Freethought & Rationalism Archive

GakuseiDon · 08-11-2012, 06:12 PM

Richard Carrier posted on IIDB (FRDB's predecessor) in 2005 that "there is absolutely no doubt that Nazareth existed in the time of Jesus".

From here (emphasis in the original):
http://www.freeratio.org/thearchives...=59493&page=20

[A]rchaeology has confirmed a stone building in Nazareth of the size and type to be a synagogue, and it dates from the time of Christ. See the entry in the Archaeological Encyclopedia of the Holy Land...

The evidence is insurmountable that there were numerous permanent structures--most of Nazareth's buildings even before the 1st century were partially carved from the rock of the hill, in a manner similar to Pella...

I was able to track down on my own the most extensive report, that of Bagatti (Excavations in Nazareth, vol. 1, 1969), and I looked through all the subsequent reports on Nazareth from Excavations and Surveys in Israel, and this is what I found:

(a) Very little of Nazareth has been excavated, and therefore no argument can be advanced regarding what "wasn't" there in the 1st century.

(b) Archaeological reports confirm that stones and bricks used in earlier buildings in Nazareth were reused in later structures, thus erasing a lot of the evidence. Therefore, it is faulty reasoning to argue that there were no brick or stone structures simply because we have not recovered them from the relevant strata (i.e. one of Hoffman's sources assumed that the absence of this evidence entailed mud-and-thatch housing, but that is fallacious reasoning--especially since no clear evidence of mud-and-thatch housing has been found, either).

(c) One example of the above includes four calcite column bases, which were reused in a later structure, but are themselves dated before the War by their stylistic similarity to synagogues and Roman structures throughout 1st century Judaea, and by the fact that they contain Nabataean lettering (which suggests construction before Jewish priests migrated to Nazareth after the war). This is not iron clad proof of a 1st century synagogue (since the pieces had been moved and thus could not be dated by strata), but it does demonstrate a very high probability--especially since calcite bases are cheap material compared to the more expensive marble of structures archaeologists confirmed started appearing there around a century later, i.e. by the end of the 1st century AD (or early 2nd century at the latest, since marble fragments have been found inscribed in Aramaic that is paleographically dated to this period), and more extensively again in the 3rd century (when a very impressive Jewish synagogue was built there, this time using marble, which was later converted to Christian use).

(d) I confirmed beyond any doubt that Nazareth was built on a hill--more specifically, down the slope of a hill, with a convenient "brow" roughly one city block away from the edge of the ancient town as so-far determined archaeologically. Because the town was built down the slope of a hill, we have found numerous examples of houses, tombs, and storage rooms half cut into the rock of the hill, leaving a diagonal slope for structures to be built up around them to complete the chambers (as I described above). Since these structural elements were so completely removed and apparently reused by later builders, no evidence remains of what they were composed of (whether mud, brick, or stone).

The bottom line: there is absolutely no doubt that Nazareth existed in the time of Jesus.

outhouse · 08-11-2012, 06:20 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Stringbean

The city did not exist on any 1st or 4th century trade route maps.....the Talmud mentions 63 towns, no Nazareth! Paul knows nothing of Nazareth. Josephus mentions some 45 cities and villages in Galilee but says nothing of Nazareth at all. It clearly is another construct by christian scribes to invent a place for their god man to put his sandals.

which is not unusual for very small villages, common actually.

faulty thinking the romans would place their deity from a place they state and label as a dump. also why paul would mention it.

besides we know they created mythology to fill in what they didnt know and to meet OT prophecy to some extent.

they could have used Peters home town if they wanted a neutral site

aa5874 · 08-11-2012, 07:48 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by outhouse

I held the myth position on the town for a while, and fought the lack of evidence, the criteria of embarrassment of Nazareth won me over but more then anything the influx of population as Sepphoris was rebuilt required huge amounts of labor, all of which the Romans were excellent at extorting out of the jewish population. this would be a parallel to the gold rush in California, tens of thousands of people flocked to Sepphoris...

The criteria of embarrassment is NOT evidence. Again, NO City of Nazareth has ever been located by archaeologists.

You have NOT established that the Jesus of Nazareth story was actually written in the 1st century.

No recovered story about Nazareth has been dated to the 1st century and at the time of Pilate.

The Jesus of Nazareth story is from the 2nd century based on actual recovered dated Texts.

See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of...stament_papyri

You MUST provide Credible sources of antiquity for your claims and you cannot.

It is just absurd that there was a CITY called Nazareth and NONE of the vilages and towns of the CITY of Nazareth were ever mentioned at all.

Even most absurd, Jesus the Son of the Ghost, supposedly lived there for 30 years and did NOTHING in the CITY called Nazareth.

Dave31 · 04-24-2013, 04:04 PM

So, does Richard Carrier still stand by all of his comment below? What are his thoughts on the chapters about Nazareth in the new book response to Bart Ehrman by Frank Zindler, Rene Salm and D.M. Murdock/Acharya S?

Either way, will Carrier address the issue of Nazareth in his forth coming book about Jesus?

Quote:

Originally Posted by GakuseiDon

Richard Carrier posted on IIDB (FRDB's predecessor) in 2005 that "there is absolutely no doubt that Nazareth existed in the time of Jesus".

From here (emphasis in the original):
http://www.freeratio.org/thearchives...=59493&page=20

[A]rchaeology has confirmed a stone building in Nazareth of the size and type to be a synagogue, and it dates from the time of Christ. See the entry in the Archaeological Encyclopedia of the Holy Land...

The evidence is insurmountable that there were numerous permanent structures--most of Nazareth's buildings even before the 1st century were partially carved from the rock of the hill, in a manner similar to Pella...

I was able to track down on my own the most extensive report, that of Bagatti (Excavations in Nazareth, vol. 1, 1969), and I looked through all the subsequent reports on Nazareth from Excavations and Surveys in Israel, and this is what I found:

(a) Very little of Nazareth has been excavated, and therefore no argument can be advanced regarding what "wasn't" there in the 1st century.

(b) Archaeological reports confirm that stones and bricks used in earlier buildings in Nazareth were reused in later structures, thus erasing a lot of the evidence. Therefore, it is faulty reasoning to argue that there were no brick or stone structures simply because we have not recovered them from the relevant strata (i.e. one of Hoffman's sources assumed that the absence of this evidence entailed mud-and-thatch housing, but that is fallacious reasoning--especially since no clear evidence of mud-and-thatch housing has been found, either).

(c) One example of the above includes four calcite column bases, which were reused in a later structure, but are themselves dated before the War by their stylistic similarity to synagogues and Roman structures throughout 1st century Judaea, and by the fact that they contain Nabataean lettering (which suggests construction before Jewish priests migrated to Nazareth after the war). This is not iron clad proof of a 1st century synagogue (since the pieces had been moved and thus could not be dated by strata), but it does demonstrate a very high probability--especially since calcite bases are cheap material compared to the more expensive marble of structures archaeologists confirmed started appearing there around a century later, i.e. by the end of the 1st century AD (or early 2nd century at the latest, since marble fragments have been found inscribed in Aramaic that is paleographically dated to this period), and more extensively again in the 3rd century (when a very impressive Jewish synagogue was built there, this time using marble, which was later converted to Christian use).

(d) I confirmed beyond any doubt that Nazareth was built on a hill--more specifically, down the slope of a hill, with a convenient "brow" roughly one city block away from the edge of the ancient town as so-far determined archaeologically. Because the town was built down the slope of a hill, we have found numerous examples of houses, tombs, and storage rooms half cut into the rock of the hill, leaving a diagonal slope for structures to be built up around them to complete the chambers (as I described above). Since these structural elements were so completely removed and apparently reused by later builders, no evidence remains of what they were composed of (whether mud, brick, or stone).

The bottom line: there is absolutely no doubt that Nazareth existed in the time of Jesus.

Toto · 04-24-2013, 04:56 PM

I don't need GDon to be resurrected.

What Carrier has said in the past is that the question of whether Nazareth existed is not a key fact in the question of whether Jesus existed. Nazareth might have existed, but Jesus was a myth; conversely, Nazareth could be a myth but there was a historical person at the root of the stories about Jesus.

Stringbean · 04-24-2013, 05:11 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by outhouse

and this sums it up

http://vridar.wordpress.com/2012/03/...salms-website/

1.Which René Salm are we talking about here?

Is it René Salm, internationally renowned historian with impeccable qualifications in the relevant field, decades of academic experience and a mountain of credibility?

Or is it René Salm, amateur atheist blogger, mythicist and conspiracy theorist with no qualifications in any relevant field, who believes the film ‘Agora’ was a scrupulously accurate tour de force of historical reconstruction?

I think we know the answer!

How come you did not link to Comedy Central? Vridar? Good blog if you agree with him if you don't your post never see the light of day.

Dave31 · 04-24-2013, 08:33 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

I don't need GDon to be resurrected.

What Carrier has said in the past is that the question of whether Nazareth existed is not a key fact in the question of whether Jesus existed. Nazareth might have existed, but Jesus was a myth; conversely, Nazareth could be a myth but there was a historical person at the root of the stories about Jesus.

RE: GD, ok, my bad, I didn't know. I was just trying to find out what Carrier thought about those chapters on Nazareth in the new book and if he will be addressing Nazareth in his new forth coming book? Otherwise, your comment sounds like basic common sense.

Dave31 · 04-24-2013, 08:36 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Stringbean

How come you did not link to Comedy Central? Vridar? Good blog if you agree with him if you don't your post never see the light of day.

Stringbean, that ain't no lie. Or, he'll post it and then proceed to insult and abuse you and then, refuse to put a response through after that. His blog so, he always wins even when he's wrong.

outhouse · 04-24-2013, 08:49 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Stringbean

Quote:

Originally Posted by outhouse

and this sums it up

http://vridar.wordpress.com/2012/03/...salms-website/

1.Which René Salm are we talking about here?

Is it René Salm, internationally renowned historian with impeccable qualifications in the relevant field, decades of academic experience and a mountain of credibility?

Or is it René Salm, amateur atheist blogger, mythicist and conspiracy theorist with no qualifications in any relevant field, who believes the film ‘Agora’ was a scrupulously accurate tour de force of historical reconstruction?

I think we know the answer!

How come you did not link to Comedy Central? Vridar? Good blog if you agree with him if you don't your post never see the light of day.

I wont post there.

It was just a search on Salm reviews and it popped up, my bad.

Most scholars ignore him so there isn't much out there, I took whatever cheap shot I could find. I dislike Salm.

Stringbean · 04-25-2013, 03:11 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by outhouse

Quote:

Originally Posted by Stringbean

How come you did not link to Comedy Central? Vridar? Good blog if you agree with him if you don't your post never see the light of day.

I wont post there.

It was just a search on Salm reviews and it popped up, my bad.

Most scholars ignore him so there isn't much out there, I took whatever cheap shot I could find. I dislike Salm.

Got it.

Quote:

I took whatever cheap shot I could find.

:thumbs:

08-11-2012, 06:12 PM	#41
GakuseiDon Veteran Member Join Date: Apr 2003 Location: Australia Posts: 5,714	Richard Carrier posted on IIDB (FRDB's predecessor) in 2005 that "there is absolutely no doubt that Nazareth existed in the time of Jesus". From here (emphasis in the original): http://www.freeratio.org/thearchives...=59493&page=20 [A]rchaeology has confirmed a stone building in Nazareth of the size and type to be a synagogue, and it dates from the time of Christ. See the entry in the Archaeological Encyclopedia of the Holy Land... The evidence is insurmountable that there were numerous permanent structures--most of Nazareth's buildings even before the 1st century were partially carved from the rock of the hill, in a manner similar to Pella... I was able to track down on my own the most extensive report, that of Bagatti (Excavations in Nazareth, vol. 1, 1969), and I looked through all the subsequent reports on Nazareth from Excavations and Surveys in Israel, and this is what I found: (a) Very little of Nazareth has been excavated, and therefore no argument can be advanced regarding what "wasn't" there in the 1st century. (b) Archaeological reports confirm that stones and bricks used in earlier buildings in Nazareth were reused in later structures, thus erasing a lot of the evidence. Therefore, it is faulty reasoning to argue that there were no brick or stone structures simply because we have not recovered them from the relevant strata (i.e. one of Hoffman's sources assumed that the absence of this evidence entailed mud-and-thatch housing, but that is fallacious reasoning--especially since no clear evidence of mud-and-thatch housing has been found, either). (c) One example of the above includes four calcite column bases, which were reused in a later structure, but are themselves dated before the War by their stylistic similarity to synagogues and Roman structures throughout 1st century Judaea, and by the fact that they contain Nabataean lettering (which suggests construction before Jewish priests migrated to Nazareth after the war). This is not iron clad proof of a 1st century synagogue (since the pieces had been moved and thus could not be dated by strata), but it does demonstrate a very high probability--especially since calcite bases are cheap material compared to the more expensive marble of structures archaeologists confirmed started appearing there around a century later, i.e. by the end of the 1st century AD (or early 2nd century at the latest, since marble fragments have been found inscribed in Aramaic that is paleographically dated to this period), and more extensively again in the 3rd century (when a very impressive Jewish synagogue was built there, this time using marble, which was later converted to Christian use). (d) I confirmed beyond any doubt that Nazareth was built on a hill--more specifically, down the slope of a hill, with a convenient "brow" roughly one city block away from the edge of the ancient town as so-far determined archaeologically. Because the town was built down the slope of a hill, we have found numerous examples of houses, tombs, and storage rooms half cut into the rock of the hill, leaving a diagonal slope for structures to be built up around them to complete the chambers (as I described above). Since these structural elements were so completely removed and apparently reused by later builders, no evidence remains of what they were composed of (whether mud, brick, or stone). The bottom line: there is absolutely no doubt that Nazareth existed in the time of Jesus.

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

04-24-2013, 04:56 PM	#45
Toto Contributor Join Date: Jun 2000 Location: Los Angeles area Posts: 40,549	I don't need GDon to be resurrected. What Carrier has said in the past is that the question of whether Nazareth existed is not a key fact in the question of whether Jesus existed. Nazareth might have existed, but Jesus was a myth; conversely, Nazareth could be a myth but there was a historical person at the root of the stories about Jesus.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.