ApostateAbe

OK, thanks for your patience. It seems like the significant difference to me is that people will strictly adhere to a standard of transmission and transliteration of written language. On the other hand, with spoken language, with myths that are passed on among people who potentially never even heard of the Septuagint, you can have arbitrary variations in pronunciation and transliteration. Does that seem like a fair objection?

spin

One demonstrable example of a Hebrew or Aramaic word containing a Tsade that ends up rendered in all instances in LXX or NT or early church fathers Greek with a zeta. That's what you need. Failing that, silence.


spin

spamandham

If you set aside the creed of 1 Cor 15, you also set aside most of what Paul says about Jesus that ties him to earth. Crucifixion (and thus resurrection) can easily be seen as a spiritual concept and need not imply an earthly Jesus.

Here is a list of every single usage, with those marked in this color that do not reasonably refer to Roman crucifixion, and in this color, that do seem suggestive of Roman crucifixion (I consider the rest more ambiguous):

Romans 6:6
For we know that our old self was crucified with him so that the body of sin might be done away with, that we should no longer be slaves to sin

1 Cor 1:13
Is Christ divided? Was Paul crucified for you? Were you baptized into the name of Paul?

1 Cor 1:23
but we preach Christ crucified: a stumbling block to Jews and foolishness to Gentiles,

1 Cor 2:2
For I resolved to know nothing while I was with you except Jesus Christ and him crucified.

1 Cor 2:8
None of the rulers of this age understood it, for if they had, they would not have crucified the Lord of glory.

2 Cor 3:14
For to be sure, he was crucified in weakness, yet he lives by God's power. Likewise, we are weak in him, yet by God's power we will live with him to serve you.

Gal 2:20
I have been crucified with Christ and I no longer live, but Christ lives in me. The life I live in the body, I live by faith in the Son of God, who loved me and gave himself for me.

Gal 3:1
You foolish Galatians! Who has bewitched you? Before your very eyes Jesus Christ was clearly portrayed as crucified.

Gal 5:24
Those who belong to Christ Jesus have crucified the sinful nature with its passions and desires.

Gal 6:14
May I never boast except in the cross of our Lord Jesus Christ, through which the world has been crucified to me, and I to the world.

This would surely be true regardless of whether Jesus were real or not, since I think we would expect that the synoptic writers were familiar with Paul's writings if Paul really did write decades before they did and was effectively the founder of the branch of the church that delivered us the synoptics.

ApostateAbe

OK, maybe you can give me an example of a set of words that may be mistransliterated if my hypothesis holds true. You would have to exclude both non-transliterated words and common names. That leaves you only with uncommon names. But you should also exclude uncommon names that were sourced from writing. That leaves you with uncommon names that were sourced from oral myths. I treat Nazareth as a special case, because I take it to be pretty much the only name like it. The first time the name was ever written was when a Christian wrote it down in Greek. After the pronunciation has passed on through many Aramaic and Greek speakers in succession, the original gospel-source authors would have nowhere else to check the spelling of "Nazareth" except the gospels of rival churches. They could not even check the spelling or pronunciation with a local Jew, because he never heard of the town in his life. How does that sound? Ad hoc? Maybe that strikes you as special pleading, or maybe you have some other objection.

aa5874

There is really NO Internal or External evidence that the Synoptic authors were familiar with the revelations from Jesus to the Pauline writers.

They did not fundamentally use any of the revelations from Jesus to assemble their Jesus character.

For example, the revelation from Jesus to Paul was that circumcision was of little use, yet the Synoptic authors wrote that Jesus was circumcised.

The revelation from Jesus to Paul was that the LAWS of God were a curse, yet the authors of the Synoptics wrote that Jesus asked Jews to make offerings to the high priest.

Even two pigeons and two turtledoves were offered for Jesus as found in the Laws of God delivered by Moses.

The revelation from Jesus to Paul was that Jesus himself came to abolish the Laws of Gods that were delivered via Moses, yet the Synoptic Jesus came to fulfill the Laws of God.

Some Pauline writer claimed he and over 500 people saw Jesus in a non-historical state, yet the authors of the Synoptics and gJohn did not include such critical information in their fabricated resurrection scene.

And further Church writers propagated that the Pauline writers were aware of gLuke.

It is clear that the revelations from Jesus to the Pauline writers were unknown to the authors of the Gospels.

spin

What you've done is merely say, let's remain ignorant, because you cannot deal with the linguistics, despite having a large body of work that allows you to check out your knowledge of how Semitic names were rendered in Greek.

So, Abe, once again, you take the cheap way out: admitting ignorance and ignoring the issue.

Instead, we have some good evidence in the gospel texts for a progression of related terms:

1. Regarding Nazareth, there is no parallel in the synoptic gospels regarding its use, so it cannot be seen as part of the earliest tradition.
2. Early in the christian tradition there was Ναζαρηνος (used 4 times in Mk, two of which were carried over into Lk)
3. Mt removes all references to Ναζαρηνος sometime before including references to Nazara.
4. As both Mt and Lk know Nazara but in different contexts, we have evidence for a Nazara tradition which precedes both of those gospels but which developed after Mk, which thinks that Capernaum is the home of Jesus (Mk 2:1).
5. Mt accepts Nazara, using it twice 2:23 and 4:13 and justifies Nazara with a warped reference to Jdg 13:5, "he will be called a Ναζωραιος" in 2:23.
6. Nazareth finally comes in Lk in the birth narrative and in Mt as an interpolation into some Marcan material (Mt 21:11).

Chronologically:
1. Ναζαρηνος 2. Nazara 3. Ναζωραιος 4. Nazareth

That's the basic evidence.


spin

ApostateAbe

OK, you seem to color red some passages that I would color pink, such as Galatians 3:1. And, I see no good reason to leave 2 Corinthians 3:14 uncolored--it would be appropriately pink. And, you should also include Philipians 2:8--"Being found in appearance as a man, he humbled himself by becoming obedient to the point of death, even death on a cross." Finally, you should explain what other sort of crucifixion Paul may be talking about.

ApostateAbe

spin, maybe you should explain your specific objections to my argument. Your explanation is going to have to compete with it. If my objection seems unlikely, or ad hoc, or special pleading, then say so, because those can be good objections. The objection that it is special pleading can be answered by Nazareth objectively being a special case for the reasons I explained with evidence I can give you. It is not about ignorance. It may break the patterns that you focus on, but that seems to be for a good reason grounded in the evidence.

spin

Sorry, there was no argument. There was simply excluding the bits you didn't like until you ended with a set of one. It's an ordinary method of assuming your conclusion then shaping the evidence to reflect it. I.e. no argument.


spin

dog-on

Ok Abe. Show me ANY PIECE of EVIDENCE AT ALL FOR HJ that is not based on texts.