Toto

Argument from silence is not a fallacy. It is convincing where silence would not be expected. And if Nazareth never even existed, why would Paul deny it?

The most straightforward explanation for why Paul never mentioned Nazareth is that he never heard of it, and didn't know any "Jesus of Nazareth." The idea that others wrote the more historical accounts is silly - these others wrote a generation after Paul, and they didn't have any history at that point. They had to make things up.

Nope - two are to Jesus the Nazarene, which is not the same.

Interpolation was a routine, ordinary occurrence. If you think that the texts we have were preserved faithfully, you are making the extraordinary claim.

DCH and spin have given you the reason to think that the one mention is an interpolation. Did you not understand it? Maybe you read it too quickly.

I think that the most straightforward explanation is that Matthew didn't have any historical data, but invented something that sounded good to him.

It's still not a fallacy.
So demonstrate how you plan to extract the truth that is hidden in this fiction.

Here's the simplest, cleanest explanation for the gospel of Mark: he made it all up. He wasn't there and had no historical knowledge, but he had his imagination and the Septuagint and Josephus, and he quote-mined the Septuagint for details. He wrote the gospel for theological and literary reasons, with no intention of recording actual materialistic factual history.

Evidence: just read Mark. It's full of anachronisms, miracle stories, things that clearly didn't happen. That's the starting point. The idea that there is any history in there that can be extracted has not panned out - not for the Jesus Seminar or any scholar of the historical Jesus.

So it there any expectation that Nazareth refers to an actual town where Jesus was either born or lived? It would be a coincidence, not the best explanation.

judge

You need to address this to "dog-on". MCalavera wrote of Jesus being from Nazareth. It "dog-on" who changed this to born in Nazareth.

Here is where Mcalavera posted.

http://www.freeratio.org/showthread....65#post6945165

A few posts later "dog-on" slyly changed this to born rather than from.

I cant find the post as I have dog-on on "ignore", but if you go back you'll find it.

aa5874

HJ of Nazareth is an argument from Silence.

There is NO source of antiquity that mentioned a man from Nazareth who was baptised by John.

It was the Child of a Ghost in the Myth fables called Gospels that was born in Bethlehem and lived Nazareth.

The presumption that a man was from Nazareth because a Ghost lived there in the Synoptics is wholly absurd.

judge

Those two would only convince the weak-minded.
Spins already given an indication he himself doesnt even believe it's good enough. Why you would swallow it in the light of that is a mystery.


Patronising nonsense from someone unable to explain it himself.
MCalavera is getting the better of you here and that seems to be frustrating you.

archibald

Irrelevant. As is resorting to the 'you don't know much' canard yet again. Present an argument or don't post. Yes, I know you are obliged to read everything, but you don't need to pitch in, unless you want to. :]

Virtually irrelevant, since we're asking why someone else did mention it.

You really need to back this up. You would not allow anyone to just say, 'likely interpolation' without a case if it were being made against you. And after that, explain the possible significance. But don't forget to do the interpolation case first. I hope you got more than that lame strawman about others thinking the texts are pristene. Citing spin, or someone else? Sheesh. You know, I wouldn't have any objection to you doing this, and in fact I don't generally have any problem with people doing it (it is in fact wholly permissible and commonplace) if you were not the sort who tries to pounce on others for doing similar, with odd inconsintency.

Possibly because he was trying to make it seem like it was in the OT.

Look, Toto, everyone agrees this is not a decisive slam dunk point now. That strawman has been clarified. All that's being suggested is that the fact that a more 'significant' location was not chosen tends to suggest that the person who chose it was less likely to be making it up in an allegory supposed to be bigging up the OT connection. You are over-reacting. It's almost as if you simply can't allow anything which might be an HJ indicator.


I presume you must mean Nazareth is not mentioned in connection with Jesus before 70CE, not that nobody knows anything about a Nazareth. Still, how do you know nobody knows? Paul doesn't mention it, but that's hardly relevant here, since everybody knows Paul's extant writings don't deal with that sort of thing. When we get to Paul, all we can argue about is whether Paul was referring to an earthly Jesus or a non-earthly one, and there is categorically more evidence of the former. We can't look to something not in Paul as an effective argument here. It seems that if all else fails, you resort to whatever argument can be pulled in from anywhere, including 'likely interpolation'. I'd like to hear more on that one. It not being in Paul is not a strong point here. As for saying 'if Nazareth Never existed, why would Paul deny it?', you lost me there. Since there is evidence that Nazareth did exist, are you suggesting that Paul denied it? I'd be interested in that. If true, it'd be a pointer away from HJ. But, I'm not sure if you're saying that.

If Jesus was fictional, then why pick Nazareth? You need to stick to the question. I think you even recently put it to me that Mark was all taken from the Septaguint. That was a bit more than an odd overstatement.

If you are trying to muddy the waters with a 'likely interpolation' you need to say a bit more.

And while you're at it, you could clarify the pre-pauline hymn in Philippans being written by apologists, in another thread.

And then, sometime, you might get around to explaining which 50% of Paul you think is the interpolated part, and on what basis. No, don't refer me to DCH's purely speculative thread again. :]


Unsubstantiated. We have no way of being sure if Mark's Gospel simply elaborated an historical core. It's not as if this one possible clue is the only one. The idea that Mark is wholly allegory does not float particularly well.

Doesn't explain why he didn't then pick somewhere significant.

What evidence?

Yet another strawman.

Toto, there are several people in here with mythicist leanings who appear to have a much better, more open perspective than yours. Very often, your reactionary posts, on many threads, mostly made up of trying to stamp out any historicist points whatsoever at any cost, only serve, in my honest opinion, to polarize what might otherwize be a much more agreeable and productive exchange of ideas, with both 'sides' accepting that the argument from the other has strengths and weaknesses. This is a pity, IMO.

Indeed I might venture to speculate if there is any connection between how controversy often seems to coalesce around you with the fact that myticists seem to have cgravitated towards this forum. I don't think people in here quite realize how artificial the atmosphere is. It's like a little bastion of mythicism and non-orthodoxy. Not that I'm against that. In fact, I'd say it's useful. I just think a bit of perspective goes missing, at times, in some cases. That's just me going a bit further than necessary and giving my personal opinion only, btw.

And I might add, that when you refer me to additional material, whether it be William O. Walker, or Robert Price, or Richard Carrier, or whoever, I find that these people seem to take a much more sophisticated, balanced and more reasonable line in comparison to the one you present here, and one which I am happy to absorb.

You know, saying that you counter Dave31 is about as convincing as an Irish Catholic Bishop countering Joe Coleman, who insists he and thousands of others saw the virgin Mary at Knock in the 1980's. If I am to really accept that you don't have stronger mythicist leanings than you are prepared to admit, I'd need to see more balance. At the moment, I don't really buy it, for you or for spin.

Toto

Paul is the earlier source, by most reckoning. But the claim from historicists is that Nazareth was an embarrassing detail that couldn't be left out because it was part of the tradition. However, there is no evidence of this tradition.

Does that explain why it is relevant that Paul does not mention Nazareth, nor does any other early source before the gospels?

I am referring to an argument made earlier in this thread. If this were a formal debate, I would repeat it. But I don't have that much invested in this right now.

It wasn't a strawman. It might have been a misimpression on my part from the tone of MC's posts. But it's nice we all agree now.

May I say that I am not totally opposed to the idea that there might be a historic core to the Jesus story? However, the idea that Nazareth is part of the case for a HJ strikes me as completely unpersuasive. It is an embarrassingly lame argument.

.

I thought you were more familiar with this material.

Nazareth is not mentioned by Josephus, who was active in Galilee. It is not mentioned in the Hebrew Scriptures, in the Talmud, or by any source before the gospels. Nazareth is missing in action before 70 CE.

I suspect it is wordplay, related to the Nazarene sect. But every fictional person has to come from somewhere.

The gospel Jesus is portrayed as humble. A small town seems appropriate.

Why does it not float particularly well? Have you actually looked into it?

This is such a massive generality I don't know how to react. It seems that you think a productive exchange of ideas would involve politely accepting bad arguments, like the idea that Nazareth indicates Jesus was historical. I don't see anything productive about putting up with rank nonsense.

That's interesting, because often I am just repeating what I learned from these professionals.

I don't think that any of them will support the idea that Nazareth is any evidence for a historical Jesus.

archibald

Not in Paul, no, but that's totally uncontroversial. It's not contradicted in Paul, that's all we can bring to the assessment here.

The question is, does any other source suggest not Nazareth.

Me, I tend to think there is at least some confusion about Capernum. Maybe it was Capernum.

Fair enough, but I think you might agree that just baldly saying it cannot add much, so perhaps, unless you do at least a summary of your main reasons, better not to make the assertion.

Isn't it just?

Glad to hear it. Might be interesting sometime to see a shortlist of your HJ points.

As for this one, about nazareth, I agree that it may not be decisive or worth sticking my neck out for (and I am not here to join in a vehement HJ chorus). I'm not sure about embarrassingly lame. Or nonsense. Really I'm not. Yet. If I hear a good reason, I'll take it on board.

I'm still unclear if you mean Naz is missing, or just missing as a Jesus connection.

If the former, then, I have to say, that you may need to get in touch with an ancient historian or two. Including Richard carrier.

And I thought you were more familiar with that material.

But in a text which you yourself said was all from the OT?

I have said so elsewhere. Not saying I've read everything written on the topic, but what I've read (including Price's monograph) doesn't fill me with conviction.


Yes, it was a general comment. And a personal opinion. I'm saying nothing more than that you give the strong impression of only heavily favouring one side. Not that you're not entitled to.


I was generalizing again. I don't know if any of them would or wouldn't.

I was referring to the general fact that, to my pleasant surprise, I find such people seem to take a very balanced line.

judge

You did not refer to anything.
All you did was state that it was likely an interplolation.

Toto

This is undisputed from here:

There is some evidence of Nazareth based on an archaeological remain dated to the fourth century that refers to 135 CE: And there have been archaeological excavations of a site reputed to be Nazareth. Richard Carrier accepts these as evidence that Nazareth existed, while Rene Salm disputes the existence of Nazareth. But the fact remains that there is no literary mention of Nazareth before the fourth century.

Of course, the mere existence of Nazareth does not prove that there was a Jesus of Nazareth.

archibald

No, of course it doesn't. Which is why I was wondering, without anything more than curiosity, why you mentioned the question of its existence.

Why did you?

At one point, you said something, just above, on this page, about, 'if it didn't exist, why would Paul deny it', for example. Which I didn't quite understand.

IOW, you were questioning the very existence of it.

Regarding literary evidence, I'm not exactly sure why we would opt to prefer literary evidence over more 'physical' evidence when we're discussing whether Naz existed or not, but this is what Carrier says in 2009:

'A Jewish inscription from the 2nd or 3rd Century confirms that Nazareth was one of the towns that took in Jewish priests after the destruction of the temple in 66AD

....And archaeology confirms it may have had a significant stone building before then

...Nazareth definitely had grain silos, cisterns, ritual immersion pools, smartly cut cave dwellings and storerooms, a stone well, and a significant necropolis also cut from the rock of Nazareth's hill, all in the time of Jesus

......For example, four calcite column bases were recovered at Nazareth, which were reused in a later structure, but which are themselves dated before the Jewish War, by their stylistic similarity to Roman and synagogue structures throughout 1st C Judea, and by the fact that they contain Nabatean lettering (which suggests construction before Jewish priests migrated to Nazareth after the war), as well as their cheap material (calcite instead of marble).

Aramaic inscribed marble fragments have also been found there, paleographically dated around the end of the 1st C or early 2nd C, demonstrating that Nazareth had marble structures near the time the gospels were written (even if not before)..

Otherwize very little of Nazareth has been excavated......evidence suggests that any stones and bricks used in first Century buildings in Nazareth were reused in later structures....


There simply isn't any case to be made that it was a despised or insignificant hovel.'

Apologies for not citing the whole text (from chapter 2 of 'Not the Impossible Faith'). I did not omit any contrary indicators or arguments. If anything, I left out more positive arguments.




And, just out of interest, who is Rene Salm and what are his qualifications or scholarly/academic standards?

I couldn't find much, but I found this, at the Rational Response Squad site, from the co-founder:

This claim is absolutely ridiculous. Not only is Salm's book not Peer Reviewed, but it reaks of motive, and I've had dialogs with Salm, who is nothing more then another Joseph Atwill trying to sell books on the conspiracy train. Seriously.

There is absolutely no reason to doubt the towns existence even into the 200 BCE. All the archaeological evidence and manuscript evidence we have supports the towns existence, and even the name, it is incredulous to think that the town was renamed later on by Christians when the town had been a haven for the Jewish Priests during the Diaspora, when no pius jew would live in a town named after the hometown of a false messiah - that's just crazy.

I do not condone nor do I accept the possibility of this claim as valid, or even possible. This is just sensationalism at its best and makes Mythicists who take their work seriously, like myself and Carrier, look bad. I would never recommend Salm's book.

........... its not even like Nazareth was discovered by Christians! Two german - SKEPTICAL german - archaeologists discovered the site!
'
http://www.rationalresponders.com/fo...and_humor/6452












As an aside, I recall several threads, here and elsewhere saying that historians do tend to opt for historicity, and it was often replied that they may do, but that they didn't look into it enough (not entirely sure if that's a sufficient or always true argument, but there's possibly something in it perhaps) and I might even have offered a generous opinion that if they did, they might, IMO, see less reason to do so.....so I was genuinely a bit surprised to see Carrier talking about the 'time of Jesus' and the 'time the gospels were written'. This is not evidence that he is correct, or 100% certain, or that elsewhere, in a different context, he might look at such positions with more scrutiny and uncertainty (I do not know if he does). Certainly, it does not seem that such things influence his mythicist leanings in the way that it does for many here. But it does put at least a slight dent in the 'historians' counter from mythicists.

That was just an aside. I was mainly quoting him on the existence of Nazareth. Not trying to make a further point regarding this thread.

And, returning to the topic of interpolatons, William O. Walker is another person you referred me to. Is it not the case that he holds that we should still prefer to establish them on a case by case basis, and that the burden of proof (though lesser than some scholars might suggest, which I agree with) should still be on the person making an individual claim? I saw nothing there to support the sort of interpolation-fever which appears to be currency on this forum at times.