Roland

Good points. Let's say we wanted to write a story about a man who became a human sacrifice in contemporary times. We would want to show that he was innocent of all wrongdoing, yet we wouldn't want to have him literally sacrificied because then we would look as if the god we worshipped were condoning human sacrifice.

So, what would be a logical way of going about doing that? We would have our character put on trial and be unfairly sentenced to death by the state. So he would probably end his life in the gas chamber or through lethal injection, not at the hands of his bloodthirsty followers. It wouldn't make our character any less noble because we would all know he was innocent at heart. Thus, I don't see how having the MJ character crucified would in any way cause a problem for the new religion.

The crucifixion merely makes it possible for Jesus to die without making god's followers responsible for the sacrifice. Think of it as a backdoor sacrifice if you will.

Thus, for me it seems less likely that a real Jesus would die first and later someone would say "hey maybe that was a sacrifice," than that someone would come up with the idea first then make up a character to go along with it.

neilgodfrey

As an ex member of a cult led by a charismatic leader, one with a family tree branch linked to the Koresh group, I can assure you that every little detail of a leader of such a cult is craved by all devotees. Food tastes, photos of the town of birth, music interests, incidental anecdotes informing of some little tidbit of personality, family relations, opinions on a pet or personal contact, the lot. Devotees will often even imitate these details, transforming themselves as much as possible into the image of the leader. Think of the "private lives" of celebrities. And given the right controls and PR subordinates, there is also room for myth-making to be channeled by the rumour mill that thrives on exploiting these interests.

Neil

Amaleq13

I didn't "just" call it sophistry. I went on to indicate I didn't see how your new definition changed anything.

Perhaps if I understood what you believe started the process, your efforts would appear to be more than linguistic sleight-of-hand.

They also both share an origin, yes? HJ has, of course, an HJ. MJ has a specific belief and, presumably, the man who first introduced it. The "extra" burden you place on the HJ position is yours as well for your own origin point.

That is how you obtain credibility for your explanation. That is how you defend that it is the "most likely" one to be true.

spamandham

If it was indeed a transliteration error, then the author thought 'Nazarite' meant 'someone from Nazareth', as opposed to the OT meaning of the word. I don't see how it makes sense for it to be a transliteration error, and yet also still have the OT meaning in the author's mind.

Josephus is reporting what others called James. Does that imply James was actually a blood relative of Jesus, does it imply that James claimed to be a blood relative of Jesus, does it imply that someone else claimed James was a blood relative of Jesus, or does it imply that 'the brother of the lord' was a title given to certain clergy, just as in modern times 'brother' is a title for certain clergy? It's very weak support for a historical Jesus as best, even if we accept it as genuine.

I presume then that you understand the nuances of the Greek as well as textual analysis and are in position to make such an authoritative claim? I am not, so I have to lean on scholars on this point. According RM Price, the following scholars (whom Price agrees with) have all argued that 1 Cor 3-11 is a later interpolation; Arthur Drews, G.A. Wells, Winsome Munro, J.C. O'Neill..and unspecified others.

Do you have anything more substantial than a declaration of 'nonsense' with which to rebut these scholars?


James is referred to as 'the brother of the lord' in 3 of the earliest mentions (Josephus, Galatians, and Hegesippus), and is not referred to as 'James the head of the Jerusalem church', 'James of Jerusalem', 'James the Nazarite', or even 'James the Just' as he would later be known, or other titles.

Hegesippus writes that only James was allowed to enter the holy place, and describes him in terms of a Nazarite (although he doesn't use that word). James was also the head of the Jerusalem church. James was special.

To argue that 'brother of the lord' is NOT a title, is to argue that his contemporaries placed no value on his special position, but felt the need instead to refer to his kinship. This is hardly an ad hoc argument.

By the way, it is not necessary to be an MJer to see that 'brother of the lord' was James' title, whether he was an actual blood relative of Jesus or not.

(as a possibly related aside, 'brother of the lord' was a title used in the ancient sanscript epic "The Rāmāyaṇa", to indicate an heir to the possessions of god)

jjramsey

You are proposing, what, that Jesus (mythical or otherwise) was thought to be a nazirite, and that by a confusion of "nazirite" and "Nazareth," he came to be thought of as a denizen of Nazareth, no? If that is the case, then one ought to at least show signs that Jesus had been thought to be a nazirite, some fossils of the old belief. If you aren't saying that Jesus was thought to be a nazirite, then why would the term even come up to give anyone an opportunity to be confused?

I lean on scholars, too, but I try to make sure that they are good ones. As for the scholars that you cited, Arthur Drews? The guy who thought that "St. Peter was a mythical character, partly evolved from the Roman god Janus"? And you know what HJers think of G.A. Wells. At least one, even two, of your scholars are warning signs, rather than encouraging endorsements.

Josephus doesn't call James "brother of the Lord."

Roger Pearse

You were a Trekkie? :-)

spamandham

No. I am proposing that the author of Mark misunderstood the OT prophecy 100%. We can surmise as much, because "Mark" tells us that Jesus was from Nazareth so that the prophecy that he would "be called a Nazorean" would be fulfilled. Of course, there is no such prophecy in the Jewish scriptures, but there is a prophecy that he would be a Nazarite.

It isn't valid to pigeonhole a scholar who uses valid techniques, simply because they hold minority positions. In a field dominated by Christian apologists, the "most scholars" argument is exceptionally weak. But that's up to you.

No, but he refers to him as you would expect a nonChristian historian to refer to someone who he had heard called 'brother of the lord', as opposed to other more appropriate titles for someone of James' status.

Toto

You write this as Drews were not a recognized scholar, Have you read that book? It is well argued, and shows how many of the later, obviously mythological legends about St. Peter (with the keys to heaven, e.g.) can be relating to Roman mythology.

Winsome Munro was a very solid scholar with no ideological bent that I know about.

gstafleu

Why do we need a "what" to start the process, why can it not have been an evolution without a clear starting point?

My thesis is that the concept of Jesus was generated by the process of faith-based invention. You seem to doubt that such invention can generate something that sounds like a person without having an actual person as a starting point. But we know that human inventiveness is up to that, even without the incentive of faith. Does there need to have been a historic Lucius for the main character in The Golden Ass? Do we need a historic Harry Potter?

We have a process, FBI, that we know can generate the data as we see it. Asking for a blow-by-blow account of exactly how this process worked in this case of over-asking. Not that such an account wouldn't be interesting, it is just that we don't need it because we know the process is up to the challenge.

Gerard Stafleu

gstafleu

I suppose that for Ps 22 you are referring to "They pierced My hands and My feet." OK, that doesn't necessitate crucifixion, but it may fit it (although iirc usually victims were tied to the cross, not nailed--the nails wouldn't hold the weight of the body and it would rip off).

But I have just read Isaiah 53 three times and I must be really dense: where does it necessitate, or even fit, crucifixion? "But He was wounded for our transgressions, He was bruised for our iniquities"? That sounds rather general to me, could easily been done with stoning. "And by His stripes we are healed"? Sounds more like flogging to me (no idea what bit means, really). There is a whole bit that explains why Jesus kept silent at his trial:
Maybe there is something that explains the tomb of Joseph of Arimathea:
Joseph was rich because he had his own private tomb--but was he also wicked?

But no crucifixion that I can see.

Gerard Stafleu