yalla

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6743472/...ience-science/

That is the report linked by Orlando in post #66 where the same archaeologist, Yardenna Alexandre, conected to this current house discovery, announced the discovery of, possibly, the same wine jars with which JC performed his miracle at Cana. Or something like that.

Note this bit:
"Alexander has been digging in modern Cana since 1999.

The current find came in a last-ditch "salvage dig" before a house is built on the site. A Christian Arab family financed part of the excavation, in accordance with Israeli law, before construction can begin.

Alexander believes that with more substantial investment, the site could became a major tourist attraction and pilgrimage destination.

"We're really working very hard to save some of this site because what we do have here is a village of Jesus," she said. "And it was here that he carried out the first miracle."

neilgodfrey

Thanks for this. Associated with Yardena Alexandre is several online articles is Dr Stephen Pfann of the University of the Holy Land (the name tells you its ideological bent), and he/it appears to be also associated with the Nazareth Village Project too http://www.uhl.ac/NazarethVillage/nazareth.html

Toto

R. Joseph Hoffmann's Religion 2010 Wish List

ApostateAbe

"You did not find a house in Nazareth and probably not even Nazareth (Show me the city limits sign)."

Right, what you found is a house in a Roman-period village that probably went by a different name, not Nazareth, and it hardly matters that the city that has been there since the third century at the latest is named, "Nazareth." Unless you con artists find a city-limits sign with "Nazareth" written on it or something like that, I won't be convinced that you found a house in Nazareth.

PhilosopherJay

Hi Apostate Abe,

According to another article on the find says this:

According to Andrea Berlin's article "Jewish Life Before the Revolt: The Archaeological Evidence,” in the Journal for the study of Judaism (2005). two
distinctive types of stone vessel jars started to be manufactured in Judea and Galilee. She identifies “squared rim” baggy jars as starting in 100 B.C.E. and dying off in the First century. She identifies “straight rim” jars as starting in 10 B.C.E. and continuing at least until the Bar Kohkba war 140 C.E.

From the description in the article and primarily due to the fact that the archaeologists cannot positively identify the vessels as being post 10 B.C.E., we may presume that the found vessels cannot be the new type, "straight rim" jars manufactured after 10 B.C.E., but they must be the older type "squared rim" jars manufactured starting in 100 B.C.E. This suggests that the vessels belong from the period 100 B.C.E. to the period 10 B.C.E.

Keep in mind that this find is from the top layer and all subsequent finds will be from deeper and older levels. Although we cannot say when the house was built, we can say that it is likely that the house was abandoned some time between 100 B.C.E. and 10 B.C.E.

It seems to me that this new evidence provides the first tangible archaeological proof that no village existed on the site now called Nazareth in the First century C.E.

Naturally, we cannot say that this is proof that Jesus never existed as Nazareth may have been located elsewhere or the name simply made up and applied to the character whether he was historical or not.

Warmly,

Philosopher Jay

ApostateAbe

Philosopher Jay, I know nothing about the jars, but I will accept your premises, and I will accept the argument that the jars are likely to date to the first century BCE. You seem to think that this provides proof that no village existed in the first century CE.

Here is the timeline:

1st century BCE (jars) --> 1st century CE (untrustworthy Christian gospels) --> 4th century CE (Epiphaenius)

So we know that Nazareth existed directly on both sides of the 1st century CE, but no evidence except the gospels for the first century CE, and you take that as PROOF that Nazareth DID NOT EXIST in the first century CE.

Maybe there is something I am missing in your thinking. Do you know what I might be missing? I know that you are a smart guy, but your argument seems to be a real fucking facepalmer, so I think I am missing something vitally important in your argument.

PhilosopherJay

Hi ApostateAbe,

It is reasonable to look at the quality of sources before aligning them. Diverse sources put together can give the impression of continuity where none exists.

For example, the town of Metropolis, Illinois began in 1839. In 1938, comic books appeared showing that Superman lived in a town called Metropolis. In 1972, the Illinois State Legislature passed Resolution 572 declaring Metropolis the Hometown of Superman.

If we take these events and thoughtlessly listed them without estimating the quality of the information each one conveys, then it would be clear that Superman existed in a real town from 1938 to probably sometime before 1972.

1. 1839 Metropolis Illinois Founded
2. 1938, comic book portrays Superman living in Metropolis.
3. 1972, Metropolis Illinoois declared hometown of Superman.

Based on this we can say that if you walked down a street through Metropolis, Illinois in 1938, you would be likely to see Superman.

It is only when we examine the nature of the sources that we see that the evidence does not back such a conclusion.

Likewise we have,

1. 100 B.C.E. - 10 B.C.E. a small two room house, about 900 square feet, exists in an area that may have been called Nazareth, three or four hundred years later.
2. Gospels written between 40 and 200 C.E. describe a city existing between 4 B.C.E. and 40 B.C.E. called Nazareth.
3. Bishop of Cyprus, Epiphaenius, around 370 B.C.E. makes mention of Nazareth as an actually existing place.

Again, here everything fits nicely towards the conclusion that one might have seen Jesus walking through the streets or dirt roads of Nazareth if one had been around in say 20 C.E. It is only when we examine the nature of the source evidence that we find that this conclusion is absurd based on the evidence.

It is really like finding a garden in the Middle East that dates back to 4400 B.C.E. and declaring that the Garden of Eden has been found.

Warmly,

Philosopher Jay

Toto

There is no evidence of Nazareth before the 1st century - there is evidence of an earlier settlement at the place that was later identified as Nazareth, well after the gospels were written.

Does this help?

ApostateAbe

Philosopher Jay, if we were talking about Nazareth being evidence for the historical Jesus, then the analogy would fit, because the existence of Nazareth on both sides of the first century CE is NOT proof that Jesus existed, the same way that the existence of Metropolis in 1839 and 1972 is not evidence of Superman existing in 1938. However, the existence of Metropolis in 1839 and 1972 IS EVIDENCE for METROPOLIS existing in 1938! We are talking about the existence of Nazareth, not the existence of Jesus. If you think that Nazareth (or a town in the same location) existed on both sides of the first century, then the idea that Nazareth did not exist in the first century looks extremely week. Even if Jesus is completely fiction, the gospels' citation of Nazareth existing in Galilee should be taken as a confirmation of the continuity of the town of Nazareth through the first century CE!

ApostateAbe

Yes, I understand, I don't know what the evidence indicates about Nazareth before the first century CE, but I am only accepting the premises of Philosopher Jay. He think that there was no village on the site called Nazareth in the first century CE, but there was such a village in the first century BCE (one century prior).