beallen041

Abe, I find it interesting that you dismiss something that is not contemporary out of hand. What reason do you have for doing this in some cases but not others?

In addition, what understanding do you think that Hegesippus had of James, regarding his Christianity?

aa5874

Again, please stop wasting time.

The historical Jesus was NOT Christ as you have already claimed.

The historical Jesus was an OBSCURE apocalyptic preacher.

For crying out LOUD.

What kind of nonsense are we dealing with from you day after day?

Once you claim the historical Jesus was just an OBSCURE apocalyptic preacher then please FORGET about "Antiquities of the Jews" 20.9.1.

A Jewish Messiah should be a WELL-KNOWN character and MUST be a RULER of the Jews.

We have the stories of gMark and gMatthew, the Jews did NOT know that a Messiah called Jesus lived among them up to the very day he died.

Once Jesus is dead without being called the Messiah then Jesus will NOT be called a Messiah.

Jesus MUST RULE the Jews to be called a Messiah like Vespasian or Simon BarCocheba.

Examine gMatthew 1.1-2 Where is the King of the Jews? Where is the Messiah?

Where is Jesus?

In gMatthew and gMark we can't find the King that was to be born.

The Jews thought King Herod had ALREADY killed the King of the Jews when he killed the children of Judea.

ApostateAbe, if your HJ was NOT a king of the Jews then don't even bother look at "Antiquities of the Jews" 20.9.1.

"Antiquities of the Jews" 20.9.1 is about a Messianic ruler comparable to Vespasian or Simon BarCocheba.

Your HJ was an OBSCURE gentleman.

ApostateAbe

We shouldn't either universally regard or universally disregard the accuracy of the claims of early Christian writers. There are several important considerations that we must use to make such decisions. They include, but are not limited to:

1. Multiple attestation -- a claim is more probable if it is multiply attested, or at least we know that the myth developed very early.
2. Plausibility -- a claim is more probable if it fits what we know about everything else.
3. Dissimilarity -- a claim is more probable if it does not match the interest of those who told the claim.
4. Earlier is better -- a claim if more probable if it is contemporary or close to contemporary to the claimed event or figure.

There are those who trust almost everything that early Christians said. And, there are others who dismiss almost everything that early Christians said. I think we need to be reasonable, not dogmatic, and we need to discriminate the claims of early Christians based on reasonable criteria rooted in common sense, and such criteria can be put to the test using more recent history where we have more knowledge.
I think we can trust Jerome's quote and take Hegesippus at his word regarding his own beliefs about James. They would still need to be taken with a grain of salt since they are seemingly based on at least 100 years of myth (criterion of earlier is better).

ApostateAbe

I would also like to add that the converses of each of those four listed criteria can help us determine what is improbable; i.e. for dissimilarity, a claim is less probable if it closely matches the interests of those who told the claim.

Toto

It's awkward, but not that awkward.
Actually, I don't. Maybe I'm just too tired to reread this thread and try to follow your point. Maybe it's that you tend to throw around terms like "model" that don't make a lot of sense in this context.

What 5 different pigeonholes? I have a consistent explanation for these: Romans knew something about an underground religion called Christianity and vaguely associated it with a "Christ" who might be a god, but didn't know anything about a Jesus Christ (at least until Christians start messing with the text.) How is your explanation better? If you think Romans knew about Jesus and thought his surname was Christ, why don't Pliny or Tacitus mention Jesus?

And you cannot call these "5 sets of evidences." They are 5 separate documents, each with unique characteristics.

When I said that probability was subjective, I meant that you seem to take your preferred explanation and slap the label of "most probable" on it, with no accurate way of judging probability.

Doug Shaver

OK. There is no probability to accept. I have seen no argument, from you or anyone else, establishing a significant probability that Josephus wrote anything referring to anyone as "called Christ."

ApostateAbe

OK. I have another question, and this will be relevant for me understanding your general perspective--What methodology (or methodologies) do you use to determine which hypothesis is most probable in any given disagreement much like this one?

beallen041

So how is it that Christians decades after James' life could imagine that he was both a Christian and able to go into the Holy of Holies? There is a disconnect there with what is commonly understood about first or second century Christianity is there not? Hegesippus seems to think also that the Pharisees and Scribes viewed him as an authority as well.

ApostateAbe

Toto, I have the same question for you as I do for Doug Shaver--What is your methodology?

ApostateAbe

There was not so much of a distinction among Christians between the religions of Judaism and Christianity. The Christians thought of their own faith as the fulfillment of Jewish scriptures, and they adhered to the Jewish god. Later Christians were generally Greeks and Romans, of course, but their faith was Jewish, and James was a Jew out and out. The Christians of the second century didn't see anything implausible about James being a high-ranking member of the Judaic religious community. When they heard the myth that James could enter the Holy of Holies of the Jewish temple, they didn't think anything implausible about it, and they wanted to believe it, so they did.