Gregg

But, just because the effort failed doesn't mean Josephus wouldn't consider it important enough to mention. After all, EVERY effort failed eventually.

What did Jesus DO that got him noticed by the Romans, labeled as an enemy of the State, and sentenced to crucifixion? Did they misinterpret something he said? Did they regard his preaching as inflammatory (even if he didn't intend it to be) and view his growing popularity with alarm?

I'm not saying that the Romans always needed a darned good reason to crucify somebody. But since Josephus was writing from a Roman perspective, it seems to me he would have viewed Jesus as yet another rabble-rouser who aroused Roman wrath against Israel, and I doubt he would have been sympathetic to claims that Jesus taught a non-violent philosophy. After all, if they crucified him, he must have done something to deserve it, right?

capnkirk

I have already responded to most of this, but there are a few new items to respond to.

Let's begin with who the High Priests were, and what their priorities were. If you recall Richard Friedman's deliniation of the "P" source in the OT (Who Wrote the Bible?), he identifies the author as being of the Aaronic faction of the tribe of Levi, and that in their view only the 'sons of Aaron' could be priests. He describes these Aaronites as having been in control in Judea (Israel ceased to exist in 722 BCE) since Ezra arrived in Jerusalem at the beginning of the second Temple period...and were still in control at its end in 70 CE. He also demonstrated just how jealous they were of their power base. Josephus was born into this wealthy, aristocratic group, but not until several years after HJ's crucifixion.

Maccoby holds that many of the quarrels that the gospels depict as being between HJ and Pharisees were more likely between HJ and the High Priests. They would have had both theological and political quarrels with him. It was also the High Priests that Judas cut a deal with; it was the High Priest's guards that arrested HJ (not the Romans), and (Maccoby further holds that) Jesus trial was before a tribunal of the High Priests (rather than the full Sanhedrin) and there were no Pharisees present. When HJ was taken to Pilate the next morning, all three Synoptics agree that the question Pilate asked Jesus was "Are you the King of the Jews?" and (in all the newer translations) HJ's response was "Yes, it is as you say." That this exchange runs so counter to the general theme of the Synoptics makes it likely that this survives from an earlier exegetical layer. Both the question and the response make sense only in the context of a HJ responding to the classical Jewish messianic claim. It is extremely difficult to make a case for Paulinist redactors having inserted this dialogue.

So we have the High Priests with both theological and political quarrels with HJ siezing the opportunity to exploit the political claims to make the Romans the villans who would rid them both of a nuisance pest. This messianic threat was therefore nipped in the bud...before it became distinguishable from similar crucifixions of a significant number of "social bandit" insurrectionists. In fact, Crossan points out that the earliest surviving Greek language version of Luke uses the same term for the two "thieves" crucified beside HJ as Josephus uses to describe "social bandits"(i.e. insurrectionists against Jewish collaborationist aristocracy), implying that from the Roman perspective, three insurrectionists were executed today; distasteful, but otherwise no big thing. Had the Romans considered him a prime threat, all his disciples would have also been crucified that same day, and all his followers executed as well. Both HJers and MJers agree that this aftermath didn't happen. The High Priests, however, wern't so satisfied. They hired men like Saul to harass HJ's followers, and later brought Peter and some of his colleagues to trial before the Sanhedrin, where, thanks to the spirited defense presented by the Chief Pharisee, they were acquitted. The crucifixion only soars to high significance 40-140 years later (and not in Jerusalem) when Paulinist Xtian redactors begin to recreate him as JC. The significance that seems so obvious in retrospect was just not present in Josephus' time, nor would it have appealed to his priestly POV. The mention of James was purely incidental to his real concern, the removal (by other than Roman or Herodian interests) of the High Priest.

Bernard Muller

Vorkosigan, I see you became a mythicist!

BM wrote: 3.1. Jesus as the Son of David (and seed of Abraham):
In chapter 8, on page 83, Doherty quotes Romans1:3-4: Ro1:3-4 Darby "concerning his Son (come of David's seed according to flesh, marked out Son of God in power, according to [the] Spirit of holiness, by resurrection of [the] dead) Jesus Christ our Lord;" Then Earl writes: "Is it a piece of historical information? If so, it is the only one Paul ever give us, for no other feature of Jesus' human incarnation appears in his letter." Shock!!! See my answer in the next paragraph. Then Doherty actually does not address the issue of a human Jesus straight on, but drifts away from it by questioning the historicity of 'Son of David' and the title of 'Son of God'. Nothing much is related to the "incarnation"; only some "stuff" is thrown against it, such as:
"... for scripture was full of predictions that the Messiah would be descended from David. In reading these, Paul would have applied them to his own version of the Christ, the Christ who is a spiritual entity, not a human one." So now human ancestry was assigned to Jesus by Paul, even if the later (allegedly) thought Christ was never an earthly man! Does that make sense? Of course not. And Doherty keeps obsessively interpreting anything as concerning an entirely mythical Jesus: again for him, "according to the flesh" becomes "in the sphere of the flesh", with the "sphere" being "the lowest heavenly sphere, associated with the material world"!


Vorkosigan: The opening paragraph of Bernard's analysis contains not a single argument against Doherty, it is merely a heap of rhetoric, using words like "drifts" and "obsessively" to evoke emotional rather than rational responses in the reader, or conclusory rhetoric "Does that make sense?" Of course not!" as if this were an argument. Unfortunately, Bernard does not tell us here why this does not make sense.

BM replies: It's difficult to answer when Doherty is very oblique and only once treat on this subject directly: Son of David does not mean a human Jesus. "drifts" and "obsessively" is warranted.
And YES, it does not make sense to claim earthly ancestors for a heavenly entity.
I did add up that about the obsession:
"The translation as "in the sphere of the flesh" is according to Doherty "a suggestion put forward by C. K. Barrett." He adds "Such a translation is, in fact, quite useful and possibly accurate." No doubt! Doherty is treating that "possibly accurate" "suggestion" as a piece of primary evidence."
That's the kind of evidence he is using all along.
On the same subject, on my first page, I have:
"And Earl keeps mentioning a very peculiar translation of 'kata sarka', "in the sphere of the flesh", (normally rendered as "according to the flesh") as if it was a piece of evidence for his fleshy upper world. Even for 'en sarki' ("in flesh") (1Timothy3:16), Doherty claims it "can be translated in the sphere of the flesh" (with the sphere being that material lower heaven!)."
And thanks Vork about my rhetoric skills: I did not know I had some!

Vorkosigan: He does warn us, however, that we can expect an argument in the next paragraph:


BM wrote: Is there nothing else about a human Jesus in 'Romans'? Of course not, but all of the ensuing verses from 'Romans' are ignored in Doherty's book:
A) Ro15:12 Darby "And again, Esaias says, There shall be the root of Jesse [David's father], and one [Christ] that arises, to rule over [the] nations: in him shall [the] nations hopes."
Here Jesus' alleged descendance from David is reiterated.
B) Ro8:3 Darby "... God, having sent his own Son, in likeness of flesh of sin ..."
Don't we have a clear expression of incarnation here?
C) Ro4:13 Darby "For [it was] not by law that the promise was to Abraham, or to his seed, that he [Jesus, the Son] should be heir of [the] world, but by righteousness of faith."
Jesus is a seed of Abraham here. Who else is a seed of this patriarch?
a) Ro11:1 Darby "I [Paul] say then, Has God cast away his people [Israel]? Far be the thought. For *I* also am an Israelite, of [the] seed of Abraham, of [the] tribe of Benjamin."
So "flesh & blood" earthly Paul is also from the seed of Abraham!
b) Ro9:7 NKJV "nor are they all children because they [Jews of Israelite descent] are the seed of Abraham ..."
Most Jews were also from the seed of Abraham during Paul's days!
D) Ro9:4-5a YLT "Israelites, ... whose [are] the fathers, and of whom [is] the Christ, according to the flesh ..."
Here Jesus is from Israelites, "according to the flesh". Who else are from Israelites? Paul, according to Ro11:1, previously quoted, and also many of his contemporaries, by flesh:
Ro9:3b-4a NASB "... my brethren, my kinsmen [Paul's] according to the flesh, who are Israelites ..."
Did Paul think himself and his brethren/kinsmen lived "in the sphere of the flesh", some upper world above earth?


Vorkosigan: Bernard's arguments here contain only misunderstandings and misinterpretations. First, he claims "....all of the ensuing verses from 'Romans' are ignored in Doherty's book." Bernard clearly does not understand Doherty's point. If the first reference to Jesus being of David's stock (in Romans 1) can be shown to be symbolic, then all subsequent references to it are similarly symbolic. Thus, simply piling on more quotes, as Bernard does here, will not make Doherty's arguments disappear. Bernard must come up with compelling reasons to reject them, either on linguistic or content grounds. In any case, Doherty spends several pages in several places discussing the problem of Jesus' alleged Davidic ancestry (82-85, for example). Finally, there is a telling Doherty-style silence here. If Jesus had really been born of David, Paul, after all, knew his brother, James. All Paul had to do was cite his personal knowledge of the family of Jesus and firmly link Jesus to the mortal sphere. But no, Paul's ideas come from divine revelation. Doherty has a very strong argument here, and Bernard's rhetoric cannot dismantle it.

BM replies: That's right a lot is not stated in Doherty's book about the passages mentioning human ancestors for Jesus. Since when examining ALL the evidence is bad?
Symbolic? There is nothing symbolic about saying an alleged (only) heavenly entity is descendant of earthly humans, more so when Earl's arguments on the matter are rather weak or non-existent (as in pages 82-85). Why Paul would always & firmly link Jesus to the mortal sphere (which he does anyway: Jesus did die)? Through Paul's letters, it does not appear there was an issue here. That would show the one-time humanity of Paul's Christ (including human ancestry) was not challenged then. Can you elaborate on what kind of strong arguments Doherty makes in pages 82-85?

Vorkosigan: Bernard then goes on to say: "B) Ro8:3 Darby "... God, having sent his own Son, in likeness of flesh of sin ..." Don't we have a clear expression of incarnation here?" Merely asking this question does not refute Doherty's point. Bernard would have to demonstrate that the word likeness here means something other than what it very plainly says.

BM replies: Actually I did that one my first page:
"And because the Son is an eternal heavenly entity for Paul, then expressions like "human likeness" and "human shape" would be expected in order to describe an incarnation as an abnormality.
- See 4:2-3 of 'the Ascension of Isaiah' (quoted next in 2.5.1.2) where Beliar (Satan), from the firmament, comes down to earth as Nero (through an earthly mother!) "in the likeness of a man".
- See Acts14:11-12 NKJV "Now when the people saw what Paul had done, they raised their voices, saying in the Lycaonian language, "The gods have come down to us in the likeness of men!" And Barnabas they called Zeus, and Paul, Hermes, because he was the chief speaker."
As far as I know, Nero, Paul & Barnabas were earthly men."


Vorkosigan: All Bernard does here is use an emotional appeal to invite the reader to fall back on the biases built in by 2000 years of historicist exegesis. He does not make an argument based on logic, content, linguistics, or history anywhere in these remarks.

BM replies: I asked my readers to look at the evidence directly. I do not go into some peripheral discussions to make my position.

Vorkosigan: In his exegesis of Romans 4:13 Bernard has made an error of interpretation. In Darby, 4:13 says:

For [it was] not by law that the promise was to Abraham, or to his seed, that he should be heir of [the] world, but by righteousness of faith.


This passage DOES NOT say Jesus is of the seed of Abraham. In this discussion Paul is arguing that God's promise is made in faith, regardless of the law, using Abraham as an example. "He" in this passage is not Jesus but Abraham. Thus Bernard's rhetorical thrust at the end is goes badly astray, as NONE of the remaining passages applies. This is a gross error.

BM replies: What do you have to corroborate Paul was thinking about Abraham as the heir of the world? How does that fit with Paul's christology/theology? Why would he mean that out of the blue
As far as I know, there is no such things in the Jewish scriptures, or the Christian ones about that. So you have to provide evidence for your claim here.
However Jesus is said to be a heir in the same Romans letter:
Rom 8:17 Darby "And if children, heirs also: heirs of God, and Christ's joint heirs; if indeed we suffer with [him], that we may also be glorified with [him]."
But it is in "Hebrews" we have it all:
Hbr 1:2 "at the end of these days has spoken to us in [the person of the] Son, whom he has established heir of all things, by whom also he made the worlds;"
So I keep the "he" as Jesus here and as a seed of Abraham.


Vorkosigan: Thus, his argument contained in the notes....


"So I think Doherty should reconsider "no other feature of Jesus' human incarnation appears in his letter"! And we have ample evidence the seeds of Abraham and descendants of Israelites (such as Paul) were all understood as earthly humans. Why would it be different for Jesus?"


....does not apply because Bernard has not read the language of the passage properly.

BM replies: First there is a lot more evidence I presented as just Rom 4:13.
Secondly your reading of Rom 4:13 is very peculiar, introducing Abraham as the heir of the world ??? That's looks to me a very biased Mythicist interpretation totally unsubstantiated by any other evidence. Did you come out with that on your own or is it Doherty?

Vorkosigan: An irony of Bernard's analysis is that he is adopting the "rhetorical question" tactics of Doherty when he asks questions like: "Did Paul think himself and his brethren/kinsmen lived "in the sphere of the flesh", some upper world above earth?" or "Don't we have a clear expression of incarnation here?"

BM replies: YES, I like the irony. Why should I be prevented to use some of Doherty's tactics but from the other side?

Best regards, Bernard

Bernard Muller

Vorkosigan: Let's move on:

BM wrote:
3.2.1. Doherty on Galatians4:4
Gal4:4 YLT "... God sent forth His Son, come ['ginomai'] of a woman, come under the law"
In chapter 12, page 123-125, Doherty comments on "born of woman" from Gal4:4. He admits this passage "most suggests that he [Paul] has a human Jesus in mind."
But then he goes to work, starting by "God sent his own Son" but does not take in account "... God, having sent his own Son, in likeness of flesh of sin ..." (Ro8:3 Darby)! His convoluted argumentation does not disprove anything and looks rather like a series of red herrings. He is trying to raise doubts by way of speculative suppositions, using expressions "this can be taken", "seem", "not necessarily tied", "do not have to be seen" & "one interpretation that could be given" in order to counteract the obvious. And any writing/myth known during Paul's time is considered a likely inspiration, such as Isa7:14 and Dionysos' birth, as if no man were born of woman in antiquity!
Doherty ventures "National gods were often regarded as having the same lineage as the nation itself, which is one interpretation that could be given to Christ as "born" under the Law [as a Jew]."
But he does not give any example for these "national" gods (personally I know of none), more so when (originally) gods are not born from humans in ancient mythology.
Finally Earl goes into some flamboyant rhetoric, calling for "dramatic reversal, even on the order of something like the Copernican revolution in astronomy" to change our views on Jesus' human origin. May I say Copernicus came with (a lot of) solid evidence for his theories, when Doherty can only be doubtful about 'Jesus as born of woman' and fling "feathers" at it.


Vorkosigan: Everyone admits that this passage is a problem. One of the strengths of Doherty's approach is that he rarely wusses out by claiming that things are interpolated. Yet here, if Doherty is right, it would probably be best to point to interpolation. If Paul actually wrote this, it is likely then, as Doherty claims, he is invoking some ritual or symbolic meaning, like Matthew's use of Isaiah to make Jesus a virgin's son. Bernard again deploys senseless rhetoric: "...as if no man were born of woman in antiquity!" instead of rational arguments, though in fairness Doherty's rhetoric is no better. Bernard is dead on, though, when he argues that Doherty should have given us examples of national gods who had ethnic characteristics. Note Bernard's clear bias -- he demands we take "born of woman" at face value, but objects to us taking "in likeness of flesh" at face value. And again that strange silence: since Paul knew James, why not simply name the woman? The answer is simple: because she was not a real woman!

BM replies: I already answered the likeness issue. Why would he name a peasant woman of not much importance then. It is not necessary for his argument. There are many unnamed persons in writings even if they existed.

Vorkosigan: Bernard then discusses Carrier's comments on Galatians, and a fine discussion it is. He then goes back to Doherty's argument:


BM wrote: 3.2.3. By examining the whole of Galatians3:15-4:7, can we figure out what kind of woman Paul was thinking for Gal4:4? Paul started by making a claim: "But to Abraham were the promises addressed, and to his seed: he does not say, And to seeds, as of many; but as of one, And to thy seed; which is Christ."(3:16 Darby) That seems to refer to Genesis17-22 but it is never specified here according to Paul's words. Anyway, the promise is about inheritance (3:18) for all (Gentiles and Jews --3:28-29,3:8,14) but the former is supplanted by the Law "until the seed [the Son] came ['erchomai', clear expression of the first coming!] to whom the promise was made" (3:19). Then everyone would be liberated from the Law by Christ (3:22-24,3:13) and "the promise, on the principle of faith of Jesus Christ, should be given to those that believe." (3:22), allowing Paul's Galatians to be God's sons & heirs and honorary seeds of Abraham (3:29,4:7,3:7). What remains is for the Son to come as the seed of Abraham, that is as a Jew and earthly human (as other seeds of Abraham, like Paul, as previously discussed), in order to enable the promise: Gal4:4-7 Darby "but when the fullness of the time was come, God sent forth his Son, come of woman [as an earthly human], come under law [as a Jew], that he might redeem those under law, that we might receive sonship. But because you are [Greek present tense] sons ... So you are [present again] no longer bondman, but son ..." So Paul was thinking about an earthly "flesh & blood" mother! And Christ had already come and gone (1:1)!


Vorkosigan: Here I think Bernard goes badly wrong. In Gal 3:16 he has misread the last sentence. It does not say Christ is of Abraham's seed. Rather it says (to expand it properly): "And to thy seed; [a promise] which is Christ." In other words, read in context, it does not say that Christ is of Abraham's seed. It says that Christ is the fulfillment of a promise to Abraham's seed. Bernard has erred again (on the same point) and thus, his argument falls to pieces.

BM replies: Again a biased mythicist interpretation. Now you even add up words, not existing in the Greek. It is clear the seed is Christ, as in Rom1:3-4, Jesus is a seed of David. If Paul can be very obscure, this is very clear here:
"But to Abraham were the promises addressed, and to his seed: he does not say, And to seeds, as of many; but as of [B]one[?B], And to thy seed; which is Christ."(3:16 Darby)
Where did you get this screwy interpretation?


Vorkosigan: Bernard's argument further demands that we take the meaning of "sons" in Galatians 4 to be historical when it refers to Jesus, but allegorical when it refers to humans. In fact Gal 4 is one long allegory on Abraham, sonship, and the Law. Note that Paul uses "according to the flesh" here in a symbolic sense. Abraham has two sons, both by human women, and both born by sexual intercourse and a trip down the birth canal. But he distinguishes them by their relationship to the Law...


23 But he [that was] of the maid servant was born according to flesh, and he [that was] of the free woman through the promise.


...in other words, when Jesus came down through the flesh, Paul means that his sphere of operations is the one outside the Law. Far from refuting Doherty, Galatians 4 shows this apposite relationship between "flesh" and "law" decisively. Bernard has simply misread it.

BM: So complicated, so obscure. Misreading? you need hours to dream up that interpretation. When you just read that, you do not get it that way. Actually Paul said Jesus, the Son, came under the law, not outside it.

Vorkosigan:
Bernard takes this passage....


19 Why then the law? It was added for the sake of transgressions, until the seed came to whom the promise was made, ordained through angels in [the] hand of a mediator.


...to say the verb 'come' here implies a first coming on earth.

BM replies: Actually here, I did not go as far as earth, Just saying it was referring to a coming.

Vorkosigan: Nowhere is that present in this passage. The whole discussion is an abstract discussion of the Law and Christ. "Came" here simply represents the appearance of Jesus in our reality, not necessarily on earth.

BM replies: I like your choice of words. Reality but not earth. Do you think Paul's audience would get the nuance when listening or even reading that? Reality for them included earth, very strongly. A lower heaven was not a reality then (I discussed that on my first page).

Vorkosigan: If Paul had meant come on earth, he would have said it. Bernard is simply back-reading the story of the Gospels into Paul, invoking his and the reader's unconscious assumptions -- the ones Doherty wants you to give up -- in interpreting these passages. Pulling a whole history on earth out of a single verb is the ultimate in historicist desperation.

BM replies: Not if Jesus was known to have lived on earth, as the many references to a human ancestry are telling.


BM wrote: 3.3.1. Comments on Galatians 1:19
In chapter 6, page 57, Doherty tackles the problem caused by "James, the brother of the Lord" (Gal1:19). Here is the whole passage: Gal1:18-19 Darby "Then after three years I [Paul] went up to Jerusalem to make acquaintance with Peter, and I remained with him fifteen days; but I saw none other of the apostles, but James the brother of the Lord." First, Doherty states the term "brother" ('adelphos') appears often in Paul's epistles to indicate fellow Christians. Certainly, and even nowadays, it is used extensively in the fields of religion, cult, ethnicity, labor union, monastic institution, etc., in order to indicate the ones in the same group (of yours). It also confers a notion of equality & similarity. Then Doherty claims that "brother of the Lord" has the same meaning than "brothers in the Lord" (as appearing only in Philippians1:14, meaning Christian preachers). Here I object: Paul used often "in (the) Lord" or "in Christ" meaning "Christian(s)" or "in the Christian faith" (such as, for example:
Romans 16:11 Darby "Salute Herodion, my kinsman. Salute those who belong to Narcissus, who are in [the] Lord."Ro16:7 NKJV "Greet Andronicus and Junia, ... who also were in Christ before me." Ro16:8 Darby "Salute Amplias, my beloved in the Lord." but he never wrote "of the Lord" in a similar context. If Paul wanted to express James was a Christian, why didn't he wrote "James, brother in the Lord"? Later, Earl claims the group in Jerusalem, headed by James, "seems to have called itself "brethren of/in the Lord." But we do not have any evidence on that whatsoever. In the NT, they are referred as 'the church of Jerusalem', the 'poor' (of Jerusalem) or the 'saints/holy ones' (of Jerusalem) but never as what Doherty claims. Actually, Paul never said those were "in (the) Lord" or "in Christ", not even "brothers/brethren". And James is the only individual identified as "brother of the Lord". Other pillars of that church, as named by Paul (Peter/Cephas and John), are not. 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! Further on, Earl makes an argument from silence (as he is well known to do a lot!): because James is not said to be Jesus' sibling in 'James', Christians then did not know about it! And, as in an act of desperation, in note 26 (p.335) Doherty suggests a Christian interpolation.


Vorkosigan: It is Bernard, not Doherty, who is in desperation here. The greetings of the letters of James and Jude are powerful evidence that early Christians did not consider James and Jude to be the physical brothers of Jesus. I doubt that if Jude were really the younger brother of Jesus, he would only have identified himself as the brother of James when speaking to the Christian community. Further, in Luke 2, when Mary and Joseph find Jesus in the Temple, there are no hints of other children. James the younger is the son of Aphaeus according to Matt. Did the early Christians have any idea that Jesus had sibs? Apparently not.

BM replies: arguments from silence again. Maybe the author of 'James' thought it was inapropriate to mention James as the brother. Acts (written 150 for Doherty, well after GMark & GMatthew) does not mention James as a brother of Jesus either. Who knows what went in the mind of these writers? "Luke" knew about GMark, but did not copy from it the names of Jesus' brothers. Why? speculations, speculations, speculations.

Vorkosigan: Bernard asks: "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!" After chiding Doherty for not supply evidence for his claims, it would be nice if Bernard supplied any evidence that individuals who had called themselves Brothers of the Lord would have been executed.

I don't see any need to argue on the passage in Antiquities. Both the Jesus' passages in Antiquities are obvious forgeries, and I am tired of discussing it. For those who disagree, your disagreement is noted. One point, however, should be noted:


I do not think Doherty, despite all his efforts, makes a dent against the authenticity of the combined mention of Jesus' brother in Galatians4:4 and Josephus' Antiquities, XX, IX, 1. Maybe, at some points, he can raise some doubts, but overall, that amounts to almost nothing. It looks Doherty, as usual, is agenda-driven and trying to eradicate any blood brother because that would prove a human Jesus. Let's also note that Josephus was living in Jerusalem around 62, where and when James was tried & stoned.


Accusing someone making an argument of being "agenda-driven" is an act of rhetorical desperation. I quite agree that it is a strong point that Josephus was living around Jerusalem in 62 when James was handed over for stoning (Josephus nowhere says James was actually killed). Unfortunately for Bernard, that strength runs against his position: if Josephus really knew James and his position, why doesn't he ever mention Christians and Christianity in his many discussions of messianic pretenders?

BM replies: maybe he was not a messianic pretender, too much of a small fry to be mentioned. Maybe Josephus wanted to be careful, give the silent treatment rather than annoy some (thought to be) Christian in high places in Rome. Who knows? One can come up with all kind of reasons for those silences.

Vorkosigan: I'll get to Hebrews in a moment. But it is apparent that Bernard's arguments are weak indeed; they are 90% rhetoric, and include blatant errors of interpretation, as well as historicist biases and assumptions that render them impotent against Doherty.
Vorkosigan

BM replies: Well I would object to that. My pages are full of evidence and quotes to support my position. And the so-called blatant errors are due to your biased Mythicist-friendly interpretations.

Best regards, Bernard

Vorkosigan

Bernard Muller

Vorkosigan: After reading this, I think we should all take counsel with Ecclesiastes "And besides, my son, be warned by them: of making many books there is no end, and much study is a weariness of the flesh." Anyway, on to Hebrews...


BM wrote: 3.4.1. Heb2:3 NASB "how will we escape if we neglect so great a salvation? After it was at the first spoken through the Lord ["which first (= originally) received/taken (as) spoken through (= by) the Lord"], it was confirmed to us by those who heard," Note: the translation in brackets seems the most accurate, if not elegant.
BDM: On Chapter 13, page 129, Doherty comments "Jesus would hardly have taught the unique christology contained in this epistle." But since when the mention of 'a salvation' means the whole christology of 'Hebrews'? Let's note Earl quotes ""For this salvation was first announced through the Lord" [based on the NEB]", but "this salvation" (which, for Earl, seems of the same "scenario" as the one in the letter) is not in the Greek! So Jesus may have spoken of "a salvation", period. Later, the author of 'Hebrews' "explained" how and why it got "enabled" (through the crucifixion and the "sacrifice", the later "demonstrated" from scriptures taken out of context! As explained in HJ-3b). Then Doherty remarks "in fact, the voice of Jesus teaching on earth is never heard in 'Hebrews'; everything the Son "says" comes from the scriptures." I agree with Doherty, but that does not take away Jesus spoke about salvation (generally), even if the author did not care about the specifics. And Jesus speaking "in the days of his flesh" is mentioned in:
Heb5:7 Darby "Who in the days of his flesh, having offered up both supplications and entreaties to him who was able to save him out of death, with strong crying and tears; (and having been heard because of his piety" By that time (more so after reading my first page), I think my readers will agree that "in the days of his flesh" relates to a Jesus on earth (and not in Doherty's heaven!). And here, Jesus speaks and is heard (this time allegedly to/by God). Note: I am not saying the passage is authentic (here God hears, not human witnesses!), just that the author pictured Jesus on earth.


Vorkosigan: Bernard hopes that the readers will believe that "in the days of his flesh" relates to Earth. As we have seen, already, in Gal 4.4 at least, it refers metaphorically to a position on the Law. However, that was the letters of Paul. This is Hebrews...

BM replies: Your so-called demonstration was very obscure, and I repeat, not as it would be understood by listening or reading. "God sent his Son, come of a woman, come under law" simply does not jump at you as you interpret it, that is metaphorically to a position of law (whatever that means).

Vorkosigan: Bernard remarks: "I agree with Doherty, but that does not take away Jesus spoke about salvation (generally), even if the author did not care about the specifics." In other words, Bernard does not deny that Hebrews is silent on Jesus' teachings. He is also quite correct to note that it does not mean that Jesus did not teach on salvation.

BM replies: I agree with your last sentence except that preaching salvation is a positive statement, not a possibility as the other stuff you propose next. I think you should read again what I wrote here: I did not mean to make a point that Jesus preaching salvation was a possibility. In Hebrews it is a fact.

Vorkosigan: Similarly, it does not mean that Jesus did not discourse on Zen meditation, Indian cooking, or future stock market trends. It doesn't mean anything -- which is Doherty's whole point. There is no evidence from Hebrews that Jesus ever discoursed on anything. End of discussion.

BM replies: What's the point? Sure Jesus could have preached on other things. What? Not much according to my studies. But does that matter, more so that 'Hebrews' does not tell that, only about salvation.

Vorkosigan: Bernard says that "Who in the days of his flesh, having offered up both supplications and entreaties to him who was able to save him out of death, with strong crying and tears; (and having been heard because of his piety" This is rather an odd sentence if you start to think about it. Let's look at the whole passage:


Thus the Christ also has not glorified himself to be made a high priest; but he who had said to him, *Thou* art my Son, *I* have to-day begotten thee.6 Even as also in another [place] he says, *Thou* [art] a priest for ever according to the order of Melchisedec.7 Who in the days of his flesh, having offered up both supplications and entreaties to him who was able to save him out of death, with strong crying and tears; (and having been heard because of his piety 8 though he were Son, he learned obedience from the things which he suffered;
9 and having been perfected, became to all them that obey him, author of eternal salvation;
10 addressed by God [as] high priest according to the order of Melchisedec.;


First, the pronoun here is ambiguous. To whom does "who" refer, to Jesus or Melchizadek? It is by no means clear.

BM replies: what follows the "who" is someone who was trying to be saved from death. Do we know that from the OT Mel? No. But "Hebrews" tells us Jesus died & resurrected (in other places). So my vote goes for Jesus, naturally.
What follows the "who" is someone as the Son. Do we know that from the OT Mel? No. But Hebrews tells us Jesus is the son (in other places). So again my vote goes for Jesus.
What follows the "who" is someone who suffered and provided eternal salvation for his believers. Do we know that from the OT Mel? No, on all points. But Hebrews tells us that for Jesus (in other places). So again my vote goes for Jesus.
No contest.

Vorkosigan: You can get a reference to Jesus only by back-reading the gospels into Hebrews -- Melchizadek also ascended to heaven and was enthroned there.

BM replies: Where did you read that? Not in Hebrews or Genesis.

Second, we come to the by-now familiar problem. Why is the reference so vague? Why did it not mention where Jesus suffered these indignities?

BM replies: Why would the digression be necessary for the arguments. Salem was still not Jerusalem yet. Why Mythicists are always calling for these digressions to happen?

Vorkosigan: This is even more puzzling because traditionally Melchizadek is the "king of salem" and thus is linked to Jerusalem. The author of Hebrews could have made the link even stronger by working on the Jerusalem connection. Just another one of those silences (how many does it take?).

BM replies: If Paul was not interested to tie down Jesus to some earthly places, so the author of Hebrews. Why? Maybe that would make that Jesus too local, too earthly, too pedestrian? Or that was already widely known? Some of many speculations. There are others. You need some positive evidence to back up your case. Silences can be explained whichever ways.

Vorkosigan: A further issue for this passage (Heb 5) is that it is strongly adoptionist. The author of Heb is arguing that Jesus was "called by god" to be high priest and specifically denies that this is an honor one could take for oneself, and adduces the famous "Thou art my son, today I have begotten thee" to prove that. Bernard could have pointed to the adoptionism of the passage as a stronger argument for the historicist case.

BM replies: No, I would not go for that and I did not. That does not prevent you to make a point on that. I know most of Hebrews is derived from the OT.

Vorkosigan: Unfortunately, however, it is bracketed by the usual OT-derived texts. The "my begotten son" is not a historical quote, but another bit of midrash, taken from one of the Psalms (2). In other words, Hebrews again here reaches for the OT when historicists think it is being "historical." The reference to the High Priest is also from the Psalms (110).

BM replies: Also in Philo's works

Vorkosigan: In short, there is every reason to think that we are looking at something from the OT, rather than a reference to something that happened in real history. Why should the quote about tears in the middle be different? To demonstrate that this is a Jesus reference, Bernard needs to show that it applies to Jesus, and not to Melchizadek (who, it says, is "without father, without mother, without genealogy; having neither beginning of days nor end of life, but assimilated to the Son of God, abides a priest continually.")

BM replies: I think the story about the great prayer and the tears was invented (but still using a HJ as the vehicle, as the last supper and many embellishment & fiction). That story was also historialize in GMark later (the prayer in the garden).
As far as applying to Jesus, I did that already. As for your quote, that described how Mel is said in Genesis: no mother, no father mentioned, no genealogy, no birth, no end of life are reported.

BM wrote: is something that Earl does not address in his book, about a very human Jesus:
Heb2:14-18 Darby "Since therefore the children ["brethren": 2:12] partake [Greek perfect tense: should read "partook"] of blood and flesh, he [Jesus] also, in like manner, took part in the same, ... Wherefore it behoved him in all things to be made like to [his] brethren, ... , to make propitiation for the sins of the people; for, in that himself has suffered [Greek second perfect: the suffering is over with!], being tempted, he is able to help those that are being tempted [on earth!]." Note: in 4:15 Darby "For we have not a high priest not able to sympathize with our infirmities, but tempted [Greek perfect tense] in all things in like manner ...", Jesus has already been tempted. And where would this "testing" (the same as the one affecting earthlies!) have been? In the demonic fleshy mid-world (between heaven and earth) or the highest heaven? Or on earth, known for its "flesh and blood" "brethrens", subjected to temptations (similar of the ones faced by a human Christ in the past)?


Vorkosigan: Again, the problem remains despite rhetorical questions. Where did the temptation take place? On earth? Then why is there no example or context for this "temptation"? The author of Hebrews is not averse to giving examples -- in the next chapter he talks about Moses, discusses "hardening of hearts" and then gives a historical example -- it happened in the wilderness! Similarly, in 8:5 Moses again appears, and again the time and context of the event are given. Hebrews 11 is one long list of concrete events in the Old Testament. "By faith....." he keeps repeating. This, of course, is yet another silence, for Hebrews does not refer to even a single event in the NT where faith is prominent -- for example, the woman with the menstrual problem who heals herself just by touching Jesus, the centurion of Matthew 8:10 -- an really potent case, for Jesus avers that this gentile beats all the jews in faith, the paralytic of Matthew 9, the next healing of the daughter in Matthew 11, the blind man in Mark 10...the list is long, and all are ignored by Hebrews. Why? The pattern is clear. Hebrews does not know this story.

BM replies: Jesus is said to have been tempted just as his earthly "brothers". So earth would be a very logical place for that. And that's the only place the Christians knew. And Hebrews is not a gospel. For whatever reason, the author did not want to get into a HJ, more so he never claimed to be an eyewitness but he was an "expert" in the OT. Furthermore, most of the stories you mention from the gospel were not fabricated yet.


Bernard wrote: Finally, let's wonder where Jesus would have been an apostle, more so when all other "apostle(s)" in the NT lived on earth. Heb3:1 Darby "... consider the Apostle and High Priest of our confession, Jesus" And where would he have preached? Note: Ro15:8 Darby "For I [Paul] say that Jesus Christ became a minister ['diakonos'] of [the] circumcision [Jews] for [the] truth of God, ..." ("became" (root 'ginomai') can be translated as "came to pass" or "happened" (according to Strongs). The verb is in the Greek perfect tense; therefore the action has been completed in the past)


Vorkosigan: Hello? Where does the passage in Hebrews say Jesus preached? Nowhere.

BM replies: but I gave Ro15:8 as corroboration.


Vorkosigan: Bernard has once again back-read the gospels into hebrews. Calling Jesus an "apostle" does not mean that he actually preached. Further, 'Paul' -- or some early Christian -- tells us what an apostle is:


2 Corinthians 12:12The things that mark an apostle–signs, wonders and miracles–were done among you with great perseverance.

BM replies: An apostle first was known for his preaching. Do you think Paul was going around performing tricks only? Apostles preaching is all over the NT, also in the Pauline epistles. Making miracles and wonders might have been what some apostles did (and also some Christians in the flocks, according to 1Cor), but that was not the main thing they were doing.

Vorkosigan: In other words, Jesus is an apostle because he provided us with signs, wonders, and miracles, not because he preached. Bernard's thrust has once more gone astray.

BM replies: I think you should go over the Pauline letters and learn more about apostles.

Best regards, Bernard

capnkirk

Bernard vs. Vorkosigan is turning into a "Clash of the Titans", judging from the massive size of their recent posts.

OTOH, there's too much straining at gnats in the contents to keep me awake trying to wade through them.

Bernard Muller

BM wrote: 3.4.2. Heb7:14 Darby "For it is clear that our Lord has sprung out of Juda [as David], as to which tribe Moses spake nothing as to priests."Doherty comments on that through note 44, on page 340. Earl starts by saying the statement is drawn from scriptures and therefore is not historical. But does someone claimed to be (truly or through scriptures) "sprung" from an Israelite tribe (or David, or Abraham) preclude the past existence of that person? Of course not. As a matter of fact, here, the author has Jesus ("our Lord") as an earthly human being, as for every descendant from any Israelite tribe. Doherty argues on "the word "prodelon" means "clear, manifest"", does not say "a matter of historical record". For evidence, 1Ti5:24-25 is cited (only here the aforementioned word occurs in the NT outside Heb7:14). Let's look at it: 1Ti5:24-25 NASB "The sins of some men are quite evident [Greek root 'prodelos'], going before them to judgment; for others, their sins follow after. Likewise also, deeds that are good are quite evident ['prodelos'], and those which are otherwise cannot be concealed." The translation as "evident" (or "clear", or "manifest") is justified by the context. But here Doherty notices the word relates only "to the senses or to judgment". It may happen this way in these two verses, but did Earl check outside the NT for occurrences of 'prodelos', in order to confirm this word is only used in that particular context? No mention! And '1Timothy' was not even written by the author of 'Hebrews'!


Vorkosigan: Once again we have the negative rhetorical back-reading of the gospels into Hebrews. "...But does someone claimed to be (truly or through scriptures) "sprung" from an Israelite tribe (or David, or Abraham) preclude the past existence of that person? Of course not." Bernard is right. It does not preclude past existence. However, it does not establish it, which is what Bernard claims Hebrews is doing.

BM replies: Can you document how someone from the tribe of Judah is not an earthly human being?

Vorkosigan: Doherty's point is that Jesus' descent is indicated clearly in the scriptures relied upon by the early Christians. Therefore, Jesus' descent is derived from the OT. Ipso facto, Hebrews cannot be used here as evidence of Jesus' real existence.

BM replies: With an earthly HJ, then believed later to have been pre-existent, we would need a descent, regardless of any literary precedent. And how do you explain someone coming from heaven finds himself as sprung from the tribe of Judah (and from the seed of David, Abraham and descendant of Israelites)? And still need a woman to come?

Vorkosigan: Bernard's subsequent discussion of "prodelos" is simply idle chit-chat unrelated to the topic at hand. He has failed to adduce any positive evidence that Hebrews knows the descent of Jesus out of some historical understanding rather than OT midrash. He has simply adduced his historicist bias, and appealed to our unconcious sharing of historicist assumptions.

BM replies: Of course I do not think the "descent" is historical. Why should I prove that?

Vorkosigan: Moving on...

Doherty writes: "there is no appeal to historical facts, or apostolic traditions concerning Jesus of Nazareth, no reference to Joseph and Mary, no mention of his lineage ..."
This is typical of Earl, who presupposes every reference to a human-like Jesus should come with many details attached. But why would the author digress on that here? His purpose is to demonstrate Jesus was not from the tribe normally assigned the priesthood, the Levites, as Doherty points out: "The point is, Christ must be of a new line in order to create a new order of priesthood." And why should more details be supplied when 'Jesus from the tribe of Judah' is already "manifest"? More so if Jesus, a descendant of David (and father Jesse), was already believed by Christians (see Ro1:3 & Ro15:12)! Let's note here in the epistle the author "explained" many things, such as Jesus was pre-existent, the Son of God and, above all, performed the ultimate Sacrifice for sins (all of that new for his audience, according to Heb6:1-3). But the "manifest" descendance from the tribe of Judah comes out of the blue and is never "demonstrated": it is very likely the writer knew that was already accepted by his audience.


Bernard at last makes an argument in the last sentence of this passage: "...it is very likely the writer knew that was already accepted by his audience." This is simple speculation. Bernard also writes dismissively: "This is typical of Earl, who presupposes every reference to a human-like Jesus should come with many details attached." But why not? We see that whenever Hebrews refers to other humans -- Moses -- it frequently supplies details and examples. Of Jesus we get nothing. Moreover, adding Paul in support of Hebrews cannot help Bernard, for if Jesus' ancestry is midrash in Hebrews, it is midrash in Paul as well -- Doherty's entire point! Piling on quotes doth not an argument make. Bernard needs to show that some other route than OT proof-texting is the origin of this idea.

BM replies: I think also that Jesus & company had no way to know from where their ancestors came. So it is midrash, that is the descendance from David and Abraham was assigned later for theological reason. That could not be disprove anyway. But my main point is and always will be: You do not give human ancestry to someone you believe is strictly a heavenly entity.
Like saying for a Greek then, Zeus was from the seed of a king of Thebes. Or for a Jew, angel Gabriel is from the the tribe of Judah.

Vorkosigan: Finally, Bernard notes that Hebrews explained many things. But the examples given are all things that happened in Doherty's lower heaven.

BM replies: where does that say that? anywhere in the NT? I could not even find any reference of that heaven in the ancient literature, including what Carrier brought from Plutarch's Isis and Osiris. Hebrews is strictly two worlds: the heavens above and earth below. You have to prove to me someone from the tribe of Judah can live somewhere else than earth. As far as I know, Judah is an earthly place. So Jesus is tied down to earth.

Vorkosigan: Not one is a thing said to have happened on earth -- despite the fact that Hebrews has no trouble giving details of life on earth for Joseph of Moses of the OT. Those were real people to him. Clearly, Jesus was not. Despite the lack of detail, Bernard considers these passages "damaging." The reality is that Doherty in Bernard's hands looks like the gorgeous assistant of a knife thrower in a circus, with knives everywhere around her but none in her flesh.

BM replies: I wonder if you read my first page. That's where I discussed where Jesus lived and was crucified. On the second page, the one you are criticizing now, I only discuss of that occasionally. So you are not quite fair about your conclusion here. (not that I think that would make a difference).

BM wrote: 3.4.3. Heb9:26 Darby "But now once in the consummation of the ages he has been manifested [Greek perfect tense] for [the] putting away of sin by his sacrifice."


In chapter 3, page 37, Doherty comments on the verse: "the author of Hebrews also uses phaneroo ("manifest") in speaking to what has happened in the present time." He goes on "... a whole range of Christians writers would consistently use this sort of language to speak of Christ's coming in the present time ..." But "has been manifested" is in the Greek perfect tense and consequently this action happened and was completed in the past! And not too long ago because of "now"! Other actions about Jesus depicted in 'Hebrews' with verbs in the (Greek) perfect tense include: sufferance (2:18), temptation (4:15), separation from sinners (7:26), opposition from sinners (12:3) and perfection (unto others) though the "sacrifice", "For by one offering he has perfected in perpetuity the sanctified" (10:14 Darby).


Vorkosigan: Once again we detour into a discussion of what the Greek means. Bernard manages to write a whole paragraph on verb tenses without ever once considering what the verb "manifesting" means! How is it that Jesus is "manifest?" Why not "walked on earth" or better yet "born to Mary?" Why is such a vague verb used? Bernard's discussion simply goes right by that point. Whether it happened in the past or not is irrelevant -- the issue is where Jesus was manifest, and on that issue Hebrews is silent indeed.

BM replies: Obviously that was not an issue then. Go figure? Maybe these Christians knew already about the earthly Jesus and that was not doubted. So what treat that as if it was an issue, when it was not. A lower heaven would have been a very big isssue indeed, more so because the evidence is very slim that it even crossed the mind of writers, even centuries after Paul's time. And who would have witnessed the crucifixion? Paul would have to work overtime in order to explain that in his letters.

Vorkosigan: Finally, another long discussion of grammar follows. Perhaps Doherty's reading of the greek grammer is wrong. Perhaps it is not. But Doherty being wrong in his reading of "if he had been on earth" does nothing to make Bernard's case that Hebrew's references are to a real person who had been on earth. Bernard writes: "In the syntax "if X were ... , then ...", the imperfect tense is used twice in a present context. And "were" does not mean "had been". That should put to rest Doherty's speculations on the matter."

Of course, it does not. Whether the passage says "were" or "had been" it is equally strange. Why use the subjunctive "were" when he actually had been on earth?

BM replies: You forgot to quote all the examples I got from the NT, where the rule, by far, is for the subjunctive to be used, even in a present context.

Vorkosigan: According to the gospel fables, he had been on earth and he wasn't a priest! Therefore, Hebrews need only point to the actual facts. Instead, if uses an IF-THEN construction as if there were no actual facts to point to. The fact that Doherty may have overreached himself in search of the smoking gun does not mean he is wrong in his general point. Even without the smoking gun the passage offers more support to Doherty than to the historicist reading of Hebrews.

BM replies: The IF-Then is almost always used with the subjunctive, and that serves the point the author was making. And I do not think the author wanted to attract the attention that a Galilean peasant had no chance to be a priest in Jerusalem. Actually the priest thing starts at the "Sacrifice" and after the following ascent, so anyway his priest jobby could not have started on earth.

Best regards, Bernard

Amaleq13

Amaleq replied:The Hebrew name Ahijah or Ahiah literally means "brother of Yahweh". That would seem to argue against your claim of sacrilege or blasphemy.

This makes no sense to me. You appear to be acknowledging that calling someone “brother of Yahweh” would not have been considered blasphemous but, at the same time, you seem to be claiming that “brother of the Lord” would be so considered. Why would it be considered more blasphemous to call someone the brother of the Lord rather than Yahweh? Do you have anything to support this assertion? Surely it isn't mere speculation like the kind you criticize Doherty for using?

I think I may have confused things. Let me try to straighten it out. Hegesippus (via Eusebius) tells us that Jews, and apparently Christians as well, considered the fall of Jerusalem to have been a consequence for the murder of James but he does not connect this idea to Josephus. He refers to James as “the Just” and as “the Lord’s brother”.

In chronological order:

1) Paul indicates that men named Peter, James and John were leaders of the Jerusalem group. Other than the single disputed reference, there is no indication in Paul’s letters that James was the brother of Jesus.

2) GMark portrays men named Peter, James and John as primary disciples and Jesus as having a brother named James (among other brothers) who thought Jesus was crazy.

3) Acts portrays men named Peter, James and John as former disciples and leaders in the Jerusalem group though Peter and John get a bit more attention in the text. Another James (son of Alphaeus) is mentioned as a disciple. James, the brother of John, is depicted as being killed by a sword. None of the men named “James” in Acts is identified as the brother of Jesus or as having previously considered Jesus crazy.

Except for the isolated and disputed phrase in Paul, we have no reason to assume that Jesus and James are related. If the phrase is a title of piety rather than an indication of literal brotherhood, we still have no reason to make that assumption.

4) Hegesippus testifies to a belief among Christians and Jews of his time that the fall of Jerusalem was because of the murder of James the Just. Hegesippus refers to James as “the Just” and “the Lord’s brother”. As Doherty notes, for early Christians to hold such a belief is clearly problematic for an HJ.

5) Origen quotes an interpolated passage in Josephus where the same claim is made and James is identified as “the Just” as well as “a brother of the Lord”. He goes on to claim that Paul regarded James as “a brother of the Lord, not so much on account of their relationship by blood, or of their being brought up together, as because of his virtue and doctrine.”(emphasis mine)

6) Eusebius repeats the claim without citing a specific passage but does quote a different reference (i.e. the extant reference) to James as “the brother of Jesus (called Christ)” which contains no connection to the fall of Jerusalem.

7) For extra fun, add in Photius’ 9th century copy of Josephus that apparently refers to Jesus as “the brother of the Lord”.

Bernard, this is clearly not a body of evidence that suggests the extant passage in Josephus should be understood as genuine. At the very least, it should be considered questionable.

Actually, Eusebius only repeats the (false) claim that Josephus understood the murder of James to be the cause of the fall of Jerusalem but he quotes from a never-before-cited passage that contains the same reference to James but does not contain the connection to Jerusalem. We have no evidence that the “lost” interpolation still existed in Eusebius’ copy. We only have evidence that the idea (obviously false) that Josephus connected James’ murder and the fall of Jerusalem still existed at least in the mind of Eusebius. The only textual evidence we have is for the extant passage which contains the same identifying phrase as the “lost” interpolation but not the idea expressed by it.

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.

The “probabilities” are obviously meaningless in any attempt to verify a given example since there are examples to the contrary. Josephus does refer to individuals minimally so there is no legitimate argument that he could not have done so in this case.

I think the exchange above shows we are dealing with double standards but they are contained in your argument. The suggestion that the reference to James may originally have been as minimal as other references Josephus makes was rejected by you as improbable because Josephus more often added information. Yet here we have an apparently unique statement in Josephus’ writing that you insist must be genuine despite being alone in its apparent deviation from his typical habits! Surely the “probabilities” are in my favor here and the double standard is yours.

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.

If the Galatians already knew it, there would be no reason for Paul to mention it. The fact that there does not appear to be any good reason for Paul to include something you have argued well he would want to avoid should introduce doubt as to its authenticity.

On what basis do you conclude that this “James” is a different person? Surely you aren’t applying the flawed methodology of retrojecting information from the Gospel stories back into Paul? The rest of your argument certainly makes it look that way.

So, because an author several decades after Paul wrote about another James, we are justified in assuming Paul is talking about this other fellow even though he offers no identification that would support such a claim? If the dead James was of no consequence, why would the Galatians even know he existed? If the confusion was so likely, why didn’t Paul offer this identification every time he mentions James?

Sorry but this is not a credible explanation (or speculation as the case may be ).

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

I agree and that is another reason I do not consider it credible to suggest that Paul would make such a statement.

I agree and that is why I conclude that no such reference was ever written by Paul! James may have been called “the brother of Lord” because of his piety (agreeing with Origen) but I don’t see why Paul would ever feel it necessary to include that in any of his letters.

If “brothers of the Lord” referred to a subgroup of Jewish Christians and “brother of the Lord” referred to James’ leadership of that group, I think we should consider everything that Hegesippus has to say about his reputation:

“He has been universally called the Just, from the days of the Lord down to the present time. For many bore the name of James; but this one was holy from his mother's womb. He drank no wine or other intoxicating liquor, nor did he eat flesh; no razor came upon his head; he did not anoint himself with oil, nor make use of the bath. He alone was permitted to enter the holy place: for he did not wear any woollen garment, but fine linen only. He alone, I say, was wont to go into the temple: and he used to be found kneeling on his knees, begging forgiveness for the people-so that the skin of his knees became horny like that of a camel's, by reason of his constantly bending the knee in adoration to God, and begging forgiveness for the people. Therefore, in consequence of his pre-eminent justice, he was called the Just, and Oblias, which signifies in Greek Defence of the People, and Justice , in accordance with what the prophets declare concerning him. “ (from the Hegesippus section of my copy of Kirby’s CD)

NOGO

First note that Paul says that Jesus received the title of Son of God after the resurrection. The Gospels have him as Son of God at his birth or at his baptism and throughout the rest of his life.

Where did Paul get this?

Note that Hebrews 1 says the same thing.

If this does not come from midrash where does it come from?

Not from the Gospels of Matthew, Mark, Luke and John.

Now moving to your complaint about the first part.

Jesus came forth from the seed of David

According to Paul Jesus had a dual nature.
One was divine and one was earthly or of the flesh.

Now I know Christians jump to conclusions here.
But if Paul and early Christians have one version of when Jesus became Son of God and the Gospels have another why must they agree on how Jesus was issued from the seed of David?

They do not.

Paul's Jesus is not human but he did spring forth from Judah and from the seed of David.

If you think that this is a unresolvable puzzle think again.
All the so called prophecies of Jesus are far more flimsy than the solution to this puzzle.

All you need to do is twist the meaning of a word or two.
In this case chose from "sprang forth from the seed of David"
Then, no matter how silly, you see a fit.
You suddenly believe that you have been inspired with this great revelation from God and
Presto!
You have a new religion.

You don't see it. I will give you a clue.

Both Paul and GJohn tell us that Jesus created the world.
How can this be?
Genesis has no Jesus creating the world.

Do you think that Paul who believed that the scriptures were God's very word can believe something which is in clear contradiction with the Holy Book of Genesis.

To understand Paul you need to think like him.

Good luck

Gawen

Pardon me for butting in.

Hiya Vork....Bernard...

When I started this thread, I didn't really know how indepth the MJ vs. HJ was. Nor did I think some very heavy guns would come out and play...*putting away my pea-shooter*. I am very impressed with everyone's intelligence on the matter...*puts on my dunce cap*. And yes, I AM reading all of it. This is one of those threads that will go into Word...*if all of you don't mind*...and printed so I can really go over it.

Thanks a bunch guys.

Gawen