"Jesus of Nathareth" Moniker Known ONLY in NT

[seg]

Hi All, SEG here, I'm a newbie to this forum. I have noticed that throughout the threads about the Jesus Myth, members are referring to a "Jesus" or a "Christ". There have been lots of people known as Jesus, Christ, Messiah, Lord etc, but there was only one Jesus of Nazareth character. It seems to be the most rational and secular name for the "Historical" Jesus of the NT. He even calls himself that in Acts 22:8

New International Version

8 “‘Who are you, Lord?’ I asked.



“ ‘I am Jesus of Nazareth, whom you are persecuting,’ he replied."



Yet, apart from the NT, no-one mentions the moniker "Jesus of Nazareth" for at least 1,000 years after his supposed death. Not even Josephus or Tacitus mentions this moniker! I realise that this is an Argument from Silence, but it's a very strong argument from Silence.

[ydoethur]

I am not seeing this ‘argument from silence’ you posit. Surely the key thing for the ancient writers who mention Jesus is that his followers believed he was the Messiah, ‘Kristos?’ Therefore, it would be logical to refer to him by that name so people knew who they were talking about.

To give you a more recent example, one of the most influential politicians of the 20th century was Ioseb Besarionis dzе Jughashvili. This man was a politician, diplomat, soldier, thinker, made huge changes to the international economy, was a crucial figure in the Second World War and the early part of the Cold War, and did huge amounts of environmental damage that may never be repaired.

But have you heard of him? I’m guessing not. Because nobody ever calls him that. They call him by his nickname - Stalin - instead. To the extent that everyone uses it because otherwise nobody would know who they were talking about.

A similar case could be made for the leading British politician and journalist, Alex Johnson. Have you heard of him? Probably not. But you’ve likely heard of ‘Boris.’ Even though that’s not the name his friends and family use.

Far from being an argument from silence, the mere fact that in the New Testament people close to Jesus referred to him as being a Nazarene, despite the ancient prophecies that the Messiah would come from Bethlehem, is a strong argument that they were referring to a real person.

[ignorantianescia]

Jan 2, 2021 0:59:48 GMT seg said:

Yet, apart from the NT, no-one mentions the moniker "Jesus of Nazareth" for at least 1,000 years after his supposed death. Not even Josephus or Tacitus mentions this moniker! I realise that this is an Argument from Silence, but it's a very strong argument from Silence.

The Christ of the Creator had to be called a Nazarene according to prophecy; whence the Jews also designate us, on that very account, Nazerenes after Him. For we are they of whom it is written, "Her Nazarites were whiter than snow;" even they who were once defiled with the stains of sin, and darkened with the clouds of ignorance. But to Christ the title Nazarene was destined to become a suitable one, from the hiding-place of His infancy, for which He went down and dwelt at Nazareth, to escape from Archelaus the son of Herod.

From www.newadvent.org/fathers/03124.htm

Whether the exact monicker is used or not is immaterial. There are clear subsequent ancient references to Jesus as a Nazarene, even though he was universally believed to be from Bethlehem.

[okieinnormanok]

"Jesus" is a personal name (popular name, related to Joshua) was a common name in first century Israel. "Christ" (means messiah) and "Messiah" are names with unique religious end-times significance, for the prophesied great king to come after David. A few rebellions were held in the first century by the very few who claimed those end times significant titles. Biblical Archeology Review article :

"Did Jesus Exist? Searching for Evidence Beyond the Bible
Lawrence Mykytiuk’s feature article from the January/February 2015 issue of BAR with voluminous endnotes"

www.biblicalarchaeology.org/daily/people-cultures-in-the-bible/jesus-historical-jesus/did-jesus-exist/

the BAR article mentions references Tacitus (2nd century AD) where "Chrestos" is the name, the roman author could think this is a personal name and is ignorant of the uniquely jewish end-time meaning. This reference doesn't leave much ambiguity

"Therefore, to put down the rumor, Nero substituted as culprits and punished in the most unusual ways those hated for their shameful acts … whom the crowd called “Chrestians.” The founder of this name, Christ [Christus in Latin], had been executed in the reign of Tiberius by the procurator Pontius Pilate … Suppressed for a time, the deadly superstition erupted again not only in Judea, "

To find a reference to this Jewish person from Nazareth, Jesus, in an extra-biblical references would seem to provide reasonable proof of the existence of the historical person Jesus Christ. Many references to classical personalities are known with very much less evidence than these.
the existence of the above classical persons can be disproved equally by these arguments applied to Jesus.

[okieinnormanok]

re: to post above, dated jan 5, 2022

so one article has at least 9 separate extra-biblical references, similar to Mykytiuk above

coldcasechristianity.com/writings/is-there-any-evidence-for-jesus-outside-the-bible/

Attachments:

[okieinnormanok]

discusses the two words. One, Hebrew word "Messiah" and the other, a Greek word "Christ". In the Jewish translation of the old testament, Septuagint(LXX) 250 BC, from Hebrew to Greek. the Hebrew word "messiah" (anointed with oil person of authority: priest, king, prophet) is translated as the Greek word "Christ" (anointed person).  As an aside, either term, like Christ is a title, while "Jesus" is a personal name.

considerthegospel.org/2013/02/17/where-does-the-christ-in-jesus-christ-come-from/