Musings on biblical studies, politics, religion, ethics, human nature, tidbits from science
What we have is a tradition that fairly consistently understood James to be the biological relative of Jesus, even when it eventually found it awkward to view him as Jesus’ biological brother because of other doctrines that had been developing surrounding Jesus and Mary. — Religion Prof Yes, and the earliest evidence we have of … Continue reading “When Did James Become the Brother of the Lord?”
This is not the first time we have seen Gullotta inexplicably fail to acknowledge that Carrier is prepared to concede for the sake of a fortiori argument the very position Gullotta is arguing. The focus of my response will center on Carrier’s claim that a pre-Christian angel named Jesus existed, his understanding of Jesus as … Continue reading “Gullotta’s review of Carrier’s On the Historicity of Jesus, point #4, “James, the brother of the Lord””
Since posting the following I have pointed to another detail that gives further reason to pause before assuming Lord = Jesus in Galatians. Galatians 1:19 but I saw none other of the apostles, but James the brother of the Lord. Fear not. I will not here repeat the arguments that James was/was not the brother … Continue reading “What If James Really Were “the Brother of the Lord”?”
Some time ago I was attempting to think through the pros and cons surrounding the disputed claims over the significance and meaning of James being described as the brother of the Lord in Paul’s letter to Galatians. I set out the various factors in a discussion of Bayesian probability. But since Bayesian analysis is a … Continue reading “Thinking through the “James, the brother of the Lord” passage in Galatians 1:19″
In his crusading zeal to slash and burn mythicism James McGrath is demonstrating once more his unfortunate lack of awareness of the actual content mythicist arguments and has done his readers a more general disservice by misrepresenting the nature of mainstream arguments on how various interpolations have worked their way into manuscript traditions. Somehow a … Continue reading “James the Brother of the Lord and James the Theologian of the Matrix”
I saw none of the other apostles, except James the brother of the Lord. — Galatians 1:19 On this verse some hang their strongest assurance that Jesus himself was an historical figure. Paul says he met James, the brother of the Lord (assumed to be Jesus), so that is absolute proof that Jesus existed. That … Continue reading “Putting James the Brother of the Lord to a Bayesian Test”
Never throw out old books. I have caught up with my 1942 edition of Jesus Not A Myth by A. D. Howell Smith. The book is an argument against mythicism as it was argued by a range of authors in its day: J. M. Robertson, Thomas Whittacker, L. Gordon Rylands, Arthur Drews, Bergh van Eysinga, … Continue reading “James Brother of the Lord: Another Case for Interpolation”
A good reason to accept the theory of evolution is that it predicts what we will find in the fossil record and its predictions have not yet failed. No one has found a rabbit fossil in pre-Cambrian rocks. If James had been a sibling of Jesus and a leader in the Jerusalem church (along with … Continue reading “James Brother of the Lord, Porky Pies and Problems for the Historical Jesus Hypothesis”
It is easy for both historicists and mythicists to to descend to shallow proof-texting when arguing over the significance of Paul’s reference to James, the brother of the Lord, as evidence for the historicity of Jesus. I am not attempting here in this post to cover all the arguments. I only want to address the … Continue reading “Applying Sound Historical Methodology to “James the Brother of the Lord””
Some interesting thoughts on this question have been raised on a recent FRDB discussion.
I’m travelling again so am pulling out the occasional post I’ve had in store for such times. If circumstances do not permit some of my planned posts I’ll post another one of these. McGrath would appeal to the variables shaping “cultural memory” and theological tendentiousness and the tradition of Jewish authors rewriting “Old Testament” scriptures; … Continue reading “Addressing James McGrath’s Arguments Against Mythicism — 1”
James McGrath in a recent post, Jesus Mythicism: Two Truths and a Lie, made the following criticism of the use of Bayes’s theorem in the Jesus Mythicism debate: . . . . as I was reminded of the problematic case that Richard Carrier has made for incorporating mathematical probability (and more specifically a Bayesian approach) … Continue reading “Reply to James McGrath’s Criticism of Bayes’s Theorem in the Jesus Mythicism Debate”
James McGrath has posted that it is time to return to the Jesus mythicism question. He writes: It’s time to return once again to the subject of Jesus mythicism, the stance that denies the overwhelming consensus of professional historians and scholars that there most likely was indeed a historical Jesus of Nazareth. Translated, that means … Continue reading “The never-ending “brother of the lord” proof for the historical existence of Jesus”
On another forum I recently posted a discussion of the passage in Galatians where Paul says he met James, “the brother of the Lord”, setting out why I believe the passage is not necessarily the “slam dunk” that many say it is to prove Jesus was a historical figure. I have other posts on other topics … Continue reading “Does “Brother of the Lord” settle the Jesus myth question?”