Toto

I thought you were giving some clue as to your thought processes, which are mystifying at times.

Switch89

GD,

The link I gave you was from the Anglo-Israeli Bulletin's website. Salm published in that journal responding to his critics' comments in that journal. James Randi indicated that he had read the contents of that journal in the video.

These things are right in front of your face.

GakuseiDon

Randi says at 1:30 min in:

"Of course, the religious faction has reacted furiously to the book. Specifically in the Bulletin of the Anglo-Israel Archaeological Society, which devotes some 47 pages to 5 angry rebuttals."

That's all he says. Nothing to say what he thought of the rebuttals (other than that they were "angry"), or even that he read them.

I've sent them an email on what they thought of Salm's book, and what the consensus is on the question of the existence of Nazareth in the first half of the First Century CE. I'll post the response here.

Switch89

It seems more plausible to me that Randi read the journal. Otherwise, how would he have known the rebuttals were "angry" or how long they were? Besides, it is in Randi's nature to explore things for himself. In fact, I would very surprised if Randi hadn't read the journal. Anyway, if you are still emailing him you should ask him.

GakuseiDon

Yes, good point. The only alternative is if Salm told him.

I shall do so if I get an opportunity. I agree that it is Randi's nature to explore things for himself. It seems to me that he didn't in this case, but I'll be glad to be proven wrong.

GakuseiDon

As I wrote to you in a post on a different thread: You appear to be arguing against a phantom GakuseiDon that is but a creation of your own mind. I guess the thought processes of that phantom GakuseiDon are as mystifying to me as they are to you.

I'm as straight-forward as I can be. I'm simply interested in how people think, and the myths they build to explain their universe. I was interested before I was a theist (which period makes up the larger part of my life), I am interested in it now that I am a theist, and I expect to still be interested if I stop being a theist. It isn't all just Jesus Myth and historical Jesus, you know. If you read every post of mine with a view of trying to find what I REALLY mean in terms of those subjects, you will continually be mystified.

You keep making references to my "obsession". I suggest that I am less obsessed than you think. May I put forward to you that when I am not posting comments on the Jesus Myth or Christianity, you think I have some hidden agenda whereby the post is really about those topics after all? And so you see me posting on those topics at every turn?

Anyway, enough of this. You are a haunted man, Toto. I can't dispel the specters that you alone can see, and won't waste either of our time bringing this up again. If I mystify you, so be it.

Toto

OK, you admire Randi for going against the grain by exposing silly frauds, but you didn't pick up anything useful from him about critical thinking or testing hypothesis.

You admire Doherty for going against the grain, but you constructed a bogus argument against his argument from silence and repeated it over multiple threads here until you finally got people to take it seriously, (but you deny being obsessed.)

You claim to be interested in how ancient people think, but you show no ability to get inside their heads.

At one point I mentioned your apparent obsession with a particular argument because you kept bringing it up and asking why no one wanted to discuss it. But are you seriously trying to claim that this thread is not about mythicism or the historical Jesus?

So wrong on many counts. I am just trying to fulfil my moderator duties. You don't mystify me at all, but your attempts at argument do.

GakuseiDon

Well, I've heard back from the Anglo-Israel Archaeological Society. It seems that their Bulletin Vol 25 (2007) had an article by S. Pfann, R. Voss and Y. Rapuano called Surveys and Excavations at the Nazareth Village Farm (1997-2002): Final Report, which was published too late to be considered in Salm's book. (Randi refers to this article in his video clip.)

Salm wrote to them, criticising the report. They admitted that some of those criticisms were valid ("angrily" admitted, no doubt!), and Vol 26 (2008) contained their responses to Salm's criticisms as well as a detailed review of Salm's book by Dr Ken Dark (PhD Archaeology, Cambridge and Director of the Nazareth Archaeological Project). Dark concluded:

"This is not a well-informed study and ignores much evidence and important published work of direct relevance. The basic premise is faulty, and Salm's reasoning is often weak and shaped by his preconceptions. Overall, his central argument is archaeologically unsupportable".

On Nazareth, Dark wrote:

"The available archaeological evidence from the centre of contemporary Nazareth, by contrast, suggests that the settlement of Nazareth existed in the Second Temple period..."

They recommended me reading through the bulletin to understand the details of the controversy. If there are 47 pages on the subject, then they have appeared to have tried to go into some depth.

Reliable Skeptic

http://www.jesusneverexisted.com/nazareth.html

Kind of makes you wonder what else they cooked up don't it?

GakuseiDon

That website cracks me up:

"If JC had grown up and spent thirty years of his life in a village with as few as 25 families – an inbred clan of less than 300 people..."

I always think of "The Hills have Eyes" when I read that.

Anyway, the dates are interesting (bolding in the original):

"Now, we know that a group of 'priestly' families resettled an area in the Nazareth valley after their defeat in the Bar Kochbar War of 135 AD (see above)...

The writer of Matthew (re-writer of the proto-Matthew stories) heard of 'priestly' families moving to a place in Galilee which they had called 'Nazareth' – and decided to use the name of the new town for the hometown of his hero. "

So, Nazareth appears to have existed when Matthew wrote about Jesus' hometown (presumably at some point around 140 CE, since the website states "The re-writer of the Gospel of Mark, revising his text sometime between 140 and 150 AD...").

But! The website also gives us this (my bolding):

"In the 3rd century Church Father Origen knew the gospel story of the city of Nazareth – yet had no clear idea where it was – even though he lived at Caesarea, barely thirty miles from the present town!...

No ancient historian or geographer mentions Nazareth. It is first noted at the beginning of the 4th century."

Finally, the website gives us this (bolding in original):

"4th Century Pilgrim Route – and NO NAZARETH!"

I don't know how many of the statements above are factual, but the website seems to suggest that Nazareth existed around 150 CE. Why then, in their opinion, is there no record of it until the Fourth Century? Obviously it has nothing to do with it not existing.