Freethought & Rationalism Archive

andrewcriddle · 02-28-2012, 12:23 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by PhilosopherJay

Hi andrewcriddle,

Quote:

there is shown at Bethlehem the cave where He was born, and the manger in the cave where He was wrapped in swaddling-clothes. And this sight is greatly talked of in surrounding places, even among the enemies of the faith, it being said that in this cave was born that Jesus who is worshipped and reverenced by the Christians.

Origen does not say how the people in the surrounding places know it is the place where Jesus was born. Bethlehem is five or six miles from Jerusalem. It is hard to believe that the surrounding places would not include everybody in Jerusalem. One would think that in 200 years, some Christians would have set up a shrine or a church there and that Origen or some other writer might mention having visited it. It seems surprising that 1) he does not describe the site, 2) he has not visited the site and 3) he does not name anybody who has visited the site.
Also, if everybody in Jerusalem knew where this site was (and how could they not) why did Helena have to discover the site 90 years later, or did she discover another site? In which case how did they discover that the site that Origen claims had been passed off in the time of Origen was not the real site.

Eusebius says practically the same thing as Origen:

He also gives no additional information than that it is shown to visitors. He also has not visited the place nor named anybody who has.

Neither Origen or Eusebius cites their source for this statement that the cave draws visitors. it sounds like something that Christians simply deduced from their belief that the birth story was true.

This can be classified as a rhetorical point rather than the reporting of an objective fact. In a piece of ancient rhetoric, which "Against Celsus" and the "demonstratio" falls under, making up evidence such as this was not prohibited, but considered the proper thing to do.

Warmly,

Jay Raskin

We also have evidence from Jerome for pre-Constantinian Bethlehem

Quote:

From Hadrian's time until the reign of Constantine, for about 180 years, the Gentiles used to worship an image of Jupiter set up in the place of the Resurrection and on the rock of the Cross a marble statue of Venus. For the authors of the persecution supposed that by polluting the Holy Places with idols they would do away with our faith in the Resurrection and the Cross. Bethlehem, now ours, and the earth's most sacred spot... was overshadowed by a grove of Thammuz, which is Adonis, and in the cave where the infant Messiah once cried, the paramour of Venus was bewailed.

See Bethlehem I agree that all this literary evidence is Christian.

Andrew Criddle

Edited to Add

According to the Fourth Century Christian writers, Constantine/Helena rebuilt an existing site previously associated with the birth of Jesus, they did not discover a brand new site.

semiopen · 02-28-2012, 01:53 PM

Oshri was of the opinion that Bethlehem in the Galilee was a reasonable place for Yoshke's birth.

The OT also has some comments that suggest Bethlehem was in a different place -

For example,

Rachel's_Tomb

Quote:

The earliest extra-biblical records identifying the tomb as the site of Rachel's burial place, date back to the beginning of the 4th century AD.

Like the eTrade baby... imagine my shocked expression.

Quote:

Early Jewish scholars noticed an apparent contradiction in the Bible with regards to the location of Rachel's grave. In Genesis, the Bible states that Rachel was buried "on the way to Ephrath, which is Bethlehem." Yet a reference to her tomb in Samuel states: "When you go from me today, you will find two men by Rachel's tomb, in the border of Benjamin, in Zelzah" (1 Sam 10:2). Rashi asks: "Now, isn't Rachel's tomb in the border of Judah, in Bethlehem?" He explains that the verse rather means: "Now they are by Rachel's tomb, and when you will meet them, you will find them in the border of Benjamin, in Zelzah." Similarly, Ramban assumes that the site shown today near Bethlehem reflects an authentic tradition. After he had arrived in Jerusalem and seen "with his own eyes" that Rachel's tomb was on the outskirts of Bethlehem, he retracted his original understanding of her tomb being located north of Jerusalem and concluded that the reference in Jeremiah (Jer 31:15) which seemed to place her burial place in Ramah, is to be understood allegorically. There remains however, a dispute as to whether her tomb near Bethlehem was in the tribal territory of Judah, or of her son Benjamin.[63]

Her tomb in Ramah can be understood allegorically. In other words, it is said to be in Ramah because Rachel made an exceptionally stinky fart there or something.

Doug Shaver · 02-29-2012, 07:35 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Iskander

The paucity of archaeological evidence proves nothing at all.

Not ever?

There is no archeological evidence in my back yard of any Indian occupation from California's pre-Spanish era. Would I therefore be justified in telling people there used to be an Indian village in my back yard?

Doug Shaver · 02-29-2012, 07:37 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by sotto voce

Because intelligent, educated, even sophisticated people have taken offence at the cross of Christ since Stephen was stoned.

So says your dogma.

Quote:

Originally Posted by sotto voce

And arguably, many of the first Mormons were not intelligent, educated, sophisticated people.

Didn't Paul say the same thing about the first Christians?

Iskander · 02-29-2012, 08:08 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Doug Shaver

Quote:

Originally Posted by Iskander

The paucity of archaeological evidence proves nothing at all.

Not ever?

There is no archeological evidence in my back yard of any Indian occupation from California's pre-Spanish era. Would I therefore be justified in telling people there used to be an Indian village in my back yard?

Not ever? I don’t know what you want to know, but I will try to explain myself.

If there is written or if there is an oral tradition, then any one of these two may be taken as evidence for the existence of habitation in the distant past in some geographical zone.

If archaeology has so far failed to find sufficient supportive evidence, then the paucity of archaeological findings is compatible with the existence of that community in the distant past until such time as it is proven that existence to have been impossible.

Doug Shaver · 03-01-2012, 12:22 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Iskander

Quote:

Originally Posted by Doug Shaver

Not ever?

There is no archeological evidence in my back yard of any Indian occupation from California's pre-Spanish era. Would I therefore be justified in telling people there used to be an Indian village in my back yard?

Not ever? I don’t know what you want to know, but I will try to explain myself.

If there is written or if there is an oral tradition, then any one of these two may be taken as evidence for the existence of habitation in the distant past in some geographical zone.

Sometimes.

We're talking about written evidence in either case, since we cannot know about any ancient oral traditions unless somebody referred to those traditions in some extant document.

So, we have a document in which some place was said to be inhabited. That document is evidence for habitation insofar as actual habitation at the time in question constitutes a good explanation for somebody's believing so at the time the document was written. But this hypothesis must be compared against whatever alternative hypotheses may recommend themselves.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Iskander

If archaeology has so far failed to find sufficient supportive evidence, then the paucity of archaeological findings is compatible with the existence of that community in the distant past until such time as it is proven that existence to have been impossible.

That depends. We might have good reason to think it improbable that if a place was once inhabited, no evidence of that habitation would have survived. That is why archeologists are now very sure that no group of Israelites ever spent 40 years wandering around the Sinai Peninsula.

Lugubert · 03-01-2012, 01:49 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Iskander

If there is written or if there is an oral tradition, then any one of these two may be taken as evidence for the existence of habitation in the distant past in some geographical zone.

I don't buy that reasoning. Many cultures have stories on stupid neighbours, with place names and all, that are totally fictitious.

Quote:

If archaeology has so far failed to find sufficient supportive evidence, then the paucity of archaeological findings is compatible with the existence of that community in the distant past until such time as it is proven that existence to have been impossible.

Hi, Occam. A total absence of archaeological evidence, where under assumed circumstances there should have been numerous findings, is totally compatible with a non-existent community.

Iskander · 03-01-2012, 02:58 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Doug Shaver

Quote:

Originally Posted by Iskander

Not ever? I don’t know what you want to know, but I will try to explain myself.

If there is written or if there is an oral tradition, then any one of these two may be taken as evidence for the existence of habitation in the distant past in some geographical zone.

Sometimes.

We're talking about written evidence in either case, since we cannot know about any ancient oral traditions unless somebody referred to those traditions in some extant document.

So, we have a document in which some place was said to be inhabited. That document is evidence for habitation insofar as actual habitation at the time in question constitutes a good explanation for somebody's believing so at the time the document was written. But this hypothesis must be compared against whatever alternative hypotheses may recommend themselves.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Iskander

If archaeology has so far failed to find sufficient supportive evidence, then the paucity of archaeological findings is compatible with the existence of that community in the distant past until such time as it is proven that existence to have been impossible.

That depends. We might have good reason to think it improbable that if a place was once inhabited, no evidence of that habitation would have survived. That is why archeologists are now very sure that no group of Israelites ever spent 40 years wandering around the Sinai Peninsula.

The Tabernacle in the time of Moses

Nomadic people, whether Israelite or Vulcan, travel lightly and leave a small footprint: still, that archaeologist have nothing interesting to say is surprising since in my experience they are very imaginative in reconstructing the unknown past.

Doug Shaver · 03-02-2012, 05:24 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Iskander

Nomadic people, whether Israelite or Vulcan, travel lightly and leave a small footprint: still, that archaeologist have nothing interesting to say is surprising since in my experience they are very imaginative in reconstructing the unknown past.

A small footprint is not a nonexistent footprint. And if archeologists rely as much as you insinuate on their imaginations, their failure to find even a small footprint of the Israelites' 40-year trek through Sinai is all the more reason to think that no such trek happened.

Iskander · 03-02-2012, 05:37 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Doug Shaver

Quote:

Originally Posted by Iskander

Nomadic people, whether Israelite or Vulcan, travel lightly and leave a small footprint: still, that archaeologist have nothing interesting to say is surprising since in my experience they are very imaginative in reconstructing the unknown past.

A small footprint is not a nonexistent footprint. And if archeologists rely as much as you insinuate on their imaginations, their failure to find even a small footprint of the Israelites' 40-year trek through Sinai is all the more reason to think that no such trek happened.

It is of no importance what archaeologists say. History has spoken.

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

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.