(October 7, 2023 at 12:19 pm)Fake Messiah Wrote:(October 7, 2023 at 9:32 am)LinuxGal Wrote: Paul, in his undisputed letters, says he met this same fellow's brother. And the existence of that brother is supported by Josephus. Then later the proto-orthodox tradition that became pre-eminent in the Jesus movement developed a tradition that Mary was ever-virgin, so they attempted, Stalin-like, to erase James from history. But today mythicists tell us the same adherents of the proto-orthodox view added interpolations mentioning "James the brother of the Lord" to every extant copy of Galatians and Antiquities of the Jews. That takes us into grand conspiracy territory, and the same impulse that led to my atheism makes me critical of mythicism.
If you want to know what mythicists tell us about TF2 it is that Paul did mention James brother of the Lord, but that seemed to be a title as he ascribes to other characters to be the brother of the Lord as well. Josephus did mention James brother of Jesus, but in the continuation says it is "Jesus, the son of Damneus." The fragment “who was called Christ” was inserted into the text very clumsily since it is different Jesus, and a jew, Josephus, would not call someone messiah (Christ).
Jesus and James were both very common names and Josephus was typically meticulous about identifying who he was talking about. When he said "Jesus, who was called Christ" this did not pinpoint what his own personal beliefs about the matter might be. And Richard Carrier put forth the "son of Damneus" theory but it doesn't comport with Josephus' writing style. Nowhere does he introduce a man simply by his name, as in just Jesus, minus the "called Christ" part, and then later refer to the same man with more specificity, as in Jesus, son of Damneus. It's always the other way around.
