• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Are the gospels reliable historical documents? // YES

Subduction Zone

Veteran Member
Well the church fathers (the ones that supposedly edited Josephus) did believed in the perpetual virginity of Marry, and they promoted this doctrine with passion and favor.

So my objection is: why would the church fathers edit the text such that the text contradicts their view?..The fact that Jesus had a brother named James strongly suggest that Marry was not a virgin all her life, .. if you are going to modify a text to fit your theological purposes, then it makes no sense to someone would add something that goes against his theology.


So
If the church fathers belived in the perpetual virginity (which implies that Jesus didnt have any brothers)

and if they modify josephus to fit their theological purposes...

Why woudl they modify the text such that the infdormation contradicts their purposes?
It did not contradict the view that Mary was a virgin.

I seriously did not know the answer from official church perspective, but I thought of one before I looked it up. Your objection has no merit because you have not thought it out well enough. What is now thought to be a tidbit that was not written by Josephus does not go against the perpetual virgin myth. The answer is the same now as it would have been without that writing.


Once again you are forgetting that Mark openly stated that Jesus had named brothers and unnamed sisters. And yet Mary was a virgin. at least if you are Catholic, how does that work? There is an answer.
 

leroy

Well-Known Member
It did not contradict the view that Mary was a virgin.

I seriously did not know the answer from official church perspective, but I thought of one before I looked it up. Your objection has no merit because you have not thought it out well enough. What is now thought to be a tidbit that was not written by Josephus does not go against the perpetual virgin myth.


There is an answer.

You don’t seem to understand my point.

Why would the Church Fathers edited the text written by Josephus in such a way that it makes it seem that Marry was not a virgin?

The answer is the same now as it would have been without that writing.
If the church fathers had complete literary liberty to change the text in Josefus why didn’t they used the opportunity to label James as a half brother, or a step brother, or a cousin or a “spiritual brother” or something that would help them promote their doctrine of perpetual virginity?...............or just omitte the "brother part"


Once again you are forgetting that Mark openly stated that Jesus had named brothers and unnamed sisters. And yet Mary was a virgin. at least if you are Catholic, how does that work?

Why is that question relevant? Honestly what is your point?..... yes Mark mentioned brothers and sisters, because Jesus had brothers and sisters., what is so unlikely about that?.........in my opinion the doctrine of perpetual virginity is simply wrong.
 

Subduction Zone

Veteran Member
You don’t seem to understand my point.

Why would the Church Fathers edited the text written by Josephus in such a way that it makes it seem that Marry was not a virgin?


If the church fathers had complete literary liberty to change the text in Josefus why didn’t they used the opportunity to label James as a half brother, or a step brother, or a cousin or a “spiritual brother” or something that would help them promote their doctrine of perpetual virginity?...............or just omitte the "brother part"




Why is that question relevant? Honestly what is your point?..... yes Mark mentioned brothers and sisters, because Jesus had brothers and sisters., what is so unlikely about that?.........in my opinion the doctrine of perpetual virginity is simply wrong.
I got your point. You did not get mine.

Just admit that you do not understand how this had no effect on the claims of Mary being a virgin and I will explain it to you. Or you could look it up for yourself. Sometimes information has a slight cost.
 

lukethethird

unknown member
Excellent article on why we should be skeptical Jesus existed:

It would be easier, frankly, to believe that Tiberius Caesar, Jesus’ contemporary, was a figment of the imagination than to believe that there never was such a person as Jesus.
– N. T. Wright, Jesus and the Victory of God (Fortress, 1996)

we do have coins dating from the early first century that bear images of Tiberius....it is not surprising that there are no coins surviving from the first century with the image of Jesus on them


Did Jesus Exist? | American Atheists
I doubt that we can know one way or the other with the information that we have. Religious texts and Johnny come lately historians don't add up, and proving non-existents could be a fools errand.
 

leroy

Well-Known Member
I got your point. You did not get mine.

Granted I didn’t Get your point………care to explain?


Just admit that you do not understand how this had no effect on the claims of Mary being a virgin and I will explain it to you. Or you could look it up for yourself. Sometimes information has a slight cost.
granted I do not understand how this had no effect on the claims of Mary being a virgin............that is why I am asking you to support that claim
 

SeekingAllTruth

Well-Known Member
I doubt that we can know one way or the other with the information that we have. Religious texts and Johnny come lately historians don't add up, and proving non-existents could be a fools errand.


I doubt we can know if Jesus existed. All we have to go on is the complete lack of any secular evidence for him, when it's obvious there should be more secular evidence for the son of God than there is for Elvis.
 

Subduction Zone

Veteran Member
Granted I didn’t Get your point………care to explain?



granted I do not understand how this had no effect on the claims of Mary being a virgin............that is why I am asking you to support that claim

The early church fathers realized that we know very little about Joseph. He could have been a widower. Mary could have been his second wife and the various brothers and sisters were from the first wife. I closed my links a while ago, but I could find them for you again. That appears to be the beliefs of early church fathers that also believed that Mary was a virgin. Though the "brother" of Paul may be debatable it is pretty hard to debate the verses of Mark. Oh wait. This Wiki article covers all of it, brothers and sisters and the beliefs of those who thought that Mary remained a virgin:

Brothers of Jesus - Wikipedia
 

lukethethird

unknown member
I doubt we can know if Jesus existed. All we have to go on is the complete lack of any secular evidence for him, when it's obvious there should be more secular evidence for the son of God than there is for Elvis.
I wouldn't want to argue that Jesus was an historical figure or that the gospels are a reliable history. If the author of gMark had a particular itinerant preacher in mind it is not knowable one way or the other and Paul certainly doesn't appear to. We have no way of knowing one way or the other with the info we have.
 
Last edited:

leroy

Well-Known Member
The early church fathers realized that we know very little about Joseph. He could have been a widower. Mary could have been his second wife and the various brothers and sisters were from the first wife. I closed my links a while ago, but I could find them for you again. That appears to be the beliefs of early church fathers that also believed that Mary was a virgin. Though the "brother" of Paul may be debatable it is pretty hard to debate the verses of Mark. Oh wait. This Wiki article covers all of it, brothers and sisters and the beliefs of those who thought that Mary remained a virgin:

Brothers of Jesus - Wikipedia
Granted, I didn’t say that “the brother James” absolutely proves that Mary wasn’t a virgin (it could be a cousin, a step-brother, adopted, a half brother etc.) but this strongly suggests that marry wasn’t a virgin all her life

The issue is: If the church fathers had complete literary freedom and could change the text in Josephus anyway they wanted, why would they invent something that suggests* that marry wasn’t a virgin?.... if they had complete freedom of inventing any text they wanted, why didn’t they wrote something like “James the Half Brother of Jesus”…

Mary could have been his second wife and the various brothers and sisters were from the first wife.

Granted, that is a possibility, so why didn’t the church fathers made that point clear? After all (according to Carrier and @joelr ) these church fathers had both the means and the intent to modify Josephus´s work to meet their theological agenda.

My point is that the passage of James doesn’t seem to have any theological meaning, if anything the passage makes a disservice to the doctrine of perpetual virginity. So why would they invent that passage?

I have a simple answer, maybe the church fathers didn’t had the means or the intent to change Josephus´s work ….. do you have a more plausible answer?


Besides using Carriers logic, nothing in Josephus could be trusted, because the church fathers could have modified any words that they wanted, so should we drop Josephus as a source for ancient history?...........or should we drop just the specific verses that contradicts Richard Carriers view?
 

SeekingAllTruth

Well-Known Member
I wouldn't want to argue that Jesus was an historical figure or that the gospels are a reliable history. If the author of gMark had a particular itinerant preacher in mind it is not knowable one way or the other and Paul certainly doesn't appear to. We have no way of knowing one way or the other with the info we have.
Exactly. Couldn't have said it better.
 

Subduction Zone

Veteran Member
Granted, I didn’t say that “the brother James” absolutely proves that Mary wasn’t a virgin (it could be a cousin, a step-brother, adopted, a half brother etc.) but this strongly suggests that marry wasn’t a virgin all her life

The issue is: If the church fathers had complete literary freedom and could change the text in Josephus anyway they wanted, why would they invent something that suggests* that marry wasn’t a virgin?.... if they had complete freedom of inventing any text they wanted, why didn’t they wrote something like “James the Half Brother of Jesus”…



Granted, that is a possibility, so why didn’t the church fathers made that point clear? After all (according to Carrier and @joelr ) these church fathers had both the means and the intent to modify Josephus´s work to meet their theological agenda.

My point is that the passage of James doesn’t seem to have any theological meaning, if anything the passage makes a disservice to the doctrine of perpetual virginity. So why would they invent that passage?

I have a simple answer, maybe the church fathers didn’t had the means or the intent to change Josephus´s work ….. do you have a more plausible answer?


Besides using Carriers logic, nothing in Josephus could be trusted, because the church fathers could have modified any words that they wanted, so should we drop Josephus as a source for ancient history?...........or should we drop just the specific verses that contradicts Richard Carriers view?
This should not be so hard to understand. Those church fathers had already decided that the brothers and sisters of Jesus were from a prior marriage. Don't trust me, look it up for yourself. Or if necessary I could post more links for you. Josephus stating that James was his brother only supported their belief that Jesus had an older brother.

One more time for clarity. They already believed that Jesus had an older brother. Having Josephus supposedly write a statement about him did not hurt their beliefs about Mary's virginity at all. You are the one that decided it hurt that story. No one else made that mistake.
 

leroy

Well-Known Member
Paul called an Apostle Paul, so did Mark. The rest he invented. If you haven't seen the gigantic amount of evidence we already have that he's writing fiction, some of which I already posted, you might want to check that out.
Even historians who believe in a historical Jesus do not support using the gospels as history.
That is exactly why they say they believe in a man named Jesus and very little can be known about his actual life.






Historian says no, apologist say unclear.
Historian:

"Likewise the “Brothers of the Lord” Paul references in 1 Corinthians 9:5 are, again, non-apostolic Christians—and thus being distinguished from Apostles, including, again, the first Apostle, Cephas."

Christian apologist reference:

"It's unclear exactly who Paul means in his reference to "brothers of the Lord." Perhaps he means Jesus' actual half-brothers, born to Mary. Or this might mean "brothers" in the same sense as general Christian brotherhood. Or, it might be some other group entirely. In any case, Paul's main point is that he is not claiming his "right" to be supported by those he serves."



Not how it's explained by Christians:
What does 1 Corinthians 9:5 mean?



Wait what?
If I presented several scholars explaining it's widely believed the passage to be fake (I did) that means there absolutely IS CONTROVERSY and to say otherwise is complete denial.


"Honestly. The evidence that the Testimonium Flavianum (or TF) is entirely a late Christian forgery is now as overwhelming as such evidence could ever get. Short of uncovering a pre-Eusebian manuscript, which is not going to happen. All extant manuscripts derive from the single manuscript of Eusebius; evidently everything else was decisively lost. The new article is by Paul Hopper, Distinguished Professor of the Humanities Emeritus at Carnegie Mellon University,"

Paul Hoppers paper:
"A Narrative Anomaly in Josephus" by Paul J. Hopper - Biblical Criticism & History Forum - earlywritings.com


"Further evidence that the longer reference is a Christian fabrication lies in an article I didn’t cite, however, but that is nevertheless required reading on the matter: G.J. Goldberg, “The Coincidences of the Testimonium of Josephus and the Emmaus Narrative of Luke,” in the Journal for the Study of the Pseudepigrapha (vol. 13, 1995), pp. 59-77. Goldberg demonstrates nineteen unique correspondences between Luke’s Emmaus account and the Testimonium Flavianum, all nineteen in exactly the same order (with some order and word variations only within each item)."

"A Narrative Anomaly in Josephus" by Paul J. Hopper - Biblical Criticism & History Forum - earlywritings.com


Carrier's paper:
Now that the world has ended, my peer reviewed article on Josephus just came out: “Origen, Eusebius, and the Accidental Interpolation in Josephus, Jewish Antiquities 20.200” in the Journal of Early Christian Studies 
(vol. 20, no. 4, Winter 2012), 
pp. 489-514.

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.






The only mentions are Mark's fiction and people who read Mark and wanted to convince people their myth was actually real.
Early Christians are already known to have created propaganda documents to prop up the movement. This is why many of Paul's works are considered to be late forgeries as well as Josephus. This is a known thing. All of these sources are completely debunked as Christian propaganda.





Oh, now logic is ok?




Exactly. What is more likely. Highly skilled writers take Jewish mythology and write a story that is as mythic as Lord of the Rings, definitely copy, line by line, stories from Psalms, Kings, Jesus Ben Anias and other fiction and create a demigod who follows the same basic model followed by other demigods only in that region and inspired by an older religion of the people who occupied their lands for 3 centuries. And it's actually all true or it's a myth just like the 1000 other religions going on at the time>



You keep saying "obvious" and that isn't true. In Gal 1:18-19 it's known he's using the word to distinguish between apostolic and non.
Here Carrier is explaining that Ehrman also agrees regarding that passage. Some Pastor writing apologetics does not trump biblical historians.


"Ehrman also says this can’t be the meaning in Galatians 1:18-19 because there the James thus called a brother of the Lord is being differentiated from Cephas (Peter) the Apostle. As I wrote in my summary, that’s indeed true: Paul is making a distinction; he uses the full term for a Christian (“Brothers of the Lord”) every time he needs to distinguish apostolic from non-apostolic Christians. The James in Galatians 1 is not an Apostle. He is just a rank-and-file Christian. Merely a Brother of the Lord, not an Apostolic Brother of the Lord. The only Apostle he met at that time, he says, was Cephas (Peter), the first Apostle (according to 1 Corinthians 15:5 in light of 1 Corinthians 9:1). Likewise the “Brothers of the Lord” Paul references in 1 Corinthians 9:5 are, again, non-apostolic Christians—and thus being distinguished from Apostles, including, again, the first Apostle, Cephas."




As we have already seen, in Mark the apostle James is NOT a biological brother of Jesus. This James has a different biological brother. I gave that information. So yes, Mark gave Jesus a brother named James who also has a name that one of the apostles had.

This is becoming circular, so just to conclude:

In order to establish that James wasn’t the brother of Jesus you have to assume:

Paul

1That he meant “spiritual brother” both in Corinthians and Galatians

Mark

2 That Mark wrote a myth based on what Paul said

3 That Mark randomly invented names and just by Chance he happened to invent “James” to label the brother of Jesus

4 That the other gospels copied from mark

Josephus

5 That The Church Fathers (Eusebios) Modified the original text and inserted lies

6 That all surviving copies come from the version that the Church fathers corrupted

Church Fathers

7 that the church fathers lied (or where misinformed) every time they referred to James as the brother of Jesus

Bonus: there is no source that denies that James is the brother of Jesus

I understand that none of these 7 points is completely unreasonable, but each of these points is rejected by the majority of scholars and is unlikely to be true, even if 1 or 2 points happen to be true, you need all 7 points in order to establish that James was not a biological brother.

Be honest, wouldn’t you say that there is a high probability that at least 1 of these points is wrong?


PS: you don’t have to make a point by point “refutation” (you already did it) … please feel free to make a conclusion and end this conversation. I appreciate your time I learned a few things as a result of this conversation

If you think that there is a specific that you think I should address please let me know
 

Subduction Zone

Veteran Member
This is becoming circular, so just to conclude:

In order to establish that James wasn’t the brother of Jesus you have to assume:

Paul

1That he meant “spiritual brother” both in Corinthians and Galatians

Mark

2 That Mark wrote a myth based on what Paul said

3 That Mark randomly invented names and just by Chance he happened to invent “James” to label the brother of Jesus

4 That the other gospels copied from mark

Josephus

5 That The Church Fathers (Eusebios) Modified the original text and inserted lies

6 That all surviving copies come from the version that the Church fathers corrupted

Church Fathers

7 that the church fathers lied (or where misinformed) every time they referred to James as the brother of Jesus

Bonus: there is no source that denies that James is the brother of Jesus

I understand that none of these 7 points is completely unreasonable, but each of these points is rejected by the majority of scholars and is unlikely to be true, even if 1 or 2 points happen to be true, you need all 7 points in order to establish that James was not a biological brother.

Be honest, wouldn’t you say that there is a high probability that at least 1 of these points is wrong?


PS: you don’t have to make a point by point “refutation” (you already did it) … please feel free to make a conclusion and end this conversation. I appreciate your time I learned a few things as a result of this conversation

If you think that there is a specific that you think I should address please let me know
If Mark copied Paul there would be no need for him to "copy" James, now would there be? At any rate the fact is that for various reasons it appear that the second Josephus quote appears to be false now too.

And by the way, since the church basically saw all written material for hundreds of years only their version surviving is what one would expect. That is not an assumption either.

Perhaps you should work on your claims one at a time instead of running a Gish Gallop. Refuting one part of a Gish Gallop refutes it all.
 

joelr

Well-Known Member
This is becoming circular, so just to conclude:

In order to establish that James wasn’t the brother of Jesus you have to assume:

Paul

1That he meant “spiritual brother” both in Corinthians and Galatians

We know he meant in in Gal so there is precedence. Even that apologetics site I sourced says they do not know if he meant brother as biological or spiritual and the historian says they DID mean spiritual brother in that passage.

Mark

2 That Mark wrote a myth based on what Paul said

We know that Mark used the Epistles for a fact. Here are some papers by scholars in the field:
The principal works to consult on this (all of which from peer reviewed academic presses) are:


And an article from Carrier with many examples:
https://www.richardcarrier.info/archives/15934


3 That Mark randomly invented names and just by Chance he happened to invent “James” to label the brother of Jesus

He didn't "randomly" invent names, he was writing a religious fiction? What do you think the 36 other gospel writers were doing? Mark was doing the same, creating a myth which could be used to form a new religion. He obviously wanted to be the author of the gospel in a new movement.
James is a popular name and to have a James apostle and also a James brother is not at all strange?
There were Joshua's all over and even Jesus's, why not have 2 James in a story? That isn't weird at all.



4 That the other gospels copied from mark

That is just standard Christian scholarship and consensus in the history field.
You can see Ehrman say it here at 35:00


Josephus

5 That The Church Fathers (Eusebios) Modified the original text and inserted lies

I haven't read Carriers paper but there are errors found with scribes quite often. No document could be copied, anyone who wanted a copy had to have a scribe re-write it out. The mention of James comes right after a high priest is mentioned Jesus Ben Damneus. It just isn't conclusive evidence and scholars are now claiming it's very likely to not be about Jesus.
The T.V. was altered by Church Fathers. This evidence was already posted.





6 That all surviving copies come from the version that the Church fathers corrupted

Yes the earliest text of that is from the 11th century, way after it was altered.


Church Fathers

7 that the church fathers lied (or where misinformed) every time they referred to James as the brother of Jesus

We already know they would lie.
"It is commonly called the Testimonium Flavianum.[1][3][4] Almost all modern scholars reject the authenticity of this passage in its present form, while the majority of scholars nevertheless hold that it contains an authentic nucleus referencing the execution of Jesus by Pilate, which was then subject to Christian interpolation or alteration."

But any reference they made would be from reading the gospels so this is meaningless.



Bonus: there is no source that denies that James is the brother of Jesus

There were all sorts of anti-Christian text and they are even spoken of in Peter - "For we did not follow cleverly devised stories or myths when we made known to you the power and coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, but we were eyewitnesses ..."
This is a response to something that we are not allowed to hear. After 380 anti Christian material was heresy and meant death or exile. We don't even have the original Marcionite canon. It's all been erased once Rome made Christianity law. Then in 12AD the RCC became even more scrutinizing erasing all pagan temples and changing them into churches for their religion.




I understand that none of these 7 points is completely unreasonable, but each of these points is rejected by the majority of scholars and is unlikely to be true, even if 1 or 2 points happen to be true, you need all 7 points in order to establish that James was not a biological brother.

Be honest, wouldn’t you say that there is a high probability that at least 1 of these points is wrong?

We cannot know and I think Carrier's conclusion - 3 to 1 favoring historicity being false is a reasonable finding. He made his case with evidence and it's all there to see. Although getting the paper Carrier wrote on the James passage is hard because no one has posted it online and it costs $25. But I linked to a blog where another scholar reviews it and he is in agreement. So the evidence is there.

PS: you don’t have to make a point by point “refutation” (you already did it) … please feel free to make a conclusion and end this conversation. I appreciate your time I learned a few things as a result of this conversation

If you think that there is a specific that you think I should address please let me know

Uh, well I did that. My main point with this stuff is that historicity does not get one to Gods being real. Carrier and most historians already have established the gospels are not real. But they do want to understand what the historical Jesus did and said, they are not bias regarding historicity. Ehrman still believes in historicity although he won't debate Carrier so I suspect he knows now that he was relying on evidence not as good as he originally thought.
 

joelr

Well-Known Member
My point is that the passage of James doesn’t seem to have any theological meaning, if anything the passage makes a disservice to the doctrine of perpetual virginity. So why would they invent that passage?

I have a simple answer, maybe the church fathers didn’t had the means or the intent to change Josephus´s work ….. do you have a more plausible answer?


Besides using Carriers logic, nothing in Josephus could be trusted, because the church fathers could have modified any words that they wanted, so should we drop Josephus as a source for ancient history?...........or should we drop just the specific verses that contradicts Richard Carriers view?


There are 2 passages in Josephus. One in the Testimonium Flavium which is definitely a Christian interpolation. No James there.
James is mentioned in Antiquities of the Jews and that passage is likely referring to the brother of a Jewish high priest who was just mentioned in the same text - Jesus Ben Damneus who had a brother James as well.

You are showing your cards here and it's a terrible hand. Arguments against the TV are not Carriers but are consensus.
Carriers paper is on Antiquities. Carrier isn't using just "logic" he and other scholars are analyzing the wording style the explanatory style that Josephus always uses and so on.
The Josephus works were last under the suprivision of Eusebius who is known to have made changes to it because the text fit his style and did not fir Josephus. He also was in control of the Antiquities.
Our earliest version of this is from 230AD and and we have access to no version of the text untouched by Eusebius.

The James passage does not fit at all with how Josephus writes.
So we have 2 characters involved - Eusebius and Origen.

"The latest research collectively establishes that both references to Jesus were probably added to the manuscripts of Josephus at the Library of Caesarea after their first custodian, Origen—who had no knowledge of either passage—but by the time of their last custodian, Eusebius—who is the first to find them there. The long passage (the Testimonium Flavianum) was almost certainly added deliberately; the later passage about James probably had the phrase “the one called Christ” (just three words in Greek) added to it accidentally, and was not originally about the Christian James, but someone else.

  • This James passage was unknown to Origen (despite his explicit search of Josephus for Jesus material in his answer to Celsus). All claims to the contrary until now have been mistaken on that point.
  • Because in fact, it’s objectively evident that Origen mistook a story about James in Hegesippus as being in Josephus (a kind of mistake I document Origen sometimes made).
  • All other accounts of the death of James the brother of Jesus do not match this one in Josephus; they therefore had no knowledge of this passage being about the Christian James (Eusebius is the first author to ever think so; and the first to ever quote it from Josephus).
  • We know Acts used Josephus as a source text for historical color, yet the author of Acts never noticed this passage as being about Jesus Christ (which is inexplicable, given that if it was, then it shows Jews being punished for persecuting Christians, exactly the kind of thing the author of Acts strove to include; instead, Acts never mentions this James even being martyred).
  • If Josephus had written this passage as about the persecution of Christians, he would have explained things, as is his style consistently in all his historical writing; only a Christian would just assume all those obscure things were already known to the reader (like what a “Christ” was; that James was a Christian; that Jews sought to kill Christians; and why, we must then suppose, the Jewish elite and Roman authorities opposed the killing of James if he was a Christian).
  • The words tou legomenou christou, “the [one] called Christ,” is for these and many other reasons most likely a marginal note (by Origen or Pamphilus, or another scribe or scholar in the same Library of Caesarea), expressing belief rather than fact (possibly trying to find the passage Origen claimed he’d seen here but mistakenly saw instead in Hegesippus).
  • That marginal note was then accidentally interpolated into the manuscript produced or used by Eusebius (which would have been a copy of the one used by Origen), a very common form of scribal error.
  • Possibly by replacing ton tou damnaiou, “the son of Damneus,” in the same place. That same line is repeated at the end of the story. Repetition of that identical phrase a few lines after may have led a scribe to suspect the marginal note was correcting a dittograph (an accidental duplication caused by a previous scribe skipping some lines by mistake, starting at the “wrong” Jesus in the story). But more likely, that duplication is exactly what Josephus meant: Ananus is punished for killing the brother of Jesus ben Damneus by being deposed and replaced by Jesus ben Damneus.
All arguments against interpolation in print to date have assumed the entire passage was interpolated (not just the one phrase) and that it was deliberate (instead of accidental or conjectural). Consequently, none of those opinions is citeable. Because they have not taken into account this alternative theory of the evidence or the evidence in support of it.

Personally, I think it’s clear: Josephus never mentioned Christ here, either. And again, I think this would be readily admitted by any expert…were this not Christ we were talking about."

 

leroy

Well-Known Member
If Mark copied Paul there would be no need for him to "copy" James, now would there be? At any rate the fact is that for various reasons it appear that the second Josephus quote appears to be false now too.

And by the way, since the church basically saw all written material for hundreds of years only their version surviving is what one would expect. That is not an assumption either.

Perhaps you should work on your claims one at a time instead of running a Gish Gallop. Refuting one part of a Gish Gallop refutes it all.


I appreciate your comments but there are 2 questions that I would like you to ask.


Why would the Church Fathers falsify that quote from Josephus?

Given that supposedly the documents from Josephus where controlled by the corrupt and dishonest church fathers. Should we drop all Josephus as a historical source? .....or should we drop just the stuff that has theological implications that Richard Carrier doesn't like?


If Mark copied Paul there would be no need for him to "copy" James, now would there be?

Can you explain? I do t understand the question
 

Subduction Zone

Veteran Member
I appreciate your comments but there are 2 questions that I would like you to ask.


Why would the Church Fathers falsify that quote from Josephus?

To make the Jesus story seem more believable. There have always been skeptics, and to combat skeptics dishonesty is sometimes used. Have you never read Christian apologist sites? They tend to be so dishonest that I do not trust any of them. At this point for me they are Liars for Jesus until proven otherwise.

Given that supposedly the documents from Josephus where controlled by the corrupt and dishonest church fathers. Should we drop all Josephus as a historical source? .....or should we drop just the stuff that has theological implications that Richard Carrier doesn't like?-

Why would you think that they distorted all of them? Obviously we throw out the bad. There is no reason to assume that all of his work was corrupt.

This is a general problem that creationists and other literalists have. It is all or none thinking. In logical arguments this would be a Black and White fallacy on your part.

Can you explain? I do t understand the question
Oops, I messed up on that. I was supposed to say "If Mark copied Paul there would be no need for him to "invent" James, now would there be?'

Does that make more sense now?
 

leroy

Well-Known Member
We know he meant in in Gal so there is precedence. Even that apologetics site I sourced says they do not know if he meant brother as biological or spiritual and the historian says they DID mean spiritual brother in that passage.



We know that Mark used the Epistles for a fact. Here are some papers by scholars in the field:
The principal works to consult on this (all of which from peer reviewed academic presses) are:


And an article from Carrier with many examples:
Mark's Use of Paul's Epistles • Richard Carrier




He didn't "randomly" invent names, he was writing a religious fiction? What do you think the 36 other gospel writers were doing? Mark was doing the same, creating a myth which could be used to form a new religion. He obviously wanted to be the author of the gospel in a new movement.
James is a popular name and to have a James apostle and also a James brother is not at all strange?
There were Joshua's all over and even Jesus's, why not have 2 James in a story? That isn't weird at all.





That is just standard Christian scholarship and consensus in the history field.
You can see Ehrman say it here at 35:00




I haven't read Carriers paper but there are errors found with scribes quite often. No document could be copied, anyone who wanted a copy had to have a scribe re-write it out. The mention of James comes right after a high priest is mentioned Jesus Ben Damneus. It just isn't conclusive evidence and scholars are now claiming it's very likely to not be about Jesus.
The T.V. was altered by Church Fathers. This evidence was already posted.







Yes the earliest text of that is from the 11th century, way after it was altered.




We already know they would lie.
"It is commonly called the Testimonium Flavianum.[1][3][4] Almost all modern scholars reject the authenticity of this passage in its present form, while the majority of scholars nevertheless hold that it contains an authentic nucleus referencing the execution of Jesus by Pilate, which was then subject to Christian interpolation or alteration."

But any reference they made would be from reading the gospels so this is meaningless.





There were all sorts of anti-Christian text and they are even spoken of in Peter - "For we did not follow cleverly devised stories or myths when we made known to you the power and coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, but we were eyewitnesses ..."
This is a response to something that we are not allowed to hear. After 380 anti Christian material was heresy and meant death or exile. We don't even have the original Marcionite canon. It's all been erased once Rome made Christianity law. Then in 12AD the RCC became even more scrutinizing erasing all pagan temples and changing them into churches for their religion.






We cannot know and I think Carrier's conclusion - 3 to 1 favoring historicity being false is a reasonable finding. He made his case with evidence and it's all there to see. Although getting the paper Carrier wrote on the James passage is hard because no one has posted it online and it costs $25. But I linked to a blog where another scholar reviews it and he is in agreement. So the evidence is there.



Uh, well I did that. My main point with this stuff is that historicity does not get one to Gods being real. Carrier and most historians already have established the gospels are not real. But they do want to understand what the historical Jesus did and said, they are not bias regarding historicity. Ehrman still believes in historicity although he won't debate Carrier so I suspect he knows now that he was relying on evidence not as good as he originally thought.

From Corinthians
Don't we have the right to take a believing wife along with us, as do the other apostles and the Lord's brothers and Cephas?"

1 the text implies that all the brothers had wife's

2 it's unlikely that all his spiritual brothers had wife's. (Implying that he was talking about biological brothers)

Which of these 2 points do you reject
 

Subduction Zone

Veteran Member
From Corinthians


1 the text implies that all the brothers had wife's

2 it's unlikely that all his spiritual brothers had wife's. (Implying that he was talking about biological brothers)

Which of these 2 points do you reject
I would reject both. Both statements have flaws. This is a false dichotomy.
 
Top