patcleaver

I agree except that the rules of evidence that I am talking about are rules based on probabilities e.g. entities are presumed to not exist unless you can prove that they exist, because you can invent an infinite number of entities that you can not prove exit, but only a finite number of entities really exist.

jjramsey

Like I said, this is more than the usual shoehorning. You yourself are arguing that Matthew is not just taking OT verses out of context, but trying to fudge a connection between a word meaning "branch," NAZER, and the word "Nazarene." And this is all presuming that Matthew is working from the Hebrew in the first place.

Nothing artificial about noting that the usual MO is to take verses out of context, and that this goes beyond the usual MO.

spamandham

Fair enough.

patcleaver

Wow:

No evidence that any real place in Galilee was called Nazareth until the 4th century. A fragment of dark gray marble at a synagogue in Caesarea Maritima was discovered in August 1962. Dating from the late 3rd or early 4th century, the stone bears the first mention of Nazareth in a non-Christian text. It names Nazareth as one of the places in Galilee where the priestly families of Judea migrated after the disastrous Hadrianic war of 135 AD. It is not evidence that a town in Galilee was called Nazareth in 135, but only that Jews migrated to a town in 135 and that the town was called Nazareth around the beginning of the 4th century.

No evidence that the town that was referred to in the inscription is the same town as modern Nazareth except that sometimes towns keep the same name for long periods of time.

No reliable evidence that the spot that the modern city of Nazareth is today was occupied at the beginning of the first century.

No evidence that the gospel town of Nazareth is associated with the site of the modern town of Nazareth except that the names are the same. There are two real Bethlahams and two of many other real towns. It is not at all unusual to have a fictional town in a story that is different than a real town with the same name.

No match between the geography of the gospel town of Nazareth and the geography of the modern town of Nazareth e.g. No precipice.

No match between description of gospel town of Nazareth in the Gospels and the archeology of the modern town of Nazareth e.g. no crowd of residents or a place with a synagogue.

False prophesy fulfillment that Jesus would be from Nazareth Mark 1:10 Jesus came from Nazareth (nazaret) of Galilee. Isaiah 11:1 “A shoot shall come out from the stump of Jesse, and a branch/bud [nazer/netzer] shall grow/bloom out of his roots.”

False prophesy fulfillment that Jesus would be called a Nazarene because he was from Nazareth. Matthew 2:23 He went and dwelt in a town called Nazareth (nazaret), so that what had been spoken through the prophets might be fulfilled, "He shall be called a Nazarene ." Judges 13:5, 7 As for the son you will conceive and bear, no razor shall touch his head, for this boy is to be consecrated (a nezer) to God from the womb. It is he who will begin the deliverance of Israel from the power of the Philistines."

This is similar to many other false prophesy fulfillments: from Egypt, from Bethlehem, born of a virgin, massacre of the infants, preceded by Isaiah the prophet, called son of god, be a prophet, preach to gentiles, preach in parables, perform miracles including walk on water, be misunderstood, ride into Jerusalem on an ass, and many other parts of the story of Jesus.

One of the sects of the Jews were the Nazarenes, and in Mark 10:47 Jesus is called "Jesus the Nazarene ". An early version of Mark may have consistently called Jesus "Jesus the Nazarene" instead of "Jesus of Nazareth", and then later someone who was not familiar with Jewish sects could have thought "the Nazarene " referred to a town and changed it everywhere to "Jesus of Nazareth" and then later added biography about a mythical town of Nazareth.

No mention of a town called Nazareth in the Jewish scriptures where many Galilean towns are named, or in Josephus where many Galilean towns are named, or in Tacitus where many Galilean towns are named. No early Christian writing that cites any first century source that mentions a town called Nazareth. No reports from Christians that they have found evidence of Nazareth existing in the first century.

Absence of possible evidence is always evidence of absence. If some possible evidence would increase the likelihood that some entity existed, then lack of that evidence reduces the likelihood that the entity exists. Anytime that we search for evidence of something, when we might expect to find evidence of something, and do not find evidence of that something, then that reduces the probability that the something exists. Anytime that somebody else searches for something, and if they found it then we could expect a report of that something, and there are no reports of that something, then that reduces the probabiltiy that the something exists.

[In logic] Absence of proof is not proof of absence. [proof meaning absolute proof] In logic, A->B, "A implies B", is not equivalent to ~A->~B, "not-A implies not-B".

But in probability theory, absence of evidence is always evidence of absence. If E is a binary event and P(H|E) > P(H), "seeing E increases the probability of H"; then P(H|~E) < P(H), "failure to observe E decreases the probability of H". P(H) is a weighted mix of P(H|E) and P(H|~E), and necessarily lies between the two.
-- Robyn Dawes's, Rational Choice in an Uncertain World

The logical presumption is that Nazareth does not exist unless it can be proved likely to exist. The burden of proof being on those who claim that there was a first century town called Nazareth where Jesus' family lived and where Jesus grew up.

PhilosopherJay

Hi patcleaver,

Good points.

Incidentally, the evangelical-archaeologist who discovered the Caesarea marble under unusual circumstances was later disgraced when he claimed to have found ancient coins with Jesus' name microscopically written on them. While the marble may have been from the Third, Fourth, Fifth or Sixth century, the writing on it may have come from 1962.

Warmly,

Philosopher Jay


[QUOTE=patcleaver;5410982]Wow:

No evidence that any real place in Galilee was called Nazareth until the 4th century. A fragment of dark gray marble at a synagogue in Caesarea Maritima was discovered in August 1962. Dating from the late 3rd or early 4th century, the stone bears the first mention of Nazareth in a non-Christian text. It names Nazareth as one of the places in Galilee where the priestly families of Judea migrated after the disastrous Hadrianic war of 135 AD. It is not evidence that a town in Galilee was called Nazareth in 135, but only that Jews migrated to a town in 135 and that the town was called Nazareth around the beginning of the 4th century.

No evidence that the town that was referred to in the inscription is the same town as modern Nazareth except that sometimes towns keep the same name for long periods of time.
delete

Sheshbazzar

O Gawd! THAT nutcase again!

patcleaver

Thanks Jay,

It can be determined whether a stone with an inscription is a recent forgery by studying the exterior layer of the stone called the fascia, especially within the inscription. Most inscribed stones are limestone or marble and an oxide layer forms over a period of hundreds of years over the surface of the stone and inside the inscription. At least some recent forgers, have been unable to convincingly duplicate the fascia. The fascia can be compared to the fascia of inscriptions of known age in the same environment to get a ballpark guess of the age - may be within 20% of the age.

Inscriptions are dated from the circumstances, in site, in which they are found and by writing style. We often know the ages of buildings and tombs so those inscriptions are easily dated. Sometimes inscriptions themselves contain dates.

The writing style of the inscription can be compared to inscriptions with known dates to determine a range of dated inscriptions that match. Using only writing style, depending on circumstances, the best guess could easily be off by 100 years. However, sometimes inscriptions are made in older styles, so an inscription with a 4th century style could really be 8th century inscription.

spamandham

I've always wondered why it is atypical to guesstimate likelihoods for all known facts, and actually numerically compute the probabilities of the various proposed scenarios.

If we take your list, plus the counter list of evidence that does support a historical Nazareth, and 'guess' at likelihoods (an educated guess based on similarities, not just a wild ass guess), we could in principle actually determine which scenario is stronger.

-Jay-

Locking this one for some cleanup too.

regards,

NinJay
Administrator

ETA - Vardaman material split out to here, and I'm really locking this time...

-Jay-

I'm very cautiously re-opening this thread. Please try to keep it on-topic and don't let it drop into personal sniping.

regards,

NinJay
Administrator