MCalavera

Let's go back to zero with the Nazareth argument (I'm thinking we should make a thread for about every "theological embarrassment" in the Bible, by the way).

Ok, setting aside all red herrings and such, please, please, let's all agree on this:

That the best explanation is the one that is the simplest (introduces the least new assumptions) and whose main points are backed up by the most evidence.

Always, before anything, we need to focus on what the evidence shows us. THEN we figure out what's the best (i.e. simplest) explanation/interpretation of the collective evidence.

Remember, the least new assumptions introduced, the less complicated and the better the explanation.

For now, let's act like we're all completely agnostic on the existence of the historical Jesus. This requires discipline and intellectual honesty. If you can't do that, don't continue further. Just forget this post was ever submitted.

Let's answer this first.

Is the Bible right concerning Jesus being historically born in Bethlehem?

We first start by acknowledging what the textual evidence in the Bible says. In both Matthew and Luke, it is agreed that Jesus was born in Bethlehem. So far, so good.

In John, Bethlehem is also mentioned as the supposed birthplace of the Messiah but is not associated with Jesus. This does NOT necessarily mean that John disagrees with Matthew and Luke. It just means that John doesn't attest to Jesus being born in Bethlehem.

The same can be said for Mark. It's written before Matthew, Luke, and John, but it makes no mention of Jesus being born in Bethlehem. Neither do any of the other books of the New Testament.

So we do have textual evidence that it was believed Jesus was born in Bethlehem by at least some of the Christians.

Now in order to see if this is likely historical truth or not (that Jesus was born in Bethlehem), we need to come up with the simplest explanation that explains why Matthew and Luke mentioned Jesus as born in Bethlehem and that doesn't go against what the collective evidence shows.

We know both the author of Matthew and the author of Luke contradict each other in a so many things when it comes to the Nativity stories. The Nativity stories also contradict what are arbitrarily historical truths. So this means the best (simplest) explanation should be that both Nativity accounts were fabricated to suit a theological purpose as hinted at in Matthew. All you have to do is refer to Micah 5:2.

Due to the dramatic contradictions between the two and the fact that Jesus is not mentioned as being born in Bethlehem in any of the other books of the New Testament (not even in Mark or Q) and other elements easily agreeing with the previous factors, the stories of Jesus being born in Bethlehem must've been made up.

It's the simplest explanation we have for this as it goes in line with what we can observe (contradictions and all) and it introduces the least new assumptions among all other current explanations that we know of. Conservative Christians who take the Bible literally as God's inerrant Word have to make extra assumptions such as that the Nativity accounts don't really contradict each other despite what contradictions we can see and other such matters.

Now for Nazareth. Was it also fabricated that Jesus was from Nazareth?

Let's look at the evidence first. Mark mentions Jesus as Nazarene and as coming from Nazareth. Matthew, Luke, and John and Acts attest to this, too.

So we have evidence that Nazareth was historically associated with Jesus.

Is it likely that Jesus was historically from Nazareth, though? Or was it unlikely?

What's the simplest explanation for this which introduces the least new assumptions?

Let's see the typical historicist explanation.

1. The four Gospel books (and Acts) agree that Jesus was from Nazareth => no new assumption.

2. There is no prophecy in the Old Testament that indicates that the Messiah is to be from Nazareth => no new assumption.

3. We don't see any theological purpose for Jesus being from Nazareth in the New Testament => no new assumption.

4. In the Gospel book of John confusion is expressed at Jesus the Messiah being from Nazareth instead of Bethlehem (John 1:46, John 7:42) => no new assumption

5. Both Matthew and Luke still associate Nazareth with Jesus despite them going out of their way to have him be born in Bethlehem => assumption that they went out of their way to have him be born in Bethlehem (a very reasonable assumption that is in agreement with the above first argument about the Nativity stories being fabricated)

6. Matthew's Old Testament support for Jesus being from Nazareth is too vague, indicating that Matthew was not able to find a good verse to support Jesus from Nazareth theologically => fair assumption in agreement with the points above

Conclusion: Jesus must've historically been from Nazareth.

The above is the simple historicist argument for Jesus being from Nazareth

And so far, it is the simplest and, therefore, currently the best explanation.

Mythicists so far have only managed to come up with more complicated explanations adding more new assumptions into their explanations.

Some argue Mark is saying Jesus was a member of the Nazarene sect not of Nazareth. This is a new added assumption because the other Gospel accounts clearly state that Jesus was from Nazareth. Thus, with such a new added assumption, the explanation is forced to explain why Matthew and Luke and John would have Jesus be from Nazareth, complicating things more and more.

Some make other kinds of mythicist arguments but the basis is always the same ... adding new assumptions making the explanations more complex than the relatively simple historicist explanation.

I'll end this post here. Please be sure to read this through carefully.

MCalavera

Honestly, I feel like I'vej ust wastedtime typing up that long post as I can predict how Toto, aa..., dog-on, and others would answer.

I just hope a miracle happens and one of them finally gets it.

Good posts, archibald, judge.

archibald

I agree it appears to be the simplest explanation (as does HJ generally IMHO), but I might not go as far as the above. I might say that it seems more likely to have been believed (perhaps wrongly, perhaps rightly) to be an historical connection compared to one made up to suit a Messiah.

And I think there are some indicators about Capernum as a possibility too.

One decent conceptual non-HJ point for these is Toto saying that is is consistent with him having humble origins, but I don't feel that weighs too heavily, since he could have been described as humble from a lot of places, including ones with OT back-up. He could in fact have been described as humble but born in Bethlehem....oh wait...he later was!

That said, this Nazareth thing is only one possible indicator of several, and parsimony is no guarantee.

Though on the other hand, it is a general rule that uneconomical explanations should be asked for more evidence, not more speculation or assumptions.

Overall, I think it is wholly rational and reasonable to be agnostic with slight HJ leanings. But then, I would say that.

Not that I stay in one place. At times, I even feel it would be more appropriate to be slightly in favour of myth. But not so often. If somebody put a gun to my head, I'd declare agnosticism. Unless the person holding the gun was a drunk priest.

The guy from Rational Response Squad summed it up for me (not sure of his credentials, bu he still said what I might have said).

Non rationally-sceptical mythicism is not good for either atheism or rational scepticism, and if we are to take mythicism seriously, we must have the best grounds possible, or refrain from making any strong assertions. You yourself, I think, have described your dismay at seeing it thriving so much within rational scepticism, having come from a religion.

MCalavera

More likely, must have, same thing to me.

Nazareth one is simpler, though. Capernaum could be taken as a place where Jesus temporarily lived according to the Gospels.

There you go.

True, but it is the best we've got so far.

:devil1:

archibald

sorry, I edited my post while you were posting.

maryhelena

You know something - this whole Nazareth discussion is making me pull my hair out.........

So what - Jesus comes from Nazareth - that's the gospel story. Arguments over whether Nazareth existed, when and how big a settlement it was/could have been, are totally irrelevant. The gospel story says Jesus came from Nazareth. The gospel story calls him Jesus of Nazareth. That's it folks, that's it.

My profile says I'm from Cape Town - although I have lived here the most years of my life - I was not born here. The same can be argued for the gospel Jesus story - born elsewhere. (ie Bethlehem). It's still a story - and will remain a story until such time as some historical evidence is forthcoming to establish historicity for the gospel JC figure.

MCalavera

This Dohertian/Acharyan/dogmatic style of mythicism is in a way like religion. It is a set of dogma and unfalsifiable doctrines.

I remember as a Christian, I used to argue that there were good logical reasons to accept this doctrine and that doctrine as truth ... and I would have some really good ones to defend the inerrancy of the Bible even the Nativity accounts ... but it required adding new assumption upon new assumption upon new assumption before I could make sense out it according to my beliefs.

This is what many mythicists here are doing.

MCalavera

You didn't read my post carefully. Or you did, but you missed the point.

Jesus was said to be born in Bethlehem but I briefly showed why the best current explanation would be that this was fabricated.

Nazareth serves no theological purpose for Jesus as the Messiah. It could've easily been replaced with Bethlehem.:huh:

archibald

I agree, in too many (though not all) cases. One can almost gauge it by the combination of sureness without good reason, coupled with a reaction to any counterpoint and an unwillingness to concede that the other case has merit also, except in occasional general, passing comment, not borne out during detailed discussions of any one point. I think both of those are very common here.

But I don't agree that likely and must are equivalent. :]

MCalavera

I've always thought "must have been" meant "may have been" which looks more to me like "likely".

This is an argument worth discussing I guess.