No Robots

I don't understand your sneering contempt for the Enlightenment. I know that it is S.O.P. for conservatives. Could it be a remnant of the old fundy you? I know also that you have read Charlotte Allen. Did you get it from her? The Enlightenment is the time when science began to dispel the nimbus of mythology around all kinds of things, including the Bible. It seems to me a tremendous accomplishment that the application of rigorous scientific methods to the Bible revealed Jesus to be not a god, but a man. Your attitude that this is some kind of bogus liberal trickery is frankly baffling.

Toto

I don't know where you get the idea that I have any sort of contempt for the Enlightenment, so let me set that straight. Nor am I a conservative.

The Enlightenment was a great start on applying rationalism and critical thinking to human problems. But we are not stuck with the physics or the medicine of the 17th century, and there is no reason to stick with the philosophy or religion of that time.

Charlotte Allen clearly traces the quest for the historical Jesus to Enlightenment attempts to find a rational core to Christianity. Allen herself rejects the Enlightenment and the historical Jesus that this quest found.

But you don't have to be a conservative obscurantist to realize that the quest for the historical Jesus was not successful (we're on our third quest now, and there's still no scholarly agreement about who Jesus was), that the application of "rigorous scientific methods" to the Bible (whatever those are) have not found a real man there.

jjramsey

I'm sorry, but interpreting "brother of the Lord" as a title strikes me as ad hoc speculation to get around a more obvious meaning that accords with both the Gospels and Josephus.

Do you have any basis for this? The HJers would argue that it is the MJers who are playing games with dates to leave room for a mythical Jesus.

I would also add that Christianity has features that are more easily justified as having a historical basis. Who would want to create a religion where the central doctrine is a backwater hick dying in an electric chair, excuse me, a Galilean peasant dying on a cross? Why make up a town like Nazareth that has no real OT support (stretching Hebrew prophecies about branches notwithstanding) only to portray it neutrally or negatively and have it complicate the birth narratives? To borrow a cue from Don Wise, some of the features of Christianity make sense as evolutions from actual facts, but are incompetent design choices for a newly made-up religion.

Amaleq13

Ahijah

Toto

There is an old discussion with spin mentioning a Hebrew name or title that translates to "Brother of YHWH". [ETA - Amaleq13 found it.]

It seems that if Paul had meant the biological brother of Jesus, he would have said Jesus, not the Lord.

A mythical Jesus does not depend on dating any documents. Doherty accepts a relatively early date for Mark (compared to other mythicists.)

Many designs are incompetant - look around you. But no one says that Christianity was intelligently designed. It evolved from earlier Hellenistic Judaism.

jjramsey

"Ahijah" in that link was a name, not a title. One might expect that if James did have that as a title, we'd see James referred to as "James Ahijah," with an explanation of what "Ahijah" meant. You have yet to explain why, if we have references in the Gospels and Josephus that James was a brother in a literal sense, that we should not interpret James the Lord's brother in accordance with this, instead of introducing the additional speculation that "brother of the Lord" came to be misunderstood as being literal.

Toto

The Gospels and Josephus are both relatively late. Paul refers to James the Brother of the Lord, but he writes in Greek.

jjramsey

That's why I had "with an explanation of what 'Ahijah' meant." "James" (or really "Jacob"), "Jesus", "Cephas", "Joseph", "Mary", etc., are not Greek names, but they are written in Greek, nonetheless. Actually, I suppose that someone could have used Ahijah as a title, but there is no evidence.

That is weak. "Brother of the Lord" would be more reverent to Jesus than "brother of Jesus," without being too verbose.

This doesn't answer the question of why one should introduce the speculation that "Brother of the Lord" was a title that got misunderstood. At best, the relative lateness of the Gospels and Josephus makes the speculation a weak possibility, and one not supported by actual facts.

Which still doesn't explain the cross or Nazareth.

Chris Weimer

Is the quest for the historical Jesus so important? Of course not. For the same reasons why Matthew's theology is not important, why the studies of the spread of Hellenism isn't important, why textual criticism isn't important, yadda yadda yadda. But it's damn sure interesting!

Amaleq13

Chris,

IIUC, you consider "Brother of the Lord" to be a title. Could you explain your reasoning?