The Historical Jesus II

[JaysonR]

So wait, I really DO have an invisible fire breathing dragon in my garage?

Right, because I wasn't responding to an on-going conversation which carries with it any sort of context or anything.
Clearly I meant that comment absolutely and without any sort of context - ready-made for microwave media sound-biting.

But thank you for providing an example of the very thing I was remarking upon.

 

[GDon]

A warning about Lord Raglan's profile. One should not interpret it too literal-mindedly, or else hardly anyone would score big in it.

I think that is a problem in itself. Just how literal-minded is too literal-minded? Or how much is too little literal-minded? The same problem existed for the early Christians, when they tried to show that Jesus was pre-figured in the Old Testament. I am sure some said "One should not interpret those passages too literal-mindedly, or else we won't find any pre-figuring of Jesus!"

There is also the issue that the Jesus in gMark scores much less than the Jesus in the other Gospels. It is certainly consistent with evolving myth-making, whatever the implications of that are.

Here is the score from gMark:

1. Hero's mother is a royal virgin;
No.

2. His father is a king, and
No.

3. Often a near relative of his mother, but
No.

4. The circumstances of his conception are unusual, and
No.

5. He is also reputed to be the son of a god.
Adopted son of God, not literal son of God. Does this score? Who knows?

6. At birth an attempt is made, usually by his father or his maternal grandfather to kill him, but
No.

7. he is spirited away, and
No.

8. Reared by foster parents in a far country.
No.

9. We are told nothing of his childhood, but
Yes.

10. On reaching manhood he returns or goes to his future Kingdom.
Does he go to his future kingdom? It implies that his father was a king, which most of the others in the Raglan list literally were, with an actual kingdom to pass onto his son. Jesus doesn't return or go anywhere upon reaching manhood, at least in the Gospel of Mark.

11. After a victory over the king and/or a giant, dragon, or wild beast,
Is successfully resisting the Devil's tempting a victory? gMark has this only:

Mark1.[11] And there came a voice from heaven, saying, Thou art my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased.
[12] And immediately the Spirit driveth him into the wilderness.
[13] And he was there in the wilderness forty days, tempted of Satan; and was with the wild beasts; and the angels ministered unto him.​

And that's it. No battle, no declaration of victory, though certainly an implication of victory. Still, most of the other stories from memory have explicit battle scenes. They are not just one line throw-aways. Is Mark 1:13 enough to fulfil this category? How do we tell?

12. He marries a princess, often the daughter of his predecessor and
No.

13. And becomes king.
Is cult-leader enough for this point? How can we tell? Jesus was mockingly described as king -- is that enough for this point? Who knows?

14. For a time he reigns uneventfully and
Same as above. Jesus never "reigns" at all. Am I being too-literal minded for this? There is nothing in the story that suggests that Jesus is leading uneventfully. In gMark, he is constantly moving around, making converts and enemies. Is there anything there that suggests "he reigns uneventfully"?

15. Prescribes laws, but
Ipetrich wrote: "Jesus Christ: yes. His teachings can reasonably be considered laws in a broad sense." My suspicion here is that the only reason to consider teachings to be "prescibing laws in a broad sense" is to fit it into the Raglan scale. How do we determine this though?

16. Later he loses favor with the gods and/or his subjects, and
Yes.

17. Is driven from the throne and city, after which
Yes.

18. He meets with a mysterious death,
No. Crucifixion isn't a mysterious death. Pilate is surprised that Jesus died so quick. Is this what is meant when applied to the others on the Raglan list?

19. Often at the top of a hill,
No, not in gMark.

20. His children, if any, do not succeed him.
No.

21. His body is not buried, but nevertheless
Yes, assuming the Raglan category means "doesn't remain buried". No, if taken literally.

22. He has one or more holy sepulchres.
No, not in gMark. (There is a sepulchre, but not viewed as "holy", a place where people could pay respect to the dead hero).

I won't try to add up the score, since that is not the point. My point is that who is to say when we are being too literal or too broad when evaluating each category? At the least, we would need to know why someone regards the category fulfilled, e.g. Jesus was cult-leader = Jesus was a "king".

It ought to be evident that the Jesus Christ of the Gospels is much more like mythical people than like well-documented real people.

To be more specific: If we aren't too literal-minded when using the Raglan scale, then Jesus scores high on that scale. But the issue is that the more broad you make the categories, the less useful the scale becomes. But how broad is too broad? How do we tell? Who decides?

 

[maximara]

Just to touch on this point: Why wouldn't Historians keep using the same evidence? Are they supposed to invent new evidence? I can't see why using the same evidence to reach the same conclusion is a bad thing.

Since the 1940s they have had the Nag Hammadi texts and the DSS have only been available to wide scrutiny since the 1990s, so you might start to see a bit more, but barring any new discoveries, it is what it is.

As discussed a long time ago no work of Paul or the Gospels with dates older then those below has definitively been identified as being part of Dead Sea Scroll or the Nag Hammadi finds making them somewhat useless in terms of showing historical accuracy:

Paul: Papyrus 46 (175-225 CE)

Gospels: Rylands Library Papyrus P52 (125-c225), Papyrus 75 (175-225)

Everything else is after our main secondary work of Against Heresies at c180

Paul writings and the Gospels are propaganda. Even largely historical accurate (for the time) propaganda like Frank Capra's Why we Fight series has its distortions, half-truths, omissions, and outright lies and then you have the totally fictions propaganda like 1567 A Discovery and plain Declaration of the Sundry Subtill practices of the Holy Inquisition Of Spain, the 1927 Tanaka Memorial, and the infamous 1903 The Protocols of the Elders of Zion. Paul doesn't give us anything really useful to that leaves us with the Gospels which could be anywhere on the propaganda spectrum. And when checked against known history the Gospels can be shown to be talking nonsense in therms of history.


Josephus is known to have been tampered with as far as the Testimonium Flavianum and based on how it breaks the flow of the passage and no one before 4th century even mentioned it there is good indication that the whole thing is a fake. Origen's comments in Against Celsus 1.47 and 2.13 about how Josephus connected the death of James the Just with the fall of Jerusalem and the destruction of the temple makes the second James the brother of Jesus who as called Christ suspect. In fact, until Christ mythers started pointing out the James in Josephus died c 62 CE the majority of Christian schoolarship had James the Just's death c 69 CE.

Eusebius of Caesarea in his Church History, Book III, ch. 11 clearly writes "After the martyrdom of James and the conquest of Jerusalem which immediately followed..." but there are seven years and four High Priestsbetween these two events if the Josephus passage is genuine so either we have one of the wonkiest definition of "immediately followed" in the history of the world or these are two different James and the "who as called Christ" passage was added to make the connection. The later interpretation is supported by Rufinus of Aquileia in the 4th century who states James the Lord's brother was informed of the death of Peter (64 CE or 67 CE ie after the James in Josephus was dead and gone)

Even if the second passage was totally genuine John Frum having Prince Philip, Duke of Edinburgh (who only has sisters) as a brother within 17 years of the cult's first "public" appearance renders it totally useless.

Tacitus and Suetonius regarding Nero persecuting Christians based on what Josephus and Pliny the Elder say regarding Rome c64 CE and Seneca the Younger in his On Superstition seems to merely repeating an urban legend as none of the the later even mentions Christianity (something Augustine tried to explain away...before scribes started forging stuff)

Suetonius' Chrestos reference is a clear desperation grab as is Thallos.

 

[maximara]

Maximara,

Which is what I outlined in various details several pages back and was misunderstood as defending the HJ position.

As I said back in that tangent - a regular practice is to receive the positive and await a negative to be proven sufficient to overturn the positive; the negative has not been sufficiently supplied.

That is nonsense as pointed out by David Kusche:

"Say I claim that a parrot has been kidnapped to teach aliens human language and I challenge you to prove that is not true. You can even use Einstein's Theory of Relativity if you like. There is simply no way to prove such a claim untrue. The burden of proof should be on the people who make these statements, to show where they got their information from, to see if their conclusions and interpretations are valid, and if they have left anything out."

Once the evidence for something has been shown to be of poor quality then one should no longer being saying that position needs to be negated because the position is built on sand anyhow.

 

[Brainache]

As discussed a long time ago no work of Paul or the Gospels with dates older then those below has definitively been identified as being part of Dead Sea Scroll or the Nag Hammadi finds making them somewhat useless in terms of showing historical accuracy:

Paul: Papyrus 46 (175-225 CE)

Gospels: Rylands Library Papyrus P52 (125-c225), Papyrus 75 (175-225)

Why would you think the DSS contained these texts? The DSS are the texts left behind by a Zealot Messianic Apocalyptic Jewish cult, not Gentile Greco-Romans. They called themselves "The Poor" (Ebionim, the Greek form of which is Ebionite)

They have a lot to say about a certain "Spouter Of Lies" who was preaching against the laws of Moses and leading people astray. They called him their "Enemy". We know from early Church Histories that the Ebionites considered Paul "The Enemy". (Pseudo Clementine Recognitions)

Everything else is after our main secondary work of Against Heresies at c180

Paul writings and the Gospels are propaganda. Even largely historical accurate (for the time) propaganda like Frank Capra's Why we Fight series has its distortions, half-truths, omissions, and outright lies and then you have the totally fictions propaganda like 1567 A Discovery and plain Declaration of the Sundry Subtill practices of the Holy Inquisition Of Spain, the 1927 Tanaka Memorial, and the infamous 1903 The Protocols of the Elders of Zion. Paul doesn't give us anything really useful to that leaves us with the Gospels which could be anywhere on the propaganda spectrum.

Josephus is known to have been tampered with as far as the Testimonium Flavianum and based on how it breaks the flow of the passage and no one before 4th century even mentioned it there is good indication that the whole thing is a fake. Origen's comments in Against Celsus 1.47 and 2.13 about how Josephus connected the death of James the Just with the fall of Jerusalem and the destruction of the temple makes the second James the brother of Jesus who as called Christ suspect. In fact, until Christ mythers started pointing out the James in Josephus died c 62 CE the majority of Christian schoolarship had James the Just's death c 69 CE.

I don't see why anyone would put James' death at 69 CE. Josephus says that his death started the chain of events that led to the revolt, he doesn't say that the war started straight away. James the Just = James the Righteous = Jakob the Zaddik (The Pillar of Righteousness), when the Pillar was destroyed, Jerusalem had to fall (or so the Jewish sages would say). http://www.sacred-texts.com/jud/t03/hgg03.htm

There is a Boraitha of R. Jose which says: Woe to the creatures which see and know not what they see, which stand and know not upon what they stand. Upon what does the earth stand? Upon the pillars. The pillars stand upon the waters; the waters upon the mountains; the mountains upon the wind; the wind upon the storm; 1 the storm is suspended upon the strength of the Holy One, blessed be He, as it is written [Deut. Xxxiii. 27]: "And here beneath, the everlasting arms." The sages say: It stands upon twelve pillars, as it is

p. 25

written [Deut. xxiii. 8]: "He set the bounds of the tribes according to the number of the sons of Israel." According to others, seven pillars, as it is written [Prov. ix. i]: "She had hewn out her seven pillars." R. Elazar b. Shamua said: Upon one pillar, and its name is Zaddik (The Righteous), as it is written [Prov. x. 25]: "But the righteous is an everlasting foundation."

Eusebius of Caesarea in his Church History, Book III, ch. 11 clearly writes "After the martyrdom of James and the conquest of Jerusalem which immediately followed..." but there are seven years and four High Priestsbetween these two events if the Josephus passage is genuine so either we have one of the wonkiest definition of "immediately followed" in the history of the world or these are two different James and the "who as called Christ" passage was added to make the connection. The later interpretation is supported by Rufinus of Aquileia in the 4th century who states James the Lord's brother was informed of the death of Peter (64 CE or 67 CE ie after the James in Josephus was dead and gone)

Josephus does not say that the war "immediately followed" the death of James. He says that the death of James was the cause, but he doesn't say it happened straight after.
http://www.biblestudytools.com/history/flavius-josephus/antiquities-jews/book-20/chapter-9.html

Festus was now dead, and Albinus was but upon the road; so he assembled the sanhedrim of judges, and brought before them the brotherof Jesus, who was called Christ, whose name was James, and some others, [or, some of his companions]; and when he had formed an accusation against them as breakers of the law, he delivered them to be stoned: but as for those who seemed the most equitable of the citizens, and such as were the most uneasy at the breach of the laws, they disliked what was done; ...

But now the Sicarii went into the city by night, just before the festival, which was now at hand, and took the scribe belonging to the governor of the temple, whose name was Eleazar, who was the son of Ananus [Ananias] the high priest, and bound him, and carried him away with them; after which they sent to Ananias, and said that they would send the scribe to him, if he would persuade Albinus to release ten of those prisoners which he had caught of their party; so Ananias was plainly forced to persuade Albinus, and gained his request of him. This was the beginning of greater calamities; for the robbers perpetually contrived to catch some of Ananias's servants; and when they had taken them alive, they would not let them go, till they thereby recovered some of their own Sicarii. And as they were again become no small number, they grew bold, and were a great affliction to the whole country.
...
But Ananias was too hard for the rest, by his riches, which enabled him to gain those that were most ready to receive. Costobarus also, and Saulus, did themselves get together a multitude of wicked wretches, and this because they were of the royal family; and so they obtained favor among them, because of their kindred to Agrippa; but still they used violence with the people, and were very ready to plunder those that were weaker than themselves. And from that time it principally came to pass that our city was greatly disordered, and that all things grew worse and worse among us.

Even if the second passage was totally genuine John Frum having Prince Philip, Duke of Edinburgh (who only has sisters) as a brother within 17 years of the cult's first "public" appearance renders it totally useless.

Maybe if we wait another three hundred years we'll have a source as authoritative as Rufinus of Aquileia to tell us all about John Frum...

 

[JaysonR]

Maximira,

I simply stated the same thing you just credited to Carrier.
Pointing out something doesn't mean agreeing.

I also don't think we need to go back through 'historically extant' and 'actually extant', the validity of historicity as a field, and the process for historicity.

That has been beaten thin...very thin.
I thought we were very past this and running on at least an axiom of literary examination?

 

[maximara]

I don't see why anyone would put James' death at 69 CE.

"Hegesippns has been cited over and over again by historians as assigning the date of the martyrdom [of James the Just] to 69 A.D". Clement of Alexandria and Eusebius of Caesarea also indicate 69 CE. (Eddy, Paul R.; Boyd, Gregory A. (2007). The Jesus Legend: A Case for the Historical Reliability of the Synoptic Jesus Tradition. Baker Academic. p. 130)

More over Rufinus of Aquileia in the 4th century stated James the Lord's brother was informed of the death of Peter (64 CE or 67 CE ie after the James in Josephus was dead and gone).

 

[pakeha]

[ . . . ]
The story of Jesus, even in the slimmest - Mark, has an appeal that most everyone looking at it today entirely looks right over without ever considering it worth note.
"You have moral authority"

Fictionally or factually; it doesn't really matter - that is a huge political philosophy message around this time period. [ . . . ]

The thing is, early Christianity almost immediately took that supposed moral authority away. Paul predates Mark IIRC and preaches obedience and respect for authority. Where's the "huge political philosophy message" in that?
Did the earliest Christians even know gMark?

There's the Alexandria connection, of course, with the claims to be founded by Mark.
But here's the rub- they apparently practised Johannine baptism rather than that of Jesus.
Wasn't the "moral authority" supposed to be derived from baptism in the Spirit?

I've seen some attempts to explain away Paul's shortage of details about Jesus Christ's alleged earthly life. Like that he was presenting high theology for those who already knew about Jesus Christ. But as Earl Doherty notes, there are lots of things in the Gospels that Paul could have cited in support of his positions, but didn't.

There's a post on that very subject at BC & H
http://earlywritings.com/forum/view...4355&hilit=correct+chronological+order#p14355

The Paradox of Paul

A key element of Carrier’s theory is the observation that evidence from our presumed earliest source, the authentic Pauline epistles, does not resemble what we would expect if we assume that the J2CH is true:

Many historians fail to grasp the mathematical point here. They will explain away any single instance of something not being mentioned and then conclude that that explains why none are, not aware of the fact that the latter is less probable. For example, suppose for any given chapter of Paul’s letters there was only a 1 in 20 (a mere 5% chance that he would mention or describe some definitely historical fact about Jesus. There are over sixty chapters in Paul’s letters. Even if such a mention in any one of those chapters is that improbable (1 in 20), that there would be no mention in any of them is even more improbable: P(none) = 1 (0.05)^60 = 0.046 (rounded), in other words, less than 5%. Which means here is a more than 95% chance we would have at least one such mention. So the fact that we have none is bizarre. (OHOJ, p.518-519fn)

Enjoy.

 

[Brainache]

"Hegesippns has been cited over and over again by historians as assigning the date of the martyrdom [of James the Just] to 69 A.D". Clement of Alexandria and Eusebius of Caesarea also indicate 69 CE. (Eddy, Paul R.; Boyd, Gregory A. (2007). The Jesus Legend: A Case for the Historical Reliability of the Synoptic Jesus Tradition. Baker Academic. p. 130)

More over Rufinus of Aquileia in the 4th century stated James the Lord's brother was informed of the death of Peter (64 CE or 67 CE ie after the James in Josephus was dead and gone).

OK thanks for that. I disagree with the Authors of "The Jesus Legend: A Case for the Historical Reliability of the Synoptic Jesus Tradition". I don't believe that either Hegesippus, Clement or Eusebius indicate that James was martyred in 69 CE. I believe they cited Josephus as blaming the death of James for setting off the chain of events which led to the destruction of Jerusalem and the Temple, but that chain of events took much longer than 12 months to unfold.

I'm not sure why Rufinus of Aquileia would know what James knew about the death of Peter, given that he lived three hundred years later and a long way away from these events...

 

[JaysonR]

Pakeha,

It doesn't really matter what the chronology is, the point is there.
It's only a big problem if we try to force all texts in the NT canon to be of one running tangent, source and culture; which they are clearly not.

If we look at everything from Matthew to Revelation as a collection of disperate, yet related, versions of a similar form of religious ideology then the concern over Paulinist deviation from any other text is rather expected.

That said, Paulinism doesn't outright remove the idea either, it converts it to a different cultural sense.
I could say the same of John, Revelation or even Peter.

 

[proudfootz]

I'm looking forward to your reactions to the book.
It beggars belief that the mainstream academic bible scholars haven't sifted and re-sifted all the material available, doesn't it?

It doesn't appear Carrier is suggesting no one else has done it [dated New Testament and related materials]. I think it's more along the lines that in order to say something definitive it would take him some time to review the enormous amount of literature on the subject.

 

[eight bits]

lpetrich

A warning about Lord Raglan's profile. One should not interpret it too literal-mindedly, or else hardly anyone would score big in it.

In other words, there is no actual measurement, and the "scale" would have been "tested" on the same data used to construct it, except that the scale is so vague that there is no way to test it all. Neither Otto Rank nor Lord Raglan was plausibly ignorant of the Jesus stories. Failure of any known hero to score well, by hook or by crook, would be sufficient cause to can the whole thing; conclude that any heroes known to the scalers must score well, by h or c.

Apparently, part of being too literal minded is to object to double-counting, or to insist on scoring conjunctions as true only when all the conjuncts are true. This is not serious, this is how psi-kiddies move their pinwheels without blowing on them.


pakeha

Paul predates Mark IIRC and preaches obedience and respect for authority

In the Magnificent Seven? What chapter and verse are we on?

Did the earliest Christians even know gMark?

Well, it depends on whether you think they were smiling down from heaven at that time.

...The Paradox of Paul...

Words can scarcely express my underwhelment that " 1 / 20^60 << 5%" is offered as an argument. We start with the lack of a demonstartion that each chapter of Paul is an indepedent trial of Paul flipping four or five coins to decide whether to include a factoid about Jesus.

I will even venture that Paul's compositional process had no random component, and that his letters have a strong dependency from one chapter to the next: each and every word is chosen to grind Paul's axe, the better to gore his rivals' oxen.

Even the greenest student of the law knows the maxim "If you have the facts on your side, argue the facts; if not, then argue something else." Paul never met Jesus. Having met Jesus is a source for preacherly authority - and some of Paul's rivals not only met the guy, but some slept with him, supposedly. (I mean that in the chastest possible way, of course.) The facts of Jesus' life are not on Paul's side. Conclude: Paul will not often mention what avoidably reminds his audience of his rivals' strong points.

(Indeed, Paul never says one way or the other whether he met Jesus. We assume that he didn't, because we've taken his measure. We estimate that if Paul had ever so much as glimpsed Jesus across a crowded room, that he'd never shut up about it.)

Paul's letters make no strenuous pretense of having anything other than self-aggrandizing purpose ("I will not boast..." my butt). His audience has heard Jesus' story already - apparently in several versions. From time to time, Paul's stuck (the institution narrative, he himself practiced baptism, some aspects of Jesus' birth, death and burial must be addressed, his rivals boast of having known Jesus... maybe a few other things). When he's stuck, Paul does give a Jesus-factoid. Great writer = he rarely gets stuck, and instead "stays on message."

Message = who talked with Jesus most recently? ("He appeared to me last..." Uh huh.)

 

[proudfootz]

I'm glad other posters are simply trying to sort out what the story is. I've read apologists' arguments that the crucifixion of Jesus is more or less one of the most well-documented events of the first century. Yet the more I investigate and read, the less plausible the entire passion story becomes.

I'm right with you on this point. The narrative just seems like a pastiche of story elements which don't go well together when one considers them for long.

I can't imagine a reason why the Jewish authorities would call for and participate in a crucifixion during the Passover celebrations.
The only explanation for this narrative that makes any sense at all, given what we know, is that it's theological narration or hagiography.

Had anything like the 'cleansing of the Temple' really occurred during the Passover, it's most likely Jesus and his followers would have been killed then and there by the mob and there's nothing authorities could do about it.

Actually, that's my point, dejudge and I'm glad you agree with me.
There's no reason to believe the passion of Jesus ever occurred, is there.

It's implausible that it occurred as written.

The Jesus narrative as soap opera?
Sounds about right.

How interesting you see this:
"I can only venture a conceptual speculation here and not really much of an answer: if the story is entirely fictional; thus, literature, and John worked (in part) from Luke, and if John was a version created in the west coast of Anatolia, and thereby if it was conveyed under traditional Anatolian customs of retelling a religious tale on the stage as the means of dispersion, then perhaps the reason is both ignorance and convention.
It could be plausible that the performance preferred something a bit more brief than Luke; perhaps it was too much of a tangent in story to segue into an entirely different drama than the trial and execution during this part of the act."

We also have the Graeco-Roman tradition of acting out the death of kings in dramatic productions and the enduring tradition of Passion plays. It's tempting to see the NT figures as dramatis personæ.

This does seem a likely explanation - the characters are there to fulfill certain plot functions. Considered in the light of literary development, this is why it is insufficient to simply delete the 'miraculous' and then try to make a narrative out of the residue: the mundane details only there to be the stage upon which the miracle story plays out.

 

[proudfootz]

Just to touch on this point: Why wouldn't Historians keep using the same evidence? Are they supposed to invent new evidence? I can't see why using the same evidence to reach the same conclusion is a bad thing.

Since the 1940s they have had the Nag Hammadi texts and the DSS have only been available to wide scrutiny since the 1990s, so you might start to see a bit more, but barring any new discoveries, it is what it is.

You're quite correct, historians would be constrained to use the same evidence as it becomes available.

On the other hand, bible scholars tending to use the same claims as if it were 'evidence' is not in the same ballpark.

 

[proudfootz]

I've seen some attempts to explain away Paul's shortage of details about Jesus Christ's alleged earthly life. Like that he was presenting high theology for those who already knew about Jesus Christ. But as Earl Doherty notes, there are lots of things in the Gospels that Paul could have cited in support of his positions, but didn't.

Yes, the 'argument from High Context culture' appears to me to be another epicycle needed to make the Jesus-centric Universe theory work.


"Apparently, back in 1989 mainstream NT scholars could call attention to Paul’s silence and admit that it was a feature of his writing that deserved to be explained (not explained away, à la the Casey-Holding Theory). And not only could scholars draw attention to the silence, but they could also admit that it was because either the sayings collections that made their way into the canonical gospels “had not yet been made, or because he was ignorant of them.” "

http://vridar.org/2012/06/11/when-is-pauls-silence-golden/

Occam fans would simply accept that Paul probably didn't know these stories for whatever reason.

 

[maximara]

OK thanks for that. I disagree with the Authors of "The Jesus Legend: A Case for the Historical Reliability of the Synoptic Jesus Tradition". I don't believe that either Hegesippus, Clement or Eusebius indicate that James was martyred in 69 CE. I believe they cited Josephus as blaming the death of James for setting off the chain of events which led to the destruction of Jerusalem and the Temple, but that chain of events took much longer than 12 months to unfold.

I'm not sure why Rufinus of Aquileia would know what James knew about the death of Peter, given that he lived three hundred years later and a long way away from these events...

Here is Rufinus of Aquileia's exact words on the matter:

"These, therefore, as being beyond our powers, I have chosen to reserve for others, rather than to produce in an imperfect state. But in the rest, we have given our endeavour, so far as we could, not to vary either from the sentiments or even from the language and modes of expression; and this, although it renders the style of the narrative less ornate, yet it makes it more faithful. The epistle in which the same Clement, writing to James the Lord's brother, informs him of the death of Peter, and that he had left him his successor in his chair and teaching, and in which also the whole subject of church order is treated, I have not prefixed to this work, both because it is of later date, and because I have already translated and published it."

Here Rufinus of Aquileia talks about an epistle from the man who would become Pope Clement written to James the Lord's brother to inform him of the death of Peter (ie no earlier then 64 CE and could be as late as 67 CE) Clearly for such an epistle to have once existed Josephus' James canNOT be James the Just.

 

[dejudge]

5. He is also reputed to be the son of a god.
Adopted son of God, not literal son of God. Does this score? Who knows?

In gMark, Jesus himself declared he was the Son of God--NEVER an adopted son.

In fact, in gMark, God is the ONLY father of Jesus.

There is no mention of Joseph or Panthera in gMark.

There is no adoption in gMark.

Mark 3:11 KJV---And unclean spirits, when they saw him, fell down before him, and cried , saying , Thou art the Son of God.


Mark 5:7 KJV---And cried with a loud voice, and said , What have I to do with thee, Jesus, thou Son of the most high God? I adjure thee by God, that thou torment me not.


Mark 14 KJV--- Again the high priest asked him, and said unto him, Art thou the Christ, the Son of the Blessed? 62 And Jesus said , I am : and ye shall see the Son of man sitting on the right hand of power, and coming in the clouds of heaven.

Mark 15:39 KJV---And when the centurion, which stood over against him, saw that he so cried out , and gave up the ghost , he said , Truly this man was the Son of God.

 

[dejudge]

It ought to be evident that the Jesus Christ of the Gospels is much more like mythical people than like well-documented real people. If there was a historical Jesus Christ, he must have been much like Haile Selassie, the subject of massive mythmaking.

Haile Selassie is a well documented figure of history from Ethiopia. Jesus of Nazareth is unknown except in the Bible.

Jesus of Nazareth is more like Romulus, the Myth Founder of Rome.

 

[lpetrich]

True, Haile Selassie has much more outside documentation that Jesus Christ does, but that outside documentation makes him a good example of how real people can be subjected to rather extreme mythmaking.

 

[Brainache]

Here is Rufinus of Aquileia's exact words on the matter:

"These, therefore, as being beyond our powers, I have chosen to reserve for others, rather than to produce in an imperfect state. But in the rest, we have given our endeavour, so far as we could, not to vary either from the sentiments or even from the language and modes of expression; and this, although it renders the style of the narrative less ornate, yet it makes it more faithful. The epistle in which the same Clement, writing to James the Lord's brother, informs him of the death of Peter, and that he had left him his successor in his chair and teaching, and in which also the whole subject of church order is treated, I have not prefixed to this work, both because it is of later date, and because I have already translated and published it."

Here Rufinus of Aquileia talks about an epistle from the man who would become Pope Clement written to James the Lord's brother to inform him of the death of Peter (ie no earlier then 64 CE and could be as late as 67 CE) Clearly for such an epistle to have once existed Josephus' James canNOT be James the Just.

So Rufinus had seen the Pseudo-Clementine writings. OK.
http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/clementinerecognitions.html

I'm not sure if that means James received any letters from Clement. Clement may have written them, he may not have. Clement might not have known that James was already dead when he may or may not have sent any letters that he may or may not have written to James who may or may not have been dead...

My brain hurts. Sorry.