Solitary Man

One minor point: the Gospels are secondary to Paul, and therefore any information added to the Gospel story by the Evangelists must be recognized in that way and reconciled with the already existing Jesus narrative.

One major point: Josephus explicitly connects James with Jesus as a brother.

From your article:

Why is it inconceivable that Jesus had more than one brother? The gospel Mark, as you note, indicates such. What is even more important, and something you gloss over with no comment, is that James is listed in Mark 6.3. Is it really inconceivable that this could have been historical information passed down to Mark himself?

Later Christians also took it that way, since in the epistle of Jude, Jude, who is also named in 6.3, claims to be the brother of James.

We know that Paul also called fellow believers "brothers". However, this isn't an indication that Paul was actually speaking to his brother. What is significant is that Paul distinguishes from the brother(s) of the Lord and brothers in the Lord. The first suggests fraternity, the second phraternity.

Ted Hoffman

I am interested in a review by NT scholars, of James Tabor's The Jesus Dynasty . If you have one, point me to it. That is what I was asking Ben for. I never asked for opinions about the Talpiot Tomb.

Solitary Man

I just gave you two reviews. Ben Witherington had one on his blog (google) and Craig Evans reviews it in his book.

ApostateAbe

To me, a myth is an idea that is transmitted from person to person to person in succession. Yeah, just about anything can be a myth.
You might have to read Ehrman yourself. I am not an expert on Ehrman.

If the texts seem to communicate one thing on the face, then a different interpretation has the burden of providing evidence. Any Bible verse can be reinterpreted to accommodate any interpretation. The word, "brother," is vague enough to fit both views, but there is no good reason to single out James as the "Lord's brother" if he isn't a brother in a significant sense, as in a flesh and blood brother. If you have ever argued with fundamentalist Christians about problems with the Bible, and I am sure you have, then you know the problems. They claim to interpret the Bible literally, but they will take any interpretation that fits their theory that the Bible is infallible. You and I should not fall into such a trap. If you claim that Paul never places Christ on Earth, then the burden is on you, not on me. The verses that seem to indicate that Paul did think of Jesus as a flesh-and-blood human should not be interpreted away if you don't have evidence in your favor.
OK, I don't know those arguments.

Ted Hoffman

Thanks for playing.

ApostateAbe

You know how some people quote your text in Internet forums and they slice off the important stuff you wrote like they only glanced over it, and they declare victory over the small stuff you wrote? That has happened to me on more than one occasion. I don't know about you, but it really pisses me off. I included the text that you replaced with ellipses for that reason. Usually, I don't like to think of debates as like a contest. I really am an amateur at this stuff, and I have a lot to learn from people who believe differently than I do. The best end for me is not winning the argument, but it is learning something sensible I didn't know before. The best times in my life are those times that I learned I was wrong in a debate. If all you do is prove that you know more than me, then you could have just asked me from the beginning. "Do you know more than I do on the history of Jesus?" Answer: "No." And you win.

youngalexander

Ah, but is what he 'knows' correct?

Sorry TH, couldn't resist.

Ted Hoffman

My point exactly! We dont give a rats ass about what people "know" or "think" what we are interested in is their reasons for believing that what they know is correct. Its only kids who are happy with "my mama says Xyz" we here are interested in why she says what she says.
Thanks youngalexander.

I am sorry that you are pissed. I normally cut off discussions when I detect that they may not be helpful. Let me explain myself please.

It is not about what you know. It is about whether you want to know (where you dont know) and whether we can have a fruitful discussion as a consequence.

I provided you with a link containing a detailed exposition indicating the invalidity of what is peddled as "what mainline critical scholars think". You did not challenge the arguments I invited you to read. You just came back and repeated that "That[what you were pointing to earlier] is only evidence on what critical scholars think."
It means you are not interested in the truth and the facts and the arguments but only in what others think. You don't care whether what they think is garbage, so long as that is what they think. As I stated earlier, an appeal to numbers is a fallacy. Posters here are interested in the merits of each case, not how many people are devotees.

When you tell me the burden of proof is on me, yet you are the one making a positive assertion (that Paul places Christ on Earth), then it means you dont appreciate basic logic: the burden of proof always lies on the one making a positive assertion. And I really did not think I will be spending my time well by taking you through Logic 101, especially considering the foregoing (you not being interested in the arguments but in opinions).

Statements like "To me, a myth is..." militate against you being a serious discussant because you are not an authority so what a myth is "to you" is irrelevant and its a pure waste of time to discuss what it is "to you." What if I tell you "to me a myth is two mangoes?" What then? How will we have a discussion if we can give words whatever meanings we want to assign them? Because I can choose a word to mean anything I want "to me."

When you refer to Ehrman to support a certain perspective then upon being asked to substantiate, you respond that you are "not an expert on Ehrman" (as if you need to be an expert to explain your understanding), then it also means you are not committed to examining the position you have chosen, fully and rigorously. In fact, it indicates you may have no actual "position" in the schemes of HJ research.

When you dont know HJ criteria like Multiple Attestation and when you treat the gospels like historical documents, and when you dont seem to know that historical people ARE human beings and do NOT take the form of humans (Philippians 2:8), then it indicates to me that your approach to the subject is cavalier. Rightly or wrongly, I expect earnest people to ask for clarification or evidence when they encounter positions they are unfamiliar with or do not understand as opposed to simply saying "I dont know about that" and moving on.

That is why I sought to disengage.

ApostateAbe

OK, that's fair.

Zeichman

Ignoring, of course, the fact that Mack argues the Philippians hymn presupposes a Jesus who was primarily known for teaching. Pre-existence has nothing to to with historicity. This is not to mention that Mack says nothing about pre-existence on the page you cite, let alone take a position on historicity with which he clearly disagrees.