Swammerdami
Squadron Leader
The three independent mentions of Christ's brother James really do form a very strong clue. It's easy to skip over it as just another miscellaneous subtopic but really think about it, please. It just is NOT compatible with a purely mythical Jesus.
Consider Carrier's claim about James' brother (future High Priest) in Josephus' writing. Can we not agree that the claim is absurd? (If I weren't in a hurry this morning, I'd quote Josephus' text and Carrier's claim to make the absurdity clear. I already quoted them in the other thread and, anyway, Wikipedia has them.)
To make sense of James, mythicists have no choice but to claim one or both of the following:
* James and Jesus are common names. The three mentions are about 2, perhaps even 3, distinct James-Jesus pairs.
* Josephus' text was doctored. (Most scholars disagree, or limit the doctoring to just the "Christ" word.)
Note that, however common the names James and Jesus were, "son of ____" was much more common of a descriptor than "brother of ____"
As I say, there are several other reasons to think Jesus was historic, but the James conundrum by itself should almost be convincing.
If Paul's mention of "the Lord's brother" were a special homage to James' status as an apostle or believer, why is the mention so very brief, and the tone almost dismissive?
Consider Carrier's claim about James' brother (future High Priest) in Josephus' writing. Can we not agree that the claim is absurd? (If I weren't in a hurry this morning, I'd quote Josephus' text and Carrier's claim to make the absurdity clear. I already quoted them in the other thread and, anyway, Wikipedia has them.)
To make sense of James, mythicists have no choice but to claim one or both of the following:
* James and Jesus are common names. The three mentions are about 2, perhaps even 3, distinct James-Jesus pairs.
* Josephus' text was doctored. (Most scholars disagree, or limit the doctoring to just the "Christ" word.)
Note that, however common the names James and Jesus were, "son of ____" was much more common of a descriptor than "brother of ____"
As I say, there are several other reasons to think Jesus was historic, but the James conundrum by itself should almost be convincing.
Sounds plausible. UNTIL we look at the evidence. AFAICT, Galatians is the ONLY mention of a specific such "brother" in the entire Bible! The ONLY one. ("how many people call themselves "Brother of the Lord" meaning that they ate at the same breakfast table as the Lord did?" Answer: Zero in Gospels, Acts, or Epistles.)I think that at least Paul's James was a real person who did go by the title, "Brother of the Lord." Note that this James is never called Jesus's brother, at least not by Paul. It seems unlikely to me that brotherhood in this context is biological. After all, how many people call themselves "Brother of the Lord" meaning that they ate at the same breakfast table as the Lord did?A key fact which leads almost inevitably to the realization that there was a single historic Jesus is that James is mentioned as the Christ's brother INDEPENDENTLY in THREE sources: (1) Paul in Galatians, (2) Josephus in Antiquities, and (3) "Mark" in the same-named Gospel ("Is not this the carpenter, the son of Mary, the brother of James, and ... ")
If Paul's mention of "the Lord's brother" were a special homage to James' status as an apostle or believer, why is the mention so very brief, and the tone almost dismissive?
Paul in the Epistle to the Galatians said:But other of the apostles saw I none, save James the Lord's brother.
This argument supports MY view. Paul mentions "the Lord's brother" only once and then quite casually BECAUSE they were biological brothers, and because this genealogical fact was well-known at the time.I agree with Carrier that James's title "brother of the Lord" is too vague to tell if Paul was saying that this James was the biological brother of Jesus. If that's what Paul did mean, then Paul was not following Jesus's view that
It's odd that Paul would break with the teachings of a historical Jesus on this issue, don't you think? Jesus downplayed blood-brotherhood only to have Paul up-play it later with no explanation for the change from Paul."...whoever does the will of my Father in heaven is my brother and sister and mother.”
Matthew 12:50
Paul's Galatians is NOT on the disputed list. It is firmly in the "authentic Pauline" group IIUC.[/I]Where about half of the letters are disputed....