The Historical Reliability of the New Testament

[TimOneill]

Appeal to motivation. We have no idea why including this detail may have been so important, I don't see why it indicates it is true.

Incorrect default position (in my opinion). The sceptical approach is not to believe anything without good reason.

That is not remotely like an "appeal to motive".  And I didn't say we know why the detail may be important, I simply noted that the idea that he was said to be from Nazareth because he was from Nazareth is the most parsimonious read of the text.  Any others depend on strings of suppositions invoked purely to make this element in the story go away, and for no other, valid reason.  Other than the fact it weakens the Jesus Myth thesis.

And no, "may not have existed" is most definitely not the default position.  In most cases in an ancient source, when someone is mentioned, it's because they existed.  Only in a tiny handful of cases do we have someone mentioned who may or probably did not.  So the default position is that, if someone is mentioned in a source, they most likely existed, unless we have some evidence-based indication they did not.  To immediately assume, as a default position, that everyone and anyone who is mentioned in a source "may not have existed" is patently absurd.

---

"Wow.... I didn't know we had a TimOneil around here, too!

Welcome!

Thanks.  But it's actually "O'Neill"

A catholic guy was just saying on another thread you debunked the possibility that part of the canonical life of jesus was... borrowed... from the Teacher of righteous described in the Dead sea scrolls.

I'm not sure what he's referring to, but I can't say this is something that can be "debunked".  Though I would say that any parallels between Jesus and the ToR from the Scrolls are pretty vague and most likely explained by the fact they were both Jews and both sect leaders.  I can't actually think of any specific parallels between them at all and can think of many significant differences between their respective sects.  So the idea that one is derived from the other is pretty weak.

He seems to think very highly of your knowledge of the ancient world, so I guess you are some sort of authority on the matter, huh?"

I've never claimed to be anything other than a reasonably well-read amateur.

In my ignorance, all I got going for the "claim of borrowing" is the wiki article on the teacher where a guy named Wise claims that the scrolls present a picture of a messiah that rattled the established religious leaders and got crucified as a result... there's also a mentioning that his followers expected that "the Teacher would return to judge the wicked and lead the righteous into a golden age, and that it would take place within the next forty years." This return never happened, obviously... but it is reminiscent of how christians are waiting for their messiah to return... at first, it would be within their lifetimes (close to the 40 years).... then it became "soon"... it's been "soon" for 2000 years, and counting.

I know of no evidence at all that the ToR was "crucified".  There is nothing in the Scrolls material that says anything about his death, let alone him being killed.  So this Wise guy is drawing a long bow.

How does your scholarship on the subject analyze this possibility of borrowing of a theme?

See above.  The game of "parallels = derivation" is usually not worth playing.