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”
Like this:
Like Loading...
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?”
Like this:
Like Loading...
It seems hardly a month passes without somebody on Vridar bringing up Galatians 1:19, in which Paul refers to James as the “brother of the Lord.” Recently I ran a search for the phrase here, and after reading each post, it struck me how much time we’ve spent wondering what it means and so little time asking why … Continue reading “The Function of “Brother of the Lord” in Galatians 1:19″
Like this:
Like Loading...
Some of the following posts are my comparisons of James McGrath’s criticisms and Earl Doherty’s original arguments. Others are by Doherty himself. Interview with Earl Doherty A James McGrath–Earl Doherty Exchange Earl Doherty’s Antidotes for a James McGrath Menu. Continuing Earl Doherty’s antidotes for James McGrath’s Menu Items 7 to 12 Earl Doherty’s concluding responses … Continue reading “Earl Doherty’s response to James McGrath‘s “review” of JNGNM & other criticisms (& misc)”
Like this:
Like Loading...
Steven Carr has drawn our attention to Dr R. Joseph Hoffmann’s argument that Paul’s reference in Galatians 1:19 to “James, the brother of the Lord”, was clearly not meant to be understood by Paul as an indicator that James was the biological brother of Jesus. He wrote in The Jesus Tomb Debacle: RIP: The James … Continue reading “Hoffmann: James was NOT the biological brother of Jesus”
Like this:
Like Loading...
Ron Goetz posted a comment elsewhere that reminded me of the works of Walter Schmithals on Paul’s letters. The one I have read most of, Paul & the Gnostics, is not the easiest of reads but is packed densely with detailed argument and detailed references to the scholarship of his day. But it does force … Continue reading “Reading Galatians afresh: a Gnostic Paul, James, Peter and John?”
Like this:
Like Loading...
I am copying a comment by Earl Doherty here as a post in its own right. Doherty apparently attempted to post it on McGrath’s blog in response to McGrath’s post, James the Brother of the Lord and Mythicism, but was confronted with word-length issues. James was responding to Earl’s Menu Entree #3 in his Antidotes … Continue reading ““Brother of the Lord” – Doherty versus McGrath”
Like this:
Like Loading...
Earl Doherty has visited James McGrath’s Matrix Restaurant and sampled for himself all 23 items offered on his Menu of Answers for Mythicists. Here is the first part of Earl’s complete culinary report on his experience along with tips for other prospective diners. Herewith a response to Jim McGrath’s blog feature A Menu of Answers … Continue reading “Earl Doherty’s Antidotes for a James McGrath Menu.”
Like this:
Like Loading...
Much ado is made of this phrase about “Jesus who is called Christ” — that second reference in Josephus to Jesus. Many hang a lot of weight on it and even say it is the clinching evidence that proves Josephus knew of and spoke about Jesus in more detail elsewhere. By identifying James here as … Continue reading “That ‘brother of Jesus who is called Christ’ storm in Josephus’s teacup”
Like this:
Like Loading...
Continued from “The Brother of Jesus called Christ”: another Eusebian footprint in Josephus? . . . . (arguing reasons to believe the “called Christ” reference in book 20 of Antiquities by Josephus was not original to Josephus) Writing his commentary on Matthew around the 220’s, and in reference to James, Origen gives us our first … Continue reading “Brother of Jesus called Christ / 2”
Like this:
Like Loading...
Why did the author of the Gospel of John change the setting of Jesus driving out the money changers from the Temple from near the end of the gospel (where it is in all the other gospels) to place it near the very beginning of the ministry of Jesus? In those other gospels the episode … Continue reading “How Moving Jesus’ Cleansing of the Temple to the Beginning of the Gospel of John Rebuked the Gospel of Mark”
Like this:
Like Loading...
Continuing from Where does John the Baptist fit in History? . . . . Peter Kirby’s first argument for the authenticity of the John the Baptist passage in Antiquities of Josephus is (1) The Textual Witness Itself All manuscripts contain the passage and Kirby goes one step further and states as a fact: It is … Continue reading “Where does John the Baptist fit in History? — The Evidence of Josephus, Pt 1”
Like this:
Like Loading...
Continuing from https://vridar.org/2023/10/01/a-dialog-with-chatgpt-on-christian-origins/ Me: What, if anything, changes, if we introduce the need for independent corroboration? ChatGPT: The requirement for independent corroboration significantly tightens the standards for historical verification. If historians strictly demand independent sources to corroborate each event or claim, it can add more confidence to their conclusions but also presents challenges: Higher Confidence … Continue reading “Continuing Dialog with ChatGPT — historical methods”
Like this:
Like Loading...
Theological Explanation of the Gospels Die theologische Erklärung der Evangelien by Bruno Bauer 1852 II. Strauss’ tradition hypothesis. Topic headings in the text below are my additions to Bauer’s text. 68 The proposition that language is the man and the word is the thing remains valid even when the language of a point of view … Continue reading “BRUNO BAUER: Theological Explanation of the Gospels – II. Strauss’s tradition hypothesis”
Like this:
Like Loading...