Toto

I attended the screening of the God Movie described in this thread. It was a worthwhile film, but in the Q&A afterwards someone asked Brian Flemming about their understanding that two ancient sources - Paul and Josephus - referred to James the brother of Jesus. Brian waved his hands and referred to his experts, but I thought his answer could be improved.

This is an exercise for those who think that the references to James the Brother of Jesus are not dispositive evidence for the existence of Jesus. How do you explain your position in a few sort paragraphs?

[Posts that claim that this evidence does prove the existence of Jesus may be split off.]

For example, after being asked about James, Brian could have said.

James the brother of Jesus? They found his burial box recently, didn't they? Oops, that was a forgery. What else could be forged?

Paul doesn't actually mention James the brother of Jesus - he refers to James "the brother of the Lord", which could have been a title naming him the brother of God. And Paul doesn't act like this brother has any particular status in his eyes, compared to Paul's own vision.

Josephus refers to a James who was stoned to death around 62 CE, saying James is the brother of "Jesus" - and here the manuscript says "called Christ." But these words could have been added by a later Christian copyist. Josephus does not indicate that this James was a Christian, or that he headed the Jerusalem Church, or had anything else in common with the James mentioned in Paul's letters. This James could have been the brother of a different Jesus, the son of Damneus referred to later in the section.

Is this an adequate summary? Does it hit the main points?

Peter Kirby

I would recommend going for the original suggestion of Wells and Doherty that Josephus referred to "a certain James," rather than the suggestion (made by no scholar I'm aware of--although I promoted it once) that "called Christ" was dropped and that "Jesus" is the son of Damneus. S. C. Carlson on XTalk disabused me of that notion.

Instead of emphasizing that this James could be another James, I would emphasize the argument for interpolation, which must come before any identification (potential or definite) with any other James. The most successful argument for interpolation, to the degree that any are successful, is that a case can be made that Josephus avoided the term "Christ," with the obvious exceptions of Ant. 18.3.3 and Ant. 20.9.1.

Paul does seem to grant some respects to James in Galatians 1:19 and 2:9, calling him an "apostle" and "pillar," against the claim of no "particular status."

Other than that, the first paragraph is a fallacy but potentially powerful as rhetoric. Deploy at your own risk.

kind thoughts,
Peter Kirby

Toto

What is the fallacy?

Peter Kirby

It's an association fallacy (also known as "Guilt by Association"). A hundred ossuaries could be made by Golan & Co. without affecting the probabilities in the text criticism of Josephus (or Cicero, or Ambrosiaster, or the Book of the Dead). There is no legitimate inference here, either to the conclusion of interpolation or to the conclusion that authenticity is questionable. If authenticity is questionable, it is questionable on relevent considerations.

kind thoughts,
Peter Kirby

Steven Carr

Ask the Pope if Jesus had a brother.

Toto

I don't see the statement as implying guilt by association, and I would interpret any implication of that as evidence of some sensitivity on the issue.

The statement only says - here is one forgery. Might there be other forgeries? It does not state that one forgery requires another, just that the possibility needs to be considered. Many Christian commentators seem to have a mind set against even the possibility of forgery, and claim that a heavy burden of proof lies on those who charge forgery, as if forgery were so unexpected that it can never be presumed. But history shows that forgery is the norm, not authenticity; the burden should be on those claiming that a passage is not forged.

At least that is the intent behind the statement. How do others read it?

Amaleq13

I thought it was a sarcastic way of suggesting the reference could be an interpolation. It never occurred to me that there might be an implied "because".

Toto

The sarcasm is mine, but it doesn't really fit Brian Flemming (he has a good sense of irony, but does not come across as a jaded cynic.)