Freethought & Rationalism Archive

darstec · 06-01-2010, 05:17 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ApostateAbe

Quote:

Originally Posted by darstec

Two major problems with the Micah quote. First is that both Bethlehem and Ephrathah in this passage are masculine denoting persons not towns which are feminine in Hebrew. To substantiate that is the fact that both personages are mentioned elsewhere in the bible in their masculine counterparts.

The second problem is that when taken into context the Micah passage is speaking about a physical leader to rise up and help Israel in its fight against thousands of other clans who opposed it. Why do those seeking prophesy always divest it of context?

You are absolutely right about that. The early Christians apparently either misunderstood or reinterpreted the prophecy to spin Bethlehem the patriarch into Bethlehem the town. They may have done that because they were Greeks, not Jews, and they either didn't know or didn't care about how to properly interpret the text.

Unfortunately, you were misinformed about Nazareth, and it is not your fault, because the claims come from people who otherwise seem worthy of trust. If it didn't exist in the first century CE, then it would be extremely difficult for archaeologists to show that it was vacant, regardless of whether it was or not. There is an author (not an historian or an archaeologist), Rene Salm, who wrote a book proposing that Nazareth didn't exist in the first century CE, a theory which caught on with some Jesus-mythicists such as Frank Zindler of American Atheists, but you really should take the modern existence of Nazareth in Galilee and the placement of Nazareth in Galilee according to the gospels as evidence enough. Otherwise, you would need to defend the hypothesis that Nazareth was founded in Galilee to attract early Christian tourists of the second century or whatever. Last December, there was actually an archaeological discovery in the city of Nazareth that was dated to the first century CE because of a hideout that followed the archaeological pattern of Jews defending themselves against the Romans in 70 CE. There have been other archaeological artifacts to show the existence of Nazareth that have been dated very shortly after the first century CE. Just check Wikipedia.

You are seriously recommending a Wiki as a legitimate source of information? Really?

It is YOU who are mistaken. The references are to Roman era buildings [the Roman era lasted well into the 5th century CE] and not the first century CE. Prior to that the only archaeological evidence surrounding Nazareth was that it was a graveyard and off limits to Jews.

Nazareth was never once mentioned in the OT, then suddenly a few years later it is a thriving city? The Talmud never mentions Nazareth nor does Josephus. It was not until Eusebius that we find any Early Christian writer mention Nazareth.

And please don't confuse what our late, late revisions of Eusebius's works say that some Early Church Father says when in fact that person may not even have existed. Papias is one example. We read here often that "Papias says....." when what we really mean is that Eusebius says that Papias says. Far too often we have no idea what if anything was written by those Early Church fathers who may or may not have existed.

If the gospel writers didn't know that Bethlehem of Judea was unoccupied for several centuries straddling the first century CE, why think they got Nazareth correct when by all appearances and logic iit was an aberration of Nazarite or even branch?

Quote:

Originally Posted by ApostateAbe

Quote:

Originally Posted by darstec

Again we see evidence of the late writing of the gospels (2nd century CE) by authors who were unfamiliar with the geographical terrain and customs of first century CE Jews.

Cool. The gospels apparently got some things right and some things wrong about Jews, Israel and Judaism. They were Greeks, and their only knowledge came from myths.

They were wrong simply because those customs did not reflect the first century CE but rather conditions after the Final Diaspora of 134 CE. Those anachronisms are indications of the late date of writing of the epistles and gospels, not that they weren't Jews. The did accurately depict customs of the second and third centuries CE.

ApostateAbe · 06-01-2010, 05:46 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by darstec

Quote:

Originally Posted by ApostateAbe

You are absolutely right about that. The early Christians apparently either misunderstood or reinterpreted the prophecy to spin Bethlehem the patriarch into Bethlehem the town. They may have done that because they were Greeks, not Jews, and they either didn't know or didn't care about how to properly interpret the text.

Unfortunately, you were misinformed about Nazareth, and it is not your fault, because the claims come from people who otherwise seem worthy of trust. If it didn't exist in the first century CE, then it would be extremely difficult for archaeologists to show that it was vacant, regardless of whether it was or not. There is an author (not an historian or an archaeologist), Rene Salm, who wrote a book proposing that Nazareth didn't exist in the first century CE, a theory which caught on with some Jesus-mythicists such as Frank Zindler of American Atheists, but you really should take the modern existence of Nazareth in Galilee and the placement of Nazareth in Galilee according to the gospels as evidence enough. Otherwise, you would need to defend the hypothesis that Nazareth was founded in Galilee to attract early Christian tourists of the second century or whatever. Last December, there was actually an archaeological discovery in the city of Nazareth that was dated to the first century CE because of a hideout that followed the archaeological pattern of Jews defending themselves against the Romans in 70 CE. There have been other archaeological artifacts to show the existence of Nazareth that have been dated very shortly after the first century CE. Just check Wikipedia.

You are seriously recommending a Wiki as a legitimate source of information? Really?

Sure. I don't claim Wikipedia as an authority on the subject of Nazareth, and I certainly wouldn't cite in a research paper. But, I almost always use it to start my research.

Wikipedia is pretty good at condensing a large set of knowledge into a few paragraphs, and it normally cites trustworthy sources in the superscripts and footnotes, and that is where you go to get final confirmation on the claims. I tell people on an Internet forum to go to Wikipedia so I don't have to do all of the homework. A bunch of other people with no lives already did it.

Citing Wikipedia is a boner for someone trying to win a debate, but I am not trying to win a debate. I am just trying to help all of us get a better handle on reality.

Quote:

Originally Posted by darstec

It is YOU who are mistaken. The references are to Roman era buildings [the Roman era lasted well into the 5th century CE] and not the first century CE. Prior to that the only archaeological evidence surrounding Nazareth was that it was a graveyard and off limits to Jews.

Nazareth was never once mentioned in the OT, then suddenly a few years later it is a thriving city? The Talmud never mentions Nazareth nor does Josephus. It was not until Eusebius that we find any Early Christian writer mention Nazareth.

And please don't confuse what our late, late revisions of Eusebius's works say that some Early Church Father says when in fact that person may not even have existed. Papias is one example. We read here often that "Papias says....." when what we really mean is that Eusebius says that Papias says. Far too often we have no idea what if anything was written by those Early Church fathers who may or may not have existed.

If the gospel writers didn't know that Bethlehem of Judea was unoccupied for several centuries straddling the first century CE, why think they got Nazareth correct when by all appearances and logic iit was an aberration of Nazarite or even branch?

I have argued this point with Spin a few months ago. He argued that the name for "Nazareth" was originally derived from the Jewish nazirite sect and the Christians somehow goofed it up and turned it into a city. He argued that largely on the basis of the many different spellings of "Nazareth" and "Nazarene" in the gospels and the lack of external evidence for the existence of the city at the time. I made the counterpoint point that, if Nazareth was just a small and unknown town in Israel, and if the gospels were sourced from decades of oral myths, then the Greeks would be expected to have many variations of pronunciation and spelling. Not even most Jews knew of the town, just like you haven't heard of Picayune, MS, and you wouldn't know how to spell it. Spin didn't have a counterpoint to that, beyond telling me that I am taking the easy way out and I don't want to face the true implications of the evidence. For me, it is not such a good idea to take the tougher arguments that require all-new principles and events that lack evidence, but maybe Spin thinks his own explanation really is more parsimonious. I am not sure who in the scholarship argues that proposition about Nazareth.

Quote:

Originally Posted by darstec

Quote:

Originally Posted by ApostateAbe

Cool. The gospels apparently got some things right and some things wrong about Jews, Israel and Judaism. They were Greeks, and their only knowledge came from myths.

They were wrong simply because those customs did not reflect the first century CE but rather conditions after the Final Diaspora of 134 CE. Those anachronisms are indications of the late date of writing of the epistles and gospels, not that they weren't Jews. The did accurately depict customs of the second and third centuries CE.

OK, I would be interested in those anachronisms, but we can leave that aside for now.

mountainman · 06-01-2010, 06:01 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

Quote:

Originally Posted by ApostateAbe

How about the criterion of earlier is better? Or the criterion of multiple sources?

These aren't much used in Biblical studies, except to postulate more sources and then claim multiple attestation.

Eusebius relied upon these criteria heavily.

spamandham · 06-01-2010, 08:35 PM

Can we table the Nazareth discussion, or move it to another thread please?

ApostateAbe · 06-01-2010, 08:54 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by spamandham

Can we table the Nazareth discussion, or move it to another thread please?

I requested a mod split.

Toto · 06-02-2010, 12:54 AM

The discussion of Nazareth, or the prophecy related to Nazareth, seems to flow out of the discussion. Which posts exactly do you want split off?

ApostateAbe · 06-02-2010, 10:47 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

The discussion of Nazareth, or the prophecy related to Nazareth, seems to flow out of the discussion. Which posts exactly do you want split off?

I don't really care where the split is, but it is fine by me if there is no split. spamandham wanted it, and I felt like I was hijacking the thread.

spamandham · 06-02-2010, 12:26 PM

I really don't think the posts could be split easily, I was just hoping to curtail the thread turning into another discussion of whether or not Nazareth existed.

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

06-01-2010, 08:35 PM	#54
spamandham Contributor Join Date: Mar 2004 Location: Dallas, TX Posts: 11,525	Can we table the Nazareth discussion, or move it to another thread please?

06-02-2010, 12:54 AM	#56
Toto Contributor Join Date: Jun 2000 Location: Los Angeles area Posts: 40,549	The discussion of Nazareth, or the prophecy related to Nazareth, seems to flow out of the discussion. Which posts exactly do you want split off?

06-02-2010, 12:26 PM	#58
spamandham Contributor Join Date: Mar 2004 Location: Dallas, TX Posts: 11,525	I really don't think the posts could be split easily, I was just hoping to curtail the thread turning into another discussion of whether or not Nazareth existed.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.