aspronot

It seems rather strange that you can readily accept that one part of the gospels was made up, but you cling tenaciously to others. How does your historical method account for this difference in approach? Is it simply the relative importance (to you) of the subject matter?

Diogenes the Cynic

They started with a few scant details from oral tradition (or in the Luke and Matthew, with Mark and Q), then filled in the blanks with things like tendentious interpretations of the LXX, with vaguely known details of history, geography or other stray bits of lore and with their own imaginations.

beallen041

So Abe, is it your contention that the Markan episode set in Jesus' hometown is fictional in toto?

I am unable to post links, but double-you double-you double-you dot biblewalks dot com will take you to a site that discusses the construction at the site of Nazareth that would be the Hogsmeade equivalent, and the dates are all after the visit of Helena.

ApostateAbe

Sort of. I would call it a "false myth," not "fiction." When the people who hear and tell it don't actually believe it, then it is fiction. If they believe it, then it is myth.
OK, so here is a link to the Nazareth gallery:

http://www.biblewalks.com/Sites/Nazareth_Gallery.html

Dates that are significantly after the 4th century would not be the relevant prediction. The town would not exist, supposedly, if not for Christian immigrants and tourists, which means that the relevant prediction would be that there are monuments or landmarks that are dated to the proposed founding of the town. Do any of those attractions match that criterion? If such monuments were destroyed, then maybe there are some textual or archaeological evidences to that effect.

aspronot

He was more likely to be referred to as "Jesus son of Joseph".

ApostateAbe

I think that is a good question. I do not judge the parts of the gospels as either truth or not based on what I want, or at least I try not to. Wishful thinking really is the very common and normal way to think about the topics in this subject, but minimizing the influence of wishful thinking is one of my central goals. Wishful thinking is easy to do in this subject, because ancient history really is difficult, almost ALL sources are ambiguous and unreliable, it is all about a set of cultures far removed from our own world, and the subject has profound influence over the entire society. Every wishful thinker has plenty of opportunity to shape their conclusions about the origins of Christianity according to his or her own wishes and pre-existing beliefs. Non-religious or anti-religious people are certainly no exception.

That isn't to say that probable conclusions can not possibly be found. The New Testament is based on myths, and myths follow patterns. The way I see it, almost all legends have at least some bits of truth in them. Even most fictions have some bits of reality--towns, celebrities, music, and other cultural background information. There are reliable ways to tease out the truth from the myths. For example, when two completely different myths telling two completely different tall tales name the same nuclear power plant, then odds are strong that the nuclear power plant actually exists or existed.

That is the criterion of multiple attestation. There is a set of criteria specifically appropriate for myths that are commonly used in critical New Testament scholarship. Other such criteria include the criterion of plausibility, the criterion of earlier is better, and the criterion of dissimilarity.

I like to think and argue in terms of a more generalized methodology--Argument to the Best Explanation--that would incorporate those specific criteria. The general criteria are explanatory power, explanatory scope, plausibility, less ad hoc, and disconfirmed by fewer accepted beliefs.

ApostateAbe

That means of identification was more common, for sure, but I think it would depend mainly on how someone would prefer to be identified, which would in turn depend in part on what distinguishes that person. There would be many more men who could be identified as "Jesus son of Joseph" than there would be "Jesus of Nazareth," so I think it would make plausible sense for Jesus to be known as "Jesus of Nazareth" instead of "Jesus son of Joseph."

aspronot

But we are not talking about multiple, independent attestations here. You know that. Why raise it?

Thanks for re-iterating what you say you do (one more time). I go by what people practice rather than by the hand-waving. In this particular instance you were quite happy to accept that 'Mark' made up the bit about the synagogue (perhaps even the entire episode). I didn't see you talking about plausibility, explanatory power, etc.. What you accept as fiction and what you don't accept (that the use of Nazareth was a crude attempt at having Jesus fulfill OT prophecies) seems arbitrary to me, since you often don't provide any explanation for your pronouncements.

How could you possibly know what the gospel writers believed or did not believe? Or are you making the assumption that they always faithfully recorded the stories which came their way without editing?

aspronot

That is one plausible explanation (apart from the possible embarrassment to Jesus of being identified as a 'hick' from some small, obscure village which no-one seems to know anything about). But why are you rejecting the other (perhaps more) plausible explanation? It seems you only champion the plausible explanations which you have already made your mind up represent the desired outcomes (for you).

aa5874

Well the numbers are in for the " multiple attestation" of the resurrection.

It was Over 500 people at once who saw the resurrected Jesus.

The resurrection did happen based on multiple attestation.

1Cor 15:6 - "Multiple attestation" cannot be applied to ADMITTED Myth fables. You will get GIGO or MIMO.

Garbage in--Garbage out/ Myth in--Myth out.

ApostateAbe you are wasting your time with your GIGO/MIMO "explanations".