FRDB Archives

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.


Go Back   FRDB Archives > Archives > Biblical Criticism - 2001
Welcome, Peter Kirby.
You last visited: Today at 05:55 AM

Notices

 
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old 05-06-2001, 11:07 PM   #151
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Post

LP

Since you have bought Doherty's arguments hook line and sinker, there is little point in dupicating my efforts by continuing this particular discussion with you. What I would like to know, however, is which scholars have you read that present arguments against Doherty? Have you read any of them, and who are they please?

Thanks,

Nomad
 
Old 05-07-2001, 11:26 AM   #152
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Post

Regarding the Nazareth question, Frank Zindler addresses it in his article Where Jesus Never Walked
 
Old 05-09-2001, 12:14 PM   #153
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Post

Quote:
<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Originally posted by britinusa:
Regarding the Nazareth question, Frank Zindler addresses it in his article Where Jesus Never Walked </font>
Hi brit

Sadly Frank hasn't been keeping up with recent archealogy. From my thread on Common Sceptic Myths (and also Was there a Nazareth in Jesus' time?)

1. Myth: Nazareth is an invention of the Gospels, and never actually existed until Constantine had the town built in the 4th Century AD.

Truth: I don’t know where this one got started, but it is a remarkably persistent myth. Archeological discovers have already debunked it.

"Despite Nazareth's obscurity (which had led some critics to suggest that it was a relatively recent foundation), archeology indicates that the village has been occupied since the 7th century B.C., although it may have experienced a 'refounding' in the 2d century b.c. "
( John P. Meier, A Marginal Jew--Rethinking the Historical Jesus, (vol 1), p.300-301...cites Meyers and Strange, Archeology, the Rabbis, and Early Christianity, Abingdon:1981. pp.56-57)

"Despite the Hellenization of the general region and the probability that Greek was known to many people it seems likely that Nazareth remained a conservative Jewish village. After the Jewish war with the Romans from AD 66-70 it was necessary to re-settle Jewish priests and their families. Such groups would only settle in unmixed towns, that is towns without Gentile inhabitants. According to an inscription discovered in 1962 in Caesarea Maritima the priests of the order of Elkalir made their home in Nazareth. This, by the way, is the sole known reference to Nazareth in antiquity, apart from written Christian sources...
Some scholars had even believed that Nazareth was a fictitious invention of the early Christians; the inscription from Caesarea Maritima proves otherwise."
( Paul Barnett, Behind the Scenes of the New Testament, p.42)


At least I now know where this persistent myth comes from. Perhaps someone could update Zindler and he could print a retraction.

Nomad
 
Old 05-09-2001, 02:07 PM   #154
Toto
Contributor
 
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: Los Angeles area
Posts: 40,549
Post

Zindler shows, based on internal evidence from the Bible and from archeology, that the current site of Nazareth could not be the Nazareth mentioned in the Bible. He cites archeological evidence that the current Nazareth was a necropolis, or burial ground, until after 135 C.E. I don't know how well your single inscription claiming that some priests were located in Nazareth at some earlier date stacks up against this evidence. That's what makes history such fun.

Zindler holds that "Jesus of Nazareth" was originally "Yeshua Netser" meaning Jesus of the Branch (of Jesse), and that this turned into Jesus of Nazareth, another intriguing idea.
Toto is offline  
Old 05-09-2001, 03:16 PM   #155
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Post

Toto, did you read my posts in the thread that Nomad linked to?

There are many scholars that know about these "graveyards" and believe that they formed the boundaries of ancient Nazareth. I can provide more quotes if necessary. Zindler's arguments are not very good, frankly.

Quote:
<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Zindler:
Mark, unlike the later gospels, mentions Nazareth only once; in chapter 1, verse 9, which tells us that "Jesus came from Nazareth of Galilee." It is of more than a little interest to learn that scholars suspect this verse to be a later addition just like the last twelve verses of the gospel. If this is true -- and I am quite certain that it is 2 -- this leaves the oldest gospel without any knowledge of a place called Nazareth.</font>
This is just plain wrong. I challenge anyone here to produce a textual variant in this particular part of the extant MSS. It ain't there. If any scholars think this then they are going against the evidence. Plus, here is yet another who never gives a reference to the scholar's that supposedly back up his claim. Who are they? Why do they believe this? Why did he not include this information?

Zindler also makes bold claims about the lack of archaeological evidence. I quoted sources that contradict this. Who are his sources?

Is Zindler's work really worth a formal rebuttal, or can it simply be seen for the anti-Christian polemic that it is?

Ish


[This message has been edited by Ish (edited May 09, 2001).]
 
Old 05-09-2001, 03:56 PM   #156
Toto
Contributor
 
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: Los Angeles area
Posts: 40,549
Post

Quote:
<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Originally posted by Ish:
Toto, did you read my posts in the thread that Nomad linked to?
</font>
I just went backed and skimmed for them. I didn't find anything that refutes Zindler's arguments. Your point?

Quote:
<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">
There are many scholars that know about these "graveyards" and believe that they formed the boundaries of ancient Nazareth. I can provide more quotes if necessary. Zindler's arguments are not very good, frankly.
</font>
Zindler's arguments were that Jews would not live in a necropolis, or close to graveyards. He also argues that the site is not the hill described in the Bible. He has other arguments from history, that you probably would dismiss on some grounds or another. But just saying that they are "not very good" doesn't speak well of your ability to rebut them.

--
imbedded quote deleted by UBB
--
Quote:
<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">. . .
Is Zindler's work really worth a formal rebuttal, or can it simply be seen for the anti-Christian polemic that it is?
Quote:
</font>
Well, since it was published by American Atheists, it could probably be classified as anti-Christian, or at least anti-fundamentalist. But it does list the sort of detail and evidence from geography and the Bible that you might want to take seriously, since everyone reading this can go to Zindler's article and judge for themselves how persuasive it is.

Zindler's article is well-written and entertaining, which increases the probability that people will remember it. Throwing a few random quotes at it from Christian sources will probably not be enought to rebut it.
Toto is offline  
Old 05-09-2001, 11:28 PM   #157
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Post

Quote:
<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Toto:
I just went backed and skimmed for them. I didn't find anything that refutes Zindler's arguments. Your point?</font>
The archaeological information that I presented contradicts Zindler's notion that Nazareth did not exist. There is archaeological evidence dating to the time of Jesus and well before.

Quote:
<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Toto:
Zindler's arguments were that Jews would not live in a necropolis, or close to graveyards.</font>
"The location of twenty-three tombs several hundred yards to the north, west, and south of the Annunciation Church indicates the limits of the town [Nazareth] during the Hellenistic and Roman periods, for tombs were built outside towns." (Archaeology and the New Testament, John McRay, p.158, 1997)

"Twenty-three tombs have also been found, most of them at a distance of something like 250 to 750 yards from Church of the Annunciation to the north, the west, and the south. Since these must have been outside of the village proper, their placement gives some idea of the limits of the settlement." (The Archaeology of the New Testament, Jack Finegan, p. 46, 1992)

Quote:
<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Toto:
He also argues that the site is not the hill described in the Bible.</font>
"The town of Nazareth...is in the hills of Galilee at an elevation of 1,150 feet. From the heights there is a view south across the Plain of Esdraelon, west to Mount Carmel, east to Mount Tabor, and north to Mount Hermon." (TAONT, Finegan, p. 43)

Quote:
<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Toto:
He has other arguments from history, that you probably would dismiss on some grounds or another.</font>
You're right. The grounds are that they are unsupported by modern archaeology.

By the way, his stuff on Capernaum also displays a lack of archaeological knowledge, not to mention the silly spin that he put on the translation of the name Capernaum.

If this isn't enough archaeological data, then how about a statement and link to a group that is currently excavating in Nazareth?

"We learned from these terraces the long history of the terrace farm at Nazareth Village. Pottery was found from the 2nd cent. BCE to the 4th cent. CE (as well as more recent material from the 11th to the 12 cent. CE and the modern period). Local residents remember beans, lentils and carobs being harvested only decades ago."(Center for the Study of Early Christianity (CSEC))

Quote:
<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Toto:
But just saying that they are "not very good" doesn't speak well of your ability to rebut them.</font>
Or it speaks of my annoyance at an author who tries his hardest to spin real biblical cities into myth. Taking too much time to attempt a refutation of this junk is waste. Besides, you didn't seem to notice my rebuttal of his erroneous comment on Mark 1:9? Why should I take any more time if you won't look at the evidence for yourself?

Please tell me you don't take someone seriously who goes over several cities in the New Testament and tells you they're all a work of fiction... Give me a break. Look into some real archaeologists in this area of the world. For starters, try Bellarmino Baggati.

Quote:
<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Toto:
But it does list the sort of detail and evidence from geography and the Bible that you might want to take seriously...</font>
With no references to back up his claims? You can take it seriously if you want to...

Quote:
<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Toto:
Throwing a few random quotes at it from Christian sources will probably not be enought to rebut it.</font>
I only want solid scholarship, not Christian or non-Christian bias. I can only guess at Zindler's credentials, but I know Jack Finegan's. Finegan earned his PhD from Kaiser Wilhelm University in Berlin and served as Professor of New Testament History and Archeology from 1946-1975 at the Pacific School of Religion. He was Dean of the Summer Session from 1949-1973 and Director of the Palestine Institute of Archeology from 1946-1975. He was Professor Emeritus as PSR and worked until he died, I believe last year. He wrote a lot of books, many of which are considered classics such as his Handbook of Biblical Chronology. With this kind of experience, I think Finegan should be given much more credit than you afford him by the above statement.

I sincerely hope you can shake off Zindler's propaganda...

Ish


[This message has been edited by Ish (edited May 10, 2001).]
 
Old 05-10-2001, 01:03 AM   #158
Toto
Contributor
 
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: Los Angeles area
Posts: 40,549
Post

Quote:
<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Originally posted by Ish:

The archaeological information that I presented contradicts Zindler's notion that Nazareth did not exist. There is archaeological evidence dating to the time of Jesus and well before
</font>
Zindler clearly states that there is archeological evidence, but that it is evidence of graves. All of your quotes also relate to graves. The two of you are making different interpretations of the same evidence. Zindler indicates that these graves probably related to a neighboring town that is mentioned in contemporary sources.

Quote:
<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">
"The town of Nazareth...is in the hills of Galilee at an elevation of 1,150 feet. From the heights there is a view south across the Plain of Esdraelon, west to Mount Carmel, east to Mount Tabor, and north to Mount Hermon." (TAONT, Finegan, p. 43)
</font>
Zindler indicates that this is the modern location, different from the recent past. Since I haven't been there, I can't say.

Quote:
<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">
Or it speaks of my annoyance at an author who tries his hardest to spin real biblical cities into myth. Taking too much time to attempt a refutation of this junk is waste. Besides, you didn't seem to notice my rebuttal of his erroneous comment on Mark 1:9? Why should I take any more time if you won't look at the evidence for yourself?
</font>
You did not rebut Zindler's comment on Mark 1:9 - you just gave me your opinion that it was junk. And since interpreting the Bible is such a matter of guesswork, I don't see how anyone can "rebut" any interpretation of the Bible.

Zindler is evidently a science writer, and is writing for a popular audience. He perhaps should have put in more footnotes, but I have read in other sources that Nazareth was not an inhabited city at the time of Jesus. I will look around for something more definitive.

I know that there are biblical archeologists who will not find anything that contradicts the Bible because of their ideological blinders, so I take all archeology that supports the Bible with a grain of salt. You may be right, but you haven't proved it yet.
Toto is offline  
Old 05-10-2001, 06:46 AM   #159
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Post

Quote:
<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Toto:
Zindler clearly states that there is archeological evidence, but that it is evidence of graves. All of your quotes also relate to graves.</font>
Toto, I'm baffled as to how you can still defend Zindler's article. All of my quotes did not refer to graves as you say. Only some of them did. And the dates of those "graveyard" discoveries point toward a Nazareth during Jesus' time and even before. You keep ignoring me when I say this, but the evidence is in direct opposition to what Zindler states. Again, Zindler says there is no evidence for a Nazareth during Jesus' time, but qualified archaeologists say there is. It just seems you're twisting things now (perhaps just to keep a nonsense debate going?). What kind of "proof" do you want?! I even gave you the website of the people who are actually digging in Nazareth...

Quote:
<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Toto:
You did not rebut Zindler's comment on Mark 1:9 - you just gave me your opinion that it was junk. And since interpreting the Bible is such a matter of guesswork, I don't see how anyone can "rebut" any interpretation of the Bible.</font>
Fair enough, since I only challenged others to show me where there were any textual variants in this verse. Again, Zindler claims that "scholars suspect this verse [Mark 1:9] to be a later addition", but he doesn't produce the scholars or their works. Now, neither the UBS4 nor the NA27 make mention of any textual variant in this verse among all the MSS found to date. Prominent textual critics such as Bruce Metzger and Kurt and Barbara Aland make absolutely no mention of this verse as even remotely spurious. (Textual Commentary on the New Testament / The Text of the New Testament - Bruce Metzger, The Text of the New Testment - different book by Kurt and Barbara Aland) This evidence pretty much destroys Zindler's theory about Mark 1:9 because there is absolutely no evidence to back up his claims. He doesn't even let us know who his scholars are... Common' Toto... You just liked the article because of the Oz stuff, didn't you... Oz, Dorothy, Toto...

Quote:
<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Toto:
Zindler is evidently a science writer, and is writing for a popular audience. He perhaps should have put in more footnotes</font>
If people are going to take his work at face value even though it is wrong, then he is doing a diservice to you and many others.

Quote:
<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Toto:
...but I have read in other sources that Nazareth was not an inhabited city at the time of Jesus. I will look around for something more definitive.</font>
Please do look. If you look at specific, respectable archaeologists that have worked in the area, I think you'll come to a different conclusion that Zindler as well.

Quote:
<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Toto:
I know that there are biblical archeologists who will not find anything that contradicts the Bible because of their ideological blinders, so I take all archeology that supports the Bible with a grain of salt.</font>
As well you should, but don't take the word of someone like Zindler. If you follow suit and claim that Nazareth didn't exist, then at least back up your claim with scholars from the appropriate fields.

Quote:
<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Toto:
You may be right, but you haven't proved it yet.</font>
Then I think you demand too much. I feel that I have shown evidence from reputable scholars and sources. If you don't believe them, then who or what will you believe? If you only want to find something wrong with the Bible, then I don't imagine I'll convince you despite the obvious evidence...

Ish


[This message has been edited by Ish (edited May 10, 2001).]
 
Old 05-10-2001, 08:29 AM   #160
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Post

"Areas A, B and C in summary The valley along with its slopes likely comprises the property of a single familyıs farm which
produced a variety of crops. This includes areas A, B and C. The center of the farm should be identified with the
watchtowers, the terraces and the water dispersement system. Most of the extent of the original farm is therefore almost
entirely preserved. This farm remains the most important, and perhaps the only, witness to the life and livelihoods of the
ancient Nazarenes. It remains today as the last vestiges of virgin farmland directly connected with the ancient village of
Nazareth."

Note that this is a farm belonging to a single family, no temple, no public meeting place in fact no village. i.e the archeological evidence consists of a small farm about a mile from the nearest town (or village) occupied from 200 BCE until some unknown time when it suddenly becomes occupied by a bunch of priests sometime after 70 CE (or possibly 135 CE depending on which Roman purge we are talikng about) and from then on is built up into a village.

How do we know what this farm was called? (shit I'll be generous and call it a commune after 70AD) Could it have been named by the priests themselves as a misunderstanding of JC's origins?

Amen-Moses


 
 

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -8. The time now is 12:41 PM.

Top

This custom BB emulates vBulletin® Version 3.8.2
Copyright ©2000 - 2015, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.