Solitary Man

Yeah, true, as you've just seen, anyone who disagrees with the site is apparently a tried and true Christian as well.

FathomFFI

There's some Christian fundies, but we are beginning to see a lot of atheist fundies also. They look so much alike. One mention of Jesus and it's like a bomb goes off.

It's kind of funny really.

andrewcriddle

First of all IIUC the (absurd) 2nd century dates apear to be based on claims about the colophon rather than the style of handwriting (paleography)

Secondly this is a basically standard Peshitta NT which only fringe scholars would have dated before about 400 CE (when the Peshitta originated)

Thirdly Yonan has a very dubious reputation (Google for Yonan Codex)

The sites you link to appear to be taking seriously the fringe ideas of Yonan et al.

There is a discussion of the Codex here

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/hugoye-list/message/1604

and follow-ups.

There may possibly be a genuine discrepancy between the paleographic dating and the C14 dating with genuine scholars dating the handwriting around 700 CE However, at least in retrospect, the scholar quoted would seem to be ignoring evidence of a later date (such as vowel points) in order to support what turns out to be too early a date.

Andrew Criddle

mens_sana

Ummm, why do I get the feeling that the "no 1st century Nazareth" and the "with all those errors, we can never know the original (NT) texts" are both dishonest efforts aimed at cutting Christianity off at the knees? Talk about unjettisoned Fundie baggage . . . ! Cheeze Louize!

Toto

Please do not accuse others of dishonesty when there is just a difference of opinion. And these are two different issues. We all agree that the original texts cannot be known exactly, but can probably be known well enough for some purposes. The question of whether Nazareth existed in the first century is not a central Christian doctrine. It is just a question of archeology.

And what do you mean by "cutting Christianity off at the knees?" Don't you think that there are ample arguments against Christianity for those who oppose Christianity without these two points?

aa5874

The question whether a city of Nazareth existed in the 1st century is directly related to the veracity of the NT. This question is not related to archaeology alone.

And even if a place was called Nazareth, in the 1st century was it a city or an unpopulated area? Perhaps a cemetry?

The keyword is [b]"CITY".
Now based on the description of Jesus, I would not think anyone in the city of Nazareth would have seen him.

It is very likely that there was no city of Nazareth, maybe that is the reason it is claimed Jesus of the NT LIVED there.

FathomFFI

Would it be a pointless endeavor to educate you that the word translated to "city" means "a town?" Would it also be fruitless to try to help you to understand that you cannot ever understand ancient history by drawing conclusions based on a 21st century perspective?

From a 21st century perspective, a "city" can create images of a teeming metropolis of hundreds of thousands of people, or more. But 2000 years ago a "city" could be a very small town with less than 100 people.

Should I expect a massive refutation from you now? You know, one that doesn't make any sense?

mens_sana

I really do not think it is just a difference of opinion. You and I (and a good number of others) know that the text variants do not sink Xnity. but the "cannot know the texts" = "texts are unreliable" argument is founded on the Fundie tenet of perfect transmission (texts cannot be wrong). However, this is inerrancy theology. In other words these arguments are based in a former fundamentalism which, while vehemently denied, is still an unrecognized a priori in some modes of thinking.

The nonexistence of a 1st century Nazareth is a similar argument. If Nazareth did not exist, then the texts are proved "unreliable" at a level that undercuts all four Gospels in an area that is not "miraculous" or even allegorical. Sure, there are two sides to this. However, the nonexistence is vitiated by the fact that there no professional archaeologists who support the position — NONE. The only defense offered is that the archaeologists have been brainwashed by a Christian cabal, along with other charges that entail both ineptitude and venality. And this "defense" never mentions that Jewish archaeologists are numbered among the pros that support a 1st century Nazareth.

I have even seen charges that the Caesarea synagogue inscription was "perhaps" forged by Eusebius. (Eusebius as a writer I know, as a stonecarver? — really!) However, the "perhaps" is uttered only once, after that "perhaps" disappears and the charge is never again qualified. The same people charge that Eusebius forged the TF. There is no evidence for this, only some speculations based in "if this, then that" none of which would see daylight in any court. And of course, no one ever mentions that Eusebius was an Arian.

By the way, the two finest books I have ever read on the "reliability" of the biblical texts are both by Baruch Halpern: The First Historians (or via: amazon.co.uk) and David's Secret Demons (or via: amazon.co.uk). Of course, this type of "reliability" would give any conservative chronic reflux.

Toto

First you realize that the texts cannot be relied on. Then you realize that the texts are not literally true, and need "interpretation." Eventually you realize that the Bible is an interesting product of its time and place, but not an especially enlightened guide to life. Then, like Ehrman, you lose your religion.

There's no point in stopping at the middle of this process and becoming dogmatic about it.

Nazareth is barely mentioned in Mark, and there is an argument that Nazareth is not mentioned at all. Nazareth is not central to Jesus' teaching on morality, or much of anything. What's the problem with seeing Nazareth as allegory? I don't think you should box yourself in like that.

This is an argument from authority. Right now, professional archeologists say Nazareth exited, tomorrow everything might change. I haven't looked at the data myself, because the question is not that important.

I don't know who said that Eusebius might have forged the inscription, and you will not find that charge on JesusNeverExisted. And I am sure you could find some Christians who have made much more improbable charges.

It is not true to say that the same people charge that Eusebius forged the TF. Many people charge that Eusebius forged the TF, including some with advanced degrees.

aa5874

So, tell me how many persons lived in the city of Nazareth? And tell me the name of a city of antiquity that had less than a hundred people.

Now, based on your statement, Nazareth may have been a city with less than ONE person.