Freethought & Rationalism Archive

andrewcriddle · 06-11-2013, 12:20 PM

The Synagogue inscription from Caesarea (See Nazareth... ) is strong support for a pre-Constantinian Nazareth.

Andrew Criddle

Toto · 06-11-2013, 12:32 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by andrewcriddle

The Synagogue inscription from Caesarea (See Nazareth... ) is strong support for a pre-Constantinian Nazareth.

Andrew Criddle

True, but not necessarily a pre-30 CE Nazareth.

Rene Salm will be publishing a paper on his website that argues that this inscription is a forgery.

Is the Caesarea inscription a forgery?

Quote:

I will soon be uploading to this website/blog an article on the Caesarea inscription which was published in the 2010 Cahier of the Cercle Ernest Renan, .... Enrico Tuccinardi, the article’s author, and myself have been in communication for the last several weeks. With his permission I have translated his article from French into English and in a few days will begin publishing it on this blog in a series of posts. After uploading the final segment, I will also make the English version available in a single PDF.

You may be aware that the Caesarea inscription has recently received some discussion in mythicist circles. The issue was raised by Richard Carrier in his wrong-footed and very cutting review (part 2 of 3) of the recent mythicist book, Bart Ehrman and the Quest of the Historical Jesus of Nazareth (2013). There, Carrier maintained that the Caesarea inscription is “the best evidence” we have for the early existence of Nazareth. In this he is quite mistaken, as I point out in my reply on this website.

Even if the reconstructed Cesarea inscription is an authentic artefact (see below), it is simply too late to influence the question of an Early Roman Nazareth. ...

ETA - for those who read French, the article in question appears to be here:

http://archive.org/details/NazarethL...EtLaMainDeDieu

There is a summary in English

Quote:

Summary

On 14 August 1962, an outstanding archaeological discovery at Caesarea Maritima went to revolutionize the question about Nazareth, a village unknown to non-Christian sources. This article intends to show the remarkable séries of coincidences that ensured that, from a small marble fragment containing a dozen letters; it was possible to prove the existence, from at least the second century, of the presumed native land of the Nazarene. But where there are surprising coincidences, there is also a reason to be suspicious.

Is this a fraud?

There is a mobile [?] and the main suspect has a serious criminal history.

The suspect is E. Jerry Vardaman. I think the last sentence is mistranslated - Vardaman has no criminal history, but he is suspected of something less than professionalism in the case of claimed "micro letters" on coins of the era.

ApostateAbe · 06-11-2013, 12:36 PM

It is as though the entirety of the early Christian world conspired to invent Nazareth. They could have saved themselves so much trouble by choosing an actual town.

aa5874 · 06-11-2013, 12:39 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by andrewcriddle

The Synagogue inscription from Caesarea (See Nazareth... ) is strong support for a pre-Constantinian Nazareth.

Andrew Criddle

It is a logical fallacy that if Nazareth existed then Jesus did.

The story of Jesus is filled with many many fictional and implausible accounts that cannot be reconciled whether or not there was a place called Nazareth.

We already know that the Jesus cult writers argued that Jesus was a God, the Logos and the Creator of heaven and earth.

What you need are eyewitness accounts of Jesus in Nazareth or anywhere on earth in the time of Augustus and Tiberius.

It is already known that there is no corroborative non-apologetic witness of Jesus in or out of Nazareth.

Horatio Parker · 06-11-2013, 12:43 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ApostateAbe

It is as though the entirety of the early Christian world conspired to invent Nazareth. They could have saved themselves so much trouble by choosing an actual town.

But if Nazareth is an inherited tradition from geography-challenged Mark, then you have the church struggling to invent the place.

Xtians constantly tie themselves into knots over dogma - why should Nazareth be any different?

Toto · 06-11-2013, 12:47 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ApostateAbe

It is as though the entirety of the early Christian world conspired to invent Nazareth. They could have saved themselves so much trouble by choosing an actual town.

This is an indication that Christianity was not invented by Constantine. He could have done a much cleaner job.

But if the earliest writers invented Nazareth as a symbolic place, later Christians who were not so much into symbolism would have had to invent it, whatever the trouble.

aa5874 · 06-11-2013, 12:52 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ApostateAbe

It is as though the entirety of the early Christian world conspired to invent Nazareth. They could have saved themselves so much trouble by choosing an actual town.

Well, couldn't they have just said that the father of Jesus was a man instead of a Ghost?

They could have saved themselves the trouble by choosing an actual man instead we have two contradictory genealogies without any mention of the Holy Ghost the father of Jesus.

andrewcriddle · 06-11-2013, 12:59 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

Quote:

Originally Posted by andrewcriddle

The Synagogue inscription from Caesarea (See Nazareth... ) is strong support for a pre-Constantinian Nazareth.

Andrew Criddle

True, but not necessarily a pre-30 CE Nazareth.

Rene Salm will be publishing a paper on his website that argues that this inscription is a forgery.

Is the Caesarea inscription a forgery?

ETA - for those who read French, the article in question appears to be here:

http://archive.org/details/NazarethL...EtLaMainDeDieu

There is a summary in English

Quote:

Summary

On 14 August 1962, an outstanding archaeological discovery at Caesarea Maritima went to revolutionize the question about Nazareth, a village unknown to non-Christian sources. This article intends to show the remarkable séries of coincidences that ensured that, from a small marble fragment containing a dozen letters; it was possible to prove the existence, from at least the second century, of the presumed native land of the Nazarene. But where there are surprising coincidences, there is also a reason to be suspicious.

Is this a fraud?

There is a mobile [?] and the main suspect has a serious criminal history.

The suspect is E. Jerry Vardaman. I think the last sentence is mistranslated - Vardaman has no criminal history, but he is suspected of something less than professionalism in the case of claimed "micro letters" on coins of the era.

The basic argument is that since Vardaman many years later made what appear to be delusional claims about 'micro letters' he may also have fabricated the reference to Nazareth.

I think the cases are very different. The 'micro letters' claim is clearly nonsense but Vardaman seems to have believed it. The extreme implausibility of the claim argues against deliberate deception. Seeing things that aren't really there in ancient texts and inscriptions is an occupational hazard of paleographers.

I see no evidence that Vardaman ever deliberately misled others.

Andrew Criddle

Toto · 06-11-2013, 01:02 PM

I'm not sure if the article makes a case for actual forgery, or if the claim is similar to that of the micro letters - that a few shards were pieced together to give the results that Vardaman waned to see.

Duvduv · 06-11-2013, 01:09 PM

But alot of people have logical fallacies and unsubstantiated assertions in their speculations of the creation of Christianity.

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

Frank Zindler is absolutely right--Bart Ehrman's "Did Jesus Exist?" is filled with logical fallacies and unsubstantiated assertions.

See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_fallacies

As soon as Ehrman admitted the Gospels are riddled with historical problems and that they relate to event that almost certainnly did not happen then he MUST resort to logical fallacies.

It is completely illogical by Ehrman to argue the Gospels are among the best attested books while simultaneously admitting that it is not really known what the Gospels originally contained and at the same time exposing that the Gospels are riddled with events that most likely did not happen.

These are the words of Ehrman at page 182 of "Did Jesus Exist?".

Quote:

It is absolutely true, in my judgment, that the New Testament accounts of Jesus are filled with discrepancies and contradictions in matters both large and small.

Illogically, Ehrman relied directly on the New Testament for the history of his Jesus of Nazareth WITHOUT any corroborative evidence from antiquity outside of the very NT corrupted sources and those who used them.

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

06-11-2013, 12:20 PM	#41
andrewcriddle Veteran Member Join Date: Sep 2004 Location: Birmingham UK Posts: 4,876	The Synagogue inscription from Caesarea (See Nazareth... ) is strong support for a pre-Constantinian Nazareth. Andrew Criddle

06-11-2013, 12:36 PM	#43
ApostateAbe Contributor Join Date: Sep 2002 Location: MT Posts: 10,656	It is as though the entirety of the early Christian world conspired to invent Nazareth. They could have saved themselves so much trouble by choosing an actual town.

06-11-2013, 01:02 PM	#49
Toto Contributor Join Date: Jun 2000 Location: Los Angeles area Posts: 40,549	I'm not sure if the article makes a case for actual forgery, or if the claim is similar to that of the micro letters - that a few shards were pieced together to give the results that Vardaman waned to see.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.