Is Jesus a Mythical Character?

[BruceDLimber]

Greetings!

In the Baha'i view, yes Jesus really existed, yes He was a God-sent Divine Messenger, and yes, He's very much worth noting!

We don't follow Him directly because we're convinced the Return of the Christ spirit Jesus promised did indeed happen (about a century and a half ago), bringing us a new Divine Messenger with the new name both the Jewish and Christian scriptures prophesied; and it is this new Messenger we follow.

Best!

Bruce

 

[dogsgod]

This was sort of what I was touching on but as I've seen here you get no points for quoting Price. Others here have their reasons for not excepting his work or words. Other than price is there another commentary on the passage that can be offered?

Some posters here would rather shoot the messenger while making some excuse about credentials rather than address the reasoned line of the argument. If one views the reasoning as faulty then show how. I don't care where the claims come from as long as the argument is clear and an opposing point of view is provided with a reasoned explanation.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

In "telephone" (the game you are refering to), each person is usually required to pass on the message only once, and always in a whisper. What happens when you change the rules? For example, if the message was passed on out loud rather than in whisper, the message would remain unchanged.

Not always. For example, I'm amazed by the number of people who think that the line "play it again, Sam" is in the movie Casablanca or "Luke, I am your father" is in The Empire Strikes Back, and these people are usually only separated from the original story by one retelling.

Your comparison only holds true if we imagine that every person who heard the Jesus tradition heard it from one source and passed it on to one source. However, if we apply what is known about similar oral traditions (along with internal evidence in the NT) then we get a very different picture of how the message was transmitted. It is more likely that certain people in various early christian communities were regarded as authoritative (beginning with those like Paul, Peter, James, etc). These people TAUGHT the tradition to others, some of whom would then be regarded as authoritative enough to pass it on.

Yes, but if we believe the Bible account, then in general, each one was sent to minister in a different area. It was Paul, not Peter, that went preaching to the Greek Gentiles; even if there were multiple sources, in the early days of Christianity, most people founded their belief on only one.

Yes, he did, and this has been the classic argument of those who seek to maintain the dogma of Perpetual Virginity. But for John to use the term is not at all the same as having it employed by someone outside the movement. Anyone within the movement both willing and capable of such a sloppy interpolation of the the TF would have had compelling reasons for, and no compunction against, excising it.

I still don't see it. If Eusebius wanted to erase the idea that James might be Jesus' brother, then he'd have to modify the Gospels and the Epistles as well, since they refer to James as "the Lord's brother" and (along with Joseph, Judas and Simon) as the brother of Jesus. If these Biblical passages can be reconciled with perpetual virginity, then I don't really see why modifying the line in Antiquities would have been a priority - it would be just as easy to reconcile, IMO.

To explain these Bible passages, I think that an idea must have come about that even though Jesus and James were not literally brothers, they were close enough that people called them that or mistook their relationship. Once this is introduced and accepted, then some other non-Christian mistaking James and Jesus for brothers wouldn't be a big deal at all, I think.

 

[Oberon]

You're the questionable one here. I provided a reasoned explanation and you don't have the know how to address it.
Anyone can copy and paste, what's your point?

I did address it. And, unlike you or your source, I actually know Greek.

Here is a my own literal translation with syntactical notes:

...he assembles [lit. made to sit, from the greek kathizo, which when referring to a group can imply assemble] the council of judges [objective genitive] and having led [aor. part] the brother of Jesus, the one being called the Christ [gen. part. which may be taken as either further modifiers of Jesus, or as a more parenthetical gen. abs.] and his name was James [lit. name to him -was- James, the usual greek way of naming]...

We can go on if you would like...

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

Question....

Since Antiquities 18,3,3 is suspect would it not be fair to think that Antiquities 20,9,1 is suspect?

No, which is why there exists a broad consensus as to its authenticity.

Well, this is what I mean.....if the reference ("who was called Christ") was an interpolation by a scribe as we see in Antiquities 18 then does it make sense the James spoken of is the brother of Jesus, son of Damneus?

No, particularly given the evolving dogma of Perpetual Virginity. A comparable scribal gloss wold have been something more akin to "James [the Just]." More: it is fully reasonable to accept that the whole point of the "brother" reference was an intent by Josephus to identify/clarify which James is under discussion. Appeal to 'scribal gloss' in this instance is simply unwarranted.

Ok, off to check out Alice Whealey.

Excellent. I look forward to your review ...

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

I still don't see it. If Eusebius wanted to erase the idea that James might be Jesus' brother, then he'd have to modify the Gospels and the Epistles as well, ...

Nonsense. Again: having Josephus use the term is not at all the same as having John use the term; the former is qualitatively more problematic.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Nonsense. Again: having Josephus use the term is not at all the same as having John use the term; the former is qualitatively more problematic.

I'm not sure why you're saying "John". The Bible passages that refer to James being the brother of Jesus are attributed to Matthew, Mark and Paul, and I think that Origen was just as much "inside the movement" as Eusebius was.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

I'm not sure why you're saying "John".

Senior moment: I was thinking Paul and typing John.

The Bible passages that refer to James being the brother of Jesus are attributed to Matthew, Mark and Paul, and I think that Origen was just as much "inside the movement" as Eusebius was.

But Josephus is not ... and that is the point. One can (relatively) easily justify the early Christians using such language to refer to something other than a biological brother, but not so in the case of Josephus, who's reference is clearly problematic. Again, if Eusebius was so willing to engage in the most sloppy and transparent 'pious fraud' it is unclear why he would have allowed the James formulation to stand.

There is simply no basis for insisting the Eusebius fabricated all or part of TF. It is simply a piece of speculation engineered to prop up a set of mythicist presuppositions.

 

[Dirty Penguin]

Some posters here would rather shoot the messenger while making some excuse about credentials rather than address the reasoned line of the argument. If one views the reasoning as faulty then show how. I don't care where the claims come from as long as the argument is clear and an opposing point of view is provided with a reasoned explanation.

Yea, I tend to agree. Jay and Oberon have given me some good directions to go for more info but I'm still having trouble setting aside other theologians and scholars because their view is different than the others. I just simply want to know why their different and learn from both their points of view.

Is there any information available to suggest Jesus, son of Damneus ("didn't") have a brother name James?

 

[Oberon]

Yes, but if we believe the Bible account, then in general, each one was sent to minister in a different area. It was Paul, not Peter, that went preaching to the Greek Gentiles; even if there were multiple sources, in the early days of Christianity, most people founded their belief on only one.

Paul was not the first to preach to the gentiles, nor the last, nor is it true that the various elders did not communicate with each other, even if the original disciples were actually sent in different directions. Paul's letters at least, apart from other evidence, make it clear that the various Christian communities stayed in contact. Also, there is no reason to suspect that each community had only one document or source for the Jesus tradition, and several points of evidence to suggest many had more. Matthew and Luke are one such piece of evidence, as both made use of multiple sources.

Some posters here would rather shoot the messenger while making some excuse about credentials rather than address the reasoned line of the argument.

If the messengers message isn't worth anything perhaps shooting isn't a bad idea. You keep bringing criticisms of things you don't have any knowledge of from sources without any intelligent things to say. And I addressed your arguments, which didn't amount to much.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

But Josephus is not ... and that is the point. One can (relatively) easily justify the early Christians using such language to refer to something other than a biological brother, but not so in the case of Josephus, who's reference is clearly problematic.

No more problematic than the Gospels, I think. Matthew 13 (and the similar passage in Mark 6) record that it's the people of Jesus' hometown and not his disciples that declare that he's the brother of James (and Joseph, Simon, Judas, and an indeterminate number of sisters):

53When Jesus had finished these parables, he moved on from there. 54Coming to his hometown, he began teaching the people in their synagogue, and they were amazed. "Where did this man get this wisdom and these miraculous powers?" they asked. 55"Isn't this the carpenter's son? Isn't his mother's name Mary, and aren't his brothers James, Joseph, Simon and Judas? 56Aren't all his sisters with us? Where then did this man get all these things?" 57And they took offense at him.

Josephus is "outside the movement", but if you believe Matthew and Mark, the townspeople who declared that James was the brother of Jesus were "outside the movement" as well.

Again, if Eusebius was so willing to engage in the most sloppy and transparent 'pious fraud' it is unclear why he would have allowed the James formulation to stand.

But here's the thing: if the Testimonium is really "most sloppy and transparent 'pious fraud' ", then one of two things occurred:

- Eusebius fabricated it.
- Someone else fabricated it, Eusebius recognized it as a fraud and passed it along anyhow.

If it really is obvious that the Testimonium was a fraud, then Eusebius was guilty of deceit whether he wrote it himself or not.

There is simply no basis for insisting the Eusebius fabricated all or part of TF. It is simply a piece of speculation engineered to prop up a set of mythicist presuppositions.

And I think I've mentioned before that I have no particular evidence pointing to Eusebius specifically. For me, the matter's more that the Testimonium wasn't there when Origen had Antiquities but was there when Eusebius had it. This means that it was changed by someone after Origen but before Eusebius published his Demonstratio Evangelica. One of the people who was in a position to make this change was Eusebius and while I don't exclude him from suspicion, I also don't think he was the only person who could've made the change.

 

[logician]

Exactly what books or scholarship have you read concerning oral tradition? Anything? I'm trying to understand where you are getting your information here, as it seems you are simply making things up. The ancient world was primarily an oral, not written, society. As such ancient people were far more likely to be able to recall and retain history within an oral tradition than we. Furthermore, many of the "written records" you discuss are recordings of oral tradition. Can you name a single historian in the ancient world who did not rely on oral tradition?

LOL Which is why ancient history stirctly based upon oral tradition is highly unreliable. Also your assumption that Jesus' disciples existed to carry on this "oral" tradition in the first place is bogus to begin with.

 

[Oberon]

LOL Which is why ancient history stirctly based upon oral tradition is highly unreliable. Also your assumption that Jesus' disciples existed to carry on this "oral" tradition in the first place is bogus to begin with.

So then the answers to my questions are 1. you can't cite a single source on oral tradition you have read and 2. you can't name a single ancient historian who didn't rely on oral tradition. And you are hardly in a position to call any of my statements bogus, as it appears your only source for "facts" on the subject are either to be found on the internet or in a book written by two people who have no idea what they are talking about (the one source you have cited that comes even remotely close to being authoritative, Price, you haven't even read but can only quote what others have said. In any even he is hardly a historian). You have consistently failed to cite any modern historian of the relevent period (not just biblical or NT scholars, but classicists, historians of paganism, etc) who you use as a source for the justification of your opinions. And yet you are somehow qualified to determine whether statements I have made are bogus?

 

[Dirty Penguin]

A thought here. What if it's the way the quote is being interpreted.

Follow me.....

What if the "christ" (annointed one) being referenced here is James?

Forget for a moment (bible and characters)...

If this James and Jesus are brothers and both have the same father (Damneus)....What if James was the Annointed One and Ananus made a false charge against him and others, gathering the Sanhedrin Of Judges and delivered them to be stoned. Ananus was punished for this abuse of power or lack of power and his title and position were stripped from him and given to Jesus.

"The brother of Jesus, who was called Christ, whose name was James"

The brother of Jesus was called Christ, whose name was James.

Just a thought....

 

[Oberon]

A thought here. What if it's the way the quote is being interpreted.

Follow me.....

What if the "christ" (annointed one) being referenced here is James?

Forget for a moment (bible and characters)...

If this James and Jesus are brothers and both have the same father (Damneus)....What if James was the Annointed One and Ananus made a false charge against him and others, gathering the Sanhedrin Of Judges and delivered them to be stoned. Ananus was punished for this abuse of power or lack of power and his title and position were stripped from him and given to Jesus.

"The brother of Jesus, who was called Christ, whose name was James"

The brother of Jesus was called Christ, whose name was James.

Just a thought....

This is a perfect example of why it is important to be able to read the text in the original language in order to critique/analyze it in depth.

In greek, as I said before (and was accused of merely copying and pasting) the relevent text reads "ton adelphon Iesou tou legomenou christou Iakobos onoma auto."
The reading you suggest is impossible in the greek. Let me explain. The word for brother is in the accusative case, with Jesus in the genitive. The words for "being called Christ" are also in the genitive, which means they can only be understood as modifying Jesus, not "the brother" (modifiers must match the case they are modifying). In other words, the line MUST be read as the brother of Jesus (Jesus who was called Christ) whose name was James. So while english translations may be able to be read in the way you suggest, it is not possible in the Greek for Christ to go with either brother or James.

 

[Quagmire]

A thought here. What if it's the way the quote is being interpreted.

Follow me.....

What if the "christ" (annointed one) being referenced here is James?

Forget for a moment (bible and characters)...

If this James and Jesus are brothers and both have the same father (Damneus)....What if James was the Annointed One and Ananus made a false charge against him and others, gathering the Sanhedrin Of Judges and delivered them to be stoned. Ananus was punished for this abuse of power or lack of power and his title and position were stripped from him and given to Jesus.

"The brother of Jesus, who was called Christ, whose name was James"

The brother of Jesus was called Christ, whose name was James.

Just a thought....

That occured to me too, DP, but the thing is; In that case, stripped of his Christ credentials, why would Jesus even be worth mentioning?

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

No more problematic than the Gospels, I think.

Then you think poorly. I can do nothing about that ...

Josephus is "outside the movement", but if you believe Matthew and Mark, the townspeople who declared that James was the brother of Jesus were "outside the movement" as well.

Whether I believe Matthew and Mark is irrelevant to the argument.

But here's the thing: if the Testimonium is really "most sloppy and transparent 'pious fraud' ", then one of two things occurred: ...

Then perhaps it was a partial interpolation but not pious fraud, taking us back to the initial suggestion that such a sloppy result was unlikely to be the product of a man of Eusebius' intellect.

If it really is obvious that the Testimonium was a fraud, then Eusebius was guilty of deceit whether he wrote it himself or not.

1) That was a remarkably inane statement.
2) You are the one suggesting that the TF is an obvious [attempt at] fraud, not I.

And I think I've mentioned before that I have no particular evidence pointing to Eusebius specifically. For me, the matter's more that the Testimonium wasn't there when Origen had Antiquities but was there when Eusebius had it.

Really? You should publish your evidence. You'll become famous.

As for the rest ...

This means that it was changed by someone after Origen but before Eusebius published his Demonstratio Evangelica. One of the people who was in a position to make this change was Eusebius and while I don't exclude him from suspicion, I also don't think he was the only person who could've made the change.

... it amounts to little more than unbridled speculation predicated upon sloppy thinking, i.e., garbage in, garbage out. None of it stands as a coherent, much less compelling, argument against historicity.

 

[Oberon]

That occured to me too, DP, but the thing is; In that case, stripped of his Christ credentials, why would Jesus even be worth mentioning?

More importantly, it is an impossible translation of the greek (see above).

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

LOL Which is why ancient history stirctly based upon oral tradition is highly unreliable. Also your assumption that Jesus' disciples existed to carry on this "oral" tradition in the first place is bogus to begin with.

So then the answers to my questions are 1. you can't cite a single source on oral tradition you have read and 2. you can't name a single ancient historian who didn't rely on oral tradition. And you are hardly in a position to call any of my statements bogus, ...

(You are wasting your time.)

 

[Dirty Penguin]

That occured to me too, DP, but the thing is; In that case, stripped of his Christ credentials, why would Jesus even be worth mentioning?

Maybe because he is heir. Do you know what I mean..?

If we assume for a moment they are brothers with the same father then the story sounds more like James had some kind of clout or political influence and Ananus was jealous of him thus making this false charge....and when he had James killed the King stripped his authority and gave it to the slain brother of James....Jesus. That's why it was worth mentioning the name in the beginning and at the end to tie it all together...

Again...Just a thought....