RPS

The parsimonious interpretation adheres closest to a plain reading of the text. To interpret "brother of the Lord" as having a meaning other than the most commonly understood one (i.e., group membership rather than, erm, well, brother of the Lord), unless there is good evidence that the plain meaning is wrong, is inconsistent with the Razor, I think.

Toto

I don't know anyone like that, and the whole idea seems pretty bizarre. The Historic Jesus is actually a creation of the Enlightenment, and most academic HJ adherents are not evangelicals.

No Robots

Yet completely in harmony with the views of Emperor Julian. Hmm.

Toto

Not a contradiction. The Enlightenment involved a revival of classical learning.

There is a disharmony between the Historical Jesus as described by academic scholars such as Ehrman and the Christ of faith that the Christian church is based on.

McD

I'll deal with the second claim first: I kinda sorta agree with this. Modern HJ scholarship is based on post enlightenment. Yup. No problem with that at all, at least on the surface of it.

Third claim second: Most HJ adherents are not evangelicals. I don't recall claiming that they are.

First claim last: Literally every MJer that I have personally met is exactly like that. They all seem to be terrifed that the next logical step, after admitting there might have been a historical Jesus is to admit that that Jesus is the Son of God and Savior of Humanity.

Toto: With all due resepct, do you honestly think that somewhere in your post you rebutted me?

Overkill

I'm a mythicist.It isn't because the mythicists have such a strong case its just that the historicists have such a weak case. The paucity of evidence for a historical Jesus is really quite tremendous to me as other hucksters like Simon Magus and Jonathan were written about by eyewitnesses and contemporaries.
And MacDuffie, even if a historical Jesus of Nazareth existed I could really care less. He'd just be one more wackadoo claiming to be a savior and teaching a mystery religion. Hardly compelling when you keep in mind how many other hucksters and charlatans existed at those times.

McD

Well, you are hurting my feelings there, cut that out

Didn't you read where I said that I am not even a very enthusiastic HJer? If evidence was uncovered that proved with 100% certainty that there was no Jesus, I would just shrug my shoulders and say "Hmmm that's interesting" and maybe, a few months or years later, I might even reread some of my scholarly books to see exactly where and how it was I just happened to come down on the wrong side of the debate.

I thought that I made it perfectly clear that, although I have read a whole lot on this subject, I don't have a whole lot of emotional investment in the answer to the final question. It's the hunt, not the kill, that interests me.

Oh, and by the way, I think you mean that you "couldn't care less". If you could care less, it means that you care to some degree, be it large or small.

Here is a chart showing you the caring continuum, which will help you figure out the difference between "could care less" and "couldn't care less"

Clivedurdle

http://www.iidb.org/vbb/showthread.php?t=119035

What exactly is a plain reading?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_the_Just

Comments that catholics think brother means cousin!

No Robots

Precisely! Julian's was the last voice of classical reason on this subject. It would be more than a millennium before the Enlightenment would again bring reason to the study of Christ.

Who says our encounters aren't productive?


I'm not sure what you're getting at here. There are many Christologies at variance with traditional church teaching. Ehrman hasn't, as far as I can see, articulated a very clear view. You know that I am partial to the views of a certain number of German Jews of a century ago. Here is quotation from Leo Baeck that I particularly cherish:

This man could have developed as he came to be only on the soil of Judaism; and only on this soil, too, could he find his disciples and followers as they were. Here alone, in this Jewish sphere, in this Jewish atmosphere of trust and longing, could this man live his life and meet his death—a Jew among Jews. Jewish history and Jewish reflection may not pass him by nor ignore him. Since he was, no time has been without him; nor has there been a time which was not challenged by the epoch that would consider him its starting point.

When this old tradition confronts us in this manner, then the Gospel, which was originally something Jewish, becomes a book-and certainly not a minor work-within Jewish literature. This is not because, or not only because, it contains sentences which also appear in the same or a similar form in the Jewish works of that time. Nor is it such—in fact, it is even less so—because the Hebrew or Aramaic breaks again and again through the word forms and sentence formations of the Greek translation. Rather it is a Jewish book because—by all means and entirely because—the pure air of which it is full and which it breathes is that of the Holy Scriptures; because a Jewish spirit, and none other, lives in it; because Jewish faith and Jewish hope, Jewish suffering and Jewish distress, Jewish knowledge and Jewish expectations, and these alone, resound through it-a Jewish book in the midst of Jewish books. Judaism may not pass it by, nor mistake it, nor wish to give up al claims here. Here, too, Judaism should comprehend and take note of what is its own.

"The Gospel as a document of history". In Judaism and Christianity / Leo Baeck. Philadelphia : Jewish Publication Society of America, 1958. p. 101-102.

RPS

I agree that translation is always difficult and open to question. If you have evidence why what seems to be the plain reading of the text really isn't, please share it.

...which looks no better to me (at least at this point) than brother of the Lord designating group membership/cult status....