Richard Carrier - The Hero Savior Analogy

[The Grand Nudger]

I see no reason to move past this.  The narrative in question, which is -about- jesus, is a narrative about a man with no face, and no mannerisms.  It's actually quite an anomaly.   You know why mythicists think this is, but why do you think this is?

How does what he looked like fit into the intentions of the writing (I'm assuming that this is speaking of Paul's letters to the Romans).

What were the intentions of the writing?

Should I assume that if a writing about someone does not mention what their face looked like, that they did not have a face?   That does not follow, and is ridiculous.  Where else do you employ this principle?

I'm not asking you to assume any such thing, no one is.   I'm asking why, you think, that much would be written about a man but not even -accidentally- or unconsciously include a single descriptive trait or defining mannerism?  What sort of man does or is such a man, how does it fit, either in the case of the proposed author or of the proposed historical subject? If the narrative doesn't include the details -of a man-..then is it even about a man? In what sense? Since it doesn\'t include those details..of what value is it to anyone searching for a historical jesus? What, in the narrative in question, do you take to be historical rather than legendary or mythical?