A Jesus mythicist sent me this article a while back.
I have numerous problems with this article to say the least, but something caught my eye. Regarding the James mention in Book 20 of Antiquities the author says:
>According to William Benjamin Smithโs skeptical classic Ecce Deus,Citation 15 there are still some manuscripts of Josephus which contain the quoted passages, but the passages are absent in other manuscripts โ showing that such interpolation had already been taking place before the time of Origen but did not ever succeed in supplanting the original text universally.
So I looked at the book he cited (which was published in 1912) and I think he is referring to this part:
>It seems incredible that Josephus should throw in such an observation at this stage without any preparation or explanation or occasion. Moreover, it is certain that Josephus has been interpolated elsewhere by Christian hands, and with precisely this same phrase ; for Origen thrice quotes as from Josephus the statement that the Jewish sufferings at the hands of Titus were a divine retribution for the slaying of James : "Josephus says in his Archeology: 'According to wrath of God these things came upon them, for the things dared by them against James, the brother of Jesus the so-called Christ.'
>
>And he says that 'the people, too, thought they suffered these things on account of James ' " (463) in Matt, xiii, 55. " The same [Josephus] seeking the cause of the fall of Jerusalem and of the demolition of the Temple says : ' These [calamities] befell the Jews in vengeance for James the Just, who was brother of Jesus, the so-called Christ, since, indeed, they slew him, though being most just.' " โ Contra C, I, 47."Titus demolished Jerusalem, as Josephus writes, on account of James the Just, the brother of Jesus, the so-called Christ." โ Contra C, II, i^ fin. The passage is still found in some Josephus manuscripts ; but as it is wanting in others it is, and must be, regarded as a Christian interpolation older than Origen (against Hilgenfeld, Einleitung^ p. 526, who thinks the passage has been expunged from Christian manuscripts of Josephus !). Now, since this phrase is certainly interpolated in the one place, the only reasonable conclusion is that it is interpolated in the other. This notion that the death of James was avenged in the siege of Jerusalem is found in the bud in Hegesippus, who
https://ismailignosis.com/2019/01/25/the-imamat-of-james-brother-of-jesus-successor-of-christ-leader-of-early-christianity/
>In Ismaili terminology, James the Just was Jesusโ Legatee (wasi) and the Imam after him.
โข โขโขโขโขโข
>Ismaili writings explain how, after Prophet Abraham, the offices of Prophethood and Imamat continued in the separate lineages of his two sons โ Isaac and Ishmael. The Prophethood and the Trustee Imamat (al-imamah al-mustawda) were entrusted to Isaac and his descendants. The Trustee Imamat continued among members of the same family as transmitted through brothers, cousins, or progeny. The Trustee Imams after Isaac included: Jacob, Joseph, Jethro, Moses, Aaron, Joshua, the Israelite Judges and Aaronic High Priests, Samuel, David, Solomon, the righteous Davidic Kings and the Prophets of Israel and Judah (i.e. Ahija, Elijah, Elisha, Micah, Amos, Hosea, Isaiah, Joel, Habakuk, Jeremiah, Daniel, Ezekiel, Haggiah, Zechariah, Ezra, Nehemiah, Malachi). Meanwhile, the Permanent Imamat (al-imamah al-mustaqarr) continued with Ishmael and his progeny through an uninterrupted lineal descent down to Imam โAbd al-Muttalib, the grandfather of both Prophet Muhammad and Imam โAli b. Abi Talib. During this time, the Trustee Imams stood at the forefront of the Abrahamic Religion in biblical Israel while the Permanent Imams remained concealed in Arabia and unknown to most except the highest ranks of the believers.
โขโขโขโขโข
>In the Synoptic Gospels and the pre-Pauline creeds, Jesus is revered as Godโs Regent, representative, and self-expression. Thus, from an Ismaili perspective, Jesus was certainly a Prophet of God but he was also the Trustee Imam and was therefore the human manifestation (mazhar) of the Universal Intellect, which constitutes Godโs Names and Attributes insofar as they are knowable to His creatures.
โขโขโขโขโข
The successors of James were in essence the "Ahl al Bayt of Jesus" in a way. And his (by extension, Jesus's) family members heading Jerusalem/Palestine churches were a form of Christian Caliphate that was adopted by muslim theologians in their writings of islamic history. I'm sorry I can't fully explain this article. Please do read the article in full to get the idea of "histories" intertwining. In other words, syncretism.
As always, convoluted reasoning and reinterpretation of extant theological literatures (here biblical, qur'an is ALSO biblical). But this is the name of the religious game: reinterpretation and syncretism.
... keep reading on reddit โกYeah, yeah, I'm a one trick pony. This is related (though not identical) to most of the previous arguments I've posted on this sub, but I keep coming back to it because I haven't heard a convincing refutation.
In Scot McKnight's review of John Painter's Just James (in the chapter "A Parting Within the Way: Jesus and James on Israel and Purity" of James the Just & Christian Origins edited by Bruce Chilton & Craig A. Evans), he echoes Painter's contention that "the obstacle we must hurdle in order to gain these conclusions is that the Christian tradition nearly blocked out the Jacobite tradition" (James is the Greek translation of the Hebrew "Jacob")
The Christian erasure of James is extremely obvious especially in the Catholic tradition, which deemphasized James's familial relationship to Jesus by adopting the (late) notion Mary was always a virgin and therefore could not have had other children after Jesus. Even apologists that admit James is clearly Jesus's brother (or half brother under the assumption Jesus had no human father) point to verses like John 7:5 to demonstrate that Jesus's brothers were latecomers and did not accept him as Messiah until after the resurrection. Per McKnight, such a theory does not hold up to critical scrutiny:
>[T]hough Christian interpreters have nearly always contended that James, the brother of Jesus, was not a follower of Jesus during the lifetime of Jesus and that, in fact, he became a believer only when convinced by the unassailable evidence of his resurrection from the dead, it is not altogether clear that such a tradition is as secure as once believed. John Painter, in his thorough attempt to resurrect James from under the rubble of Christian suppression, contends that John 7:5 could be presenting the brothers of Jesus in a manner similar to others who followed Jesus but, as he concludes:
>
>"By Johannine standards of 'authentic' or ideal belief neither the disciples nor the brothers qualified until after the resurrection of Jesus and the coming of the Paraclete."
In any case, we have good evidence from Acts and from Paul's letters that James occupied an extremely prominent place in the early church--e.g. Peter shows deference and even submission to James with respect to observance of table-fellowship customs (Galatians 2:12) and James alone was vested with authority to deliberate on the requirements for gentile believers (Acts 15:19). Again per McKnight, it's pretty unlikely that Jes
... keep reading on reddit โกI'm familiar with Robert Eisenman's "James the Brother of Jesus" and I've recently been made aware of John Painter's "Just James" but I take it both of these (especially Eisenman) are somewhat controversial.
Not getting any traction on this, so I posted it here:
Especially because he quotes Josephus extensively. If it was there, wouldn't he have used it as a knockdown argument for Christ?
How strong is the likelihood Josephus doesn't mention Jesus in any of his writings?
Unfortunately, we donโt know a ton about James (the brother of the Lord). We know he was a pious Jew and an influential figure in the early church from the attestation by Hegesippus. We know that he was biologically related to Jesus, and the gospels report that he did not believe in Jesusโ divinity during his ministry. However, with what certainty can we trust the claim that he was indeed a non believer throughout Jesusโ ministry? On what grounds can we reject the gospelsโ attestation to his non belief? What other evidence, of any, exists that supports or contradicts the gospelsโ attestation to his non belief?
I know quite a few scholars, from conservatives to liberals, including Bart Ehrman, do not contest Jamesโ non belief up until Jesusโ appearance to him vis a vis 1 Corinthians 15; however some scholars doubt he was a non believer during Jesusโ ministry, including Richard Bauckham.
Do we simply have to deal with not having a ton of sources? Is there a serious reason to doubt his non belief? Can we trust the gospels on this matter from a critical perspective?
These books by Robert Eisenman look interesting: two Kindle volumes each about 400 pages.
My question concerns chronology. Wikipedia (below) classifies the Habakkuk Pesher as first century BC, but Eisenman's arguments seem to rely on it being first century AD. Any comments on this? I'd also appreciate recommendations to read it, or not.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:1st-century_BC_biblical_manuscripts
This is the scenario laid out in "The Case for The Resurrection" by Gary Habermas and Mike Licona.
I notice Paul in Galatians 2 describes the pillars of the faith being โCephas, James, and Johnโ. Iโm assuming James refers to the brother of Jesus, since he already referenced this James earlier in the book and doesnโt mention any other. And it got me thinking... was this the original trio?
In the Gospels, the special trio is Peter, James the son of Zebedee, and John. But I wonder if this is a mistake, or even an attempt to cover up the real James since he started off as a skeptic of Jesusโ ministry.
The minimal facts approach attempts to demonstrate the historicity of the resurrection using a set of facts most critical scholars agree upon. One of these facts is that โJames the brother of Jesus converted after an encounter with the risen Jesusโ.
However, this claim cannot be substantiated. Even based on the NT, all we know is that James started off as a doubter (John 7:5) and at some point he became a believer. But it doesnโt tell us when or how this took place. Did he become a believer during Jesusโ ministry? Did he become a believer after hearing stories of Jesus being risen? Or was it only after seeing the resurrected Jesus himself? We donโt know.
This so-called โfactโ should therefore be removed from the argument, as it gives us no information on the historicity of Jesusโ resurrection.
Boss: No problem.
(3 days later)
James: Boss, my brother is in town. I need the day off.
Boss: Wait a second...
When it comes to James the brother of Jesus, unlike Paul, skeptics often dismiss his conversion because they believe there isn't enough evidence to establish if any of the biblical narrative regarding him is true.
The goal of this post is to help assert that James is evidence for the resurrection by appeal to Ehrman as consensus.
>"What I think we can say with some confidence is that Jesus actually did die, he probably was buried, and that some of his disciples (all of them? some of them?) claimed to have seen him alive afterward. Among those who made this claim, interestingly enough, was Jesus's own brother James, who came to believe in Jesus and soon thereafter became one of the principal leaders of the early Christian church."
Jesus: Apocalyptic Prophet (page 229)
(Side note: I didn't like his phrasing "with some confidence" because it's ambiguous if he means "confidently" or "only some confidence". Regardless, I think his use of "interestingly enough" switches the context to mean he is making an assertion about James, and I think he means "confidently" referring to the death, burial and resurrection claim.)
Now the above quote from Ehrman is slightly ambiguous regarding if James claimed he himself saw the risen Jesus, and it doesn't specifically clarify that James was originally not a follower before. On Ehrmanblog, I found a reply to a comment that better specifies this.
Comments from Ehrmanblog:
"i wondered about your thoughts on James originally not being a follower then converting after his death"
>Yes, I think thatโs probably true, and that itโs because he, like Peter, had some sort of vision of Jesus after his death (as people do!),
Side note: This does not mean "vision" as opposed to "hallucination". Ehrman's use of "vision" is interchangeable with "hallucination" - see below. Some try to assert the apostles only claimed to have seen "visions" of Jesus.
>I have received a number of interesting responses to my claim in yesterdayโs post that it is possible for groups of people to have the same non-veridical vision (that is, hallucinations)
In my last post, I showed a comment where it's Ehrman's opinion is that James (the brother) was killed for the faith.
"In what way was the James you are talking about here, the โbrotherโ of Jesus?"
>He was almost certainly his blood-brother, born of the same parents.
--- Application
Bart Ehrman believes:
- James was Jesus's literal brother
- J
Iโm a layman, and Iโve tried to read this book 3x over the years and I still get confused 20 pages in every time.
Iโm hoping maybe a biblical scholar can explain it to me like Iโm 5.
There's no evidence that James became a believer only after the resurrection. It's entirely plausible he was always a supporter of Jesus or became a supporter later in Jesus' ministry. We also have no statement from James himself that he saw the risen Jesus, only a creed that says he did.
As to why he would support the movement, maybe he saw some ethical value to Jesus' teachings and found it a worthy cause. Maybe he was power-hungry and sought to garner attention as the brother of the long-awaited Messiah. Maybe the violent execution of his brother led him to see visions. Or maybe he was never really Jesus' brother and only pretended!
There's also no good evidence of how James was executed. Josephus, Clement, and Hegesippus give conflicting accounts and we don't know whether he was even given the chance to recant. In fact, the most detailed account we have tells us he wasn't given this chance. So ironically, even Christian documents admit that he never willingly died for the faith.
What background is there to this? What does the Greek mean when referencing brother? I'm not sure how many gospels attest to this, but the church in Jerusalem I believe was headed by James. Was James held by the early church to be a brother to Jesus? What's the modern opinions?
Especially because he quotes Josephus extensively. If it was there, wouldn't he have used it as a knockdown argument for Christ?
Unfortunately, we donโt know a ton about James the brother of the Lord. We know he was a pious Jew and an influential figure in the early church from the attestation by Hegesippus. We know that he was biologically related to Jesus, and the gospels report that he did not believe in Jesusโ divinity during his ministry. However, with what certainty can we trust the claim that he was indeed a non believer throughout Jesusโ ministry? On what grounds can we reject the gospelsโ attestation to his non belief? What other evidence, of any, exists that supports or contradicts the gospelsโ attestation to his non belief?
I know quite a few scholars, from conservatives to liberals, including Bart Ehrman, do not contest Jamesโ non belief up until Jesusโ appearance to him vis a vis 1 Corinthians 15; however some scholars doubt he was a non believer during Jesusโ ministry, including Richard Bauckham.
Do we simply have to deal with not having a ton of sources? Is there a serious reason to doubt his non belief? Can we trust the gospels on this matter from a critical perspective?
When it comes to James the brother of Jesus , unlike Paul, skeptics often dismiss his conversion because they believe there isn't enough evidence to establish if any of the biblical narrative regarding him is true.
The goal of this post is to help assert that James is evidence for the resurrection by appeal to Ehrman as consensus.
>"What I think we can say with some confidence is that Jesus actually did die, he probably was buried, and that some of his disciples (all of them? some of them?) claimed to have seen him alive afterward. Among those who made this claim, interestingly enough, was Jesus's own brother James, who came to believe in Jesus and soon thereafter became one of the principal leaders of the early Christian church."
Jesus: Apocalyptic Prophet (page 229)
(Side note: I didn't like his phrasing "with some confidence" because it's ambiguous if he means "confidently" or "only some confidence". Regardless, I think his use of "interestingly enough" switches the context to mean he is making an assertion about James, and I think he means "confidently" referring to the death, burial and resurrection claim.)
Now the above quote from Ehrman is slightly ambiguous regarding if James claimed he himself saw the risen Jesus, and it doesn't specifically clarify that James was originally not a follower before. On Ehrmanblog, I found a reply to a comment that better specifies this.
Comments from Ehrmanblog:
"i wondered about your thoughts on James originally not being a follower then converting after his death"
>Yes, I think thatโs probably true, and that itโs because he, like Peter, had some sort of vision of Jesus after his death (as people do!),
Side note: This does not mean "vision" as opposed to "hallucination". Ehrman's use of "vision" is interchangeable with "hallucination" - see below. Some try to assert the apostles only claimed to have seen "visions" of Jesus.
>I have received a number of interesting responses to my claim in yesterdayโs post that it is possible for groups of people to have the same non-veridical vision (that is, hallucinations)
In my last post, I showed a comment where it's Ehrman's opinion is that James (the brother) was killed for the faith.
"In what way was the James you are talking about here, the โbrotherโ of Jesus?"
>He was almost certainly his blood-brother, born of the same parents.
--- Application
Bart Ehrman believes:
- James was Jesus's literal brother
