spin

That would be a case of the blind leading the blind.


spin

gurugeorge

Yeah, but the point is we have some reason outside the "cultic text", to be believe the "cult figure" in question existed. There's some triangulation, some external historical evidence for Appollonius (even archaeology) that we don't have the equivalent for with Jesus. The historical Jesus is a HYPOTHETICAL entity meant to fill an explanatory gap, whereas Appollonius is an entity we know existed from other sources.

Indeed, that's precisely why we know we can disregard the fantastic bits and we can say with some confidence that they're mythical accretions in the case of Appolonius - precisely because we know a guy of that name existed, so we can be confident that the purported biography is a biography (albeit with some fantastic elements) and not just some made-up crap.

We just don't have the equivalent triangulation for Jesus. We can't identify anything in the gospel texts as biographical in relation to a human being called Jesus, because we have no independent clues that there was a guy of that name who existed. He's hypothetical in relation to the gospel texts, whereas Appollonius is not, in the same way, required to be an explanation for the existence of the Philostratus text. We already know Appollonius existed.

Whether the gospels are biographical, on the other hand, is something that has to be established - by somehow identifying the human being we suppose to be at the root of the story (thus giving the story some evidentiary nature).

Now of course, something like Josephus would be good, a big help; but unfortunately that source is tainted, it's dubious at best. Something might yet turn up - but that (or some REALLY subtle clues in the gospels perhaps - I'm mindful of Ben Smith's approach here) is what's required. At any rate, you're not going to get that triangulation just by translating the "about Jesus the superman" bits straight into "must be about Jesus the human being" bits. Because you still haven't escaped the hypothetical realm that way yet.

spin

You work under the assumption that Nazareth is the original form. That is just rubbish. The closest we can get is נצרת (Nasaret) and I've shown that the earliest gospel form was Ναζαρα. Nazareth appears to be a compromise between the two. I can justify Nazara from ναζαρηνος as a simple back-formation gentilic to placename. How would you justify Nazareth with its zeta from the Semitic source and then how would you justify the use of Nazara in Greek??


spin

spin

This is an interestingly arbitrary declaration. There is a vastly interpolated text such as Matthew and you want to pussyfoot over the fact. What's your issue with interpolation? It was the means of elaborating a text. Interpolate, epitomize, rewrite. The differences found in Matthew and Luke when compared with Mark are evidence for the way biblical texts progressed. They show that these texts were manipulated before the manuscript evidence can help us regarding interpolation.


spin

andrewcriddle

I don't think that the non-Philostratean Apollonius is a non-supernatural Apollonius.

I would say that maybe our best supported tradition about Apollonius is that
he knew from far away by paranatural means of the assassination of Domitian while it was happening.

Andrew Criddle

show_no_mercy

You are still operating under this "all or nothing" assumption regarding the "authentic" seven. The same methodology used to determine that 2 Thessalonians wasn't written by the same person that wrote 1 Thessalonians is how it is determined that the person that wrote Galatians isn't the person that wrote 1 Cor 15:1-11. I'm not sure where you get the idea that an authentic Pauline epistles means that it's free of interpolation by later scribes.

While this could conceivably count as evidence, I made the observation a couple of months ago that the name "Jesus" probably had special currency in Hellenic Judaism. So who knows.

ApostateAbe

If "Nasaret" was the Aramaic pronunciation, then I would justify both of the Greek pronunciations ("Nazara" and "Nasaret") as two slight random variations in translation or oral transmission, people not quite getting the verbal pronunciation quite right before passing it along. Does that seem like a weird or unlikely explanation to you? Is there something I am not getting?

aa5874

Actually it is the HJ theory that requires a large amount of liars and planting of evidence.

Once Jesus did actually exist and was only a charismatic preacher then all his disciples and the Pauline writers would have had to lie about his entire life on earth.

The parents, siblings and close acquaintances who actally knew Jesus was only a charismatic preacher would have to collude with those who propagated lies about Jesus.

The disiples would actually have to lie to the Jews and all the people of the Roman Empire and claim that Jesus was the offspring of the Holy Ghost of God, walked on water, transfigured, brought dead people back to life, instantly healed incurable diseases, was raised from the dead and ascended through the clouds.

In the HJ theory, Jesus himself may have also lied about his origin and his supernatural powers

And what is even more absurd with the HJ theory is that the disciples and the Pauline writers after knowing that Jesus was just a charismatic preacher and could not answer prayers, was not at all supernatural, or help them in anyway, would themselves be beaten, imprisonned, stoned, killed and executed for their own fabricated lies.

In the MJ theory there are no real human characters, just an INVENTED story possibly written about 70 years after the fabricated events by an apocalyptic character who thought the world was soon coming to an end after the Fall of the Jewish Temple.

In the MJ theory neither Jesus, his disciples, his parents, siblings nor close acquaintances would have to lie about anything or die for anything. They were just fictitious characters in a story.

However in the HJ scenario, a campaign of embellishments and falsehoods must have been orchestrated possibly starting with the historical Jesus himself.

ApostateAbe

I am not operating under that assumption, and what I said does not require that assumption. It is probable that there are at least small set of interpolations, big or small, inside the seven "authentic" Pauline epistles.

Yes, it was a common name of the time, for sure. There were many Jesuses while Jesus was still alive, some of them active political/religious leaders. As far we know, there were no characters, "Jesus" or not, who closely resembled Jesus of Nazareth. The claims of Acharya S were my first exposure to a theory of a merely mythical Jesus.

spin

In short you are totally unaware of the evidence.

Yes, this is not about English

You cannot assume from your vast knowledge of English anything at all generally about phonology, and especially the phonology involved at the translation border between a Semitic language and Koine Greek.

I have pointed out on countless occasions that The Semitic Tsade was extremely frequently transliterated as a Greek sigma. Just look at Zion (ציון) in LXX Greek, which invariably appears as Σιων. Sidon ever spelt with a zeta in the LXX? Zadok ever spelt with a Zeta in the LXX? What about Isaac (יצחק)? Etc. In the case where this is not the case, ie zeta is used for Tsade and we have multiple exemplars, regarding the Moabite town of Zoara, the LXX Greek is predominantly sigma. However, in the case of Nazareth, we have not one single case of a sigma being used in the earliest literature. The zeta is a grave problem for the veracity of Nazareth and you have to look at the evidence rather than concocting naive explainings away.


spin