The Jesus Myth, and it's failures

[davefoc]

...

Is there one bogus argument for the existence of an HJ that Ehrman didn't hit?

It is all a bit sad, but consciously or unconsciously Ehrman seems to have realized there was not going to be much of a market for a book that concludes that nothing is knowable about the HJ including whether he existed or not so he just mined the fields of bogus apologist arguments and crammed them into his book.

I think that the people that argue for the non-existence of the HJ or some particular form of the HJ are on similar shaky ground. There is no reliable evidence in the earliest period of Christianity to sustain even moderately informed guesses about what the situation was.

 

[pakeha]

...
Just as an illustration of how absurd the "scholarly" claim of evidence is - having now read through the first 90 pages of Ehrman’s recent book Did Jesus Exist, he says that there is more evidence for Jesus than for any other comparable figure in all ancient history, and that the evidence is so overwhelming that he can repeatedly and emphatically say "Jesus definitely existed", which is of course a statement of absolute certain fact from Ehrman.

So what is this evidence that Ehrman says is so utterly overwhelming as to make Jesus an absolute certainty? OK, he says the four canonical gospels provide the direct evidence of Jesus and they comprise no less than SEVEN INDEPENDENT attestations to the real Jesus.

Hmm, ... so how does Ehrman assert that the 4 gospels are truly "independent". Well he says that each of them contain at least some stories which are not in any of the other three ... so that makes them all "independent" sources of true evidence for attesting the true existence of Jesus!

Brilliant, huh!?

And, how did Ehrman turn those 4 canonical gospels into no less that 7 independent sources? Well he says that since each of the 4 gospels must have been getting their information from some unknown earlier written and oral sources on Jesus, that means that not only must there have been a written source Q which was used by Mark, but also a written source M used by Mathew, and a written source L used by Luke. Simple huh? So now he has no less than 7 completely independent sources of evidence for Jesus.

Obviously given a case so unassailable and brilliant as that, you will no doubt all now agree that Ehrman has thereby demonstrated such overwhelming abundance of "attested gospel evidence" that as he himself concludes it is therefore an absolutely certain fact that "Jesus definitely existed!", …. right?

Ehrman's argument in his latest book is especially strange in light of his previous works, especially in the field of the forgeries and corruptions present in the NT.

In any case, I have a question for the better informed.
Has the question of whether Nazareth existed in the 1st century CE been settled yet?

 

[Ketyk]

In any case, I have a question for the better informed.
Has the question of whether Nazareth existed in the 1st century CE been settled yet?

That in itself is an interesting question.

 

[eight bits]

tsig

All that drinking blood and eating flesh was added by Christians centuries later.

The story's earliest-dated appearance is directly linked to the ritual, then stays yoked with the ritual for a while with some variations in forms (Synoptics), and then finally gets detached from the ritual (John).

All that development of the story, in documents that span a generation or two, yet the ritual itself is utter simplicity. It's a toast, as you recognize:

Jesus just wanted them to "take a cup 'o kindness" to remember him by when they next got together for a meal.

Jesus wouldn't even have needed to ask. Depicting him asking, though, would make a nice story. The gesture is also a modest and common enough thing, to lift a cup to absent friends, that you would expect non-uniformity in wording and gestures among geographically dispersed churches with different personal founders Uniformity would plausibly come later, when some formal organization, one with the capability and intention to insist, demanded consistent liturgies. That begins to emerge no later than the mid-Second Cenury (whatever you think is a good date for 1 Clement).

The diversity of institution narratives (or bread of life discourse) plausibly places them in or just after the First Century, not plural centuries later. That's the last time there would be tolerance for much local diversity of ritual within the same movement that is also handling the documents about where the ritual supposedly comes form.

It also seems to me to be an amazing coincidence that if Paul's institution is a much later addition, that the redactor was so thoughtful as to remain true to Paul's agenda. Paul's business competitors, the James Gang, appear nowhere in the version attributed to Paul. It's the only one with that feature. Fidelity to Paul's interests and teaching is not a conspicuous attribute of known forgeries of Paul which date from the early formal organization days, the Pastorals.

Nevertheless, it could be just as you say, of course.

 

[IanS]

Is there one bogus argument for the existence of an HJ that Ehrman didn't hit?

It is all a bit sad, but consciously or unconsciously Ehrman seems to have realized there was not going to be much of a market for a book that concludes that nothing is knowable about the HJ including whether he existed or not so he just mined the fields of bogus apologist arguments and crammed them into his book.

Whilst Carrier wrote a very savage critical review of that book, he was also quick to say how Ehrman's earlier books were often very authoritative and how he had in the past recommended them.

I actually found Ehrman’s book very clearly and nicely written. Much better in that respect than what I’ve read from Carrier.

However a further problem with what Ehrman says about evidence in those first 90 pages, is that when discussing what evidence can be gleaned from the writing of Josephus and Tacitus, he gives the date of their writing as within the first century after Jesus had died. Thus emphasising that the writing is reasonably contemporary with the time of Jesus. And of course he does exactly the same with the dates of the four gospels.

But nowhere in those first 90 pages does he ever alert the reader to the fact that the earliest copies we have for Josephus and Tacitus are in fact only known from a whopping 1000 years after those dates! And similarly with the gospels, where the first relatively complete and readable copies date from the 4th century and later.

That seems to me very naughty of Ehrman, and tantamount to deception by omission. That is - he specifically emphasises that all those works were written within less than a century after Jesus had died, and clear thereby means to say those works are particularly convincing because of their early near contemporary date … but he conspicuous fails to point out that the material he is using from any of those authors actually dates from at least 300 to 1000 years after Jesus!

 

[IanS]

IanS


Quote:
That's surely obvious.

Yes, as obvious as that your argument has nothing to do with whether there is a single Biblical description of Jesus or whether there are several incompatible descriptions.

What argument? To do with what?

The point is - afaik, almost all scholars and sceptics alike agree that all 4 canonical gospels are talking about the same individual named Jesus. Do you agree with that?

If you do agree with the above, then - why do you think the 4 gospels must each be talking about 4 different individual messiahs? Or to put that another way - why do you think almost everyone would disagree with you if you say the 4 gospels are talking about 4 different individuals as the messiah?


Quote:
None of the gospels, or Paul's letters, describe Jesus as a normal human person.

Well, OK, wandering around preaching the end of the world isn't normal. But it is within the capability of odrinary people.

Paul depicts Jesus doing nothing unusual until after he died, which is the limit of historical interest in his deeds. Mark shows Jesus teaching his disciples to do what he does, and at least one guy figures it out on his own. Then Jesus dies.

Wandering about preaching was probably not especially abnormal, and certainly not in 1st century Jerusalem. That is not what is “un-natural” or superhuman.

What is superhuman behaviour ascribed to Jesus, is in the case of Paul’s account - saying that Jesus rose from the dead to appear to people and speak to them. Normal humans cannot rise from the dead in order to speak to people … that requires superhuman powers.



Quote:
No. That does not follow at all lol.

Really? Where do you think surviving original Mark ends? Where does the last appeareance by Jesus occur in it?

These are questions of fact, Ian. Whether you follow the "logic" or not is irrelevant. The "logic" is to look it up.


You say these are “facts”? From what you have as the “original" version of g-Mark? OK, so where is your factual “original” version of g-Mark? Who wrote that & at what date? Where did you get the "original" g-Mark?



Quote:
Look, first of all we don't have any "original copy of g-Mark".

Fascinating. What does that have to do with what of the original Mark does survive?

Where is this original version of g-Mark that you have? Can you produce that please?


Quote:
What you are trying to do is to create your own real human Jesus out of the biblical accounts

Is that Ian-speak for actually reading Mark, rather than a Wikipedia article about Mark? That really does explaim a great deal of the controversy between us.

That’s not a very helpful or sensible comment is it. I don’t know if perhaps you have something more helpful or sensible you want to say about any of that?



Quote:
Of course, like you I also don’t believe any of the miracles actually happened.

You muight also read the posts you're commenting on. I believe that real events happened that correspond with most of the "miracles" in Mark. The correspondence may be loose. For example, it would be a miracle if Jesus ever drew five thousand men in one place during his lifetime. It isn't a miracle that the biggest and second-biggest crowds he ever did draw brought enough food with them that, if they shared, nobody missed a meal.

You misunderstand what I said, and I think I did explain it before in at least one of the posts above. What I said above is that we all agree that the miracles did not happen. Yes, I know you think the events happened, but you think they were not actually miraculous … that is what I think you have been saying, correct?

All I am saying above is that we all agree they were not actually “miracles”.

The difference between us (on that point), is that I doubt if any of the events happened at all. Why do I doubt that? See my previous explanation re. the stories originating in the OT.


As to your final point, maybe you can help me. Where's the Old Testament passage where a Jew told a group of fellow Jews to pretend to drink human blood and eat human flesh, whether in jest or in earnest? Is that in Helms? Must be, if he showed it. A cite would be nice. Thank you in advance.

I don’t think I have ever mentioned anything about anyone ever drinking blood or eating flesh anywhere in any post I’ve written on this website or indeed on any other website. So before we go any further on that sort of issue, could you please quote where I have ever talked about human blood and human flesh in any this thread?.

.... ...

 

[IanS]

By the way Eight-Bits …. You seem to be descending more into personalised type disputes and side issues, whilst getting further & further away from the core question of why we don’t have better & more convincing evidence for the existence of Jesus, and what that lack of evidence implies on the question of whether or not Jesus was a real person.

This is not a personalised competition. So let’s not turn it into anything like that.

The bottom line question here remains exactly the same one that we started with several threads ago. Namely - where is the evidence for a real Jesus?

You seem to be going off at something of a tangent to make a hypothesis saying that the miracle events and other superhuman events in the biblical writing might be explained by saying the events actually did happen, and a real Jesus was part of those events, but that the events were not actually miracles or superhuman.

That seems to be your way of suggesting that Jesus was in fact real.

Fine I think we all understand that. And in fact, afaik that sort of theory has been suggested by people as far back as 300 years ago. See for example this long article by none other than William Lane-Craig (eek!) -

http://www.reasonablefaith.org/the-problem-of-miracles-a-historical-and-philosophical-perspective

That article is very long. But people here can get a very good idea of what it’s revealing just from the first few paragraphs.

So you are not proposing a new idea. And in fact, in one of the previous threads leading to this current thread, one poster named Grahbud made essentially the same case saying the miracle events really happened, but they were not actually miracles or supernatural, rather they could be explained as such things as faith healing. Actually, Grahbud is someone I have encountered many times before on the old Richard Dawkins forum and on Rational Skepticism … he is a Christian theist who believes in God and Jesus, though he is also a palaeontologist, and he does know a great deal about scripture etc.

So we have actually had this same lime of “miracles were not miracles” argument earlier in the parent threads to this one, not to mention that the argument is 300 years old anyway.

But the problem with any argument of the kind that you are making, of the same kind that Grahbud made, and of exactly the same kind that Christian theists (mainly) have been making since about 1700, is firstly that it is merely a hypothesis and with afaik no actual evidence to show that any of the events did indeed happen, and secondly that the hypothesis was only being proposed as a way of countering what by that date (1700-1800) was increasingly beginning to look from science to be the physical impossibility of any such miracles ... that is - by about 1800 if not before, science was influencing people to conclude that the miracle accounts of the bible were impossible and could not be literally true.

But that was, and still is, a hypothesis which is glossing straight over the real question that we have been puzzling over in all these threads, namely -where is the evidence that any of these biblical events with Jesus ever actually happened?

As far as I know there is no such evidence … despite claims about people finding things like the site of “Nazareth”, the “Bone Box of James”, or the “Turin Shroud” etc.

However, against that sort of hypothesis about miracles, as I have said several times now, there does appear to be one very clear and simple factual explanation of where the biblical stories of Jesus came from. Namely, as authors like Randel Helms have shown, the stories can often be traced back to what was written centuries before in the books of the OT.

So that offers a very simple explanation which people here can easily check for themselves just by reading Helms and/or checking those parts of the OT, and/or by seeing how many times Paul in particular actually say’s that he is getting his beliefs from scripture. And iirc, the gospel writers also say in various sentences that the stories are according to scripture.

 

[eight bits]

IanS

The point is - afaik, almost all scholars and sceptics alike agree that all 4 canonical gospels are talking about the same individual named Jesus.

Agree with what? I said there were several incompatible Biblical descriptions of Jesus, in repsonse to your reference to something you called "the" Biblical Jesus. don't know of any sceptical scholar who fails to notice that these are diferent, incompatible depictions of Jesus, each found among the Bible's Gospels. Would this hypothetical sceptical scholar of your invention fail to notice that Abraham Lincoln, Vampire Hunter and Thomas & Burlingame's Abraham Lincoln: A Biography are two diffierent, incompatible depictions of the same individual named Abraham Lincoln?

What is superhuman behaviour ascribed to Jesus, is in the case of Paul’s account - saying that Jesus rose from the dead ...

Paul's assertion about what happened to Jesus after death has no bearing at all on the historical Jesus. Paul believes that God will also raise his readers from the dead, or allow them never to die. That has nothing to do with whether Paul's historical readers were flesh and blood people.

to appear to people

Which is Paul's interpretation of something that could easily happen naturally: 500+ people, including Paul, "saw a ghost." Paul thought it was Jesus' pneuma- body. OK, Jesus didn't do that, and since the event occurs after Jesus died, it can't bear against that he had actually lived.

and speak to them

You might wish to check the text again for the sensory modalities in the various experiences. Unless we're not talking about Paul anymore, and we're talking about what even later people said about events that are themselves too late to be informative about whether Jesus ever lived.

Normal humans cannot rise ...

Paul says otherwise. And the no longer being dead part is because God raises them, not because they (including Jesus) have some power of their own, whatever that would even mean for somebody who's dead.

Is there some difficulty with the term "surviving?" If you look up canonical Mark, you will see a text that parts of which are known not to be in the original (anything after 16:8). Then there's the rest. Maybe none of that is original, either, but much of it is widely considered to be reasonably close by many sceptical scholars. If not, then there is nothing to say about Mark's Jesus - it's lost to us.

But bigger than hell, if we can't figure out Mark's Jesus by critically reading survivng Mark, then we aren't going to find out anything by reading a Wkipedia article about Mark instead.

That’s not a very helpful or sensible comment is it.

You falsely accused me of "trying to do is to create your own real human Jesus out of the biblical accounts" If you don't like being called out for it, then consider making better arguments.

I don’t think I have ever mentioned anything about ...

Nobody said anything about your posting history. You said what Jesus is reported to have said and done is from the OT. I take it that you've now noticed that Jews talking about these things as Jesus is said to have done isn't in the OT. That is all.

As to your second post ("BTW") if you are dissatisfied with the conversation, you're under no obligation to pursue it. If you somehow think that I consider an idea that is about 2000 years old "new," then maybe you should think seriously about breaking off.

 

[IanS]

IanS


Agree with what? I said ….

.
. Etc. etc.
.
.

OK, then lets cut to the chase here (instead of you repeating all the same assertions and getting more and more argumentative about it) -

- your hypothesis is based on the miracle events having actually happened (whether any actual miracles occurred or not), yes?

OK, so then ... what is the evidence to support that basis for your argument?

What is your evidence to show that any one of the miracle events ever actually happened and that Jesus was present at the time?

 

[davefoc]

That in itself is an interesting question.

I agree with that. We had a discussion in a much earlier thread between an individual that believed the existence of an HJ was almost certain and HM about this issue. I thought for a moment that there was the possibility of resolution on this issue.

Of course, as with almost every other HJ issue, there was no resolution, both parties remained convinced their view was correct and those of us who were in the peanut gallery left not knowing quite what to make of the issue.

I rather like the idea that the born in Nazareth element of the Gospels was a misinterpretation of the word Nazarene which apparently was the name of a religious sect that Jesus may have belonged to. I tried to follow up on the current state of research with regard to the was-Nazareth-a-town-in-first-century-Palestine question and I came away leaning to the idea it wasn't but I don't remember the facts now except that there is some archeologist out and about that claims Nazareth was a town in first century Palestine.

For me, a person that thinks that almost no information about the HJ (assuming he existed) made it into the NT, this issue doesn't have much effect on my guess about the existence of the HJ. I already believe that the Gospels are almost entirely fictional so if Nazareth didn't exist in the first century it would just be another piece of evidence that supported my overall view of the non reliable nature of the Gospels as a source of history.

 

[Sherman Bay]

The idea that Jesus was basically doing conjurer tricks is as old as the NT, but it still is MUCH less Occam-conform than assuming they were made up.

I mean, imagine that I were to tell you that my sister Maxine Mustermann bends spoons with her mind, and levitates, and walks on water, and generally is quite the paranormal miracle. Now you're a skeptic and all, so you probably won't believe that she can perform actual magic. But that still leaves you with two possibilities, not just one. And which would you say is more likely out of those two?

A) that my sister is some super-conjurer that nobody else ever heard of?

or

B) I'm making it up?

This is a good example of the fallacy of the excluded middle. Why should there be only two possibilties?

Another possibility, and the one I feel (no proof) is most likely is the tale grew by telling. Magicians (the modern, conjurer type) will tell you that what someone walks away from the trick and tells others may be missing a critical component which, if included, would make the trick's method obvious.

"I saw the elephant on the stage, and it disappeared, just like that!" If true, would be quite remarkable, possibly paranormal or supernatural. But the tale teller forgot to mention that a curtain was drawn. As an experienced magician, you know that's critical. To a typical observer, it isn't worth mentioning and they probably forgot about it anyway.

My feeling is that Jesus, if he existed, did some "magic" tricks equivalent to card tricks, still a mystery to his audience. Some other tricks may have been made up or embellished. What we have today is a mixture of these with no possible way of analyzing or separating them.

 

[eight bits]

IanS

- your hypothesis is based on the miracle events having actually happened (whether any actual miracles occurred or not), yes?

No. I wrote in post 178 as follows below, to correct a false statement you had made about my beliefs. These personal beliefs are not the basis of the hypothesis we have been discussing.

"I believe that real events happened that correspond with most of the 'miracles' in Mark. The correspondence may be loose. For example, it would be a miracle if Jesus ever drew five thousand men in one place during his lifetime. It isn't a miracle that the biggest and second-biggest crowds he ever did draw brought enough food with them that, if they shared, nobody missed a meal."

Our disagreement principally concerns the contents of literary works. Even if we both believed that there was no chance at all that any incident in those works actually corresponded with any real event, the question would persist, whether the works depict their character Jesus not to have been a natural being until he died.

The basis for my hypothesis about contents is more like this:

"Real events could have happened, consistent with the ordinary course of nature, that correspond with most of the "miracles" in Mark. The correspondence may be loose. etc."

That is a statement about the contents of a literary work. The evidence for the statement is the literary work beling discussed.

 

[IanS]

- your hypothesis is based on the miracle events having actually happened (whether any actual miracles occurred or not), yes?

OK, so then ... what is the evidence to support that basis for your argument?

What is your evidence to show that any one of the miracle events ever actually happened and that Jesus was present at the time?

The basis for my hypothesis about contents is more like this:

"Real events could have happened, consistent with the ordinary course of nature, that correspond with most of the "miracles" in Mark. The correspondence may be loose. etc."

But what is your evidence for thinking any of these events concerning Jesus actually happened?

It’s no good saying stories in any gospel might be true and that Jesus might have been there. Anything might be true. And equally, those same stories might not be true. What makes either position credible is supporting evidence.

I want to know what evidence you are using to think the events ever happened?

That is a statement about the contents of a literary work. The evidence for the statement is the literary work beling discussed.

Are you trying to say that the book itself is evidence of the truth of its’ own claims?

You are saying that because in g-Mark it describes Jesus performing some act or other, that written story is itself it’s own evidence that it's own story is true?

It comes down always to credible and believable evidence - what evidence are you relying on to conclude that stories in any copy of g-Mark were ever actually true?

 

[pakeha]

I agree with that. We had a discussion in a much earlier thread between an individual that believed the existence of an HJ was almost certain and HM about this issue. I thought for a moment that there was the possibility of resolution on this issue.

Of course, as with almost every other HJ issue, there was no resolution, both parties remained convinced their view was correct and those of us who were in the peanut gallery left not knowing quite what to make of the issue.

I rather like the idea that the born in Nazareth element of the Gospels was a misinterpretation of the word Nazarene which apparently was the name of a religious sect that Jesus may have belonged to. I tried to follow up on the current state of research with regard to the was-Nazareth-a-town-in-first-century-Palestine question and I came away leaning to the idea it wasn't but I don't remember the facts now except that there is some archeologist out and about that claims Nazareth was a town in first century Palestine.

For me, a person that thinks that almost no information about the HJ (assuming he existed) made it into the NT, this issue doesn't have much effect on my guess about the existence of the HJ. I already believe that the Gospels are almost entirely fictional so if Nazareth didn't exist in the first century it would just be another piece of evidence that supported my overall view of the non reliable nature of the Gospels as a source of history.

I've read several hotly disputed arguments about the Nazarene/Nazirite identification and I came away thinking it's a dead end, though your mileage may vary, of course.

As for the existence of Nazareth, I'm just an interested amateur and would hate to draw any conclusions yet from what I read, since I'm still scrambling to learn, learn, learn.
Who knows, I'll probably be scrambling all my life!

Anyway, dave, here are some links to sources I've found interesting reading on the subject.
http://nazarethmyth.info/SBL_2012_Salm_(Nazareth).pdf
http://www.haaretz.com/print-edition/news/haredim-step-up-protests-over-nazareth-excavation-1.294573
http://vridar.wordpress.com/2012/12/05/ ... /#comments
http://vridar.org/2010/08/15/the-real-jesus-challenge-bart-erhman-and-nazareth/

ETA
http://vridar.org/2012/12/29/more-nazareth-nonsense-from-tim-oneill/

I found it most intriguing that the area was a Bronze and Iron Age site of significance, that the area was a Jewish burial ground and that even today there are protests from Ultra Conservative Jews at the treatment of the human remains revealed in construction projects in the Nazareth Basin.

 

[eight bits]

IanS

But what is your evidence for thinking any of these events concerning Jesus actually happened?

My personal beliefs about whether the events happened aren't on-topic here. I addressed the question about the basis of my 60-40 belief that there was a historical Jesus who counts in the current "Skeptics - did Jesus exist?" thread

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=9432865&postcount=390

I had earlier explained "what counts" for me in the still-current "What counts as a historical Jesus?" thread. In brief, "to count" for me, Jesus needs to have done mundane things before he died, like the teaching activities depicted in Mark, and then die as he does in that book.

That isn't the topic here. Our chief problems in this thread are (from the OP):

...
Now getting to the meat. When discussing the Jesus myth, the question must be asked why would Jews create a figure who was a failed Messiah?
...
The second problem with the Jesus myth is the rejection of the New Testament....

So, our discussion here, yours and mine, about what the New Testament actually says Jesus did, before and after he died, goes to the nub of the topic. How much actually happened of what the New Testament says Jesus did before he died is on-topic in other current threads. How much might be true matters here. Personal opinions about how much is true belong somewhere else, and threads like that are currently available

 

[IanS]

IanS


My personal beliefs about whether the events happened aren't on-topic here. I addressed the question about the basis of my 60-40 belief that there was a historical Jesus who counts in the current "Skeptics - did Jesus exist?" thread

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=9432865&postcount=390

I had earlier explained "what counts" for me in the still-current "What counts as a historical Jesus?" thread. In brief, "to count" for me, Jesus needs to have done mundane things before he died, like the teaching activities depicted in Mark, and then die as he does in that book.

That isn't the topic here. Our chief problems in this thread are (from the OP):


So, our discussion here, yours and mine, about what the New Testament actually says Jesus did, before and after he died, goes to the nub of the topic. How much actually happened of what the New Testament says Jesus did before he died is on-topic in other current threads. How much might be true matters here. Personal opinions about how much is true belong somewhere else, and threads like that are currently available

You seem to be trying to rule evidence out of the discussion. But that won’t ever work on a forum like this. And certainly not where you are presenting a hypothesis which says Jesus might have been real because of A, B and C.

As soon as you give any reason for a hypothesis like that, then you are inevitably open to being asked what evidence exists for A, B & C showing that the events occurred and that Jesus was present at the time.

Otherwise, if you just say Jesus might have been real, but give no reason for it, then that is just the statement of a faith position.

Also, if you want to quote the OP and the title of this thread, then the title says “The Jesus Myth and It’s Failures”. But in that title the OP “Fallingblood” is criticising myth theories from authors like Carrier, Wells, Ellegard, Doherty and others who very specifically have tried to provide actual evidence explaining how, why and where mythical stories of Jesus came from.

You mentioned also that we are no longer in the thread titled “What Counts as a Historical Jesus”. But notice that title also is not asking whether Jesus existed & not asking for anyone to debate evidence. But that thread very quickly, and inevitably, turned into a thread entirely about evidence for the existence of Jesus.

That’s always going to be inevitable in any thread where people make a case to say that Jesus was real, or even to say he was mythical … if you adopt either of those positions then you inevitably, and quite correctly, must provide the evidence which supports your hypothesis.

Anyway, I presume from your recent posts that the answer is that you do not have any credible evidence to support the idea that the Jesus events actually happened and that Jesus was real.

 

[eight bits]

IanS

What we have here is failure to communicate.

You seem to be trying to rule evidence out of the discussion.

You and I seem to be having a metaconversation, talking about what we were talking about. OK, in this thread, you and I were discussing the contents of a literary work.

As I've pointed out when I answered your question the first time, the evidence for a statement about the contents of a literary work is the literary work being discussed.

If you'd like to talk about the evidence bearing on the events mentioned in the literary work, then there has been quite a bit of that in the "What counts...?" and "... did Jesus exist?" threads. Why not go there, and make some comments or ask some questions about what interests you?

I gave you a link to where I posted my explanation of my own 60-40 current view. Why ask here, when it has little to do with the topic or what we were talking about? If you have some felt need to ask me about it, then ask where I have posted about that aspect of the problem, in a thread where it is on-topic to pursue it.

Otherwise, if you just say Jesus might have been real, but give no reason for it, then that is just the statement of a faith position.

The reason I gave is that you made a false statement about my beliefs. I corrected your misstatement. Faith had nothing to do with it.

 

[davefoc]

I've read several hotly disputed arguments about the Nazarene/Nazirite identification and I came away thinking it's a dead end, though your mileage may vary, of course.

...

Thanks for the link. Tim O'Neill was the guy that was in an argument mostly with HM as I recall over the issue of whether Nazareth existed as a town in first century Palestine.

I read through your links and don't have much to say. For my own purposes:

1. The evidence for the town of Nazareth existing in First Century Palestine is very weak. There are no contemporary mentions of it in any documents extant today. Before a recent round of archeological releases there was not any published evidence for artifacts from Nazareth in first century Palestine.

2. René Salm wrote a book summarizing the case against the existence of Nazareth in first century Palestine.

3. Ehrman, amongst others disputes the conclusion of Salm about first century Palestine. Salm has written responses to people who criticized his work. Neil Godfrey wrote a piece criticizing Ehriman's characterization of Salm's work and what he called Ehrman's untrue claims.

4. As of December 5, 2012 Salm believed that no peer reviewed data had been published that provides evidence of artifacts datable to first century Nazareth and he disputes the work of an archeologist that claims that she found evidence of the habitation of first century Nazareth.

5. There is reason to believe that the mention in Mark that Jesus came from Nazareth is an interpolation.


FWIW, my conclusions:
About the same as before I read the articles. Nazareth probably wasn't a town in first century Palestine but it is doubtful that there will ever be enough evidence to make the case categorical.

Godfrey made an interesting point, that I hadn't considered before I read your links. One of the arguments for the historicity of the HJ is that the people writing the stories would have just had Jesus come from Bethlehem rather than have to deal with the inconvenient fact that he came from Nazareth unless that he came from Nazareth was a well known fact that they had to deal with in their stories. If Nazareth didn't exist that puts in a big hole in that theory.

 

[pakeha]

It was interesting to read your take on the links, dave.
For me, the most important point was that precisely where Nazareth is supposed to have stood, was a Roman eraJewish cemetery.
No way would Jews have knowlingly built houses on top of graves.

Finally, the presence of literally dozens of kokhim tombs shows that the hillside was not the locus of settlement. It is well known that the Jews consider contact with the dead to be a grave source of ritual impurity. Jews buried their dead outside the village, as explicitly stipulated in the Talmud (Bava Bathra 2:9). The Venerated Area is located in the middle of a Roman era cemetery, and this inconvenient fact is fatal to the traditional siting of the Nazareth settlement on the hillside. Indeed, there are up to five kokhim tombs under the Church of the Annunciation itself. Three have been proven in the published scientific literature and two more may well have
existed. ...

It's a tradition which still has weight even today, as the link about the protests affirms.

Why do the gospels mention Nazareth?
Your guess is as good as mine, dave, prolly better!

 

[eight bits]

davefoc, pakeha

It may be of some relevance to your discussion to see how Mark uses the place-name Nazareth (1:9) and the epithet Nazarene (1:24, 10:47, 14:67 and 16:6).

Mark doesn't say that Jesus resided in Nazareth. He "came from" Nazareth of Galilee when he was baptized (John was otherwise servicing people from Jerusalem and elsewhere in Judea, 1:5). The verb used in Greek often expresses the physical action "to arrive somewhere."

When Jesus visits home (chapter 6), it is not identified as Nazareth. The Marcan titulus doesn't say "Jesus of Nazareth," just "King of the Jews."

Whenever "Nazarene" is used, it is as an epithet by someone who is not an associate of Jesus (an unclean spirit or his host, a blind man, Peter's accuser, and the man in the not-quite empty tomb). There is nothing about the contexts that points to geographic intent.

"Nazir" is a broad term for consecrated or vow-taking. I don't see any reason to think that Mark confused "Nazarene" with "Nazirite," a specific kind of vow-taker. He may simply have been coining a Greek version of a new term for what Jesus was - somebody who dedicated himself to God ("Nazir"), but in his own way (not Nazirite as such).

The unclean spirit is the only one who uses the epithet in direct address, speaking to Jesus. The unclean spirit also addresses Jesus as "holy one of God." That this dual address is the first appearance of the term reinforces the impression of a new word being defined for the reader, with the information woven into the dialog.

Any word incorporating nazir is unavoidably going to "sound like" Nazareth, at least a little. That doesn't mean that Mark was confused about this. Matthew, who was confused even about where babies come from, is a whole 'nother kettle of fish.

Why would Mark include the detail that when Jesus came to John, he had just been in or at Nazareth of Galilee? I don't know, Mark doesn't explain. Galilee-Judea contrasts are one of the engines of the story. Why not just say Galilee, then? I still don't know, but this is evocative:

For me, the most important point was that precisely where Nazareth is supposed to have stood, was a Roman eraJewish cemetery.

Jesus' father is nowhere in Mark. Maybe he died, and Jesus buried him just before he consecrated the remainder of his life to God's work. Middle age crazy would explain a lot.

But there could be any number of other reasons for an author's choice to include a bit of local color.