Did Paul create Jesus?

[Swammerdami]

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.

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 ... ")

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?

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.)

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?

But other of the apostles saw I none, save James the Lord's brother.

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

"...whoever does the will of my Father in heaven is my brother and sister and mother.”
Matthew 12:50

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.

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.

Where about half of the letters are disputed....

Paul's Galatians is NOT on the disputed list. It is firmly in the "authentic Pauline" group IIUC.[/I]

 

[senor boogie woogie]

How do we know Paul existed?

 

[Tharmas]

bilby:

The fact remains that not only can we not know whether either Paul or Jesus were real; I also doesn't matter one whit to anything in the modern world other than being a trivial contribution to the counterfactual beliefs of around a billion people who call themselves Christians, most of whom are in rabid disagreement about almost everything with most of the other Christians, much less the rest of humanity.

Wasting one's time on drivel is a perfectly good choice for an adult to make in a free society, but we shouldn't condone their wish to inspire others, particularly impressionable children, to similarly waste any part of their lives on this crap.

The Jesus stories have been done to fucking death. It's time to move on to something more interesting. We've wasted over a millennium of the best minds in history on this nonsensical trivia about a set of tall tales. How about maybe we stop doing that now?

Personally, I don’t find such speculations to be a waste of my time. I’m very interested in the interplay between myth and history. In my opinion most of our history contains degrees of myth, and the history of early Christianity is a test case. The fact that we can’t agree about the factual basis is actually something of a plus.

Closer to (my) home is the battle of the Alamo. There’s no doubt such a battle occurred, and the result was conclusive. However many, if not most, of the details are lost in myth. A few years ago a movie was made about the Alamo which contained only the actual facts, but all of the facts, that we had real evidence for. This movie died at the box office. People want their history laced with myth.

The myth of American exceptionalism is currently negatively affecting U.S politics, not to mention education.

In other words, I think it is highly important to be able to recognize myth in our daily lives and self image.

 

[Unknown Soldier]

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.

Will do!

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.)

I'll need to take a look to see what you mean by "absurd."

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.)

I would add that if Josephus offers independent evidence for a historical New-Testament James or Jesus, then we need to know Josephus's sources of that information. If he got it from Christians, then it does not corroborate the New Testament.

As I say, there are several other reasons to think Jesus was historic, but the James conundrum by itself should almost be convincing.

Sorry, but it doesn't convince me. I'd recommend that if you have convincing evidence for a historical Jesus, then your time is better spent presenting that evidence rather than telling people it's convincing.

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 ... ")

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?

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.)

That is not correct. 1 Corinthians 9:5 has Paul mentioning "brothers of the Lord." So not only is there at least one more mention of a brother of the Lord, there was more than one such brother. Obviously, at least in 1 Corinthians 9:5 Paul meant "brother of the Lord" metaphorically. Why, then, insist that the James brother of the Lord in Galatians was anything different?

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?

But other of the apostles saw I none, save James the Lord's brother.

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

"...whoever does the will of my Father in heaven is my brother and sister and mother.”
Matthew 12:50

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.

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.

Again, Paul mentions "brother(s) of the Lord" at least twice. And I don't see how your logic follows from the fact that Jesus is said to have downplayed his blood-brother relationships. If Paul really knew of the Gospel Christ, then Paul wouldn't have emphasized genetic brotherhood while Jesus saw it as unimportant.

The final nail in the coffin of this James-brother-of-Jesus argument is that Paul mentions that no man revealed the gospel to him. See Galatians 1:12. If the James Paul mentions was the blood brother of Jesus, then surely that James would have told Paul about Jesus. Paul says no to that.

 

[bilby]

bilby:

The fact remains that not only can we not know whether either Paul or Jesus were real; I also doesn't matter one whit to anything in the modern world other than being a trivial contribution to the counterfactual beliefs of around a billion people who call themselves Christians, most of whom are in rabid disagreement about almost everything with most of the other Christians, much less the rest of humanity.

Wasting one's time on drivel is a perfectly good choice for an adult to make in a free society, but we shouldn't condone their wish to inspire others, particularly impressionable children, to similarly waste any part of their lives on this crap.

The Jesus stories have been done to fucking death. It's time to move on to something more interesting. We've wasted over a millennium of the best minds in history on this nonsensical trivia about a set of tall tales. How about maybe we stop doing that now?

Personally, I don’t find such speculations to be a waste of my time. I’m very interested in the interplay between myth and history. In my opinion most of our history contains degrees of myth, and the history of early Christianity is a test case. The fact that we can’t agree about the factual basis is actually something of a plus.

Closer to (my) home is the battle of the Alamo. There’s no doubt such a battle occurred, and the result was conclusive. However many, if not most, of the details are lost in myth. A few years ago a movie was made about the Alamo which contained only the actual facts, but all of the facts, that we had real evidence for. This movie died at the box office. People want their history laced with myth.

The myth of American exceptionalism is currently negatively affecting U.S politics, not to mention education.

In other words, I think it is highly important to be able to recognize myth in our daily lives and self image.

Sure. But that's really difficult to do, when any discussion of anything about the Roman Empire from 1CE onwards is buried under a mountain of Jesus spam.

Other myths were extant, and likely more important to contemporary culture.

 

[excreationist]

I'd recommend that if you have convincing evidence for a historical Jesus, then your time is better spent presenting that evidence rather than telling people it's convincing.

Check out these debates between the atheist who believes that Jesus was partly historical, Bart Ehrman, and the mythicists Robert Price and Richard Carrier....

 

[Swammerdami]

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.)

I'll need to take a look to see what you mean by "absurd."

I'm rushed this morning also! Let's copy Josephus' paragraph into view and you'll see what I mean. James is described as Jesus' brother, and is stoned by order of the High Priest. That Priest is replaced by a Priest named Jesus. Does it seem likely that James was brother of future High Priest but Josephus doesn't mention that explicitly? (And would it not be odd that a High Priest's brother were an anti-Priest insurrectionist?) AFAICT Carrier has ZERO basis for the connection beyond these two Jesuses being mentioned in same paragraph.

(Carrier changes his views often. Perhaps he has realized the absurdity by now and changed his claim again.)

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.)

I would add that if Josephus offers independent evidence for a historical New-Testament James or Jesus, then we need to know Josephus's sources of that information. If he got it from Christians, then it does not corroborate the New Testament.

Make up your mind! If Paul's mention of "brother" was figurative, then which Christian did Josephus source?

As I say, there are several other reasons to think Jesus was historic, but the James conundrum by itself should almost be convincing.

Sorry, but it doesn't convince me. I'd recommend that if you have convincing evidence for a historical Jesus, then your time is better spent presenting that evidence rather than telling people it's convincing.

Sarcastic nattering doesn't contribute (though neither does this). And, by the way, there are 17 other threads here on this topic, to two of which I devoted much time and several detailed posts.

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 ... ")

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?

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.)

That is not correct. 1 Corinthians 9:5 has Paul mentioning "brothers of the Lord." So not only is there at least one more mention of a brother of the Lord, there was more than one such brother. Obviously, at least in 1 Corinthians 9:5 Paul meant "brother of the Lord" metaphorically. Why, then, insist that the James brother of the Lord in Galatians was anything different?

I have emphasized the word ("specific") that you overlooked.

 

[Swammerdami]

I have spare time this afternoon, so found the relevant texts and post them here. First Josephus' mention of James and his brother Jesus; then Carrier's bizarre solution found in his blog.

When therefore Ananus was of this disposition, he thought he had now a proper opportunity [to exercise his authority]. Festus was now dead; and Albinus was but upon the road. So he assembled the sanhedrim of judges, and brought before them the brother of Jesus who was called Christ, whose name was James: and some others; [or, some of his companions.] And when he had formed an accusation against them as breakers of the law, he delivered them to be stoned. But as for those who seemed the most equitable of the citizens, and such as were the most uneasy at the breach of the laws, they disliked what was done. They also sent to the King [Agrippa,] desiring him to send to Ananus that he should act so no more: for that what he had already done was not to be justified. Nay some of them went also to meet Albinus, as he was upon his journey from Alexandria; and informed him, that it was not lawful for Ananus to assemble a sanhedrim without his consent. Whereupon Albinus complyed with what they said; and wrote in anger to Ananus; and threatened that he would bring him to punishment for what he had done. On which account King Agrippa took the High Priesthood from him, when he had ruled but three months; and made Jesus, the son of Damneus High Priest.

(ETA: BTW, Wikipedia shows "called Christ" in its translation from Book XX but "was the Messiah" in Book XVIII. I suppose the text uses the same Greek word in each case; I dunno.)

Analysis of the evidence from the works of Origen, Eusebius, and Hegesippus concludes that the reference to “Christ” in Josephus, Jewish Antiquities 20.200 is probably an accidental interpolation or scribal emendation and that the passage was never originally about Christ or Christians. It referred not to James the brother of Jesus Christ, but probably to James the brother of the Jewish high priest Jesus ben Damneus.

My proof of that is pretty conclusive.[sic]

I have no comment or criticism of the claim that "who was called Christ" was likely a scribal emendation. It is the identification of "Jesus", probably mentioned in the original, which is allegedly in doubt.

If I need to explain why I find Carrier's "solution" — that after James was stoned by order of one High Priest, that Priest was replaced by James' own brother — to be bizarrely absurd, then I'm afraid our cognitions differ too broadly for me to be of further help!

 

[Unknown Soldier]

How do we know Paul existed?

If we understand "Paul" to be the writer of some of the epistles in the New Testament, then that Paul obviously existed to write those epistles. It's possible that a Pauline epistle can be forged and some of them are, but at least some epistles like Romans are likely his work.

 

[Unknown Soldier]

I'd recommend that if you have convincing evidence for a historical Jesus, then your time is better spent presenting that evidence rather than telling people it's convincing.

Check out these debates between the atheist who believes that Jesus was partly historical, Bart Ehrman, and the mythicists Robert Price and Richard Carrier....

I've seen those videos. What about them?

If you want to see a video of a mythicist mopping up the floor with a real-Jesus apologist, then check out Craig Evans vs. Richard Carrier - Did Jesus Exist? Carrier really does a great job of demonstrating how poor the case for a historical Jesus is. Evans comes across as ignorant of the relevant issues while Carrier shows a tremendous knowledge of them.

 

[Swammerdami]

If you want to see a video of a mythicist mopping up the floor with a real-Jesus apologist, then check out Craig Evans vs. Richard Carrier - Did Jesus Exist? Carrier really does a great job of demonstrating how poor the case for a historical Jesus is. Evans comes across as ignorant of the relevant issues while Carrier shows a tremendous knowledge of them.

I don't think I have time to watch it. Can you please summarize what Evans and Carrier had to say about the James-brother-Jesus conundrum?

 

[Tharmas]

bilby:

Other myths were extant, and likely more important to contemporary culture.

Of course, and we know a lot about pagan myths. One thing about paganism was that it was inclusive; Romans welcomed new gods into their circle of worship. Christianity, on the other hand, was exclusive; my way of the highway. This naturally brought Pagans and X-tians into serious conflict, and quite early on in the history of X-tianity. See Robin Lane Fox, Pagans and Christians, among other sources. This conflict, in turn, helped shape the doctrines and narrative of the Gospels.

 

[Unknown Soldier]

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.)

I'll need to take a look to see what you mean by "absurd."

I'm rushed this morning also! Let's copy Josephus' paragraph into view and you'll see what I mean. James is described as Jesus' brother, and is stoned by order of the High Priest. That Priest is replaced by a Priest named Jesus. Does it seem likely that James was brother of future High Priest but Josephus doesn't mention that explicitly?

I'm not sure what Josephus would say about the high priest's relation to this James. I suppose Josephus should have stated that fact if it was a fact, but no writer is perfect. They sometimes omit important details.

(And would it not be odd that a High Priest's brother were an anti-Priest insurrectionist?)

I guess that might be unusual but not too unlikely.

AFAICT Carrier has ZERO basis for the connection beyond these two Jesuses being mentioned in same paragraph.

(Carrier changes his views often. Perhaps he has realized the absurdity by now and changed his claim again.)

Well, I'm not an apologist for Richard Carrier. I thought you were arguing for a historical Jesus. Criticizing Richard Carrier won't help you much there because you're shifting the burden of proof.

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.)

I would add that if Josephus offers independent evidence for a historical New-Testament James or Jesus, then we need to know Josephus's sources of that information. If he got it from Christians, then it does not corroborate the New Testament.

Make up your mind! If Paul's mention of "brother" was figurative, then which Christian did Josephus source?

You lost me here. I don't know who Josephus used as sources for what he wrote about Christians. That's the problem. I was hoping that you knew what his sources were.

As I say, there are several other reasons to think Jesus was historic, but the James conundrum by itself should almost be convincing.

Sorry, but it doesn't convince me. I'd recommend that if you have convincing evidence for a historical Jesus, then your time is better spent presenting that evidence rather than telling people it's convincing.

Sarcastic nattering doesn't contribute (though neither does this).

I was sincerely offering helpful advice. Let's see your evidence for Jesus, then we'll let you know how convincing it is to us.

And, by the way, there are 17 other threads here on this topic, to two of which I devoted much time and several detailed posts.

I'm not sure what your point is, but I guess it's good that you have debated the historicity of Jesus.

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 ... ")

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?

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.)

That is not correct. 1 Corinthians 9:5 has Paul mentioning "brothers of the Lord." So not only is there at least one more mention of a brother of the Lord, there was more than one such brother. Obviously, at least in 1 Corinthians 9:5 Paul meant "brother of the Lord" metaphorically. Why, then, insist that the James brother of the Lord in Galatians was anything different?

I have emphasized the word ("specific") that you overlooked.

OK, so what's your point? No doubt Paul might have mentioned other specific "brothers of the Lord," but for one reason or another did not do so as far as we know.

Finally, I should emphasize that your posts demonstrate just how weak the case for a historical Jesus is. You'll need to do better.

 

[excreationist]

I'd recommend that if you have convincing evidence for a historical Jesus, then your time is better spent presenting that evidence rather than telling people it's convincing.

Check out these debates between the atheist who believes that Jesus was partly historical, Bart Ehrman, and the mythicists Robert Price and Richard Carrier....

I've seen those videos. What about them?

I thought they'd include some of the strongest arguments against mythicism and perhaps you weren't aware of them. Well if you're not swayed by Bart Ehrman in those debates then it would be impossible for me to convince you since I'm not as knowledgable as Ehrman.

If you want to see a video of a mythicist mopping up the floor with a real-Jesus apologist, then check out Craig Evans vs. Richard Carrier - Did Jesus Exist? Carrier really does a great job of demonstrating how poor the case for a historical Jesus is. Evans comes across as ignorant of the relevant issues while Carrier shows a tremendous knowledge of them.

Thanks I've looked at it a bit but might not have enough time to watch the entire 2:45 hrs.

 

[Unknown Soldier]

If you want to see a video of a mythicist mopping up the floor with a real-Jesus apologist, then check out Craig Evans vs. Richard Carrier - Did Jesus Exist? Carrier really does a great job of demonstrating how poor the case for a historical Jesus is. Evans comes across as ignorant of the relevant issues while Carrier shows a tremendous knowledge of them.

I don't think I have time to watch it. Can you please summarize what Evans and Carrier had to say about the James-brother-Jesus conundrum?

Well, no, I can't summarize a three-hour debate in one post. You really owe it to yourself, though, to watch the debate if you have any interest in the Jesus-myth hypothesis. In my opinion, Evans looks really frustrated trying to substantiate a historical Jesus under the onslaught of Carrier's arguments demonstrating that Jesus looks no more historical than pagan gods that Evans doesn't believe ever existed. Evans offered some lame objections to mythicism comparing it to holocaust denial which Carrier quickly shot down. Carrier and Evans did discuss the "James brother of the Lord" issue in which Carrier pointed out that the title "brother of the Lord" is ambiguous which Evans denied asserting that it must have meant James was Jesus blood brother. When Carrier asked why, Evans in desperation retorted: "Look at the context!"

It shouldn't be too long until Jesus, like Moses, will be categorized as a legendary figure.

 

[Swammerdami]

I don't think I have time to watch it. Can you please summarize what Evans and Carrier had to say about the James-brother-Jesus conundrum?

Well, no, I can't summarize a three-hour debate in one post.

So for you, "summarize ... the James-brother-Jesus conundrum" means "summarize the entire three-hour debate." Got it. I'm afraid our modes of English comprehension are too disparate to hope for progress in OUR discussion.

You really owe it to yourself, though, to watch the debate if you have any interest in the Jesus-myth hypothesis.

I have watched Carrier speak on YouTube and have read some of his papers. (In fact the YouTube you mention is probably one I watched many minutes of several months ago.) I find him over-rated, but that's not the point. I asked YOU to summarize (one tiny topic in) the debate because I am engaging in discussion with YOU, and want to know what YOUR view is on this "James ben Damneus" sub-topic.

By the way, in the CONTEXT of our discussion, "if you have any interest" here is derogatory. Capische?

In my opinion, Evans looks really frustrated ... Carrier and Evans did discuss the "James brother of the Lord" issue in which Carrier pointed out that the title "brother of the Lord" is ambiguous which Evans denied asserting that it must have meant James was Jesus blood brother. When Carrier asked why, Evans in desperation retorted: "Look at the context!"

I'm not going to hunt through a 3-hour video looking for a 1-minute exchange, so sincere thanks for the summary! I'm afraid that, based on your summary, I must take Evans' side. It is indeed the CONTEXT in Galatians which makes figurative brotherhood unlikely; and the CONTEXT in Antiquities which makes the James ben Damneus "solution" absurd. Whatever we may think of Josephus and Paul, they WERE renowned writers and it behooves to understand their writings by assuming competence. I'm not going to connect Every.Single.Dot here, but Carrier's out-of-context interpretations assume that Paul and Josephus wrote the relevant passages INCOMPETENTLY.

Mythicists can't even grasp this notion of context, and jump from one out-of-context assumption to a contradictory one.

Do we have an audience here? I think it's the CONTEXT which undermines Carrier's views on each of these two James mentions. YOU seem to ridicule the idea of considering context.

What do Infidels eavesdropping on this discussion feel? Am I alone in finding the "James ben Damneus solution" absurd? Anyone, please?

 

[Unknown Soldier]

I'd recommend that if you have convincing evidence for a historical Jesus, then your time is better spent presenting that evidence rather than telling people it's convincing.

Check out these debates between the atheist who believes that Jesus was partly historical, Bart Ehrman, and the mythicists Robert Price and Richard Carrier....

I've seen those videos. What about them?

I thought they'd include some of the strongest arguments against mythicism and perhaps you weren't aware of them.

Actually, I agree that Ehrman has some of the strongest arguments against a mythical Jesus. How weak those arguments are should indicate how desperate real-Jesus apologists are to make Jesus out to be a historical figure. Ehrman has lied at least twice to defend Jesus historicity. The first lie was his denying in Did Jesus Exist that a statue DM Murdock said was in the Vatican was actually there. The statue is in the Vatican. His second lie was his claiming in his debate with Robert Price that we have no evidence for Pontius Pilate from the supposed time Jesus lived. According to Richard Carrier, that's not true either.

Well if you're not swayed by Bart Ehrman in those debates then it would be impossible for me to convince you since I'm not as knowledgable as Ehrman.

As long as you're more honest than Ehrman is, then you at least have a chance to convince me. Some written eyewitness testimony about Jesus, like we have for Alexander the Great and Julius Caesar, would work wonders.

If you want to see a video of a mythicist mopping up the floor with a real-Jesus apologist, then check out Craig Evans vs. Richard Carrier - Did Jesus Exist? Carrier really does a great job of demonstrating how poor the case for a historical Jesus is. Evans comes across as ignorant of the relevant issues while Carrier shows a tremendous knowledge of them.

Thanks I've looked at it a bit but might not have enough time to watch the entire 2:45 hrs.

It's a great video. That 2:45 will go by quickly.

 

[Unknown Soldier]

I don't think I have time to watch it. Can you please summarize what Evans and Carrier had to say about the James-brother-Jesus conundrum?

Well, no, I can't summarize a three-hour debate in one post.

So for you, "summarize ... the James-brother-Jesus conundrum" means "summarize the entire three-hour debate." Got it. I'm afraid our modes of English comprehension are too disparate to hope for progress in OUR discussion.

No. It means watch the debate for yourself if you're really interested in the topic.

You really owe it to yourself, though, to watch the debate if you have any interest in the Jesus-myth hypothesis.

I have watched Carrier speak on YouTube and have read some of his papers.

I'd recommend you also read his latest book, Jesus from Outer Space. Carrier does a great job of documenting the mounds of historical evidence we have for people from antiquity like Socrates and Alexander the Great that we lack for Jesus. What's especially revealing about that is that we keep hearing the argument that the evidence for Jesus is as good as the evidence for other people from antiquity we consider to be historical. It isn't true!

(In fact the YouTube you mention is probably one I watched many minutes of several months ago.)

is there some reason why you're using small font here that I should be aware of?

I find him over-rated, but that's not the point. I asked YOU to summarize (one tiny topic in) the debate because I am engaging in discussion with YOU, and want to know what YOUR view is on this "James ben Damneus" sub-topic.

Well, you're getting it.

By the way, in the CONTEXT of our discussion, "if you have any interest" here is derogatory. Capische?

You're playing the hurt-feeling card. You know the advice for those who can't take the heat.

In my opinion, Evans looks really frustrated ... Carrier and Evans did discuss the "James brother of the Lord" issue in which Carrier pointed out that the title "brother of the Lord" is ambiguous which Evans denied asserting that it must have meant James was Jesus blood brother. When Carrier asked why, Evans in desperation retorted: "Look at the context!"

I'm not going to hunt through a 3-hour video looking for a 1-minute exchange, so sincere thanks for the summary! I'm afraid that, based on your summary, I must take Evans' side.

I'm so surprised.

It is indeed the CONTEXT in Galatians which makes figurative brotherhood unlikely; and the CONTEXT in Antiquities which makes the James ben Damneus "solution" absurd.

How so? Let's take a look at that context in Galatians 1:18-20 (New Revised Standard Version Updated Edition):

18 Then after three years I did go up to Jerusalem to visit Cephas and stayed with him fifteen days, 19 but I did not see any other apostle except James the Lord’s brother. 20 In what I am writing to you, before God, I do not lie!

So what makes you so sure that James is Jesus's genetic brother here?

I should also point out that Paul is defending himself in this passage from charges of dishonesty. The sources of evidence for a histiorical Jesus are, shall we say, problematical.

Whatever we may think of Josephus and Paul, they WERE renowned writers and it behooves to understand their writings by assuming competence.

To be generous, I will make that assumption.

I'm not going to connect Every.Single.Dot here, but Carrier's out-of-context interpretations assume that Paul and Josephus wrote the relevant passages INCOMPETENTLY.

Why is that a problem?

Mythicists can't even grasp this notion of context, and jump from one out-of-context assumption to a contradictory one.

I'm not sure what you mean by "out of context assumption."

Do we have an audience here? I think it's the CONTEXT which undermines Carrier's views on each of these two James mentions. YOU seem to ridicule the idea of considering context.

Actually, I have trouble respecting arguments for a historical Christ that shift the burden of proof by impugning the skeptics.

What do Infidels eavesdropping on this discussion feel? Am I alone in finding the "James ben Damneus solution" absurd? Anyone, please?

So you think it's absurd and are fishing for agreement. Am I then supposed to conclude that Jesus existed?

I will conclude by saying that while I'm not really a mythicist and think there's an even chance that Jesus existed, one thing I'm sure of is that there are no good reasons to conclude he existed. Every time I hear about that "overwhelming evidence" for Jesus I end up overwhelmed with doubt. As I see it, belief in a historical Christ is not based in history but in Christian dogma. Even non-Christians often want a real Jesus for career aspirations. I can take Jesus or leave him, but I won't take religion disguised as historical evidence.

 

[excreationist]

Then He Appeared to Over Five Hundred Brethren at Once! • Richard Carrier Blogs

Christian apologists will often throw a tantrum and kick up hay over the notion of “mass hallucination.” That’s impossible! Never documented! Absurd on its face! And they’ll especially bring up “the more than five hundred brethren” Paul says the resurrected Jesus “appeared” to (1 Corinthians...

www.richardcarrier.info

@Unknown Soldier
I just wanted to clarify what you thought about Richard Carrier's claim that the "more than 500" involved a mass hallucination. Do you think what really happened is that Paul completely made that event up? If you think Richard Carrier knows what he's talking about then he could be correct when he claims that hundreds of people probably saw some weird sun activity (or similar) while believing it was Jesus....
Like I said earlier there was an example of 6000 people believing they saw Jesus as a case of mistaken identity which is a possibility that Carrier never seems to consider.

 

[Swammerdami]

Fellow Infidels — Please!
I have a simple request. Any Infidel who posts in this thread but does NOT address the following two sincere questions will get a demerit from me. OK?

(A) There are a total of TWO instances in the ENTIRE Bible where SPECIFIC men are named as "brother(s) of Jesus/Christ." These instances are
. . . . (1) in Mark's Gospel where there is a list of Jesus the Carpenter's siblings (one is James) and
. . . . (2) in Epistle to the Galatians where Paul has a very brief and dismissive mention of "James the brother of the Lord."
QUESTION: Do you think the "brother" Paul mentions was (a) probably figurative, (b) probably literal, (c) other_______

(B) Josephus mentions the stoning of a Jesus (Christ?)'s brother James. There are various solutions (e.g. Josephus was misinformed; or the "Jesus' brother" was added later by Christian enthusiasts) but we are concerned here only with Carrier's solution: That Josephus DID write "Jesus' brother" and the Jesus referred to was indeed James' brother but NOT Jesus Christ. Instead Carrier thinks the stonee's brother was the man who became High Priest soon after the stoning! The only justification for this identification AFAICT is that that High Priest, Jesus ben Damneus is mentioned several sentences later.
QUESTION: How do you rate the plausibility of Carrier's solution?

I do NOT choose to argue my positions here: Use your own common-sense. I just want to see if Infidels will take the trouble to help out here. I will much PREFER that Infidels write "Swammi is all wet; Go, Carrier!" than that they fail to answer altogether.

So for you, "summarize ... the James-brother-Jesus conundrum" means "summarize the entire three-hour debate." Got it. I'm afraid our modes of English comprehension are too disparate to hope for progress in OUR discussion.

No. It means watch the debate for yourself if you're really interested in the topic.

By the way, in the CONTEXT of our discussion, "if you have any interest" here is derogatory. Capische?

You're playing the hurt-feeling card. You know the advice for those who can't take the heat.
...
I'm so surprised.
...
So you think it's absurd and are fishing for agreement. Am I then supposed to conclude that Jesus existed?

... As I see it, belief in a historical Christ is not based in history but in Christian dogma. Even non-Christians often want a real Jesus for career aspirations. I can take Jesus or leave him, but I won't take religion disguised as historical evidence.

I found your tone to be deliberately insulting, Unknown Soldier. You may be happy to know that, for that reason, I am unlikely to indulge you again.

Small-minded mythicists — does that include anyone we know? — tend to assume that anyone who doesn't kow-tow to Dr. Richard Carrier, PhD is some sort of Christian fanatic. Just to be clear, I am an atheist largely repulsed by Christianity. I think the historic Jesus may have been a rather minor figure (during his lifetime) about whom VERY LITTLE is known for sure except that he was from Galilee, was executed by order of Pontius Pilate (and probably had a brother named James!)