RPS

I read it together with his discussion of the archeological evidence and disagree -- I think it's an "even if..." discussion. Otherwise, we have Carrier publishing his review of the Nazareth evidence in support of one conclusion and then, within a couple of months or so, saying "nevermind" in a different context without clarifying or correcting the prior analysis. I would have thought him to be too careful a scholar for that.

Steven Avery

the inscription was a very specific historical Jewish-provenance reference.

http://www.geocities.com/b_d_muller/hjes1.html
'The Historical Jesus, The Life of a Mediterranean Peasant'-J.D. Crossan

" a fragmented inscription on a piece of dark gray marble excavated at Caesarea in August of 1962 ... In 70 C.E., during the first Roman-Jewish War, the Temple of Jerusalem got totally destroyed by the future emperor Titus, and, at the end of the Third Roman-Jewish War in 135 C.E., the defeated Jews were expelled from the territory of Jerusalem, renamed Aelia Capitolina by the emperor Hadrian. The surviving priests, divided from ancient times into twenty-four courses that took weekly turns in Temple service, were eventually reorganized and resettled in various Galilean towns and villages. A list of those assignments was affixed to the wall of Caesarea's synagogue built around 300 C.E. The restored line reads: "The eighteenth priestly course [called] Hapizzez, [resettled at] Nazareth."
[the inscription is in Hebrew and 'Nazareth' would have been more accurately spelled "Nasareth"]
` Both communal relocation and synagogal inscription served, no doubt, both to recall the Second Temple's past and to await a Third Temple's future (Vardanam; Avi-Yonah)"

This is much more than just a random name, this is a detailed historical city migration list, exactly the type of historical reference that destroys a weak evidence from selective silence, the earlier case.

=================================

I also think Leondarde's questions here are quite helpful to consider..
(And I will rewrite them in a more general way)
http://www.iidb.org/cgi-bin/ultimate...&f=51&t=000632

"I'm not clear on what is being alleged here. Is it:

1)Nazareth wasn't inhabited until much later than the NT events
AND thus the Gospels must have been written later when Nazareth
was inhabited 135 AD ? 200 AD something ?

OR

2) All the Gospel writers (who list dozens of actual towns and villages and cities) decided to INVENT the name of a town that later formed the basis of a new village in 100 AD ? 250 AD ? something..

or some other (3)

====================================

In fact, as Jeffrey Lowdersimply and rightfully acknowledged, the NT itself supplies sufficient historical evidence for Nazareth. That is why I found this type of discussion interesting and humorous, it demomstrates more about the debilitating intellectual effects of a hardened scholastic cloisterism among some skeptics than anything at all about historicity.

In a sense, Nazareth becomes a "skeptic test case". If a skeptic would continue to fly this red herring then of course there is no dialog. Virtually nothing would ever convince them to drop any absurd argument.

Time to move on.
Rol-em rol-em rol-em..

Shalom,
Steven Avery
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Messianic_Apologetic

Amaleq13

Yes, but the fact that he is apparently willing to allow that an agnostic position is reasonable from the evidence cannot be ignored. You cannot confuse his personal view and his more objective view of the range of conclusions the evidence will bear. Only "Nazareth did not exist" is excluded upon this consideration by Carrier.

I think it is precisely because he is a careful scholar that Carrier does not assert his own view of the evidence as the only legitimate interpretation.

You are on entirely solid ground in rejecting the claim that the evidence establishes Nazareth did not exist in the early 1st century.

yalla

from praxeus:
"The surviving priests, divided from ancient times into twenty-four courses that took weekly turns in Temple service, were eventually reorganized and resettled in various Galilean towns and villages. A list of those assignments was affixed to the wall of Caesarea's synagogue built around 300 C.E. The restored line reads: "The eighteenth priestly course [called] Hapizzez, [resettled at] Nazareth."
[the inscription is in Hebrew and 'Nazareth' would have been more accurately spelled "Nasareth"]
` Both communal relocation and synagogal inscription served, no doubt, both to recall the Second Temple's past and to await a Third Temple's future (Vardanam; Avi-Yonah)"

I reckon we need to know more about this.
I'm certainly interested in finding more.
Who made the inscription?
How did they know the alleged information from about 200 years prior was accurate? On what records was the information based?
The synagogue is c300, how old is the inscription?
How do they know?

And lots more.

I'm not denying the validity of the reference to this inscription, I've seen it cited elsewhere than Crossan, I would like to know more from general curiosity and also because, who knows, there may be devil in the detail.

Books are out for me, I have limited access, so I'll try a google.
Can anyone help with a shortcut?

It's just that, superficially at least, this is evidence that a place with a similar spelling to the gospels versions of Nazareth is referred to as existing sometime, shortly after I presume, 135ce. Given what must have been a chaotic state of affairs for Jews at that time I do wonder about the original source on which the 200 years or more later inscription is based.

cheers

Steven Avery

True.

I can hypothesize a case where such an argument might at least be interesting. If Josephus and/or the Talmud listed all or almost all the towns in Galilee rather than what is estimated at about 1/3 (perhaps 80 of 240 between them). Even then it would be hard to really conclude, since the NT is such an accurate historical document on cities and such, an honest observer would tend to give it the benefit of the doubt. Maybe Josephus forgot. What if both sources had full lists. Then an NT claim would be quite puzzling and even suspect. However, the reality is nothing of this kind anyway.

What happens in general is that two different issues get mixed in.

1) Existence of Nazareth ?
2) Is the NT correct on all its particlulars.

#1 is the question that I am about, it simply makes no sense.

#2 of course is a fair question, what is the usage of polis, is there supposed to be steep hill, if so where, would a town have a synagogue or only a city like Sepphoris, stuff like that.

#2 is an errancy question, completely germane.
And leads to interesting studies and back-and-forth.

#1 is an ol grey red herring.. please.. let 'er out to pasture.

Shalom,
Steven Avery
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Messianic_Apologetic

Steven Avery

Not really. You might end up emailing some archaelogists. Stephen Goransen and Jack Kilmon are two web posters who might have first-hand material or references, especially Stephen. You can email me for his addy. Certain email forums might help, such as ABH or biblical-studies. Oh, most folks say the migration would be 70 AD, after the Temple was destroyed, however this is not at all clear. The specificity of the reference is quite telling, listing various priestly courses and where each one went. You can see how, as long as the archaelogical provenance is solid (apparently very much so) and there is no real loopholes in the text ("it must be a fraud.. there was no Nazareth then" ) you can see how it would have an presumption of accuracy.

Shalom,
Steven Avery schmuel@nyc.rr.com
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Messianic_Apologetic

rlogan

haw! It's worthless to interact with such a poster, but occasionally the pathetic grasping at straws is worth pointing out.

Diogenes Delivers a pretty encompassing bang-on summary here:



That is followed by the pathetic grasping-at-straws tripe of

NAZARETH EXISTED!!

Wow.


Of course, the cunning apologist wants to hijack the thread because requiring an apologist to submit archaeological evidence for Junior cuts too close to the bone.

Contending with what Diogenes stated is too much for an apologist, so best to hijack!

Vorkosigan

We're a little strange around here, prax, we prefer to go with evidence from the era in question, from professionals. I see you still keep harping on a single reference from 300 years after the date in question, which is quite meaningless (there is no evidence that any of the events listed actually occurred). At the moment, there is neither physical nor documentary evidence to suggest that Nazareth existed during the time in question. Feel free to provide some.

Further, I am quite happy to aver that Nazareth existed in the second century, the likely time the gospels were written. That neatly explains the confusion in Matthew and Luke over the nazara references in Mark. The writer of Mark had never been Palestine and his geography is allegorical and mythical. When the later writers, writing from some knowledge of Palestine, read Jesus [of] Nazara in Mark, they cast about for a way to understand that in terms of geography, and lo and behold, there was the town of Nazareth.

Lowder's suggestion that the gospels provide prima facie evidence for the existence of Jesus is either very, very wrong or should be understood in the most basic way -- "prima facie" as in prior to any analysis. Once analysis is undertaken, it is clear that they are fictional constructs depicting the life of a Savior figure who never actually lived.

Looking over what Lowder has written...

• As I have argued elsewhere, I believe the New Testament alone is prima facie evidence for the historicity of Jesus and therefore there is no need for extrabiblical confirmation.[7]

...it is clear that he understands the gospels or the problems of evaluating them only at a very shallow level. He begins his discussion with:

...this reveals the usual, and well-hidden assumption, that the Gospels are, or contain, history. Note how he says:

• Although a discussion of the New Testament evidence is beyond the scope of this paper, I think that the New Testament does provide prima facie evidence for the historicity of Jesus. It is clear, then, that if we are going to apply to the New Testament "the same sort of criteria as we should apply to other ancient writings containing historical material,"[19] we should not require independent confirmation of the New Testament's claim that Jesus existed.

...but the whole issue is whether the Gospels contain historical material about Jesus. In other words, Lowder assumes that they do, and then says that they are prima facie evidence for Jesus' existence. But of course, that argument simply incorporates the assumptions of the historicist tradition without ever criticizing them or even bringing them into the open for others to look at. If the Gospels are somehow history, then they are indeed prima facie evidence for Jesus. But if they are fiction, then they cannot be evidence for Jesus' existence. First, prior to any discussion about what they are evidence for, we need to determine what they are. And Lowder simply assumes that. In essence, Lowder 'critiques' the mythicist case by assuming it away.

Vorkosigan

Mountain Man

BFD. It proves nothing. That a city/village/whatever existed during "biblical times" is irrelevant. It still does not support the historical accuracy of the bible. Is this all you have?:huh:

Mountain Man

That's the red herring, and a dishonest attempt at derailing. That people lived in the area is not in dispute.No. That should be obvious. Archeology supporting the bible IS the topic here, not the existence, or non existence, of one small village.