I respect the fact that you at least own your arguments...Bernard Muller wrote:OK, I'll take that onus: a non-mythicist's reading:The onus is on the non-'mythicist' in this case
Paul said James is "the brother of the Lord" (Gal 1:19). "Lord" is Jesus, according to Gal 1:3. Therefore Jesus had a brother. According to 1 Cor 9:5 ("brothers of the Lord"), Jesus had other brothers ("Lord" is Jesus according to 1 Cor 9:1)
Jesus having a brother called James is confirmed by Josephus' Antiquities.
Jesus having brothers, including one named James, is confirmed by gMark.
Paul had Jesus as an earthly human in the past, as in Ro 1:3, 9:4-5 & Gal 3:16, 4:4.
Do I have to prove the above verses & passages are written in the aforementioned Pauline epistles and 'Antiquities' and gMark?
Cordially, Bernard
(1) Gal 1:19 - yes, you should consider the likelihood that this was one of the Catholic additions to the Pauline epistles.
(2) 1 Cor 9:5 - you need not just consider the meaning of the term "Lord," unqualified, but also the meaning of the phrase "brothers of the Lord." There is more than one interpretation of that phrase, even if the term "Lord" refers to Christ Jesus.
(3) Ant. 20.200 - obviously, the Antiquities has been interpolated with material about Jesus and reference to Christ. Swallowing Ant. 20.200 is like eating a turd sandwich that is confirmed 90% turd with a 10% margin of error. It requires a fortified gut and questionable patience (and that's being charitable).
(4) Rom 1:3 -- yes, you should consider the likelihood that this was one of the Catholic additions to the Pauline epistles.
(5) Gal 3:16 -- yes, you should consider the likelihood that this was one of the Catholic additions to the Pauline epistles.
(6) Gal 4:4 -- yes, you should consider the likelihood that this was one of the Catholic additions to the Pauline epistles.
It would help if you reconsidered the way that you ask the question in the first place, as your method seems to guide you to uncritical acceptance of the state of the texts that you reference.
First, you should ask how likely it is that there would be modifications to the Antiquities and to Paul's letters if the hypothesis is true. I suggest that it is fairly likely, as a conditional: if the hypothesis is true, then it is fairly likely that the Antiquities and Paul's letters would be reworked as they were, respectively, preserved by Christians and added to the Christian canon.
Second, with that out of the way, you should realize that the evidence with the most discriminatory power does not concern whether the modern printed Bibles that you read in English have these references (... or the Greek the translators used). The evidence with the most discriminatory power, to distinguish between hypotheses, concerns whether these texts have been reworked and revised in ways that reflect the Catholic belief about who Jesus was.
Accordingly, you haven't won the argument. You haven't even started to work on the real problems that could potentially lead to a solution or knowledge. The real problems concern the state of the texts as texts and how they have been transmitted or what they were based on.
It has been my own work on the details of these problems -- starting with Josephus, proceeding through the Marcionite shorter readings that you and Michael dismiss with nary a moment's hesitation, and including a recent consideration of the text of the Ascension of Isaiah -- that has pushed me away from the naive readings based on an acceptance of the textus receptus that I once shared with you.
