Freethought & Rationalism Archive

ApostateAbe · 03-04-2010, 07:13 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Doug Shaver

Quote:

Originally Posted by ApostateAbe

I don't find it such a ridiculous idea that Josephus reports on some Christian myths that are not found in the book of Acts.

It might not be ridiculous on the assumption of Jesus' historicity, but it is at least puzzling on that assumption. If an early leader of a religious sect had been a sibling of the sect's putative founder, one would reasonably expect better attestation of the relationship.

The problem is not that Acts doesn't say it. The problem is that none of the earliest Christian documents says it -- with a single ambiguous possible exception. Paul's reference is not the smoking gun so many historicists insist that it is.

It is plausible that first-century Christians would have disagreed over whether Jesus of Nazareth was God incarnate, or over whether his followers had to keep kosher, or over any other of many issues. It is not plausible, if historicity is presupposed, that first-century Christians would have argued about whether Jesus had a brother named James who was an early leader of the sect or, assuming there was no argument, that they would have treated the fact as an irrelevancy deserving only a cryptic mention if mentioned at all.

That there was some interpolation of Josephus is virtually undisputed, even by fundamentalists. The TF interpolation was so clumsily done that its authenticity is indefensible. It does not follow that every Christian who ever interpolated anything was so incompetent as to be incapable of making his forgery look like the real thing.

Only on the assumption that every interpolator was as stupid as the one who doctored the TF.

Quote:

Originally Posted by ApostateAbe

It matches the viewpoint of Josephus

Yes, and a competent interpolator would have made sure it did.

I should probably emphasize that I am not arguing "It could have happened, therefore it did happen." All I am presenting here is a counterargument against "It could not have happened."

I am not among those ahistoricists who claims we can be sure of Jesus' nonexistence. My position is, and always has been, that the totality of evidence weighs more heavily for his nonexistence and for existence. To put it another way, my quarrel is not with anyone who thinks it reasonable to believe in a historical Jesus, but with those who think it unreasonable to believe otherwise.

Paul's reference is not the smoking gun so many historicists insist that it is, you say. OK, let's say there is ambiguity about what "Lord's brother" means in Galatians 1:19. How do we settle the dispute? How would you settle it? You know how I settle it--by looking at how other early sources describe the relationship. But you wouldn't do it that way--you already know how other early sources describe the relationship. If historicists seem stubborn and arrogant over this, then maybe that is for a good reason.

I made the point that it is unlikely that an interpolator would settle on "called Christ." You said, only on the assumption that every interpolator was as stupid as the one who doctored the TF,.

There is only the assumption that an interpolation behind one part of the text is more likely than not to match the personality of another interpolation behind another part of the text. You have to recognize that proposing two interpolators with two different levels of intelligence who didn't try to harmonize the only two different mentions of Jesus is taking another step backward away from what is probable. I am not claiming an impossibility, but there should consequences for a theory when you have to make a chain of unlikely explanations.

show_no_mercy · 03-04-2010, 07:21 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ApostateAbe

Do you have access to the Greek text of Josephus by any chance?

http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/...3A1999.01.0145

Toto · 03-04-2010, 07:27 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ApostateAbe

...

The chain of reasoning so far has been that Galatians 1:19 could possibly refer to a religious metaphorical brother, except that Josephus refers to James as a literal brother. Wait a minute, Josephus could have been interpolated, except that it only moves the source of the meaning onto the interpolator, who wrote between 90 CE and 240 CE, the time Origen wrote about the citation of James by Josephus. Wait a minute, Josephus could have been interpolated to fit the mistaken views of Origen. That, or Origen may have been interpolated to align with Josephus.

All you need is the possibility or probability that the phrase in Josephus was inserted after the mid second century.

Quote:

Can you really tell me with a straight face that such a line of speculation counts as an argument for what Galatians 1:19 really means?

It removes your attempt to use Josephus to interpret the language.

Quote:

If you have evidence, such as the anachronistic language in Josephus, that's great. So, OK, spin claims that Josephus uses a Greek word translated as "called" in English that Josephus doesn't often use to refer to humans. I don't have access to the Greek text of Josephus, so I have no way to check. ...

spin has a longer argument, based on the twisted syntax of that phrase (it's not anachronistic, it just doesn't read very well.)

ApostateAbe · 03-04-2010, 07:31 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by show_no_mercy

Quote:

Originally Posted by ApostateAbe

Do you have access to the Greek text of Josephus by any chance?

http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/...3A1999.01.0145

Thanks!

judge · 03-04-2010, 07:36 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

It removes your attempt to use Josephus to interpret the language.

Has anyone ever interpreted it in any other way?
As Spin failed to provide another way to read it. Maybe you can?

In clear unambigous terms just what is the alternate reading of galatians 1:9?

James the brother of Screaming Lord Sutch maybe?

Toto · 03-04-2010, 07:46 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by judge

...
Has anyone ever interpreted it in any other way?
...

Of course. Catholics do not think Jesus had a brother.

The word kyrios in Koine Greek is translated as Lord. It is used in Paul to refer to God, and at times, to refer to Jesus.

The word for brother in Paul is almost always used to refer to believers, not biological brothers.

The brother of "kyrios" could be the brother of God (there is a Hebrew name that means this.)

If Paul had meant the biological brother of Jesus of Nazareth, he could have referred to James as the brother of Lord Jesus, who knew Jesus in the flesh.

I think the phrase is ambiguous, but I don't think it can be strong support for a historical Jesus.

spamandham · 03-04-2010, 09:42 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by spin

Yet every Jesus historicist I've heard from has the need to believe that Paul's "James the brother of the lord" must mean the physical brother of Jesus. It's on a post-it nailed to their foreheads.

Well, of course. If you start with the assumption that Jesus was historical, then you will see 'James the brother of the Lord' as reinforcing that idea. The idea is then further supported by Josephus.

But there are other alternatives that are also simple, yours being one. It could simply have been an error on the part of later readers/writers.

Equally simple (IMHO), is that 'brother of the lord' is a title for James, since he is head of the Jerusalem church, and is remembered as being so just that his nickname is 'James the Just'. Such perceived virtue would qualify him to be called the brother of Jesus according to Romans 8:29

For those God foreknew he also predestined to be conformed to the likeness of his Son, that he might be the firstborn among many brothers.

If the reference to James-brother-of-Jesus in Josephus is legitimate, it's easy to see how Josephus would confuse a title of 'brother of the lord' with a blood relationship, since Josephus is not a Christian initiate. For the same reason, it's easy to see how later Christians *who do believe in a historical Jesus* would read Paul and come to the same conclusion.

I think this is the simplest explanation in light of 1 Cor 15 (which I do not consider authentic, but nonetheless gives us insight into early Christian thinking), which shows James as receiving a Jesus-vision *after* some legendary group of 500. This indicates that early Christians viewed Paul's James as a relative latecomer rather than the contemporary brother of Jesus. His late entry might also explain why he is not remembered as an apostle.

spin · 03-04-2010, 10:02 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

spin has a longer argument, based on the twisted syntax of that phrase (it's not anachronistic, it just doesn't read very well.)

Quote:

Originally Posted by ApostateAbe

Wait a minute, Josephus could have been interpolated...

What will it take for you to consider the question of the veracity of the "brother of Jesus called christ" in AJ 20.200 seriously?

1) Josephus avoids using the term "χριστος", not for HB material he cites, not for messianic pretenders of the 1st c. not for Vespasian.

2) Josephus doesn't favor λεγομενος.

3) Non-standard word order favors recent reference to Jesus, but there isn't such a recent reference.

4) Normal reference to a Jew is through the father. Maybe the father was unknown, but use of anything other than father is unexpected and therefore somewhat problematical. Besides, the father of the messiah indicates the lineage of the person. Unknown father becomes a big problem for a messianic claimant.

So, again, what will it take for you to consider the question of the veracity of the "brother of Jesus called christ" in AJ 20.200 seriously?

You have no reason from the bible to be sure that "James the brother of the lord" refers to a physical brother of Jesus.

spin

ApostateAbe · 03-04-2010, 10:26 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by spin

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

spin has a longer argument, based on the twisted syntax of that phrase (it's not anachronistic, it just doesn't read very well.)

Quote:

Originally Posted by ApostateAbe

Wait a minute, Josephus could have been interpolated...

What will it take for you to consider the question of the veracity of the "brother of Jesus called christ" in AJ 20.200 seriously?

1) Josephus avoids using the term "χριστος", not for HB material he cites, not for messianic pretenders of the 1st c. not for Vespasian.

2) Josephus doesn't favor λεγομενος.

3) Non-standard word order favors recent reference to Jesus, but there isn't such a recent reference.

4) Normal reference to a Jew is through the father. Maybe the father was unknown, but use of anything other than father is unexpected and therefore somewhat problematical. Besides, the father of the messiah indicates the lineage of the person. Unknown father becomes a big problem for a messianic claimant.

So, again, what will it take for you to consider the question of the veracity of the "brother of Jesus called christ" in AJ 20.200 seriously?

You have no reason from the bible to be sure that "James the brother of the lord" refers to a physical brother of Jesus.

spin

I would certainly take it seriously if it didn't read, "called Christ," but instead, "was the Christ." There is a chance that I would take it seriously if the Testimonium Flavianum reads, "He was called the Christ." There is a chance that I would take it seriously if the writings of Josephus completely lacked the variations of λεγομένου, and there is a bit less of a chance but still a chance that I would take it seriously if the writings of Josephus lacked the variations of λεγομένου when referring to people. And I most certainly would take it seriously if an early citation of the passage contradicts it, much like we find with the Testimonium Flavianum.

spin · 03-04-2010, 11:09 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ApostateAbe

Quote:

Originally Posted by spin

What will it take for you to consider the question of the veracity of the "brother of Jesus called christ" in AJ 20.200 seriously?

1) Josephus avoids using the term "χριστος", not for HB material he cites, not for messianic pretenders of the 1st c. not for Vespasian.

2) Josephus doesn't favor λεγομενος.

3) Non-standard word order favors recent reference to Jesus, but there isn't such a recent reference.

4) Normal reference to a Jew is through the father. Maybe the father was unknown, but use of anything other than father is unexpected and therefore somewhat problematical. Besides, the father of the messiah indicates the lineage of the person. Unknown father becomes a big problem for a messianic claimant.

So, again, what will it take for you to consider the question of the veracity of the "brother of Jesus called christ" in AJ 20.200 seriously?

You have no reason from the bible to be sure that "James the brother of the lord" refers to a physical brother of Jesus.

spin

I would certainly take it seriously if it didn't read, "called Christ," but instead, "was the Christ." There is a chance that I would take it seriously if the Testimonium Flavianum reads, "He was called the Christ." There is a chance that I would take it seriously if the writings of Josephus completely lacked the variations of λεγομένου, and there is a bit less of a chance but still a chance that I would take it seriously if the writings of Josephus lacked the variations of λεγομένου when referring to people. And I most certainly would take it seriously if an early citation of the passage contradicts it, much like we find with the Testimonium Flavianum.

Please answer my question: what will it take for you to consider the question of the veracity of the "brother of Jesus called christ" in AJ 20.200 seriously?

I didn't ask you to change the wording of the phrase (it's too late for that) or the available evidence.

I asked you about the issue as is. Why isn't the reference to "χριστος" a guaranteed christian interpolation? Do you know of any texts not talking about Jesus that use this expressly Jewish/christian usage of "χριστος"? Why would you think that Josephus would use the term when he has plainly avoided it? Given that there is nothing expressly Josephan about the phrase and no apparent reason for its contorted nature, why won't you consider the veracity of the "brother of Jesus called christ" in AJ 20.200 seriously?

spin

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.