stephan huller

I don't understand the way mythers present this argument. If person X met an alien from outer space he would certainly have written about his encounter but his encounter was nevertheless with a non-person.

I think mythers have to decide whether they are arguing for the irrationality of Christianity or the fact that the apostle(s) really claimed to have met an extraterrestrial.

Even a supernatural encounter would have generated some contemporary notoriety.

It seems to me that mythers want to argue that Christianity 'duped' the world into believing Jesus was a historical person. This is a compound argument involving two premises (a) that Christianity duped people and that (b) Jesus was not a person. Read together the argument seems to imply that Christianity never happened. Nevertheless we should really be arguing for just (b). It's impossible to prove that a historical event 'never happened.' It's a bad argumentative tactic. Like a country deciding to invade another country without a plan.

spin

Seems I was giving you more credit than was due.

Matthew was written in Greek and mostly used LXX type references for its scriptural source, so it is unsurprising to consider that Hebrew material came to the gospel via the Greek. Comparing the Greek will obviously help show the literary relationship, if any, between them. I've already mentioned the phonological relationships between the Hebrew tsade and possible Greek equivalents, sigma and zeta, and that the evidence strongly favors the sigma. A hypothetical source for Nazarene almost certainly requires a zayin not a tsade in the Hebrew. That should rule out the popular but misguided branch theory derived from Isa 11:1. Besides, the gospel writer evidently had no problem naming Isaiah in his text, yet only talks about "the prophets" in 2:23 and, given that Judges was considered among the "former prophets", it would better fit the generic description found in Mt.

The Greek helps us to understand that the process from an underlying Hebrew notion to the text of Matthew was mediated: it didn't come directly from the Hebrew but was transformed through the Greek translation before it reached the gospel. Not once in all the Nazarene/Nazareth/Nazorean references in the gospels does a sigma appear, emphasizing that there was no netzer source. There is no direct relevance of Isa 11:1, yet the connection with Jdg 13:5,7 is transparent, especially when Mt had alluded to the same source in the 1st chapter, for, as Samson would save Israel, so would the coming child save his people.

Kapyong

Gday,

Well, I tried to be fair, most of my list are "could haves" - the point being the large number of them.


Christians thought he should have.


He mentioned Moses who was a leader, not a King; and Jesus was called a King by some; Photius thought his non mention was surprising.

Someone wrote about Apollonius, Jesus could have been mentioned.

Hmm ... I'll look into that.


Why should he mention Sabbe from far away?


I said he could have. He mentioned Galileans, he could have mentioned Jesus.

He mentioned pious men from Palestine - could have mentioned Jesus.


He satirised Christians, could easily have mentioned Jesus.


Hmm ... will look into that.


Thanks for your detailed reply spin, I'll update my list with some of these coments.


Kapyong

Toto

This argument, and the list of early writers who could have mentioned Jesus but didn't, originated with Remsberg. Remsberg did not use it to argue for mythicism - just that Jesus was not the famous prominent miracle worker of the gospels, and therefore was not the Divine Son of God and part of the godhead.


No, this is not the argument.

EarlDoherty

And you think that all the NT writers properly interpreted and correctly used their scriptural sources? That's pretty naive.

And did I say that the term "Nazorean" was based on a prophecy? It may well have been, but the point is how Matthew converted the term to "of Nazareth".

Earl Doherty

Mandelbrot

If I thought that, I wouldn't be pointing out the word clan that was missed but thanks for saving me from wasting money on a book who's author calls people naive.

mountainman

There is also the matter that Pausanius does not mention any shrine, or temple, or church, or church-house or house-church dedicated to Jesus cult even though he reports hundreds of instances of other shrines and temples etc etc etc. Of course this strays from the original purpose of the list that examines the mention of the figure of Jesus, and not the mention of the existence of christians or their monuments and shrines etc. Pausanius thus also presents a "great silence" of christian archaeology. He apparently must not have seen first hand a christian shrine or monument in his travels in 2nd century Greece. Perhaps there were none after all.

mountainman

Earl has produced one argument that does not necessarily invoke the fictional aspect of myth, but there is more than one [hypothetical] argument. There is a spectrum of "Jesus Myth" arguments. In the extreme part of that spectrum, also antithetically opposed to the one true story of the Christian god of the Christian universe inside the Christian Hubble Limit, is the argument that the books of the new testament canon were piously forged for the purpose of standardising and unifying religious belief in the depraved and barbaric antiquity of the Roman Empire.

Those who cannot see and/or evaluate this spectrum of MJ beliefs continue to exercise traditional and conditioned myopia in their so-called academic objectivity.

stephan huller

I must really have nothing to do today but here is my follow up.

It is really pointless to have a 'debate' over whether Jesus 'was a myth' or not.

The tradition view is without question based on faith. Anyone who tells you 'the facts' prove that there was a historical Jesus is an idiot.

Nevertheless we just can't just wave a magic wand and say that there is some formula or evidence that proves the contrary (= that Jesus didn't exist). In some ways it just comes down to taste. Chocolate really isn't more truthful than vanilla (although one could develop an argue why it is that more people might like chocolate).

As I have said many times before, the best argument for early Christians believing that Jesus wasn't human is found in the early testimonies themselves. There are dozens of reports which confirm this reality. To go beyond Church Father X reports that heretic Y held Z to be true is for the most part a waste of time.

Logical

If you can, please repost.