spin

I haven't had my hands on V&T, but I do know that JFMcG tends to assume mythicism (in those who don't stimulate him the right way) and ask questions later.

ph2ter

From the review of James McGrath at least becomes clear that the evidence for Jesus’ historicity collapses into very few points:
- the mention of ‘James, the Lord’s brother’ by Paul in Gal. 1.19
- Tacitus Annals 15.44
- the testimony of Origen that Josephus mentioned Jesus but did not regard him as the Christ, which according to him confirms the consensus view that there was an original reference to Jesus by Josephus behind the later Testimonium Flavianum as redacted by Christians

If there is a way to convincingly nullify these points, the case will collapse completely.

hjalti

Here's a shorter (and expanded!) version:

- Gal 1.19
- Tacitus
- the 'original' TF
- "Who would invent a crucified Davidic messiah?"

spin

Regarding James, see if you can make any substance of McGrath's responses in this dialogue.

On Annals 15.44 see my blog entry as a start.

This blog entry is a very basic examination of Origen on James as derived from Hegesippus (a name thought in ancient time to be derived from "Josephus", as in Pseudo-Hegesippus, a Latin reformulation of Josephus with an anti-Jewish bent).

Tenorikuma

As Carrier points out, who would invent a castrated saviour?

Religious people, that's who.

Tom Verenna

I'm grateful that James McGrath would take the time to review the volume. I do not agree with his assessment on the contributions, but that is precisely what I expected. Maybe one day he will convince me or I will convince him (or someone else will). It remains to be seen.

To answer your question:

If James is construing our introduction as a pro-mythicist position, he is wrong. Doubting is not the same as denying. Neither Thomas Thompson or I took a strong mythicist position in our introduction or in our individual contributions to the volume. The issue we were raising, quite plainly, is that if Joseph of Arimathea and Lazarus and even Joseph, Jesus' step-father, can be dismissed by scholarship as literary creations, why do we stop short at Jesus? This isn't a de facto pronouncement in ahistoricity; it is merely asking the question that no one else seems to want to ask.

I like James, but it seems he has an agenda at times that clouds his ability to read sympathetically. But that's fine. Bad reviews are typical when dealing with such a controversial issue.

I hope that answers your question.

spin

You only see the agenda when he opens his mouth.

andrewcriddle

Do we have any clear evidence that Origen knew the works of Hegesippus ?

Andrew Criddle

MrMacSon

There is no way of knowing if the mention of ‘James, the Lord’s brother’ by Paul in Gal. 1.19 is reference to a true sibling, or a fellow member of a group.

Tacitus Annals 15.44 makes reference to Chrisitians and the nebulous 'Christus' they believed in - "a most mischievious superstition"
The alleged writings of Josephus are too hard to contextualize, as are interpretations of interpretations.

The historical-Jesus proponents only have highly tenuous of connections.

Minimalist

That seems like a very reasonable position. Let's remember that the Romans did not notice xtians until the second century.