Freethought & Rationalism Archive

ApostateAbe · 07-06-2011, 10:31 AM

Thanks, Doug Shaver. I think we all have a strong underlying irrational prejudice of anti-Biblicism, and I think it is actually well represented in your demand that: "...until you show the forum some proof, independent of canonical scripture, of Nazareth's existence during the first century, I don't see what other argument you could have for it."

I think such a standard tends to treat the gospel myths as essentially the same as no evidence at all, and it seems to reflect the way of thinking that the myths shed no light on the history, that we would have essentially the same amount of knowledge of ancient history had the Christian myths never existed. I really don't think it is a way of thinking that we would apply for other ancient myths, regardless of how untrustworthy they may be. For example, the ancient epic The Odyssey names many actual historical places in its narrative, and a fair-thinking person would very much tend to accept such an attestation as strong evidence, combined with their apparent modern existences, that such places actually existed at the time the myth was told, regardless of whether or not there is archaeological evidences of such places that can be dated to the exact precise same time as the myth. That is simply a sensible way to think about history and myths. It very much seems to be the case that the only reason why the proposition of the non-existence of the 1st-century Nazareth would strike any of us as a serious consideration is because we have a special bent against believing the Christian myth.

aa5874 · 07-06-2011, 10:39 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ApostateAbe

...... It very much seems to be the case that the only reason why the proposition of the non-existence of the 1st-century Nazareth would strike any of us as a serious consideration is because we have a special bent against believing the Christian myth.

Ok, so you want to BELIEVE the Christian Myth.

There was No City of Nazareth in the 1st century. It is just a Christian Myth that you want to BELIEVE.

Doug Shaver · 07-06-2011, 10:43 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ApostateAbe

The formulation of the criterion of dissimilarity is that: if the claim is dissimilar to the known interests of the author, then the claim is more likely to be accurate.

How do you know what the interests of the gospel authors were?

If you say, "By reading what they wrote," then on what basis do you conclude that any of it was inconsistent with their interests?

If you have information about the gospels authors' interests that is independent of what they wrote, please share it with us.

ApostateAbe · 07-06-2011, 10:52 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Doug Shaver

Quote:

Originally Posted by ApostateAbe

The way I see it, almost all legends have at least some bits of truth in them.

Almost all? It should be trivially easy, then, to name two legends with confirmed historical kernels that you regard as relevantly analogous to the gospel stories about Jesus.

Every myth is analogous to the gospel stories about Jesus, and some are more analogous than others. I take the closest analogy to be the Rastafarianism myths about Haile Selassie I. Another very good analogy is the set of LDS-church myths about Joseph Smith. But, I am not sure precisely what kind of myths that you have in mind.

avi · 07-06-2011, 11:00 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ApostateAbe

But, I am not sure precisely what kind of myths that you have in mind.

Walking on water;

Curing blindness with spittle;

Curing epilepsy by waving one's hands;

Raising the dead;

avi

Toto · 07-06-2011, 11:01 AM

The case against Nazareth is made by Rene Salm in The Myth of Nazreth (or via: amazon.co.uk). There is a 3 star review there from Jim Joyner that seems to be the only one that tries to introduce actual evidence. Joyner actually agrees that much of Salm's criticism of the standard archaeology is valid, but rejects his conclusions.

Quote:

His archaeological discussion is brimming with quotes from and references to Galilean archaeologists Dr. Zvi Gal and Mordechai "Motti" Aviam. These two archaeologists receive rare respect from Salm. Ironically, Dr. Aviam completely disagrees with Salm's conclusion about the dating of Nazareth. In private communications, Dr. Aviam ("a secular Jew" by his own words) has disclosed that his personal examinations of earlier and recent artifacts and the newly discovered (early) 1st century residence persuade him that the traditional site of Nazareth is correctly identified and dated. Aviam believes Nazareth was settled in the 1st century BCE, probably when Judeans settled much of the Galilee, especially the Lower Galilee, during the years shortly before and after 100 BCE. Dr. Aviam's pointed comment to Salm and his editor was (paraphrased): I reject your conclusion of "case closed"; we don't do science that way.

It would be naive to think that Dr. Aviam's summary-comments redeem the many flaws in earlier archaeological work done in Nazareth; most of Salm's criticisms are deserved and I would expect Dr. Aviam to concur with some of the mistakes Salm criticizes. Salm also has a reasonable point to offer when he insists that no one can reasonably rely on unpublished information to support the existence of Nazareth in the 1st century BCE. However, genuine scholarship does not permit Salm to make the rules. In a world of limited time and money, archaeologists cannot pursue every question about every site. Galilean archaeologists are further hampered by the reality of the dense occupation of Nazareth. So far, archaeologists have not prioritized the excavation of Nazareth to clarify its settlement in the 1st century BCE (Professor Uzi Leibner of Hebrew University suggests the possibility of two waves of settlement in the 1st century BCE), even though several are now aware of Salm's claims and have received copies of his book. Salm may be forced now to "diss" the archaeologist upon whom he relied as a biased scientist because the Galilean expert is not persuaded that Salm's arguments warrant his conclusion(s). The esteemed Dr. Aviam recognizes the atheists' agenda is not to gain genuine knowledge, and finds it no more credible than the biased archaeologists Salm so thoroughly condemns.

...

Doug Shaver · 07-06-2011, 11:08 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ApostateAbe

I think we all have a strong underlying irrational prejudice of anti-Biblicism

That sort of thinking can be very convenient, I'm sure.

Quote:

Originally Posted by ApostateAbe

"...until you show the forum some proof, independent of canonical scripture, of Nazareth's existence during the first century, I don't see what other argument you could have for it."

I think such a standard tends to treat the gospel myths as essentially the same as no evidence at all

You can think whatever you like. I know the difference between "It's not evidence" and "it needs corroboration."

Quote:

Originally Posted by ApostateAbe

I really don't think it is a way of thinking that we would apply for other ancient myths, regardless of how untrustworthy they may be.

Your faith in mythology as a historical resource is well in keeping with the modernist mindset. The modernist mindset, though, doesn't have much use for critical thinking.

Quote:

Originally Posted by ApostateAbe

For example, the ancient epic The Odyssey names many actual historical places in its narrative, and a fair-thinking person would very much tend to accept such an attestation as strong evidence, combined with their apparent modern existences, that such places actually existed at the time the myth was told, regardless of whether or not there is archaeological evidences of such places that can be dated to the exact precise same time as the myth.

That is simply a sensible way to think about history and myths.

You say so.

Quote:

Originally Posted by ApostateAbe

It very much seems to be the case that the only reason why the proposition of the non-existence of the 1st-century Nazareth would strike any of us as a serious consideration is because we have a special bent against believing the Christian myth.

Wrong.

As I noted in a previous post, as far as I'm concerned, the actual existence or nonexistence of first-century Nazareth is a complete irrelevancy. My opinion of Christianity would not change in the slightest if there were irrefutable proof that the place was thriving in the early first century.

The same is true, for that matter, of Jesus' own existence. If somebody tomorrow came up with a transcript of Jesus' trial with Pilate's own authenticated signature on it, I would continue believe that Christianity was a total crock.

ApostateAbe · 07-06-2011, 11:15 AM

Doug Shaver, what do you make of the analogy to The Odyssey? Suppose a manuscript of The Odyssey is dated to the 5th century BCE, it mentions a certain city of an alleged time and region, the city exists in modern times, and it has archaeological remains that can be dated to the 2nd century BCE. Do we accept The Odyssey manuscript to be evidence for the city existing in the 5th century BCE, or do we not?

Doug Shaver · 07-06-2011, 11:15 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Doug Shaver

Almost all? It should be trivially easy, then, to name two legends with confirmed historical kernels that you regard as relevantly analogous to the gospel stories about Jesus.

Quote:

Originally Posted by ApostateAbe

Every myth is analogous to the gospel stories about Jesus, and some are more analogous than others.

You were talking about legends, and legends is what I asked about. Am I to infer that you can't see a difference between myths and legends.?

ApostateAbe · 07-06-2011, 11:20 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by avi

Quote:

Originally Posted by ApostateAbe

But, I am not sure precisely what kind of myths that you have in mind.

Walking on water;

Curing blindness with spittle;

Curing epilepsy by waving one's hands;

Raising the dead;

avi

OK. For such things as that, I think a pretty good analogy are the pair of attestations to such myths by the historians Suetonius and Tacitus of the Emporer Vespasian who reputedly miraculously healed the blind and healed a crippled hand. The myths of Apollonius of Tyana are also good examples.

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

07-06-2011, 10:31 AM	#111
ApostateAbe Contributor Join Date: Sep 2002 Location: MT Posts: 10,656	Thanks, Doug Shaver. I think we all have a strong underlying irrational prejudice of anti-Biblicism, and I think it is actually well represented in your demand that: "...until you show the forum some proof, independent of canonical scripture, of Nazareth's existence during the first century, I don't see what other argument you could have for it." I think such a standard tends to treat the gospel myths as essentially the same as no evidence at all, and it seems to reflect the way of thinking that the myths shed no light on the history, that we would have essentially the same amount of knowledge of ancient history had the Christian myths never existed. I really don't think it is a way of thinking that we would apply for other ancient myths, regardless of how untrustworthy they may be. For example, the ancient epic The Odyssey names many actual historical places in its narrative, and a fair-thinking person would very much tend to accept such an attestation as strong evidence, combined with their apparent modern existences, that such places actually existed at the time the myth was told, regardless of whether or not there is archaeological evidences of such places that can be dated to the exact precise same time as the myth. That is simply a sensible way to think about history and myths. It very much seems to be the case that the only reason why the proposition of the non-existence of the 1st-century Nazareth would strike any of us as a serious consideration is because we have a special bent against believing the Christian myth.

07-06-2011, 11:15 AM	#118
ApostateAbe Contributor Join Date: Sep 2002 Location: MT Posts: 10,656	Doug Shaver, what do you make of the analogy to The Odyssey? Suppose a manuscript of The Odyssey is dated to the 5th century BCE, it mentions a certain city of an alleged time and region, the city exists in modern times, and it has archaeological remains that can be dated to the 2nd century BCE. Do we accept The Odyssey manuscript to be evidence for the city existing in the 5th century BCE, or do we not?

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.