The Jesus myth Part I

[dastardly stem]

The Catholic church worked to actively remove references to Jesus having a family because of the claim Mary remained a virgin for life prior to her deification. Paul did speak of a living person and describes James as Jesus' brother. The idea this refers to James and Jesus having a religious relationship and not referring to a biological relationship is apologetics based on muddy linguistics that would struggle with dealing with the internal evidence of the attempts to remove Jesus' biological family and his brother James' role as his successor. The manuscript evidence and bits that remain the the New Testament reflect this attempt to erase Jesus being part of a very human family not unlike the mythicist attempt to do. .

What era are we talking about when we say the Catholic Church attempted to change things up in order to make it appear Mary was a virgin until her deification? What do we know was changed to fit that story?

Also, I don't see Paul making much more than a passing comment on James. I'm not seeing how that fits with the idea that Paul is explicitly describing a historic person Jesus. It does seem like he's hinting at different levels of believers to me. Cephas who is without mention, the highest, those believers like James considered brethren of the Lord and apostles. Considering they all called each other brothers, doesn't really hurt this.

[Bret Ripley]

Origen was apparently attempting to establish Jesus' historicity

A very minor point (if it can be called a point at all): if this is a reference to Origen's writings in opposition to docetism, it's probably an imperfect reflection of Origen's intent. Strictly speaking, docetism didn't deny that Jesus 'existed,' per se, but offered different ideas regarding the nature of that existence. But I am a far cry from being an expert, here, so I could be all wet.

[Chap]

The Catholic church worked to actively remove references to Jesus having a family because of the claim Mary remained a virgin for life prior to her deification. Paul did speak of a living person and describes James as Jesus' brother. The idea this refers to James and Jesus having a religious relationship and not referring to a biological relationship is apologetics based on muddy linguistics that would struggle with dealing with the internal evidence of the attempts to remove Jesus' biological family and his brother James' role as his successor. The manuscript evidence and bits that remain the the New Testament reflect this attempt to erase Jesus being part of a very human family not unlike the mythicist attempt to do. .

What era are we talking about when we say the Catholic Church attempted to change things up in order to make it appear Mary was a virgin until her deification? What do we know was changed to fit that story?

Also, I don't see Paul making much more than a passing comment on James. I'm not seeing how that fits with the idea that Paul is explicitly describing a historic person Jesus. It does seem like he's hinting at different levels of believers to me. Cephas who is without mention, the highest, those believers like James considered brethren of the Lord and apostles. Considering they all called each other brothers, doesn't really hurt this.

Umm, Matthew 12:

46While He was still talking to the multitudes, behold, His mother and brothers stood outside, seeking to speak with Him. 47Then one said to Him, “Look, Your mother and Your brothers are standing outside, seeking to speak with You.”

48But He answered and said to the one who told Him, “Who is My mother and who are My brothers?”

49And He stretched out His hand toward His disciples and said, “Here are My mother and My brothers! 50For whoever does the will of My Father in heaven is My brother and sister and mother.”

A clear contrast there between people who are his actual family 'mother and brothers' (η μητηρ και οι αδελφοι) and his disciples, no?

[Kishkumen]

The mythicist argument is with a mythical story. It helps to get into the actual history of the 1st century rather than assume the mythology is the basis for Christianity's founding. . . .

These are all great points, honor. Reading Ehrman's Orthodox Corruption of Scripture is helpful for coming to terms with the first part of your post.

[dastardly stem]

What era are we talking about when we say the Catholic Church attempted to change things up in order to make it appear Mary was a virgin until her deification? What do we know was changed to fit that story?

Also, I don't see Paul making much more than a passing comment on James. I'm not seeing how that fits with the idea that Paul is explicitly describing a historic person Jesus. It does seem like he's hinting at different levels of believers to me. Cephas who is without mention, the highest, those believers like James considered brethren of the Lord and apostles. Considering they all called each other brothers, doesn't really hurt this.

Umm, Matthew 12:

46While He was still talking to the multitudes, behold, His mother and brothers stood outside, seeking to speak with Him. 47Then one said to Him, “Look, Your mother and Your brothers are standing outside, seeking to speak with You.”

48But He answered and said to the one who told Him, “Who is My mother and who are My brothers?”

49And He stretched out His hand toward His disciples and said, “Here are My mother and My brothers! 50For whoever does the will of My Father in heaven is My brother and sister and mother.”

A clear contrast there between people who are his actual family 'mother and brothers' (η μητηρ και οι αδελφοι) and his disciples, no?

Thanks, Chap. Yes it appears even the later gospels suggest Christians believed they should be called brothers, or sisters, or mothers, of Jesus, as believers. As per his claim that Jesus had a family on earth? Well, yes, that belief seemed to develop in time. It was a common practice to put these dying and rising Gods into human history, in time.

[dastardly stem]

A very minor point (if it can be called a point at all): if this is a reference to Origen's writings in opposition to docetism, it's probably an imperfect reflection of Origen's intent. Strictly speaking, docetism didn't deny that Jesus 'existed,' per se, but offered different ideas regarding the nature of that existence. But I am a far cry from being an expert, here, so I could be all wet.

Thanks, Brett. It's a good point, I'd say. but I too am not expert. I appreciate it being added to the mix.

[Kishkumen]

I don't know that that really changes the concerns. It still appears that this James and Jesus were better said to be Damneus' rather than the James and Jesus we think of. That is one main reason why some think this was a later interpolation. But granting it was some passing comment about Jesus, Josephus then, as you point out, is talking about what others thought. Others very well could have been quoting Paul on James and Jesus and if so, it could be that Paul is referencing James as the brother of Jesus, not as a biological brother, but as a fellow believer. This may stretch things a bit, but as I said, there are plenty of reasons to think this passage in Josephus is a later interpolation.
1. The context better fits the Damneus family.
2. Origen never references this passage, even though he likely would have if he knew about it, and he surely knew about Josephus.
3. Josephus never describes what is meant by Christ.
4. Josephus was in the habit of making mention of any he introduces, particularly as it relates to a group of different believers. Even in this passage he makes a side blurb about the sadduccees.
5. The context also doesn't make sense. James was on the side of Peter who sought to preach the Christian gospel to jews and would require converts convert to judaism as well. But this passage in Josephus suggests James was killed for breaking the law. Not preaching something other than Judaism or in addition to. I suppose we could say preaching Christianity on top of judaism could have been thought to breaking the law, but that's another guess.

stem,

This looks like a dump of Carrier material. Each one of these points requires further argument. Why do you think that this James and Jesus are the sons of Damneus? Jesus the son of Damneus appears later in the same chapter. If anything the appearance of Jesus the son of Damneus better explains why it is that Josephus uses the reference to the Christ in this passage. He sees the need to differentiate between different people named Jesus. So the passage is on its face clearly doing the opposite of what you are claiming. It is interesting that he chooses "called the Christ" instead of referring to the father of this Jesus, unlike the other figures he mentions in the passage, because it tends to show that the father of these men, Jesus and James, was an obscure person, unlike Ananus and Damneus. The high priesthood went to people from prominent families with fathers who were well known. Jesus and James obviously don't fit in that category.

[honorentheos]

The Catholic church worked to actively remove references to Jesus having a family because of the claim Mary remained a virgin for life prior to her deification. Paul did speak of a living person and describes James as Jesus' brother. The idea this refers to James and Jesus having a religious relationship and not referring to a biological relationship is apologetics based on muddy linguistics that would struggle with dealing with the internal evidence of the attempts to remove Jesus' biological family and his brother James' role as his successor. The manuscript evidence and bits that remain the the New Testament reflect this attempt to erase Jesus being part of a very human family not unlike the mythicist attempt to do. .

What era are we talking about when we say the Catholic Church attempted to change things up in order to make it appear Mary was a virgin until her deification? What do we know was changed to fit that story?

Very good questions. You live in the era after it occurred, looking at the results. To investigate the historical Jesus requires investigating the 1st century and not the Catholic mythology.

As Mormons we we are more likely to accept the Catholic narrative as the one we know because Mormonism is also based on a claim of being the authentic heir to the authority given Peter in that narrative. When the Catholic church claims to be the rightful priesthood lineage through Peter, Mormonism pushes it's glasses up on it's nose and say, "Well, actually, that can't be true because there was an apostasy from the true teachings of Jesus and a corruption of the church he established. So WE are the true continuation of that priesthood lineage and the restoration of this original, correct Jesus-founded church."

But have you spent time learning about what boring old history has to say about this period? Because I never see the mythicist arguments engaging with that any more than I see Mormons engaging the foundation of the so-called restoration being based on 19th century ideas about the original church rather than what can be uncovers about the 1st century teachings and beliefs coming out of the region. It doesn't engage the historic context of the rebellions among the Jews against Roman occupation. It isn't engaging with the manuscript evidence seeking to uncover the text behind the New Testament as we have it.

It seems mostly interested in dismissing Sunday School lessons as fairy tales for whatever personal reasons one may have for wanting to only engage it deep enough one can see the later myths for what they are and call it case closed.

Also, I don't see Paul making much more than a passing comment on James. I'm not seeing how that fits with the idea that Paul is explicitly describing a historic person Jesus. It does seem like he's hinting at different levels of believers to me. Cephas who is without mention, the highest, those believers like James considered brethren of the Lord and apostles. Considering they all called each other brothers, doesn't really hurt this.

You read the New Testament today and see passing comments about James in the writings of Paul and decided this doesn't have any bearing on the argument Paul was both dismissive of James' authority and teachings as unenlightened compared to his romanized, more universal message and church building was based on? All of which is filtered through the New Testament as we have it today as far as you are engaging it? And you don't see much of an argument there?

Perhaps that's a good reason to read something about the 1st century context from the perspective of a historically attempt to recover history from the mythologizing of it rather than just attacking the myth to dismiss the history? Maybe.

[dastardly stem]

stem,

This looks like a dump of Carrier material. Each one of these points requires further argument. Why do you think that this James and Jesus are the sons of Damneus? Jesus the son of Damneus appears later in the same chapter. If anything the appearance of Jesus the son of Damneus better explains why it is that Josephus uses the reference to the Christ in this passage. He sees the need to differentiate between different people named Jesus. So the passage is on its face clearly doing the opposite of what you are claiming. It is interesting that he chooses "called the Christ" instead of referring to the father of this Jesus, unlike the other figures he mentions in the passage, because it tends to show that the father of these men, Jesus and James, was an obscure person, unlike Ananus and Damneus. The high priesthood went to people from prominent families with fathers who were well known. Jesus and James obviously don't fit in that category.

I still don't think the Christ fits well into this. But I see your point. I'm not sure there is much more to argue here. We may just disagree on the conclusion at this point. I thought perhaps there was a point to say this Jesus was of Damneus, but now I'm less convinced. Thanks for pointing that out.

Some of this was from Carrier. I'm not trying to shy away from that fact that my effort here is in part an examination of his extensive work.

[Kishkumen]

I still don't think the Christ fits well into this. But I see your point. I'm not sure there is much more to argue here. We may just disagree on the conclusion at this point. I thought perhaps there was a point to say this Jesus was of Damneus, but now I'm less convinced. Thanks for pointing that out.

Some of this was from Carrier. I'm not trying to shy away from that fact that my effort here is in part an examination of his extensive work.

I think any mention of Christ in Josephus is going to raise questions. That kind of thing does.

I wasn't accusing you of trying to hide your reliance on Carrier. What I am saying is that it is more helpful to argue these points at length.