Bernard Muller

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Bernard wrote:
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!
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

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.

BM: Yahweh is God by another name. I cannot imagine anyone, let's say a pope, calling himself the brother of God, without creating huge controversies. For Jews in Jerusalem, that would be not tolerated.

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
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.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

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?

BM: I think you turned things around. I said the title of brother of Yahweh in Jerusalem would have been most controversial and liable of execution. But brother of the Lord, addressed to Gentiles Christians, who must have known about James (through Paul or others, like those Judaizers), as a family relation, was no problem.
I do not think Doherty would try to prove this point. Anyway, next time you go to Jerusalem, try to be called the brother of Yahweh and see the reaction of the Jews around you.
Here is an example in Jos' Ant. about someone (demented emperor Caius calling himself brother of Jupiter):
"He also asserted his own divinity, and insisted on greater honors
to be paid him by his subjects than are due to mankind. He also frequented that temple of Jupiter which they style the Capitol, which is with them the most holy of all their temples, and had boldness enough to call himself the brother of Jupiter." 19,1,1
But this guy was the top dog in Rome. Imagine a lesser man doing that instead of Caius. What the emperor and his entourage would feel?

SNIPPED

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
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.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

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.

BM: I do not think so, because Eusebius wrote:
And indeed Josephus did not hesitate to write this down in so many words:
"These miseries befell the Jews by way of revenge of James the Righteous, who was the brother of Jesus who was called Christ; because they had slain him, who was a most righteous person."
So I think Eusebius is quoting something (spurious) from Josephus' work that Origen earlier commented upon:
"he [Josephus] had a mind to set down what was the cause why the people suffered such miseries, till the very holy house is demolished, he said, that these things befell them by the anger of God, on account to of what they had dared to do to James, the brother of Jesus ..."

I think the spurious stuff fits well at the end of Antiquities:
Here is Ant., XX, XI, 1 (last sentence), followed by the spurious passage in purple, as Origen read (& quoted) (everything fits!):
"But then what actions we were forced to do, or what miseries we [Jews] were enabled to suffer, may be accurately known by such as will peruse those books which I have written about the Jewish war.
[describing "actions" and "miseries" up to the temple destruction]"
"These miseries befell the Jews by way of revenge of James the Righteous, who was the brother of Jesus who was called Christ; because they had slain him, who was a most righteous person."


Amaleq: We have no evidence that the “lost” interpolation still existed in Eusebius’ copy.

BM: I think we do.

Amaleq: 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.


quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Bernard wrote: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.


quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sure, but the probabilities are in my favor.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

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.

BM: I think probabilities should be taken in account here or anywhere else. Not because there are a few exceptions we should reject the bulk of the evidence. Just we have to say very likely, or likely. Check what kind of expresions Doherty uses, when he introduce possibilities.

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
There is no example [in Josephus] 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.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

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.

BM: Well, if you think that Josephus would never reverse brother to brother reference, because I do not have an example to show, so be it; even if he does that sometimes for son & father. Of course father & son relationship are a lot more numerous than brother to brother in Josephus' work, so there is a much better sampling.

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Bernard 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.

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
What about if the Galatians already knew that James was the sibling of Jesus?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

If the Galatians already knew it, there would be no reason for Paul to mention it.

BM: Why not? Is there a rule like that? By mentioning brother of the Lord, that would identify that James among others or make sure the Galatians knew who he was talking about.
Please note Paul used "brothers of the lord" rather casually, without any names, in 1Cor.

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
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.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

SNIPPED
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
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.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


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?

BM: He was still living in 38, so meeting a James at that time, with no other ID, would have brought confusion.

Amaleq: If the confusion was so likely, why didn’t Paul offer this identification every time he mentions James?

BM: Well when you identify uniquely someone in front, you usually do not have to do so afterwards, as long as you keep referring to the same James. Don't you think that would seem strange for Paul to keep repeating "James, the brother of the Lord"?

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

BM: Too bad

SNIPPED

Best regards, Bernard

Amaleq13

So, the basis for your assertion is your imagination? Interesting speculation but clearly denied by the existence of an ancient name that means "brother of Yahweh".

You've been asked several times to support this assertion. It would have been much easier if you had acknowledged from the start that it was personal speculation. Ant 19.1.1 does not appear relevant to your claim at all.

With regard to Eusebius actually quoting the "lost" interpolation, I think you are correct. So, the extant interpolation has not replaced the "lost" interpolation, they overlap in Eusebius' copy. Then the "lost" one is subsequently deleted and the other retained though not necessarily in the same form (i.e. Photius' "Lord").

The evidence still does not suggest that the extant phrase be considered genuine. It seems a bit more than coincidence that the trail of the "lost" interpolation ends where the trail of the extant interpolation begins and both share the same phrase identifying James as "the brother of Jesus (called Christ)."

What "bulk of the evidence" is being rejected and by whom? Josephus never uses the word "Christ" except in this phrase. Josephus never refers to a brother first when identifying an individual. No one before Eusebius mentions this reference but both he and Origen quote an earlier obvious interpolation (subsequently deleted by Christian copyists) that contained the exact same phrase.

It isn't about what I think. It is about the evidence. The fact of the matter is that there are no examples of this except the disputed passage.

We might also question why Josephus would choose to identify a man who was apparently widely known and admired for his piety, to the point that he was called "the Just" or "the Righteous", by connecting him to an executed seditionist rather than with one of his nicknames.

Amaleq wrote: If the Galatians already knew it [that James was the brother of Jesus], there would be no reason for Paul to mention it.

Have you forgotten your own arguments already? Just a few posts ago you argued quite eloquently that Paul would want to avoid making any member of the Jerusalem group appear as though they had greater authority. I agree that this notion is entirely consistent with and supported by Paul's letters.

If they are subgroup, why would that be surprising?

You are still retrojecting claims from the Gospels back into Paul. This is not a legitimate methodology.

Amaleq: If the confusion was so likely, why didnt Paul offer this identification every time he mentions James?

What about in other letters to different communities?

I think it is incredible to suggest he uses it even once and your own earlier arguments seem to support that view. If he was willing to use it once, however, there is nothing strange about him using it again elsewhere. This would seem especially true for letters to different communities.

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

For you.

Why would Christians and Jews of Hegesippus' time consider the death of James to be the cause of the fall of the Temple?

spin

Not wanting to interrupt proceedings, I just wanted to throw in a few thoughts:

1) James being "universally" surnamed "the Just" should at least be of a priestly family, yet the James brother of Jesus was supposedly of the line of David according to the two contradictory genealogies supplied in the gospels (and it is the male line which dictates such things). Obviously the literature doesn't allow James the Just to be of the family of Jesus the Judahite. This means that we have to look elsewhere for the significance of "the brother of the Lord".

2) that the name Ahijah is found intact in the Hebrew bible means that no-one took enough offence to it, unlike names such as Meribba`al and Ishba`al, which a scribe of Samuel had no qualms in changing.


spin

Ted Hoffman

See, this is why I love reading Vork's posts. Great work Vork.

Benard, using phrases like "obsessively", "screwy interpretation", "dream up that interpretation", "agenda driven", "my vote goes for Jesus", "the probabilities are in my favour", "I cannot imagine" (what a beautiful case of argument from personal incredulity!) etc, make you seem to be floundering and basically throwing sticks and stones at your challenger (ie. no real ammunition). We know your position and we know where your vote would go.

But this is not a poll and it is not a casino and we don't care about the limits of your imagination. This is a debate: you need to argue your positon clearly and strongly because carefully dismantling your arguments is our primary responsibility. When you seem to be gambling or just "writing something" when you have nothing to write, the excercise becomes a bit too easy <yawn>. Those of us who are here for sport aren't particularly excited by sitting ducks. The fact that you make inconsistent arguments by challenging your own earlier arguments make it appear that you post with complete lack of thought. You are tying yourself in knots. Tight knots.

Your resort to ad infinitum repetitions also does you no good. For example, after Vork has demonstrated how apostleship is acquired, you state: "An apostle first was known for his preaching" and you don't provide ANY evidence for that claim.

This is called "noise making" and its a shoddy style of argumentation employed only by Holdings and sometimes Layman.

You agree most of Hebrews is derived from the OT. How then do you identify the sections that are history? Why would the writer(s) need to derive their story from the OT if they events actually took place historically? Isn't this the very definition of "creating history"?

Your "judicious" application of selective thinking is one huge case of special pleading if you ask me.

And an argument from silence is not the same as "speculation". And AFAIK, Vork is not a mythicist: he is here for sport. Me OTOH...

Benard, as it is, counterarguments that have demolished your case are still standing. The Ahijah argument for example, you responded with "I cannot imagine...". Go back and address them. There is no point posting plenty of verbiage without responding to actual arguments.

Amaleq, I think this is a good point: "If the Galatians already knew it, there would be no reason for Paul to mention it"

Ted Hoffman

Gregg,
By the way, in the wake of my post regarding Philo of Alexandria not preaching a crucified Jesus, is your position unchanged?

Gregg

I must've missed that post. What page is it on?

Ted Hoffman

Page 5 date stamp: March 5, 2004 08:41 AM

Amaleq13

First, thanks for the earlier kudo and I would like to add my belated admiration for the efforts of Vork.

Second, I don't see this post where you indicate and I would be interested in reading it. There is a post from Gawen at 8:15am then my post at 9:18am.

Artemus

Time zone problems. The bulletin board displays your local time. Search for posts at 7:41, 9:41, etc.

(Hmmm...it showed up as 2:41 AM for me. Apparently Jacob lives on the opposite side of the pond from me.)

Amaleq13

Thanks for the tip. I don't see anything about "Philo" so do we assume that Jacob meant "Apollos" or is there yet another post I should find?