Horatio Parker

Presumably the evidence is different for each of these figures. Doesn't that matter?

There is evidence contemporary with the figures of Alexander and Julius Caesar, which to my mind makes their case the stronger(leaving aside the question of contradictory evidence). Is it not so?

What has always seems significant to me about HJ is the distance between writer and subject. This seems a necessary component for myth and legend as opposed to biography.

Your answer seems rather casual to me.

I agree. Then by that standard MJ is at least roughly an equal possibility.
This is a good question. You appear to be persuaded by Jesus supposedly having lived recently as opposed to long ago. And this is an argument for HJ?

archibald

Probably true, though....it sounds a bit like the last refuge of someone with the less parsimonius explanation.

And it has still been fun, for me, watching, yet again, some people struggling to stay afloat with their reasoning.

Let's see. Dog-on mostly tried to change the question, but when did attempt answers to the actual question:

Nazareth didn't exist at the time. Oh Really? Hm. I think not.

Misinterpreting something. How convincing. Sounds a bit like, 'It has to be from the OT, so if it isn't in the OT, it must have been a mistake'. Incisive and persuasive.

The stump of Jesse. That would be King David's father's name (Jesse I mean, not stump, though, having said that.......it is rumoured he acquired a certain nickname among the ladies of the time).

Whatever the most likely explanation (and it is hard to decide) it's still odd that if mark was doing OT based allegory, he didn't have him from Bethlehem. You may switch to Capernum at this point, but the question is not much different.

Personally, I tend to see this item as a slight clue in the direction of HJ, especially with the subsequent efforts to relocate. But, as you say, it's not decisive. Nor is any one single item, of course.

Even you Jake, I think, are having to peddle a bit too much to get it out of the HJ lane. :]

IMO, it might not be in that lane, but it's one item which seems more likely to be.

Aw shucks. Us (in my case very slight) Hjers gotta be allowed something, surely? The argument's finely balanced, no? Things on both sides?

archibald

Hey! No fair! If I'm not allowed to cite Tim O'Neill without taking unwarranted flak ......

Kidding. Go ahead.


Just noting an inconsistency. :devil3:

By the way, I think you put that very well. Spin would indeed tell it that way.

archibald

I'm sorry, there must be two spin's? I don't entirely recognize that one. Is that the same spin who prefers to think that Iraenaus uses two sources (one interpolated, the other not) for the same passage in one paragraph to support an interpolation case for 1 Cor 15? The same guy who thinks the word 'scriptures' there means the scriptures of Acts? The guy who is certain of non-evidenced interpolations?

Please direct me to the other sites you mention. I have only seen him on ratskep, and he tended to get his ass kicked into touch there. :]

DCHindley

Not sure what post in what thread you may be referring to. If you could supply a link I'll take a look. Spin's posts, like mine, are highly nuanced. For those who may be unfamiliar with his unstated premises, it may seem to not make sense. If he's wrong, I'll chide him for you.

DCH

Toto

Why reinvent the wheel? Why post the same arguments that have been posted before?

My point - find something new to say on this topic. People have made your argument before, others have not found it convincing. People have made much more sophisticated arguments than yours, and others are still not convinced.

Your argument comes down to your personal inability to imagine why Mark or Matthew would have invented a particular detail in a narrative that is full of improbabilities and impossibilities and obvious fiction. This is hardly the slam dunk proof of a historical figure that you imagine.

He reads the NT in the original Koine Greek, instead of relying on a biased translation that makes Jesus the Nazarene into Jesus of Nazareth. He has a background in linguistics. He has investigated the textual variants.

But he has turned his attention lately to the environmental crisis (how's the weather down there in Oz?), so I don't expect him to post in this thread.

archibald

Yes, it does matter. It's hard to find two entirely equal 'evidences'. If I recall correctly, my question 1 related more to amounts and types of evidence, and wasn't meant to illustrate anything more than that it could be construed as inconsistent to accept lesser evidences with fewer doubts. I think I did say that it might be fair to remember that historians generally may tend to err on the side of historicity, and so there wouldn't be anything conclusive about answers to that question. And, it is fair to say that question 2 (Toto's) would better back up a mythicist argument.

IMO, yes. But we must remember, Jesus was no Alexander the Great or Julius Caesar, so we must ask what contemporary evidence we have any objective reason to expect for Jesus.

Not sure what you mean here.

Which answer, sorry? :]

Yes. I think I said it myself. I might even go further and allocate that one to being slightly more of an MJ indicator, at least in terms of how we might rationally think.

Recent 'non-existent' religious figures/heroes seem to be much the rarer scenario. Even historians will place emphasis on distance to source.

There is no one killer point on either side, so I wouldn't say I'm persuaded by this one. This is one more in favour of an historical figure, IMO. That's all.

DCHindley

Not sure what post in what thread you may be referring to. I think you mean the thread in Interpolations in 1 Cor 15:

As to my "pet theory", beside the possibility that a different 1 Cor 15:3 wording may have been original, what have you done to give any credence to the possibility that any of the material now in vv.3-11 was original? Where is your first recognizable evidence for the material? Irenaeus seems to be referring to two different versions of 1 Cor 15. In 3.18.3 he moves from the Marcionite version of v.3 straight to v.12, separated only by his commentary. This seems to be the form of the Marcionite version of 1 Cor, but in 3.13.1 he refers to a version with the appearances.

Spin's posts, like mine, are highly nuanced. For those who may be unfamiliar with his unstated premises, it may seem to not make sense.

Irenaeus AH 3.13.1

And again, in the Epistle to the Corinthians, when he had recounted all those who had seen God after the resurrection, he says in continuation, "But whether it were I or they, so we preach, and so ye believed."

AH 3.18.3

He was likewise preached by Paul: "For I delivered," he says, "unto you first of all, that Christ died for our sins, according to the Scriptures; and that He was buried, and rose again the third day, according to the Scriptures." It is plain, then, that Paul knew no other Christ besides Him alone, who both suffered, and was buried, and rose gain, who was also born, and whom he speaks of as man. For after remarking, "But if Christ be preached, that He rose from the dead," he continues ...

1 Cor 15:3-14

3 For I delivered to you as of first importance what I also received, that Christ died for our sins in accordance with the scriptures,
4 that he was buried, that he was raised on the third day in accordance with the scriptures,
5 and that he appeared to Cephas, then to the twelve.
6 Then he appeared to more than five hundred brethren at one time, most of whom are still alive, though some have fallen asleep.
7 Then he appeared to James, then to all the apostles.
8 Last of all, as to one untimely born, he appeared also to me.
9 For I am the least of the apostles, unfit to be called an apostle, because I persecuted the church of God.
10 But by the grace of God I am what I am, and his grace toward me was not in vain. On the contrary, I worked harder than any of them, though it was not I, but the grace of God which is with me.
11 Whether then it was I or they, so we preach and so you believed.
12 Now if Christ is preached as raised from the dead, how can some of you say that there is no resurrection of the dead?
13 But if there is no resurrection of the dead, then Christ has not been raised;
14 if Christ has not been raised, then our preaching is in vain and your faith is in vain.

Spin is interpreting 3.18.3 as meaning the Marconite version omitted vss 5-11. However, in 3.13.1 Irenaeus quotes vs 11, which is the summary of the appearance section, against Marcion's position, which Spin seems to think is Irenaeus citing the proto-orthodox version as superior to Marcion's version.

The only way to figure out what he is saying is to do the kind of thing I just did above. If more folks did that kind of thing, Spin wouldn't have to be so irascible.

DCH

archibald

If in doubt about the question, attempt to undermine the asker, and throw in a strawman about slam dunk proof. Where have I seen that before?

:constern01:

archibald

It's been quite a while since I was at ratskep. But I thoroughly recommend it. It's a bit like the inverse of here. Minority of mythicists. I wish everyone would meet up. :]

Ooops sorry. Misread you. Coming up......