Now here are two more sources. the first one I can't get to his credentials because his link is borken to that page. The Second one is a Scholar in an article in a scholarly book.

Archaeology and The Bible Mark McGee
http://www.mindspring.com/~mamcgee/g...chaeology.html



Martin in:
Chronos, Kairos, Christos: Nativity and Chronological Studies Presented to Jack Finegan, Jerry Vardaman and Edwin Yamauchi, eds. Eisenbrauns:1989.


What this means is that we have very, very clear evidence of an empire-wide registration in the time frame required! (How much more data do you need?!)

I just gave you a very reputable archeological website. The article talks about Ramsay's influence. It is a modern article. Someone in a non-apologetic archeological journal is speaking of his influence. Did you read the article? I'm sure there are others, but it is pointless for me to continue pointing out things when all you have to do (if you are serious) is look (possibly at a major library when you get the chance).

I'm pleased that your were able to finally provide me with a non-apologetic web site that references Ramsay. Perhaps you missed the fact that I thanked you for the reference before. I'm not so sure I should now be impressed however. As you alluded to, it'll take a little more in depth research to get to that stage. Perhaps I'll save that for when Ramsay's conclusions on this particular matter are corroborated. I do agree that he appears to have been an expert in the field of archeology.

The websites that you found and you don't even mention any books...not a very in depth search IMHO, especially since you didn't even find the BAS article which was nearly the first thing I found when searching. I'm sure there's more stuff out there.

I expect so as well. And I'm glad for your luck in finding such a site so quickly. I however was not so fortunate after about an hour total of searching. However I will note that the name change you mentioned provided just a bit more success. I had been using the term "Sir William Ramsay". Changing it to the term "Sir William Mitchell Ramsay" helped a bit. Not much, but a bit.

Good grief. Are you going to become a scholar in Ramsay's area of expertise so that you can understand his claims enough to refute them?

As I alluded to, this would be one solution, though certainly not very practical. The more practical solution would be to find other experts in the field that corroborate Ramsay's findings. The truly thorough thing to do is find critiques of his work and weigh the arguments pro and con.

I don't automatically dismiss a scholar's work... Obviously I look into their claims like anyone else, duh, but there is only so far that you can take it if you are not a scholar in their field as well.

Yep. This is why appeals to authority are not very strong arguments, particularly in the field of history. Its very impractical to verify the evidence and conclusions for yourself. You just have to assume that the expert is correct if your unable to critique it. Its also the reason why history (and archeology) are considered weak sciences. The data is the data, but there is inevitably a lot of subjectivity involved in the conclusions that are reached based on that data.

If an expert in snakes told you not to go near a particular snake because it is poisonous, would you say I don't believe you and approach the snake anyway? Perhaps that's not the best analogy, but it should drive the point home somewhat. You don't have enough time in your life to get to the level of expertise in every field of study in order to check every scholar's claim. That's naive. At what point do you stop saying, I disbelieve, and say, Ok maybe they know what they're talking about?


Actually this makes my point for me. I can research for myself that people have gotten bit by certain snakes and been seriously injured and/or died. That's not difficult. Having seen and held numerous garden snakes, if an expert told me not to go near such a snake I'd laugh him off. I don't have to completely rely on the expert's opinion in that case. (Which is essentially what I am asked to do in the fields we're talking about) The same can be said for a great many of the other hard sciences. I verify them everyday when I turn on my TV, microwave my dinner, go for a drive, or post messages on the internet.

And of course there are a great many experts that will tell me that rattlesnakes are poisonous. I don't have to rely on the opinion of one single expert or even just a few. There is a great wealth of information in many of the hard sciences. That's in drastic contrast to the field we're talking about now.

Madmax: Are you unaware of the stronger argument that can be made from a concensus of professional opinions than can be made from the opinion of one?

Again, duh, of course, but I have been told a number of times on this website that a consensus of scholars doesn't mean anything. As a matter of fact, I've gotten into debates where I've presented a list of agreeing scholars and have still been dismissed. What gives? I'm sure that Meta can present other scholars who believe the same things. As a matter of fact, I think he did. Maybe I'm wrong, but didn't he mention F.F. Bruce and another?

Well obviously even if you have a concensus this doesn't necessarily mean that they are correct. Again it'll mean less in this field because of the subjectivity involved in the conclusions that are reached. But I still wouldn't call it meaningless. The professional opinion of a great many certainly is better than the opinion of a just one or a few.

As far as Bruce and the other fellow are concerned, I am sure they liked to cite Ramsay's work in defense of their own claims. My question would be if they are in a position to actually critique and/or corroborate it or if they just appeal to Ramsay as Meta did. It would be better if they were archeologists - are they?

I'm afraid you misunderstood me. What I see in your line of thinking is that the word of one good scholar doesn't mean anything unless another scholar says it does. Though a consensus is great, a respectable scholar can stand alone (though I don't think Ramsay necessarily does on this issue).

It doesn't mean much to me. How could it? A person makes a claim. I'm not in a position to verify the data for myself. I can't find anyone else that has analyzed the data and come up with the same conclusions, or at best I can only find a couple of people. (In this case, no other archeologists have been cited that have analyzed this particular data, though I am trying to find some on my own. ) Now I have to blindly accept this expert's opinion on the matter. I'm sorry, but in this field of study that's just way too much for me. (I don't do this for hard science.)

Madmax: Just how "influential" he was, remains to be seen. Just how correct he was ALSO remains to be seen and is far more important a question.

Again, I gave you a non-apologetic article in a reputable archeological journal that speaks of his influence. Heck, the fact that he was just recently mentioned (even though his stuff is 19th century) is pretty conclusive of his influence in itself.

Unfortunately he's still strangely absent from the places I'd expect to find some mention of him. To date I now have the opinion of Meta, a host of apologetic websites, and this sole article that attest to his greatness. But this point is of such low importance to me that'll I just stipulate that he was an expert archeologist and leave it at that. Now, how do we (I) determine if he was correct in his conclusions? - that is far more relevant.

Meta (and I) have produced evidence for the positive, but you seem to ignore all of it. So, yes, since you seem to think that he wasn't so influential, then find us a quote that says so... It might change our opinions you can do that... We've presented our evidence, can you?

Find a quote that says a person wasn't influential? Hehe. I haven't made any claim that he wasn't influential and wouldn't ever try to prove such a thing. I've been looking for positive evidence that he was influential outside of mere assertion. That's my job as I try to check sources. The site you posted has helped a little in this and I've now stipulated that he was an expert.

Madmax: Yes, but until such time as I can find the vast time required to do that, I'll have to remain skeptical of any claims regarding the conclusions of his research. Claims that I can't critique are useless for me (or against me.)

This seems to say to me that you believe absolutely nothing and no one until you have been able to research the material for yourself. So does that mean that until you can research everything, you'll just continue to deny disbelieve anything we say because you don't like it? What kind of a debate is that, boy? Get out and learn something...

Yes, well putting the personal slight aside, perhaps you can list for me the alternatives in this endeavor? I see them as: 1. I blindly accept appeals to authority with no practical way to confirm the conclusions myself whatsoever. 2. I find some critiques done by other professionals in the same field that give me at least something to go on so I can have some modicum of confidence in the claim. 3. I take the time to become the expert as you mentioned.

Number 1 I don't even do for the hard sciences so that's out immediately. Yep, this is why its a weak science all right. Out of that list, option #2 is the most practical solution to the problem. Its not great, but its the best I can hope for it seems.

Madmax: An easier approach (and far more practical) would be to find the opinions of other experts who have looked at his research and critiqued it.

Ok, fair enough, but there is something that I don't think many here understand. Just because a scholar's work dates back to the 19th century, this does not necessarily mean that it is outdated. In many cases, scholar's still use older works (the BR article I quoted above) because nothing better has come along yet. Ibelieve this is at least partially the case with some of Ramsay's work. Good luck finding a critique, and please let us know when you do. By the way, are you looking for a refutation of his work to use against us? Or are you openly looking for any work concerning his scholarship?

I don't recall making any argument about the case being "outdated". Certainly I'd be more confident in up-to-date information. Remember, how much I believe a thing is just as important a point to me as whether I believe it at all.

A refutation of his work would be nice. I would then have two opposing points of view which I can evaluate. Perhaps I could determine which makes the stronger case. Of course there could also be someone that critiques the work and points out the strengths as well as the weaknesses. I'd restrict my search to the particular argument that Meta puts forth regarding the census thing.

What I suspect I'll run into are arguments that argue against this "on-going" census claim and against the people being forced to return to their places of birth. They'll probably do it based on different data and then I'll wind up with two opposing authorities telling me different things. Without researching myself I'll then have to reject one and accept the other, or I'll continue to remain agnostic towards the claim. Oh well.

Madmax: Meta has provided ONE source that agrees with his own beliefs and interpreted the evidence just as he wants to see it. Not impressive, particularly in this field of study.

Then why do scholars in every field do this? Think about it, Madmax, please... Perhaps it is especially needed in this field. The more "experts" who see things the same way, perhaps the better the probabilities. Heck, you mentioned this above... If it is not impressive, then please answer me why scholars waste their time quoting other scholars' works to back their data?

I'm not sure I understand you here. My problem is that Meta provided one single source for his claim. You mention the more experts there are the better the probabilities which I agree with. Then you ask me why scholars waste their time quoting other scholars. I don't understand.

Scholars will quote other scholars to show that their findings agree. Then we have corroboration. Unless they're just quoting the scholar to prove some other point or make some other conclusion. If they can, they'll quote more than one scholar to back a point because they know that appeal to authority is stronger.

Funny, neither do I... But I also know that you can't be an expert in every field, so you have to trust someone's data to some degree or you'll never know anything...

In this field we don't ever know anything. We believe things and we believe in varying degrees. But since you agree that gullibility is not a option, what alternative's do you propose other than the 3 I mentioned earlier in order to avoid blind acceptance? (Remember, in the hard sciences we don't have this much of a problem. Corroboration is usually much easier to come by and I never have to rely on the opinion of one or even just a few in support of a claim.)

Madmax: As for my own inexperience in this area, if I am not able to critique or verify particularclaims, then those claims are useless for me or against me. The only alternative would be blind acceptance and that is not honesty in my opinion.

It is not necessarily dishonesty. There are very reputable scholars today who have built upon other scholar's works. You do realize this don't you?

So you're saying they blindly accept the conclusions of other scholars and proceed from there? Yep, a weak science for sure. But somehow I don't think its quite as simple as that.

It seems to me that you're simply trying to reinvent the wheel. Check out their data the best that you can, but remember that you're not an expert and at some point (as with Christianity) you're going to have to make a decision about whom to believe.

Or remain agnostic towards certain claims. I don't know is a very good answer if in fact one doesn't know or know confidently enough.

Madmax: At this point - any professional corroboration from an expert in archeology would be astart. Are you totally unaware of how important peer review is in regard to honest research?

Ok, well, again I gave you one, but I guess you need corroboration of corroboration of Ramsay like I thought. I imagine you know how to use a library.

No you didn't "give me one". You gave support for Ramsay's expertise. That's all well and good. But I've not yet seen anything that corroborates his conclusions. As for corroboration of corroboration, this is a straw man. A consensus of professional opinion IS a stronger argument. Hec, having more than just one professional opinion is a stronger argument.

Madmax: From the extremely sparse information we have about this particular period of history I doubt very much I would ever have strong confidence in such detailed conclusions. Moderate confidence is probably the most I could ever expect. Right now the confidence is almost non-existent.

Then you seem to be a "minimalist". I'm not sure there is much in history that you will believe. Why do you bother? I personally believe we can know quite a bit through historical probabilities.

Yes, but obviously I don't agree. You can't possibly know things about history. All you can do is believe things about history. Some things we believe with great confidence. Some things we believe with moderate confidence. Some things we believe with very tentative confidence. Some things we dismiss entirely.

Finally to "appeals to authority". I think you eventually stated that you don't think Meta is using a falacious appeal to authority. Then, why did you even bring this up??

Actually I'm trying to ascertain whether his appeal to authority is fallacious or not. I don't automatically assume it is. It'll never be a strong argument, but I need to find out for myself how strong it can be in any case.

Hopefully, we can simply drop this issue. Sorry, this is an issue that really annoys me because, once again, scholars do the very same thing Meta did. There is no reason to even bring it up IMHO.

I'm not so sure that scholars do the very same thing that Meta did. Certainly they appeal to authorities, but I don't know that the good ones rest their entire case on the opinion of one expert. And I do know that they at least attempt to refute arguments to the contrary.

Meta, how hard is this? Go to the top of the first page of the thread. Hit Control-F; search for "JubalH". The first thing you'll hit is the post of which I speak. Which you have now three times asserted in a very loud voice doesn't exist. Some scholar.

As to the other stuff, this isn't the place to discuss. Maybe I'll start a new thread tomorrow. Which hopefully you'll ignore and appropriate inferences will be drawn.

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by rodahi:
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Metacrock:
Now this time please read all the words.
Tutornm says the census in Luke 2 didn't take place.

rodahi: According to Robin Lane Fox, Michael is correct. Fox states, "The scale of the Gospel's error is now clear. The first census did occur under Quirinius, but it belonged in A.D. 6 when Herod the Great was long dead; it was a local census in Roman Judaea and there was no decree from Caesar Augustus to all the world; in A.D. 6 Joseph of Nazareth would not have registered at Bethlehem: as a Galilean he was under direct Roman rule and was exempt from Judaea's registration; his wife had no legal need to leave home. Luke's story is historically impossible and internally incoherent. It clashes with his own date for the Annuciation (which he places under Herod) and with Mathew's long story of the Nativity which also presupposes Herod the Great as king. It is, therefore, false." The Unauthorized Version, P. 31.


Metacrock: That's not the census to which Ramsay is refuring. That was a one time shot. He's talking about an on going mechinism that was still in place in the second and thrid centuries. So this is not the same thing.

The writer of “Luke” speaks of ONE census: “And it came to pass in those days that there went out a decree from Caesar Augustus, that all the world should be taxed. (And this taxing was first made when Cyrenius was governor of Syria.) And all went to be taxed, every one into his own city.” (2:1-3KJV)

Metacrock: In fact there is a ludicrous page on the infidels site that also asserts this.

What makes the site "ludicrous?"

Metacrock: It ignores the facts I've demonstrated.

And you have ignored the facts Robin Lane Fox stated.

Metacrock: This is real 19th century stuff. It was way back in the 19th century that people tired to pick on Luke's historicity, in fact so long ago that even the 19th century Scholar Von Harnnack said it was shameful.

rodahi: Wait a minute. William Mitchell Ramsay wrote the first edition of St. Paul the Traveler and Roman Citizen in 1895!! You disparage the critics of “the 19th century,“ and yet, the authority you have chosen to believe wrote his commentary in the 1800’s.

Metacrock: You can't see the logic of that? It was the sort of criticism that was fashonable in the 19th century. For that reason it was answered in the 19th. That just means the answer has been around a long time and if the guys at the Sec WEb were really the big cracker Jack scholars atheists look to them as, they would know that.

Apparently, critics of the Lukan passage are still "fashionable." It didn't end in the 1800's--and for good reason--"Luke" was in error.

rodahi

[This message has been edited by rodahi (edited June 03, 2001).]

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by rodahi:
Originally posted by offa:
In my interpretation of dreams (pesher) there are two
Jerusalems, two Galilees, and two Bethlehem's. I have
often given my sources for multiple locations so I feel
it is redundant to repeat.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Metacrock: I bet its from that Aussie idiot Thearin isn't it? She's a moron, she is not respected, real scholars call her work "comic books."

Barbara Thiering is a legitimate biblical scholar. Her academic credentials are far superior to yours, Metacrock. See http://www.westarinstitute.org/Fello.../thiering.html

Since you say she is an "idiot" and a "moron," what does that make you?

rodahi

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Metacrock: Retired lecturer Sydney U. Big deal. Her book was not well recieved by the scholarly community.

You called her an "idiot" and a "moron." Obviously, you have no idea what you are taling about.

Metacrock: In fact it's a laughing stock.

No. Her works are not popular. Jesus was not popular. Does that make him a "laughing stock?"

Metacrock: It doesn't matter what her credentials are, anyone who thinks that she can just read in any meaning she desires by comparing the floor plan of caves at Qumran to the geography of Palestine and that's suppossed to prove that the events really happened at Qumran is an idiot.

No, Metacrock, she is not "an idiot." The fact is, you disagree with her theories; therefore, you consider her to be an idiot. What you believe is not necessarily consistent with reality.

Metacrock: She establishes no objective criteria for understanding her versoin of pesher and no reasons for seeing things that way. It's a comic book.

Prove it. Otherwise, admit you are doing nothing more than ranting.

rodahi

Why can't you just quote it? OR start a new thread?

Originally posted by rodahi:
[quote]<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Originally posted by Metacrock:
Now this time please read all the words.
Tutornm says the census in Luke 2 didn't take place.


rodahi: According to Robin Lane Fox, Michael is correct. Fox states, "The scale of the Gospel's error is now clear. The first census did occur under Quirinius, but it belonged in A.D. 6 when Herod the Great was long dead; it was a local census in Roman Judaea and there was no decree from Caesar Augustus to all the world; in A.D. 6 Joseph of Nazareth would not have registered at Bethlehem: as a Galilean he was under direct Roman rule and was exempt from Judaea's registration; his wife had no legal need to leave home. Luke's story is historically impossible and internally incoherent. It clashes with his own date for the Annuciation (which he places under Herod) and with Mathew's long story of the Nativity which also presupposes Herod the Great as king. It is, therefore, false." The Unauthorized Version, P. 31.

Meat =&gt;No! The AD 6 date is ruled out by several sources, all of the sources I've posted above rule it out specifically not only historically but also on the grounds of the textual passage itself.He's clealry not talking about that census, and Martin says that in no uncertain terms.


Metacrock: That's not the census to which Ramsay is refuring. That was a one time shot. He's talking about an on going mechinism that was still in place in the second and thrid centuries. So this is not the same thing.

You:The writer of “Luke” speaks of ONE census: “And it came to pass in those days that there went out a decree from Caesar Augustus, that all the world should be taxed. (And this taxing was first made when Cyrenius was governor of Syria.) And all went to be taxed, every one into his own city.” (2:1-3KJV)

MEta =&gt;No that is an imporper reading. The Greek implies "before" And "taxed" could just mean "enrolled." See the quotes I've already put up that is dealt with completely.

Metacrock: In fact there is a ludicrous page on the infidels site that also asserts this.

What makes the site "ludicrous?"

Metacrock: It ignores the facts I've demonstrated.

And you have ignored the facts Robin Lane Fox stated.

MEta =&gt;No I did not! You just quote him being wrong about which date, and I dealt the date, I ruled out the AD 6 census in one of the early posts on this thread.

Read the Martin quote again (if you ever did)


That establishes the passage as speaking about a census before 6AD, probably in 3BC and there was such a census! That is direct proof.

also:He says when Qirinius was Gov. of Syria. He was Govener of Syria in 7BC, so it could not have been the TAX in 6AD. He was govener twice and this was his first term that is established, with the date for it by all the sources I quote.


Metacrock: This is real 19th century stuff. It was way back in the 19th century that people tired to pick on Luke's historicity, in fact so long ago that even the 19th century Scholar Von Harnnack said it was shameful.

rodahi: Wait a minute. William Mitchell Ramsay wrote the first edition of St. Paul the Traveler and Roman Citizen in 1895!! You disparage the critics of “the 19th century,“ and yet, the authority you have chosen to believe wrote his commentary in the 1800’s.

Metacrock: You can't see the logic of that? It was the sort of criticism that was fashonable in the 19th century. For that reason it was answered in the 19th. That just means the answer has been around a long time and if the guys at the Sec WEb were really the big cracker Jack scholars atheists look to them as, they would know that.

Apparently, critics of the Lukan passage are still "fashionable." It didn't end in the 1800's--and for good reason--"Luke" was in error.

MEta =&gt;Obviously you are in error. I have five sources which show a census, you can't produce one thing to counter it. You are merely making bold faced assertions and ignoring the evidence. Just because you have one source that mistenly attributes the passage to the wrong era doesn't disprove the evidence for the census that I present.

Look it's obvious he says when Qirinias was govenor and we have a census when Qirinias was gov. so what's the problem?

on Theiren:

You try to say that Jesus was unpopular, she is unpopular. Right. Like that makes her like Jesus! No, the woman is a nut. Just look at what she's saying. YOu read her book, you know this is the case. If she has a criteria where is it? You tell me to prove it, well I read the book, it wasn't there. NOw how can I prove that the criteria isn't there? Should I re type the whole book in the text box?

If exists it should be a simple matter to find it and type it up, just the basic criteria that she uses to read a pesher. She never really gives any.

And the things she concludes are silly. She decides that Jesus survived the resurrection and went to Frace. There's nothing outside of Begin and Lee to support that (and they are well know to be nuts). So he's using conspiracy buffs as her support. And she assumes that Jesus was actually with Pual when he wrote his letters based upon nothing more than her subjective reading between the lines.

The book is a fantasy. She has nothing to suporrt any of her ludicrous accusations. Come on the pesher Jerusalem? Have you ever read a real Phesher? I've seen major Qunran scholars Like Martinez interprit Peshers and they don't work like hers.

Is this the one you mean? this is what i found:


Sorry to break the sad news to you but this is still just about personalities. If that is your defition of "substance" you have real problems. I am saying that unless you speak of matters textual an diblical, and not about how other pepole debate,than I wont talk to you. Got it? I hope so cause I'm not responding next time.

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Metacrock:
on Theiren:

You try to say that Jesus was unpopular, she is unpopular. Right. Like that makes her like Jesus! No, the woman is a nut.

I didn't "try" to say anything, Metacrock. I said Barbara Thiering's ideas are not popular. I also said that Jesus was not popular.

Metacrock: Just look at what she's saying. YOu read her book, you know this is the case. If she has a criteria where is it? You tell me to prove it, well I read the book, it wasn't there. NOw how can I prove that the criteria isn't there? Should I re type the whole book in the text box?

You have said she didn't use "objective criteria" in formulating her theories and that she is an "idiot" and a "moron." Prove it.

Metacrock: If exists it should be a simple matter to find it and type it up, just the basic criteria that she uses to read a pesher. She never really gives any.

That does not make her an idiot, or ignorant, or a moron.

Metacrock: And the things she concludes are silly.

That is your opinion, Metacrock.

Metacrock: She decides that Jesus survived the resurrection and went to Frace. There's nothing outside of Begin and Lee to support that (and they are well know to be nuts). So he's using conspiracy buffs as her support. And she assumes that Jesus was actually with Pual when he wrote his letters based upon nothing more than her subjective reading between the lines.

These are her theories.

Metacrock: The book is a fantasy. She has nothing to suporrt any of her ludicrous accusations. Come on the pesher Jerusalem? Have you ever read a real Phesher? I've seen major Qunran scholars Like Martinez interprit Peshers and they don't work like hers.

None of this proves she is nuts, or an idiot, or a moron, or ignorant.

rodahi