Yes. Hitchens didn’t know the actual facts underlying that. In truth the Nazarene origin also came from scripture. And does not appear to have originally meant someone from Nazareth, either. The evidence suggests it got projected onto that as an aetiological myth, possibly by the composer of the first Gospel a lifetime after the fact. I discuss this most fully in Proving History (see index, “Nazareth”), but more (e.g. in respect to the manuscript evidence) in On the Historicity of Jesus (likewise).

I remember Christopher Hitchens saying that the fraudulence of moving the birth of the Nazarene to Bethlehem in the gospels did indicate to him the idea of some kind of charismatic preacher-figure from Nazareth. If invented, there was no reason to introduce the concept of the Nazarene — the Jesus could simply have been born in Bethlehem.

Have your writings ever addressed this question?

While the historicity of Jesus is a legitimate academic question, your presentation has the dual purpose of debunking the divinity of any such charismatic preacher as well.

I’m sure you’re more than aware that this statement is intended to bolster his theology against that of the likes of the Catholic church, whom are indirectly accused of deviations in this quote:

“[T]he church began to heavily engage in this type of behaviour in the 2nd and 3rd centuries, they became inconsistent with dogma revealed in the accepted canon.”

Therefore, he can reassure both himself, and the flock who hand over the money, that their sect has rediscovered the pristine, unvarnished, original Truth and are, by extension, the guardians of it.

At least he’s attempted to intellectually engage with your paper, rather than just resort to Presuppositionalism, but as someone currently reading your ‘Historicity’ book (and impressed by your corpus of evidence), I know it’s going to take more than that to refute your theory.

It’s a massive word wall already refuted by the article it claims to rebut.

But please quote to me any arguments in it you think aren’t already refuted in my article it’s about and thus warrant a reply.