels it is the teachings of the earthly Jesus.

In the forth century this type of divergence of faith came to a head. The historical side won but that is not what early Christians believed.

So back in Paul's time we have evidence that one type of Body of Christ (the inspired one) but we have no evidence of the other which you claim.

Worst yet. The Gospels have a man says "eat for this is my body" which is strange and confusing. Only John explains what is meant in chapter 6 and in particular 6:63.
But this part of John is totally in agreement with Paul.
John essentially says that what descended from heaven is the bread see verse 50

50 "This is the bread which comes down out of heaven, so that one may eat of it and not die.

You have to eat the bread from heaven so as not to die.
Jesus then says

51 "I am the living bread that came down out of heaven; if anyone eats of this bread, he will live forever

But later in verse 63 he explains what is meant

The bread from heaven are the teachings of Jesus and this is what you must eat to get eternal life.

Conclusion:
Despite the historical masquerade in the Gospels the body of Christ is still the "Word of God" which comes from heaven.
John makes that clear when he has Jesus say that the words that he speaks are not his but the Father who abides in him does His works.


The fact is that it did not play too well with the Jews either if they ever heard it.

GakuseiDon:
OK. Let's look at them in light of my theory:

ISSUE:
Paul tells us that Jesus was given the title of Son of God when he returned to heaven (See Romans 1 and confirmed by Hebrews 1) This happened in heaven so we are not talking history. I throw the question back at you how does Paul know this. Also please do explain why the Gospels says otherwise.

GakuseiDon:
Paul gets it through revelations of the Risen Christ, which is his focus. The Gospels came through the Jerusalem group, who had a different focus.

NOGO:
This is not an answer. The question is when did Jesus become the Son of God? Paul has it different than the Gospels. My focus is the truth. Which one of the two has the truth? They cannot both be true. Jesus was son of God during his earthly like or he become son of God when he returned to heaven. Group focus does not fix this.

ISSUE:
Paul tells us God will subjugate all enemies under Jesus' feet.
This is a future event which refers to a verse in a Psalm.

GakuseiDon:
Not sure what the problem is here.

NOGO:
The point is that Paul is not talking history here. Paul did not get this from the HJ. This is myth extracted from the OT. Paul is a myth maker.

ISSUE:
Paul tells us that a secret. We will not all die. First the dead in Jesus will resurrect then we who are still alive and the resurrected will join Jesus in the clouds and be with Jesus forever.
Where did Paul get this?

GakuseiDon:
Revelation or philosophical deliberations.

NOGO:
I call it creative writing. Again no history here Paul is creating myth.

ISSUE:
Paul tells us about the resurrected body. A notion which is very different and contrary to the Gospels description of Jesus' resurrected body. Where did Paul get this? Not from the Gospels.

GakuseiDon:
I'm not sure how it is different from the Gospel stories. Paul's version is more complete - as you'd expect for someone whose main focus is the implications of the crucifixion for salvation.

NOGO:
More complete! One wonders why an HJ was even necessary Paul could have invented it all.

Let me restated it. Paul tells us that flesh and blood cannot enter the Kingdom of God while Luke says that Jesus resurrected with his flesh and bones. Paul talks about an incorruptible body while the Gospels have a Jesus will his woulds going up to heaven.

ISSUE:
Paul tells us that Jesus was sent by God to undo some error Adam had committed in the Garden of Eden.
Clearly Paul invented this from reading the OT. Neither the Gospels nor anybody else gives any clues that this was Jesus' mission.

GakuseiDon:
True, the Gospels don't, as their focus was on Jesus's teachings.

NOGO:
There is that great word again "focus".
Different focus should never generate contrary statements of fact.
Did Jesus come to save the whole world because of sin in the Garden of Eden. OR was Jesus sent only for the Children of the house of Israel ???

ISSUE:
Paul tells us that Jesus created the whole world. (same as John 1) Genesis has Yahweh or Elohim creating the world.
I can guess at what Paul means but even then this is not interpretation of history. Paul is creating myth.

GakuseiDon:
Not sure what the problem is here.

NOGO:
Again this is not history. It is created from midrashing of the OT.
Paul is creating myth.


GakuseiDon:
This seems to fit perfectly with the events of the crucifixion, and appears to refer to events on earth, yet there are no more historical references here than there are in Paul. Why?

Because this paragraph does not say "love one another" and then fail to credit Jesus.
Repeat for all other cases where Paul fails to use Jesus as an authority.
...

Because this paragraph does not contradict the Gospels in fundamental elements of faith.

...

Because this paragraph does not refer to the speaker having direct access to Jesus himself through direct revelation. Nor does he claim that all Christians have such access.

...

Because this paragraph does not claim to have gotten all this knowledge of Jesus through inspiration and not through any man. Nor does the author claim that knowledge of Jesus was revealed through scriptures.

Need I say more.

Bernard Muller

BM: Could a group or individual be titled "brother(s) of the Lord" in Jerusalem then? That would be understood as "of God" by Jews and consequently extremely sacrilegeous & liable of execution!

Amalek: I'm pretty sure I asked you to support this assertion just before you left but our own spin provided some information shortly after that which seems to cast significant doubt on the truth of the claim. The Hebrew name Ahijah or Ahiah literally means "brother of Yahweh". That would seem to argue against your claim of sacrilege or blasphemy.

BM replies: OK, for Yahweh. What I meant, the sacrilege/blasphemy is not on "God", but a mortal Jew calling himself the brother of God by any other names such as LORD GOD, the highest, Yahweh, etc. This is overly presumptious and heretical by Jewish standard and theology.

BM:3.3.2.1. ...why would an interpolator identify a 'James' as Jesus' brother, making a passage from Josephus' work conflicting with a text written earlier (around 165), raising doubts about the veracity of a text written by a Christian (Hegesippus)?

Amalek: The passage referenced by Hegesippus was subsequently deleted either because it was recognized as a fraud or because it suggested the death of James was given more consideration than that of Jesus (IMO the latter is more likely given the survival of the ridiculous Testimonium). Not wishing to completely eliminate a reference to Jesus from Josephus, the descriptive phrase is moved to a different reference to a man named "James" elsewhere in Josephus. Absent this phrase, there is no reason to assume that this "James" is the same person (i.e. James the Just).

BM replies: I was not talking here about the spurious passage about "James the Just", as quoted by Eusebius, but the "James" (only) one, relative to Hegesippus.
But how do we know Hegesippus knew about the spurious passage and not the other way around, that is the interpolator knowing about Hegesippus?
Wait a minute: Eusebius reported on both. So both the passage with only "James" and the one about "James the Just" coexisted at one point in Josephus' Antiquities. That would deflate your argument.

BM: 3.3.2.2. Doherty speculates that "James by name" was originally on its own. But Josephus had the habit (with very few exceptions) to provide some further identification for any new character.

Amalek: Since, as you admit, there are exceptions, the appeal to Josephus' "habit" is meaningless. This could very well be yet another example of him deviating from his typical practice.

BM replies: Sure, but the probabilities are in my favor.

BM: 3.3.2.3. Doherty mentions "him called Christ" ('tou legomenou christou') appearing also in Mt1:16 & Jn4:25. But there, it is slightly different ('ho legomenos christos'). Then he proceeds "The second suspicious aspect of the reference to Jesus is that it comes first in the text.". But Josephus did just that a few times:

Amalek: As I believe I've pointed out to you before, the examples you provide are all quite similar to each other in that they identify the father of the individual before naming the individual. You provide no examples that are similar to the passage in question (i.e. of a brother being identified before the individual is named). Naming a father first is chronologically correct as well as a sign of respect.

BM replies: But most of the time the father is named after the son, that is in Josephus' works.

Amalek: In fact, you do provide an example of Josephus identifying someone by reference to his brother. But, since it supports Doherty's observation, you don't mention it here but elsewhere:

"After this Caesar sent Felix, the brother of Pallas, to be procurator of Galilee, and Samaria, and Perea ..." (Wars, II, XII, 8)

Note that the primary individual is mentioned first followed by a reference to his brother. This is what Doherty says we should expect and this passage suggests he is justified in that expectation.

BM replies: There is no example with a brother in first, but aren't we dealing with double standards: asking one for an exact match when Doherty is supplying evidence (if any!) which are very remote in most cases.
Why would Josephus follow a rule regarding brothers, when he does not do so for father & son? Josephus' style is very fluid, as you saw about naming son relative to their father. I showed this example because a brother is named even if Josephus does not have to. But the brother (Pallas) was known by the Romans!

BM: 3.3.2.4. It has been argued a Christian interpolator would have mentioned Jesus with more than a few words...<snip>...
- If done before, possibly not: why exxpand on Jesus, when it is James who was executed? Doherty commented about the same. But still, most Christian interpolators had a tendency to embellish (or Christianize) on anything they would insert (as for the TF) in a non-Christian text!

Amalek: I think the short reference came first and the size was established by its first introduction into Josephus (i.e. the "lost" reference). The interpolator wanted to retain the reference to Jesus and simply moved it to different reference to a "James".

BM replies: It's all a matter of speculations. I already went through that one with the testimony of Eusebius.

BM: 3.3.2.5. Doherty relates the double identifications: one for James by way of 'Jesus', the other for Jesus through "the one called Christ". First, he writes: "it implies that the historian had explained just what "the Christ" was at some previous point."

Amalek: I agree with you that this "implication" is not as secure as Doherty suggests but I disagree with your contention that Josephus could assume his audience would know what "Christ" meant. While you are correct that both Pliny and Tacitus seem aware that the group was named after someone called "Christ" or "Christus" neither shows any understanding that it isn't a name but the Greek word for a Hebrew title meaning "Messiah". You seem to ignore the fact that Josephus never uses this word anywhere else in his writings even when he is talking about apparent messianic claimants. If Josephus truly decided, for whatever reason, to deviate from his avoidance of the term, it does seem reasonable for him to provide some explanation of the meaning. We have no good reason to assume that his audience would know what it meant.

BM replies: Maybe, but does that matter what "Christ" meant for Jo's audience, except he was understood as the originator of the Christians. Did they have to know it meant "anointed one" or even "chosen one"? (I do not even remember I knew that before I got into that HJ research. I do not think I was told that through catechism). They could, as Tacitus might have, thought that "Christ" was a nickname. How many Christians know the real meaning of 'Buddha'? But they think he started Buddhism regardless.

BM: 3.3.2.6. Doherty speculates the Christian addition "began as a marginal gloss", to be later "transferred into the text itself". Nothing is new here, because Earl has been pleading for an interpolation all along.

Amalek: I note you offer no true argument against this speculation

BM replies: True, but the issue is interpolation or not, not how we can speculate it happened, after we speculate it was one.

Amalek: but I tend to disagree with Doherty here and consider it, as I've already explained, a deliberate choice on the part of an editor who didn't want to completely eliminate any reference to Jesus in Josephus. I think the reference to James in Paul as "the brother of the Lord" is a much better example of an interpolation by way of marginal gloss.

On that topic you wrote:
c) For what other reason Paul did not write "James, the brother of Jesus"?
I think such an expression would have raised James' status and, at the same time, lowered the one of Jesus (Christ).

This clearly holds true for the phrase as it stands. Arguably more so given the use of a post-resurrection title rather than the human name. The real question is why did Paul make such a reference at all? There is no need for it in the context in which it is given and your own argument makes it clear that he would try to avoid such a reference unless he felt compelled to include it.

BM replies: What about if the Galatians already knew that James was the sibling of Jesus? That's the first reference of James in Galatians, and there was another prominent member of the Church of Jerusalem named James, around 38, when Paul met Peter for two weeks. It was James the brother of John, who got executed around 42 (according to Acts). So I think Paul was making sure it was understood he met then the James who will become the main leader later and not another one, of no consequence. Paul wanted to say, I met that important James very early one.

BM: The word 'brother' suggests equality & similarity, and Paul certainly was not interested in pairing James with the 'Son of God' (Paul never accepted the leadership of James -- Gal2:6,11-14).

Amalek: Yet that is precisely what calling him "the brother of the Lord' does in a way that "the brother of Jesus" would not!

BM replies: It's a matter of opinion. But if one is the Lord, then a relationship as brother is of little importance. That's the way I see it.
And in Galatians, 'Jesus' is never on its own, but 'Lord' (meaning Jesus) is on its own another time.
It does not matter how you look at it: "Brother of Jesus" has its disadvantage also, like stressing a human Jesus, and brotherly equality between James & Jesus, not what Paul desired.

SNIPPED

Amalek: Again, you seem to me to argue strongly and persuasively for this phrase to be understood as an interpolation. SNIPPED

BM replies: OOPs, I did not mean that!!! But you must know Paul used the expression "the brothers of the Lord" in 1 cor9:5, rather casually. So the expression in Galatians is not unique in Paul's epistles.
And why would Paul elevate these unnamed brothers, as you contend the expression "brother of the Lord" do it for James?

Amalek: I can't discount the possibility that it was a title, either indicating James' great piety and Yahweh (i.e. Ahijah) or his piety and Christ, but I tend to consider it more likely as interpolated marginal gloss.

BM replies: the onus is on you or Doherty to prove your points. Just claiming "cannot discount the possibility" here, and "tend to consider it more likely" there, is no evidence to the contrary, the way I see it.

Best regards, Bernard