Diogenes the Cynic

Skeptics don't make claims. They merely demand evidence for YOUR claims.

kaas

Since Juliana is out of business (at least for the moment) I decided to look around a little. Nice thread and I agree with most of what you write, Diogenes, except for this one. Perhaps somebody brought it up before (only looked at the last two pages), but the fact that the birth stories of Luke and Matthew are so full of contradictions is, I think, the only real proof that "JoN" ever exitsed. Of all lines from Tacitus, Josephus etc. you can question the origin or the value, but this is a thing I can only draw one conclusion from:
If we compare both birth stories in Luke and Matthew, they have only two things in common about Jesus youth:
a) born in Bethlehem
and
b) raised in Nazareth.
Born in Bethlehem is obvious: if you claim Jesus was/is the Messiah, he HAS to be born in Bethlehem.
But why raised in Nazareth? This only forces Luke and Matthew to make up some highly unlikely stories. If Jesus had not exist at all, then why call him Jesus of Nazareth, instead of Jesus of Bethlehem, or just Jesus? Would have made things a lot easier.
Apperently the Jesus Luke and Matthew describre had commonly be known as Jesus of Nazareth. They could make up about everything about his life, from birth to resurrection, but this was one of the very few things they could not fill in themselves: that Jesus had been known as Jesus of Nazareth.
This proof is related to what is called in mathematics a 'proof by negative demonstration', in Dutch, more poetically, a 'bewijs uit het ongerijmde' (ongerijmd = not rhyming). I find it the most beautiful and elegant kind of proof and I can't think of any argument against it. {Saying that Nazareth didn't exist, as some (silly) authors do, doesn't change anything, since L&M at least thought it was a place}.

Amaleq13

I am again determining by fiat that this reply does not constitute a violation of my sacred Dogma vow not to be dragged back into the quagmire.

Because neither author understood what the author of Mark meant when he used the word they mistranslated into "Nazareth".

IIDB member, spin, had a great series of posts on the linguistic evidence but I'm having trouble finding it. I did find this thread on the subject, though.

[added later] This thread might have the info I mentioned.

IIRC, the actual word used by Mark's author is not a place name but a word that may have referred to prophetic beliefs ("watcher"?).

The evidence for the existence of a town named "Nazareth" in the early 1st century is essentially non-existent.

kaas

That doesn't change the argument, as I already said in my last sentence. They thought it was a city, which is enough. Is "from Galilea" also a mistranslation in Mark, since that is alrady enough to validate the argument. It doesn't need Nazareth in particular. Rather cryptic, but then I'm new here. What's your problem? Does a Jesus that existed threatens your own believes? Mohammed existed and yet that never changed my opinions about him, so why should that be any different with Jesus? Besides, my argument won't please orthodox Christians at all since it can only exist by the assumption that most of the Gospels is made up.

Amaleq13

I don't see how a misunderstanding of an earlier story can be "enough" to establish anything.

[added later] I supposed you might argue that the authors of Matthew and Luke believed Jesus to have been historical. I can't think of a good reason to reject such a claim offhand but it clearly falls short of establishing that he actually was historical.

It doesn't validate anything if it is a fabrication on the part of the author. The author actually seems to depict Capernaum as Jesus' "home" but I don't see why we should assume that has any historical basis. That two later authors, rewriting his story, followed a mistranslation of that story and identified Nazareth (a city that we do have reason to conclude existed by the time they wrote) doesn't seem to help establish historical knowledge of Jesus.

It would be less cryptic if you had participated in the entire thread. It was not directed to you but to those who have suffered through it.

My "problem" is with the claim that we can conclude Jesus was a historical figure because the authors of Luke and Matthew depict Nazareth as his hometown. The claim appears to me to be wholly without merit.

I lost my faith in Christianity and God while assuming Jesus to be a historical figure. I am currently more or less agnostic about the question of his historicity since I find the evidence to be such a mess that nothing reliable can be obtained. He may be a deliberate fabrication intended to "flesh out" the theological beliefs of Paul or he may have been a completely unrelated fellow to whom Paul's beliefs were subsequently attached.

kaas

Why fabricate a Galilean background when you desperately want people to believe he came from Bethlehem? That is my question. Because Bethlehem could be made up, but Galilea couldn't be moffled away, I would say. As if you have to make people believe that a redneck with a Texan dialect is born in Detroit.

or a figure made out of several figures etc. But that's another question.

Amaleq13

The original geographic setting comes from Mark's author but the need for a Bethlehem birthplace comes from later, rewriting authors. Unlike those later authors, Mark's apparently felt no need to "fulfill" that particular prophecy.

Why Mark's author chose that location would involve speculation but I see no reason to assume it was because of historical necessity. The location is pretty strongly implied in Q and, even though AMark isn't thought to have had a copy, he does appear to have been familiar with the milieu. Was he from there? Was he merely familiar with the wandering prophets of the coming Kingdom and used them as his template? IMO, we really don't have enough evidence to know with any degree of certainty.

That is certainly another possibility and I wouldn't consider that conglomerate figure to be historical.

kaas

Sorry, but I have the feeling that everything you say is only strenghening the argument.Exactly, but that was the initial idea behind the argument in the first place. Thought that was clear/obvious. Mark still seems to have remnants of a story from the time before the Messianic legend completely took over (there are already Messianic tendencies, as well as a resurrection, but all in a meagre form).I see no reason to assume it was because of anything other than historical necessity. The question is, by the way, why the others didn't try to get rid of it. You can argue that by then it was already too late to do that, but in that case not only my argument, but also the arguments that try to proof that Jesus did not exist out of the differences between Matthew and Luke or the doubtfull existence of a place named Nazareth, loose their value. In that case we can only say that we can't know.Not the conglomerate, but how about the individual parts, the "wandering prophets of the coming Kingdom", one of which apparently was known as JofN?
But let's stick to the conclusion that we can't know, so that you can still sleep quietly without the fear to be dragged back in the quagmire.

Amaleq13

Then you are, apparently, not understanding what I am saying because it eliminates any alleged claim to historicity and, therefore, any alleged strength of the argument.

What is the basis for your "seems"? There does not appear to be anything to suggest the locale of the ministry was determined by historical reality. In addition, this changes your original claim which was that there exists evidence of "Jesus of Nazareth" to a claim that there exists evidence of "Jesus of Galilee". Neither can actually be established as reliably historical, IMO, but the change in claim should be noted.

Then you are assuming the conclusion you are trying to prove. I consider that kind of circular reasoning to be unreliable.

Why is that "the question"? The mistranslation of Mark's story was already established and they (or subsequent editors) apparently believed, because of this, Jesus was known to have come from Nazareth. That they believed this even though it was, apparently, a mistranslation of Mark's story does not suggest it was a historical fact.

I'm not aware of any arguments that try to prove "Jesus did not exist out of the differences between Matthew and Luke" and I don't understand how the fact they were written well after Mark might undermine them but it doesn't appear to be relevant to the topic at hand, regardless.

Likewise, I don't see how this devalues the fact that Nazareth's existence in the early 1st century cannot, apparently, be established. This would appear to continue to stand as an additional problem for your claim.

There is no evidence Nazareth existed in the early 1st century. The original story does not claim Jesus came from Nazareth. Two subsequent revisions of the original, apparently mistranslating or relying on a mistranslation of that story, identify Jesus as coming from Nazareth but offer incompatible and theologically motivated stories claiming he was actually from Bethelehem.

I do not see how anyone can take from this that there exists reliable evidence of "Jesus of Nazareth".

Which would be contrary to your original assertion that we can. I'm glad we agree that this original assertion cannot be supported.

We should stick to the conclusion that we can't claim to know that Jesus was from Nazareth because it is what the evidence dictates. As I mentioned before, the quagmire comment had nothing to do with your argument against Diogenes' claim.

kaas

The feeling is mutualYou keep talking about direct, "positive" claims to historicity. There are no such direct claims to historicity. I'm talking about an absurdity with no other plauslible explanation, IMO, than an apparent historicity.Is it older or not? Irrelevant. You're deviating.There you go again. See above.Cheap. Didn't expect you to make a fuzz about the Nazareth issue. This is a North-South issue and Nazareth or Galilee doesn't change anything about that.When you keep thinking and talking about tangible evidence, about a smoking gun, you might misunderstand it for that, but only then. The circle is in your head, note mine, and you avoid going into th argument.Repetition. Two mails ago already we changed the question to Galilee. Are you sleeping or what???Surf through your own site, or jesusdidnotexist.com, etc. etc. And you yourself use Nazareth as an argument only two sentences after this one.If you really want to know I don't mind explaining it again, but let's stick to the conclusion that it is irrelevant to the this topicIt doesn't devalues the fact that Nazareth's existence cannot be established, it devalues that fact as an argument in any discussion about the historicity of Jesus. You should read better before you answer Amaleq.Once again: Nazareth is not the issue, but note that you use Nazareth as an argument against the historicity (see above).Am I talking to a wall or something?? I suggest you restart at the beginning, with Galilee instead of Nazareth, if you prefer that, and try again.Misleading quoting. The inconsistencies are an argument for the historicity or are no argument at all.Gosh, writing is almost as difficult as reading, isn't it? Let me help: "We should stick to the conclusion that we can't claim to know of a Jesus who came from Nazareth (or anywhere else)". See? This way you avoid being under suspicion of believing that there was a historical Jesus.