Of course, there are actually two paragraphs in Josephus concerning this topic and only one of them is considered a forgery or later interpolation. This point has already been made earlier, so your defense of the forgery accusation as though there is only the single paragraph is a bit odd.
Mythicists (and I think Richard Carrier) would say that it was common for all the guys in that tight little group to call each other “brother.” That seems like a stretch - the “brother” line is pretty good evidence (not proof) that there was a real Jesus at the bottom of all the legends.
And by the way, the mythicists aren’t the only ones who say that “brother” is used figuratively by Paul - the Catholics do as well I believe, since they think Jesus was an only child. They’re obsessed by Mary’s virginity, and believe that she must have been a virgin not only before Jesus, but for the rest of her life.
But even if you take “brother” to mean “cousin” or “very close friend” or “stepbrother”, or whatever, a reference to “the brother of Jesus who was called Christ” is still a reference to “Jesus who was called Christ”, and wouldn’t make much sense if that person never existed.
Catholics, Orthodox, and many Anglicans (myself included) share the belief in Mary’s perpetual virginity. We don’t think the term is ‘figurative’, per se, rather we think it’s being used to indicate some other kind of familial relationship. The Eastern Orthodox tend to think of the so-called ‘brothers’ of Jesus as being sons of Joseph from a previous marriage (i.e. stepbrothers), Catholics tend to interpret them as cousins.
For what it’s worth, Aramaic lacks a term for ‘cousin’, and commonly refers to first cousins as brothers or sisters. It’s quite probable that the evangelists adopted the same idiom when they were writing in Greek, even though Greek has a word for ‘cousin’: even if they were writing in Greek, they were presumably thinking in Aramaic. In the same way, my family’s mother tongue lacks a word for ‘cousin’, and we refer to cousins as brothers or sisters (unless we use circumlocutions like ‘son of my uncle’): so when my mother, for example, is referring to her first cousins when speaking English, she calls them her brothers or sisters.
That’s pretty interesting. What language is that if I can ask. Danish btw. have separate words for male and female cousins, always found it strange that English lacks this.
Good on you, mate.
“We are all brothers in Christ”.
I too find that interpretation a stretch though, at least in the mundane way it’s presented, especially coming from Joesephus who is not a Christian himself. Not impossible, just a stretch. Ultimately, this is a matter of weighing the assemblage of evidence, which is what good historians do. I find it noteworthy that nobody doubted whether Jesus actually existed until the 18th century, despite the large numbers hostile to Christianity in the ancient world. No slam dunks, just an accretion of evidence.
Don’t tell Skald the Rhymer. He’s not going to like hearing that|
In John 10 it would seem Jesus did not think of himself any different than any of the people he seemed to think (as the psalmist calling all men gods and sons of God). It seems that in early times the Word God did not mean creator of heaven and earth and All things, Just some thing or some one of power or strength, Hence the different gods like Thor, Ra etc.
Nazareth was a shanty town that formed near the city of Sepphoris, populated by laborers and builders, who would walk down into the city every day to help rebuild it after some damage was done to it by “Ezekias”.
Given that most construction workers are male, that shanty towns aren’t generally considered to be the heights of culture and civility, and no adult in the village was born there, that doesn’t leave a lot of options for what Mary was doing living there. What brings an adult woman to a town like that, and how does she support herself in such a place?
Personally, I’m not surprised that the identity of Jesus’ father is a mystery.
Did you know that it’s possible to disagree with the particulars of a religion and its adherents without actually dropping your pants and shitting on them?
Also: All known accounts of Mary say she was married to Joseph. You can’t say Jesus was fictional and extrapolate from that that Mary was real, unmarried, and turned tricks. There’s an inherent contradiction there.
And what would an unmarried woman (and please show me evidence that this describes Mary) do in Nazareth to make money? Since time immemorial, women have made a living doing whatever men do: hunt, fish, work wood, fix stuff, cook, teach, take in laundry. Ask your mom what she did when she was single. There might be a pre-technological equivalent.
Even in Matthew’s account, the star was something subtle that Herod’s own astrologers had failed to notice. If the story were true, then the star would probably go unrecorded.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Star_of_Bethlehem#Matthew.27s_narrative
Yes. The idea that astronomers would have seen the star and remarked on it (well, besides having all the problems that arguments from silence always have) presupposes that this was, literally, a star (i.e. a natural astronomical phenomenon). If it was instead some kind of supernatural angelic visitation (in the bible, for example, ‘star’ is sometimes used as a metaphor for angels), then it wouldn’t be the sort of thing you would expect the average person to notice or even to be able to see.
A lot of people think it’s more astrology-related. More like some bright light (caused by any number of things) appeared in some constellation that told them to go East, possibly based on some prophecy by Daniel about a king.
Would you complain if I pointed out that there weren’t Ancient Jews living in North America if we were talking about the LDS church, or otherwise that all evidence points to Joseph Smith having been a con artist?
It’s a site for fighting ignorance. Where we have the information to make informed decisions about history, via written works and archaeology, we should incorporate that information. In a different forum, I would hold back such information - like if I was at dinner with family or friends - but this is not that forum. If you don’t want to find out things that paint your or someone’s religion in a different light than expected or hoped, then all I can say is that this probably isn’t the best place to hang out.
The speculation that Mary was a prostitute is hardly a sterling example of “ignorance fighting”, given that there is exactly zero evidence for it - and the topic of the debate is whether the survey in the OP demonstrates a “historical” Jesus did not exist.
Piffle. You hardly were simply providing information; you strongly implied a situation with absolutely no basis beyond speculation.
Your unsubstantiated claim was clearly intended to portray Mary as a prostitute based on pretty much nothing but claims invented in the twentieth century, unsupported by archaeology or history. (Sepphoris is real enough, but the claims regarding Nazareth are pretty much wild speculation.)
Posting that stuff is your privilege. Defending it and your snide closing remark, while pretending that you are fighting ignorance, is just silly.
I’d certainly complain if you stated without evidence that Joseph Smith’s mother was a prostitute.