The Christ Myth Theory

[Swammerdami]

נצרת

Trying to "learn" from you is like pig-wrestling.

If I ask whether you know how that word is pronounced, your response will be the single word "Yes" — Did I guess right?

 

[Elixir]

Did hebrew have a word for tea

No, they just said stuff like "he brew some of these leaves".

 

[T.G.G. Moogly]

This explains why Paul was considered valid, what a "brother" of the Lord is, why Chrestus can also be Jesus, and in some ways why the later Jesuses of the 1st and 2nd century inspired the elevation of polemics in the first place, and why the number of apostles kept growing, and why the resurrection thing came into the mix and became so important.

Just keep changing the story. Add what you like and delete what you don't like. Chrestus becomes Christ because it's been a few centuries. Why no mention or inclusion of the TF until centuries later, and still even in the 9th century? Could it be it was never there to begin with until the greatest propagandist and forger in christian history, Eusebius, discovered it?

Two-thousand years hence, how would I go about demonstrating that Hemingway was not penning an eyewitness account when he wrote "Old Man and the Sea?" Pick any novel. Why would I have to demonstrate to anyone that the obviously fictional account is not literal? Would it be because Hemingwayism had taken root in the interim and billions of humans now worshipped him as the prophet and founder of the religion of manhood?

 

[dbz]

נצרת

Trying to "learn" from you is like pig-wrestling.

1. Nazareth is a city in Israel. The underground Synagogue Church is reputedly where Jesus studied and prayed.
2. [Mark 1:9 ] And it came to pass in those days, that Jesus came from Nazareth [G3478] of Galilee, and was baptized of John in Jordan.
3. Ναζαρέτ (Nazarét), Ναζαρά (Nazará), Ναζαράθ (Nazaráth), Ναζαράτ (Nazarát), Ναζαρέθ (Nazaréth) in Greek.
4. נָצְרַת‎ (Nāzərát) in Aramaic and Biblical Hebrew.

 

[dbz]

[The following is an excerpt from Godfrey, Neil (14 March 2012). "Would the historical Jesus of Nazareth really have been named Jesus of Nazareth?". Vridar.]

Strong indicators Nazarene did NOT refer to a village​

i. Mark 1:21 ff and 5:7


There are passages in the Gospels where the expression “Jesus of Nazareth” simply does not sound like it refers to a town. Guignebert cites Mark 1:21 ff where the demons confronting Jesus cry out to him, “What is there [in common] between thee and us, Jesus the Nazarene? Dost thou come to destroy us? I know who thou art: the Holy one of God“.


Now compare that passage with Mark 5:7 in which another demon cries out, “What is there in common between thee and me, Jesus, Son of the most High God?“

[W]e shall notice, first, that the expression, “Son of the most high God,” stands in the same place in the second passage as “the Nazarene” does in the first, and seems to be equivalent to it; second, that “the Holy One of God” and “the Son of God” express similar conceptions, which shows that the former is simply and expansion of “the Nazarene.”

CG continues:

It looks very much as if it were a kind of Greek gloss, introduced by the editor for the benefit of readers ignorant of Aramaic. It must not be forgotten that Mark i.21 ff. is recounting the first miracle of Jesus, his début, as it were, in the rôle of lord and master of evil spirits. This is the first act of hostility against the Enemy who rules over the terrestrial world. Hence it is natural, and even necessary, for the all-powerful name to be announced, or more accurately confessed, at the very beginning, by the one who is to be defeated by its supreme power. This name is essentially bound up with the divine mission to which the new prophet, “son of God” like all prophets, is dedicated. It would be contrary to all custom to hail Jesus by a name signifying nothing but his place of origin, while, on the other hand, it seems as if he must necessarily be given, on such a momentous occasion, the title expressive of his true nature and function. (p. 84, my emphasis)

This is not completely removed from my earlier claim that religious cults are simply not named after the birth-places of their founders.


ii. John 18.5 ff


In John 18’s presentation of the arrest of Jesus the soldiers come to arrest him and he pre-empts them by asking: “Whom do you seek?” They reply, “Jesus, the Nazarene.”

[It is] as if the surname possessed a kind of official value and was not to be detached.

The scene continues with an even more dramatic demonstration of the power of one confessing the name. Jesus met them with the answer, “I am he”, causing them all to fall back,

as if the avowal of the personality expressed by the name in some way at once actualized its inherent power.

Guignebert takes the time to think this through.

It is not easy to see how a mere mention of the town of Nazareth could account for this. To oppose Jesus the Nazarene is “to oppose his name,” (c.f. Acts 26:1) and his supreme name displays its irresistible power at his will. (p. 84)

True, the author of this gospel (at least one of them) acknowledged elsewhere that Jesus came from Nazareth. Nevertheless, the scene narrated here informs us that the memory of the original tradition in which “the Nazarene” evoked something more than an obscure Galilean village was not forgotten.


iii. Other


Guignebert refers to other passages that he says point to the same conclusion:


Mark 16:6 in which “the angel” in the tomb tells the women they are seeking Jesus the Nazarene;


Luke 24:19 where one of those who went to Emmaus uses the name Nazarene as if it expressed a personal and essential characteristic of Jesus;


Acts 2:22, with Peter in his preaching using the name in the same way;


Acts 22:8, where Christ himself speaks to Paul on the road to Damascus, ditto.


iv. The magic formula of the name


Acts 3:6 and Acts 4:10 clearly “exhibit the miraculous power of the sacred name in action.” Peter declares to the lame man, “In the name of Jesus Christ, the Nazarene, arise and walk.” Then in justifying his miracle before the Sanhedrin Peter declares: “In the name of Jesus Christ, the Nazarene, whom you crucified and God raised from the dead, behold him before you, whole.”

It is of no importance in this connection whether the events actually occurred as related in Acts, and Peter really uttered the words that are put in his mouth. The interest of the two passages lies in the fact that they exhibit an ancient Christian spell, full of beneficent magic power, for it is the formula itself which is supposed to have performed the miracle. It is composed of the name of Jesus, the title Christ, which proclaims the Messianic rank of the Lord, and the surname, the Nazarene. The power of these three words is, so to speak, united in an inseparable combination. Clearly the market town of Galilee has no relevance here. (p. 85, my emphasis)

Guignebert even suggests that if the epithet did refer to Nazareth originally, that understanding of its origin must quickly have been lost and it came to much more intelligibly indicate a surname expressing a significant quality of Jesus.


Probability is on the side of the oldest form of the name being an Aramaic equivalent of the Greek Nazoraios and indicating a special quality of Jesus. Only after the meaning of this word was lost among Hellenistic Christians did it come to be associated with the town and took the form of “Nazarene”. (Perhaps, but I also wonder about the possibility that the original meaning was also suppressed by the evangelists.)


At this point I am short-circuiting Guignebert’s discussion. I bypass his explorations of the various possible meanings of the original Aramaic word. These have been addressed in many other places. Do a word search in the Freethought & Rationalism Discussion Board, for example.


Perhaps I can make a separate post of this another time. (CG sees the Aramaic Christian communities continuing with the name of “Nazarenes” while the Greek speaking churches called themselves “the saints” or “Christians”.)

Name and surname: what they meant to the first Christians​

All, then, that we venture definitely to conclude, is that the first followers of Christ, when they called him by his name and surname, Jesus the Nazarene, did not signify by it Jesus of Nazareth, but an all-powerful divine name accompanied by a distinctive epithet, which meant approximately, “the One sent by Jahweh,” “the Holy One of God.” (p. 89)

Sure the simple and generally accepted explanation is possible, but given the above considerations, is it the most probable explanation?

 

[Jarhyn]

This explains why Paul was considered valid, what a "brother" of the Lord is, why Chrestus can also be Jesus, and in some ways why the later Jesuses of the 1st and 2nd century inspired the elevation of polemics in the first place, and why the number of apostles kept growing, and why the resurrection thing came into the mix and became so important.

Just keep changing the story. Add what you like and delete what you don't like. Chrestus becomes Christ because it's been a few centuries. Why no mention or inclusion of the TF until centuries later, and still even in the 9th century? Could it be it was never there to begin with until the greatest propagandist and forger in christian history, Eusebius, discovered it?

Two-thousand years hence, how would I go about demonstrating that Hemingway was not penning an eyewitness account when he wrote "Old Man and the Sea?" Pick any novel. Why would I have to demonstrate to anyone that the obviously fictional account is not literal? Would it be because Hemingwayism had taken root in the interim and billions of humans now worshipped him as the prophet and founder of the religion of manhood?

Well, there were definitely people who had a cult that had some weird and foreign beliefs that were introduced by someone at some point.

Some of the details about some of the people involved in that ecosystem of dissemination are well understood.

I would say the far more likely story is that John was a very misunderstood "prophet", he had a student, and the student and the teacher were conflated, amalgamating the two.

The student in such a model would be Chrestus, whoever he was.

 

[T.G.G. Moogly]

Well, there were definitely people who had a cult that had some weird and foreign beliefs that were introduced by someone at some point.

Some of the details about some of the people involved in that ecosystem of dissemination are well understood.

I would say the far more likely story is that John was a very misunderstood "prophet", he had a student, and the student and the teacher were conflated, amalgamating the two.

The student in such a model would be Chrestus, whoever he was.

And after two thousand years of selection pressure and information lost to time, how does one go about proving a negative, proving that an obviously fictional story and a few historical quips about the story, all here say and/or anonymous, all accepted as fact by millions of people over thousands of years, sometimes at pain of death, how does one prove that they are just stories? It is not possible.

 

[Swammerdami]

Perhaps the Historicity Hypothesis should be revised slightly:

There was a man named Jesus from the town of Nazareth Galilee who was crucified under Pontius Pilate and who, for whatever reason, inspired an important 1st-century religion.​

However I am not convinced that this is necessary.

(A) There was a town in Galilee named "Nazareth." Coincidence? Do mythicists claim that name was invented and applied retroactively to help with myth making? I see no particular need for such a hoax.

(B) Even before the invention of surnames, some designator (patronymic, nickname or place-name) was absolutely essential to name a person. This is especially true when the person has a common name like Jesus.

Jesus was never described with a patronymic. (Hence the rumors of bastard birth.) Joseph, Jesus' father is barely mentioned in the Bible. He is NEVER named in Mark, and is mentioned in Matthew and Luke only in the Nativity myths. John names Jesus' father twice. And that's it. There is no identification of Jesus' father in Acts or anywhere else outside the Gospels. Instead we see a few "son of Mary" or "carpenter's son." Some other Josephs (e.g. Joseph of Arimathaea) are given much more prominent mention in the Gospels than Mary's alleged husband.

With patronymic ruled out (would not the matronymic "ben Mary" be highly unusual?) some qualifier needed to be used. Perhaps it was "of [home town]" as the Gospels imply.

To deny this would be to imagine cops pulling into town and saying "We're looking for Jim." At a minimum wouldn't saying "Jim from Oakland" be more plausible?

(C) The English-language Gospels show "of Nazareth" which is quite different from "the Nazarene." What can be said about earlier non-English Gospels?

Guignebert cites Mark 1:21 ff where the demons confronting Jesus cry out to him, “What is there [in common] between thee and us, Jesus the Nazarene? Dost thou come to destroy us? I know who thou art: the Holy one of God“.

Mark 1:24. Both English translations I use show "of Nazareth." Maybe "Guignebert" is using a better translation, maybe not.

One of only two mentions of "Nazarene(s)" in usual English translations is the following. Do you really think it supports the hypothesis that "Nazarene" means "Holy One"? (The other mention is Matthew 2:23.)

We have found this to be a pestilent man and raising seditions among all the Jews throughout the world: and author of the sedition of the sect of the Nazarenes.

 

[dbz]

Guignebert cites Mark 1:21 ff where the demons confronting Jesus cry out to him, “What is there [in common] between thee and us, Jesus the Nazarene? Dost thou come to destroy us? I know who thou art: the Holy one of God“.

Mark 1:24. Both English translations I use show "of Nazareth." Maybe "Guignebert" is using a better translation, maybe not.

Mark
[1:9] Καὶ ἐγένετο ἐν ἐκείναις ταῖς ἡμέραις ἦλθεν Ἰησοῦς ἀπὸ Ναζαρὲτ τῆς Γαλιλαίας καὶ ἐβαπτίσθη ὑπὸ Ἰωάννου εἰς τὸν Ἰορδάνην
[1:9] And it came to pass in those days, that Jesus came from Nazareth of Galilee, and was baptized of John in Jordan.

1:24 λέγων, Ἔα, τί ἡμῖν καὶ σοί, Ἰησοῦ Ναζαρηνέ; ἦλθες ἀπολέσαι ἡμᾶς; οἶδά σε τίς εἶ ὁ ἅγιος τοῦ θεοῦ

• Compare Translations for Mark 1:24

KJ21
saying, “Let us alone. What have we to do with Thee, Thou Jesus of Nazareth? Hast Thou come to destroy us? I know Thee and who Thou art — the Holy One of God!”
ASV
saying, What have we to do with thee, Jesus thou Nazarene? art thou come to destroy us? I know thee who thou art, the Holy One of God.
AMP
saying, “What business do You have with us, Jesus of Nazareth? Have You come to destroy us? I know who You are—the Holy One of God!”
AMPC
What have You to do with us, Jesus of Nazareth? Have You come to destroy us? I know who You are—the Holy One of God!
BRG
Saying, Let us alone; what have we to do with thee, thou Jesus of Nazareth? art thou come to destroy us? I know thee who thou art, the Holy One of God.
CSB
“What do you have to do with us, Jesus of Nazareth? Have you come to destroy us? I know who you are—the Holy One of God!”
CEB
“What have you to do with us, Jesus of Nazareth? Have you come to destroy us? I know who you are. You are the holy one from God.”
CJB
“What do you want with us, Yeshua from Natzeret? Have you come to destroy us? I know who you are — the Holy One of God!”
CEV
“Jesus from Nazareth, what do you want with us? Have you come to destroy us? I know who you are! You are God's Holy One.”
DARBY
saying, Eh! what have we to do with thee, Jesus, Nazarene? Art thou come to destroy us? I know thee who thou art, the holy one of God.
DLNT
saying “What do we have to do with You, Jesus from-Nazareth? Did You come to destroy us? I know You, Who You are— the Holy One of God!”
DRA
Saying: What have we to do with thee, Jesus of Nazareth? art thou come to destroy us? I know who thou art, the Holy One of God.
ERV
“Jesus of Nazareth! What do you want with us? Did you come to destroy us? I know who you are—God’s Holy One!”
EHV
“What do we have to do with you, Jesus of Nazareth? Have you come to destroy us? I know who you are—the Holy One of God!”
ESV
“What have you to do with us, Jesus of Nazareth? Have you come to destroy us? I know who you are—the Holy One of God.”
ESVUK
“What have you to do with us, Jesus of Nazareth? Have you come to destroy us? I know who you are—the Holy One of God.”
EXB
“Jesus ·of Nazareth [the Nazarene]! ·What do you want with us? [Let us alone!; What business do we have with each other? L What to us and to you?] Did you come to destroy us? I know who you are—God’s Holy One!”
GNV
Saying, Ah, what have we to do with thee, O Jesus of Nazareth? Art thou come to destroy us? I know thee what thou art, even thou holy one of God.
GW
“What do you want with us, Jesus from Nazareth? Have you come to destroy us? I know who you are—the Holy One of God!”
GNT
“What do you want with us, Jesus of Nazareth? Are you here to destroy us? I know who you are—you are God's holy messenger!”
HCSB
“What do You have to do with us, Jesus—Nazarene? Have You come to destroy us? I know who You are—the Holy One of God!”
ICB
“Jesus of Nazareth! What do you want with us? Did you come to destroy us? I know who you are—God’s Holy One!”
ISV
“What do you want with us, Jesus of Nazareth? Have you come to destroy us? I know who you are—the Holy One of God!”
PHILLIPS
They arrived at Capernaum, and on the Sabbath day Jesus walked straight into the synagogue and began teaching. They were amazed at his way of teaching, for he taught with the ring of authority—quite unlike the scribes. All at once, a man in the grip of an evil spirit appeared in the synagogue shouting out, “What have you got to do with us, Jesus from Nazareth? Have you come to kill us? I know who you are—you’re God’s holy one!”
JUB
saying, Let us alone; what have we to do with thee, thou Jesus of Nazareth? Art thou come to destroy us? I know thee who thou art, the Holy One of God.
KJV
Saying, Let us alone; what have we to do with thee, thou Jesus of Nazareth? art thou come to destroy us? I know thee who thou art, the Holy One of God.
AKJV
saying, Let us alone; what have we to do with thee, thou Jesus of Nazareth? art thou come to destroy us? I know thee who thou art, the Holy One of God.
LEB
saying, “Leave us alone, Jesus the Nazarene! Have you come to destroy us? I know who you are—the Holy One of God!”
TLB
“Why are you bothering us, Jesus of Nazareth—have you come to destroy us demons? I know who you are—the holy Son of God!”
MSG
Suddenly, while still in the meeting place, he was interrupted by a man who was deeply disturbed and yelling out, “What business do you have here with us, Jesus? Nazarene! I know what you’re up to! You’re the Holy One of God, and you’ve come to destroy us!”
MEV
And he cried out, “Leave us alone! What do You have to do with us, Jesus of Nazareth? Have You come to destroy us? I know who You are, the Holy One of God.”
MOUNCE
saying, “What · do you have to do with us, Jesus of Nazareth? Have you come to destroy us? I know who you are—the Holy One of God!”
NOG
“What do you want with us, Yeshua from Nazareth? Have you come to destroy us? I know who you are—the Holy One of God!”
NABRE
he cried out, “What have you to do with us, Jesus of Nazareth? Have you come to destroy us? I know who you are—the Holy One of God!”
NASB
saying, “What business do you have with us, Jesus of Nazareth? Have You come to destroy us? I know who You are: the Holy One of God!”
NASB1995
saying, “What business do we have with each other, Jesus of Nazareth? Have You come to destroy us? I know who You are—the Holy One of God!”
NCB
“What do you want with us, Jesus of Nazareth? Have you come to destroy us? I know who you are—the Holy One of God.”
NCV
“Jesus of Nazareth! What do you want with us? Did you come to destroy us? I know who you are—God’s Holy One!”
NET
“Leave us alone, Jesus the Nazarene! Have you come to destroy us? I know who you are—the Holy One of God!”
NIRV
“What do you want with us, Jesus of Nazareth? Have you come to destroy us? I know who you are. You are the Holy One of God!”
NIV
“What do you want with us, Jesus of Nazareth? Have you come to destroy us? I know who you are—the Holy One of God!”
NIVUK
‘What do you want with us, Jesus of Nazareth? Have you come to destroy us? I know who you are – the Holy One of God!’
NKJV
saying, “Let us alone! What have we to do with You, Jesus of Nazareth? Did You come to destroy us? I know who You are—the Holy One of God!”
NLV
“What do You want of us, Jesus of Nazareth? Have You come to destroy us? I know Who You are. You are the Holy One of God.”
NLT
“Why are you interfering with us, Jesus of Nazareth? Have you come to destroy us? I know who you are—the Holy One of God!”
NMB
saying, Let us be! What have we to do with you, Jesus of Nazareth? Have you come to destroy us? I know you, who you are: even the Holy One of God.
NRSVA
and he cried out, ‘What have you to do with us, Jesus of Nazareth? Have you come to destroy us? I know who you are, the Holy One of God.’
NRSVACE
and he cried out, ‘What have you to do with us, Jesus of Nazareth? Have you come to destroy us? I know who you are, the Holy One of God.’
NRSVCE
and he cried out, “What have you to do with us, Jesus of Nazareth? Have you come to destroy us? I know who you are, the Holy One of God.”
NRSVUE
and he cried out, “What have you to do with us, Jesus of Nazareth? Have you come to destroy us? I know who you are, the Holy One of God.”
NTE
‘What business have you got with us, Jesus of Nazareth?’ he yelled. ‘Have you come to destroy us? I know who you are: you’re God’s Holy One!’
OJB
Saying, Yehoshua of Natzeret, mah lanu vlach? (What to us and to you?) Have you come to bring us churban (destruction)? I have daas [of the raz, secret, mystery of] who you are, HaKadosh of Hashem (the Holy One of G-d).
RGT
saying, “Ah, what have we to do with You, O Jesus of Nazareth? Have You come to destroy us? I know Who You are: even the Holy One of God.”
RSV
and he cried out, “What have you to do with us, Jesus of Nazareth? Have you come to destroy us? I know who you are, the Holy One of God.”
RSVCE
and he cried out, “What have you to do with us, Jesus of Nazareth? Have you come to destroy us? I know who you are, the Holy One of God.”
TLV
“What have we to do with You, Yeshua of Natzeret? Have You come to destroy us? I know who You are! You’re the Holy One of God!”
VOICE
Unclean Spirit: What are You doing here, Jesus of Nazareth? Have You come to destroy us? I can see who You are! You’re the Holy One of God.
WEB
saying, “Ha! What do we have to do with you, Jesus, you Nazarene? Have you come to destroy us? I know you who you are: the Holy One of God!”
WE
He called out, `Jesus of Nazareth, what do you want to do to us? Have you come to kill us? I know who you are. You are the Holy One of God.'
WYC
and said [saying], What to us and to thee, thou Jesus of Nazareth? hast thou come to destroy us? I know that thou art the holy of God.
YLT
saying, `Away! what -- to us and to thee, Jesus the Nazarene? thou didst come to destroy us; I have known thee who thou art -- the Holy One of God.'

• So by majority vote: "Jesus of Nazareth" it is!

However secular critical scholars do sometimes challenge the Christ confessing majority consensus .. especially if they can read Greek!

The author(s) of the Markan narrative refers to Jesus from Nazareth (ἀπὸ Ναζαρὲτ) once, and to Jesus the Nazarene (Ναζαρηνοῦ) four times. Per Broadhead, Edwin K. (1999). Naming Jesus: Titular Christology in the Gospel of Mark. Bloomsbury Publishing. p. 32. ISBN 978-0-567-46408-8.

The Nazarene title or imagery appears only five times in the Gospel of Mark. In Mk 1.9 the term is used to describe Jesus’ place of origin. In 1.24 Jesus is addressed as the Nazarene by an unclean spirit. Bartimaeus hears in 10.47 that Jesus the Nazarene is passing by. The servant of the high priest accuses Peter of association with the Nazarene (14.67). The messenger at the tomb refers to Jesus as the Nazarene (16.6).

•  fr:Charles Guignebert (1867–1939) – French historian of religions and a specialist in the history of Christianity.

[T]he position that Jesus had no historical existence … is in itself a perfectly legitimate theory entitled to serious discussion.[50]

• Guignebert, Charles (1933). Jésus (in French). L’Évolution de l’humanité. synthèse collective 29. Paris: La Renaissance du livre.

Confessons donc que tous les prétendus témoignages païens et juifs ne nous apportent aucun renseignement utile sur la vie de Jésus, qu’ils ne nous donnent même pas la certitude qu’il ait vécu. —(p. 23)

[Let’s admit that all the so-called pagan and Jewish testimonies [to Jesus] do not bring us any useful information on the life of Jesus, that they do not even give us the certainty that he has lived.]

 

[Swammerdami]

Thank you very much, dbz. That was useful.

Guignebert cites Mark 1:21 ff where the demons confronting Jesus cry out to him, “What is there [in common] between thee and us, Jesus the Nazarene? Dost thou come to destroy us? I know who thou art: the Holy one of God“.

Mark 1:24. Both English translations I use show "of Nazareth." Maybe "Guignebert" is using a better translation, maybe not.

Mark
[1:9] Καὶ ἐγένετο ἐν ἐκείναις ταῖς ἡμέραις ἦλθεν Ἰησοῦς ἀπὸ Ναζαρὲτ τῆς Γαλιλαίας καὶ ἐβαπτίσθη ὑπὸ Ἰωάννου εἰς τὸν Ἰορδάνην
[1:9] And it came to pass in those days, that Jesus came from Nazareth of Galilee, and was baptized of John in Jordan.

1:24 λέγων, Ἔα, τί ἡμῖν καὶ σοί, Ἰησοῦ Ναζαρηνέ; ἦλθες ἀπολέσαι ἡμᾶς; οἶδά σε τίς εἶ ὁ ἅγιος τοῦ θεοῦ

Am I correct to infer that Ναζαρὲτ and Ναζαρηνέ and Ναζαρηνοῦ have a routine morphological relationship? In that case the distinction matters little — is this word indeed unrelated to "ha-Notzri" or whatever word the mythicists are pulling out of their bag of tricks?

• So by majority vote: "Jesus of Nazareth" it is!

However secular critical scholars do sometimes challenge the Christ confessing majority consensus .. especially if they can read Greek!

The author(s) of the Markan narrative refers to Jesus from Nazareth (ἀπὸ Ναζαρὲτ) once, and to Jesus the Nazarene (Ναζαρηνοῦ) four times. Per Broadhead, Edwin K. (1999). Naming Jesus: Titular Christology in the Gospel of Mark. Bloomsbury Publishing. p. 32. ISBN 978-0-567-46408-8.

The Nazarene title or imagery appears only five times in the Gospel of Mark. In Mk 1.9 the term is used to describe Jesus’ place of origin. In 1.24 Jesus is addressed as the Nazarene by an unclean spirit. Bartimaeus hears in 10.47 that Jesus the Nazarene is passing by. The servant of the high priest accuses Peter of association with the Nazarene (14.67). The messenger at the tomb refers to Jesus as the Nazarene (16.6).

Thank you, dbz! Obviously your 'https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Mark 1:23-25&version=' tool is much better than the grep Nazar Bib_{KJV,DRC} "tool" I've been using. Do you have a perl script or such to automate those multi-version searches? (On the other hand, I NEVER intended to sink so far down in this rabbit-hole!)

I guess Broadhead knows Greek and claims "of Nazareth" occurs only once in Mark. Did he check the other three Gospels?

And what about "ha-Notzri"? Mythicists insist that "Christ" and "Chrest" are distinct but are eager to conflate "ha-Notzri" and "of Nazareth." Really? (And which of the several different alleged meanings of "ha-Notzri" are we going with today?)

Are mythicists ready to explain the coincidence that the name of a town in Galilee conflates with the peculiar sect name cited in Acts?

As I've said, I have no particular axe to grind. I just see Occam's Axe getting sharper and sharper!

 

[dbz]

Did he check the other three Gospels?

You mean the narratives with no verifiable first century attestation?

But one thing is sure: we have no clear cut evidence that anyone had heard of a gospel narrative until the middle of the second century -- and that first evidence comes with Marcion apparently producing his gospel (whether that was based on an earlier gospel we don't know). And once one was known, a cottage industry of producing lots more was begun.

Perhaps Palmero will post on his viewpoint: Assume nothing. Ask why. ("Born in the Second Century". borninthesecondcentury.com)
• "Born in the Second Century : Chris Palmero: Audible Books & Originals". Amazon.

[You] can learn about all the difficult problems that come from viewing Christianity as a religion that began after the supposed death of Jesus of Nazareth around 30 AD. Host Chris Palmero presents an alternative view: the Special Paradigm. The theory that Christianity was born out of a mélange of clashing religious ideas nearly 100 years later.

 

[Swammerdami]

It is preferable to refute the STRONGEST point in a debating opponent's argument, not the weakest. Still unanswered:

Thank you very much, dbz. That was useful.

Am I correct to infer that Ναζαρὲτ and Ναζαρηνέ and Ναζαρηνοῦ have a routine morphological relationship? In that case the distinction matters little — is this word indeed unrelated to "ha-Notzri" or whatever word the mythicists are pulling out of their bag of tricks?

. . . And what about "ha-Notzri"? Mythicists insist that "Christ" and "Chrest" are distinct but are eager to conflate "ha-Notzri" and "of Nazareth." Really? (And which of the several different alleged meanings of "ha-Notzri" are we going with today?)

Are mythicists ready to explain the coincidence that the name of a town in Galilee conflates with the peculiar sect name cited in Acts?

As I've said, I have no particular axe to grind. I just see Occam's Axe getting sharper and sharper!

 

[dbz]

• "Born in the Second Century : Chris Palmero: Audible Books & Originals". Amazon.

[You] can learn about all the difficult problems that come from viewing Christianity as a religion that began after the supposed death of Jesus of Nazareth around 30 AD. Host Chris Palmero presents an alternative view: the Special Paradigm. The theory that Christianity was born out of a mélange of clashing religious ideas nearly 100 years later.

Also available on:
Apple Podcasts Spotify Google Podcasts Overcast Amazon Music Stitcher iHeartRadio Pandora TuneIn + Alexa Podcast Addict Castro Castbox Podchaser Pocket Casts Deezer Listen Notes Player FM Podcast Index Podfriend RSS Feed
per "Born in the Second Century". Buzzsprout.

Intertextuality​

is another topic of interest, i.e. the shaping of a text's meaning by another text, either through deliberate compositional strategies such as quotation, allusion, calque, plagiarism, translation, pastiche or parody,[1][2][3][4][5] or by interconnections between similar or related works perceived by an audience or reader of the text.[6]

• "Intertextual production of the Gospel of Mark". Wikipedia.

The intertextual production of the Gospel of Mark is the viewpoint that there are identifiable textual relationships such that any allusion or quotation from another text forms an integral part of the Markan text, even when it seems to be out of context. . . .some scholars, following the work of Alfred Suhl,[3] have taken the intertextual production of the written Gospel seriously.[4][1] The intertextuality of the Gospel of Mark has been recognized by scholars such as Thomas L. Brodie,[5] Willem S. Vorster,[6] Dennis R. MacDonald,[7] and Bartosz Adamczewski.[8]

 

[Jarhyn]

Perhaps the Historicity Hypothesis should be revised slightly:

There was a man named Jesus from the town of Nazareth Galilee who was crucified under Pontius Pilate and who, for whatever reason, inspired an important 1st-century religion.​

However I am not convinced that this is necessary.

(A) There was a town in Galilee named "Nazareth." Coincidence? Do mythicists claim that name was invented and applied retroactively to help with myth making? I see no particular need for such a hoax.

(B) Even before the invention of surnames, some designator (patronymic, nickname or place-name) was absolutely essential to name a person. This is especially true when the person has a common name like Jesus.

Jesus was never described with a patronymic. (Hence the rumors of bastard birth.) Joseph, Jesus' father is barely mentioned in the Bible. He is NEVER named in Mark, and is mentioned in Matthew and Luke only in the Nativity myths. John names Jesus' father twice. And that's it. There is no identification of Jesus' father in Acts or anywhere else outside the Gospels. Instead we see a few "son of Mary" or "carpenter's son." Some other Josephs (e.g. Joseph of Arimathaea) are given much more prominent mention in the Gospels than Mary's alleged husband.

With patronymic ruled out (would not the matronymic "ben Mary" be highly unusual?) some qualifier needed to be used. Perhaps it was "of [home town]" as the Gospels imply.

To deny this would be to imagine cops pulling into town and saying "We're looking for Jim." At a minimum wouldn't saying "Jim from Oakland" be more plausible?

(C) The English-language Gospels show "of Nazareth" which is quite different from "the Nazarene." What can be said about earlier non-English Gospels?

Guignebert cites Mark 1:21 ff where the demons confronting Jesus cry out to him, “What is there [in common] between thee and us, Jesus the Nazarene? Dost thou come to destroy us? I know who thou art: the Holy one of God“.

Mark 1:24. Both English translations I use show "of Nazareth." Maybe "Guignebert" is using a better translation, maybe not.

Almost the only mention of "Nazarene(s)" in English translations is the following. Do you really think it supports the hypothesis that "Nazarene" means "Holy One"?

We have found this to be a pestilent man and raising seditions among all the Jews throughout the world: and author of the sedition of the sect of the Nazarenes.

I expect that it was, like many things you can observe among  modern "mystics", a number of wordplays.

In the Amalgamist model of John-then-Chrestus, the result would be something along the lines of the fact that when John and Chrestus both died within a few years of each other, they were both part of the same Gnostic ecosystem grown originally from John's movement.

These branches would likely have collapsed into each other and the satellites would be open to confusion.

This would allow the discussions of John and Chrestus to amalgamate, especially as EVERYONE is left picking up the pieces as to what happened.

The two apparently would have been executed within a few years of each other!

This would result in an intertextual convergence on "the truth" of "who did what".

The births and lives and deeds of both would end up getting mixed, bashed by polemics, and the polemics refuted with other polemics from Toledot Yeshu all the way through to the moment of the Cannon.

I would expect that some of the stories are real, much of it (almost all) is figurative or anachronistic and that even when the anecdotes have a historical truth behind them, that truth is both lost to time and hopelessly exaggerated, or more often originally a metaphor written by some cheeky Gnostic who thought he was being clever but was only managing to be obtuse.

 

[Swammerdami]

I expect that it was, like many things you can observe among  modern "mystics", a number of wordplays.

In the Amalgamist model of John-then-Chrestus, the result would be something along the lines of the fact that when John and Chrestus both died within a few years of each other, they were both part of the same Gnostic ecosystem grown originally from John's movement.

These branches would likely have collapsed into each other and the satellites would be open to confusion.

This would allow the discussions of John and Chrestus to amalgamate, especially as EVERYONE is left picking up the pieces as to what happened.

The two apparently would have been executed within a few years of each other!

This would result in an intertextual convergence on "the truth" of "who did what".

The births and lives and deeds of both would end up getting mixed, bashed by polemics, and the polemics refuted with other polemics from Toledot Yeshu all the way through to the moment of the Cannon.

I would expect that some of the stories are real, much of it (almost all) is figurative or anachronistic and that even when the anecdotes have a historical truth behind them, that truth is both lost to time and hopelessly exaggerated, or more often originally a metaphor written by some cheeky Gnostic who thought he was being clever but was only managing to be obtuse.

By John, I assume you mean John the Baptist.

It sounds like you and I are in VERY close agreement! All I would add to your summary is:

(A) Chestus' given name was Jesus (Yeshu(a)) and he came from Galilee, probably the town of Nazareth. (I'm open-minded about word-play but I'd like to understand the motive and the antecedent. What does ha-Notzri even mean?)

(B) Was not Toledot Yeshu written too late to be of much interest to us here?

 

[Jarhyn]

I expect that it was, like many things you can observe among  modern "mystics", a number of wordplays.

In the Amalgamist model of John-then-Chrestus, the result would be something along the lines of the fact that when John and Chrestus both died within a few years of each other, they were both part of the same Gnostic ecosystem grown originally from John's movement.

These branches would likely have collapsed into each other and the satellites would be open to confusion.

This would allow the discussions of John and Chrestus to amalgamate, especially as EVERYONE is left picking up the pieces as to what happened.

The two apparently would have been executed within a few years of each other!

This would result in an intertextual convergence on "the truth" of "who did what".

The births and lives and deeds of both would end up getting mixed, bashed by polemics, and the polemics refuted with other polemics from Toledot Yeshu all the way through to the moment of the Cannon.

I would expect that some of the stories are real, much of it (almost all) is figurative or anachronistic and that even when the anecdotes have a historical truth behind them, that truth is both lost to time and hopelessly exaggerated, or more often originally a metaphor written by some cheeky Gnostic who thought he was being clever but was only managing to be obtuse.

By John, I assume you mean John the Baptist.

It sounds like you and I are in VERY close agreement! All I would add to your summary is:

(A) Chestus' given name was Jesus (Yeshu(a)) and he came from Galilee, probably the town of Nazareth. (I'm open-minded about word-play but I'd like to understand the motive and the antecedent. What does ha-Notzri even mean?)

(B) Was not Toledot Yeshu written too late to be of much interest to us here?

Toledot Yeshu was written in the same timeframe as the gospels, likely as dueling Polemic narratives albeit one full of cheeky gnostic metaphors and the other being full of vinegar, slander, and a good deal of truth as well.

In this model of amalgamism the narratives would be held separate by the sects until the two executions.

At any rate it all becomes a swirling mass of confusion and lies around mid-2nd century.

I expect each of the polemic narratives were building for well on 50 years by the time they were assembled formally into cohesive narratives.

 

[Jarhyn]

*the narratives and sects in question are in particular John and Chrestus.

Unfortunately we lack any distinct narratives of the life and times of John, except perhaps in Mandaen texts, assuming those managed to be preserved.

I have no doubt real people lived to produce the amalgam. I don't even have too much of a problem with... Well, what John taught? Maybe what Chrestus taught either. I think they were both wrong.

The discussion of the unkillable idea and reincarnation lives at the heart of all this.

I expect if this model of Eastern religion was reaching west through these folks, there would be some weird beliefs popping up about that and it would be Important to the narrative.

 

[dbz]

"Christ myth theory". Religion Wiki.

Period	type of literature	type of development
unknown (thousands of years in the past)	imagery of life-death-rebirth deity that sacrifices himself for his followers (outside of time and history and/or in the distant past)	mystery cults develop see Jesus Christ as myth
~200 BCE[121]	Jewish Wisdom literature (proto Q) for example Wisdom of Solomon.	Stories about that Wisdom/Sophia including legends of wisdom having been incarnate (outside of time and history and/or in the distant past)[122]
200 BCE - 70 CE	Hellenistic Judaism (especially Philo of Alexandria) mainstream the notion of emanations of God, in particular Wisdom/Sophia and Logos	Syncretic Judaism forms which makes heavy use of allegory to harmonize Greek and Jewish religion. In particular proto logos Christianity.
50-70 CE[123]	Epistles Pauline Epistles and Epistle to the Hebrews	Messianic literature and savior god get combined. There is no belief in a historical incarnation nor belief in any specific "teachings" outside the literature
90-110 CE[124]	Gospels of Mark and Matthew constructed in essentially modern form.	Wisdom literature teachings get incorporated into midrashic narrative.
106-140 CE[125]	Early church fathers	Logos Christianity. Mixed opinion about salvation and the incarnation.[126] A Christianity exists which is essentially a form of stoicism with its mythology taken primarily from the Septuagint. Most references to the gospels themselves are thought of and written about as being "stories" and "myths"[127]
140-180 CE[128]	anti-heretical literature, apologetics. Form of the New Testament (gospels plus early epistles) is fixed.	Gospels are used in anti-heretical defenses arguing that the Petrine church was specifically ordained by Jesus and thus has unique authority. Supersessionism is increasingly used to justify the fact that Christianity is an ancient religion and thus avoid persecution. Gospels are given tremendous weight and are increasing seen as authoritative. Luke[129] and Acts are written to create an imaginary history for the church in its anti-heresy battles.

This content is like a mosquito preserved in amber!

While at the same time the following content was being added to "Christ myth theory". Wikipedia. 30 December 2009.

• (30 December 2009‎ ) User:Vanished_user_2345 [bytes +749‎] "added another dismissive scholar to the list... who compares the Christ Myth with Holocaust denial; wow, these comparisons are starting to pile up!"

@Politesse , as a snarky commenter on bad arguments, do you have an opinion on conflating Christ Myth with Holocaust denial?

This just in - Julius Caesar never existed.

(Only Romans wrote about him, and they're biased).

Holocaust comparison​

Or, how to scrape the bottom of a barrel in the stupidest way possible.

Comparing the quality of Jesus to that of any major person after the invention of the printing press in the west (1436) is bad enough but when people compare denying Jesus as a historical person to Holocaust denial[326][327][328][329][330][331] they are either ignorant of just how much material evidence there is for the Holocaust or are making a strawman...and simultaneously flirting with Godwin's Law.

For the record there were 3,000 tons of truly contemporary (i.e. between 1938-1945) records presented at the 1945-1946 Nuremberg Trials.[332] The 1958 finding aids (eventually the index to the Holocaust evidence) was 62 volumes--just 4 books shy of the number of books (66) traditionally in the entire Bible! Then between 1958 and 2000 they added another 30 volumes, bringing the total to 92.[333]

It is an emotional argument and a totally unfair one as Jesus to the best of our knowledge never had the quantity or quality of evidence that shows the Holocaust happened.

​

 

[Politesse]

@Politesse , as a snarky commenter on bad arguments, do you have an opinion on conflating Christ Myth with Holocaust denial?

I don't even see what one has to do with the other.

 

[steve_bank]

Stating the obvious.

As to the the Holocaust. There are films, first hand and film accounts by the American soldiers who first entered the camps, newspaper reports and still pictures, bodies and crematoriums left behind by Nazis, and survivors.

As to Jesus there are only a handful hear say accounts with no contemporaneous independent corroboration.

The gospel based Jesus myth sounds like a conflation of multiple events and people put to paper decades after events. That there was a unorthodox Jewish perso-rabbi with followers on which the Jesus myth was fabricated would not be surprisng, but there were many in the long Hebrew history.