Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Toto · 07-12-2011, 11:14 AM

Quote:

Not many places in the Galilee can genuinely claim to be the “Town of Jesus.” But every visitor who enters the ancient site of Capernaum passes a sign that makes exactly that boast.

...

Unquestionably, one of the greatest finds in Capernaum is the ancient synagogue. Although the white marble ruins date back to later than the first century, they rest on the thick, black basalt foundation of the synagogue from the time of Jesus. In fact, a number of historical and biblical events occurred in this synagogue. I marveled to walk in the space and imagine the conversations that occurred there, several of which Scripture records (Mark 1:21-27; John 6:35-59).

...

According the Bible, after Jesus left his hometown of Nazareth, he moved his base of operations to Capernaum, beside the Sea of Galilee. This move fulfilled what the Prophet Isaiah had predicted centuries earlier (Isaiah 9:1-2; Matthew 4:14). ...

In contrast, Frank Zindler: Where Jesus Never Walked

Quote:

...

Capernaum

Since Capernaum is supposed to have been the site of Jesus' second home, the home of St. Peter, and the site of some of the most impressive miracles, we need to take a look at the evidence for Capernaum.

At first glance, Capernaum differs from Nazareth by virtue of the fact that it is said to be mentioned by Josephus, both in his Life (72:403) and in his Jewish War (III:8:519). But the sites mentioned in Josephus' Life and Jewish War are two different places, and neither is the equivalent of the Capernaum of the gospels. ...

The most common meaning given to the name Capernaum as it appears in the gospels is City of Nahum, although whether it refers to the prophet Nahum or some other Nahum is not agreed. Origen, like nearly everyone else up to the present, derived the second part of the name from the same root as that for the name Nahum, but arrived at 'place of consolation' as the meaning of Capernaum. It is important to note that Origen understood clearly that the name Capernaum -- as other sacred names -- had a symbolic meaning that befitted the stories in which it was embedded.

While most scholars are correct in tracing Capernaum to the root from which Nahum derives, I think they have all missed the crucial nuance in the root's meaning which caused the evangelists to choose it as the symbolic name of the place where their nascent cult's most important progress should occur. When we see how this Hebrew word was translated into Greek in several ancient versions of the Old Testament, we find that it could be translated as Paraclete, or Comforter. It is this possible link to the Paraclete, I believe, that reveals the symbolic intent of the New Testament writers when they created Capernaum. As 'the village of the Paraclete', Capernaum would focus the idea that the Holy Spirit was guiding the early church, as well as the idea that the early church (as symbolized by the Jesus character) was fulfilling the role of intercessor or advocate.

... ... Origen lived at Caesarea, only 45 miles from the site modern maps call Capernaum, and he traveled widely and frequently and records that "We have visited the places to learn by inquiry of the footsteps of Jesus and of his disciples and of the prophets." Despite extended discussion of the chronological and geographic contradictions concerning Capernaum in the gospels, never does he even hint that he actually knows where the place is to be found. Capernaum's unknown physical location clearly is a major factor in Origen's argument that the gospels and the gospel place names must be interpreted mystically, not historically.

There is much more at that article.

Maurice Casey, in his Jesus of Nazareth: An Independent Historian's Account of His Life and Teaching (or via: amazon.co.uk), tries to counter Zindler's arguments at p. 132.

Quote:

Zindler points out that the Gospels are not precise about exactly where near a shore of the sea of Galilee Capernaum was located. This is true, but it does not mean that anything is wrong with its identification with Tell Hum, which fits all the Gospel evidence perfectly. Zindler makes a lot of the absence of the site of Capernaum in Christian tradition for 'several centuries.' In fact, however, Capernaum became very well known before the end of the reign of Constantine (306-37 CE), when a church was built there, the earliest date at which this was possible. Zindler pours scorn on Franciscan excavation of the site. This was indeed faulty, but doubts about the identification of Peter's house should not lead us to undervalue the fact that the kind of house in which Peter would have lived has been found. Zindler declares that 'finding the remains of a first-century synagogue is a prerequisite for establishing any site as a candidate for the biblical Capernaum.' There are two reasons why this is wrong. First, we do not know that the synagogue which Jesus attended was a sufficiently distinctive site for its remains to be identifiable as such. Secondly, a later synagogue covered the most promising site, so decisive excavation is most unlikely. This does not show that the site was not a first-century synagogue, let alone that the whole place is not Capernaum. Zindler does not say anything about what he thinks the site at Tell Hum was, …

Casey then says that atheists like Zindler are just the negative of false Christian piety, and he will ignore them for the rest of the book.

Steven Carr · 07-12-2011, 12:10 PM

Casey pours scorn on Zindler when Zindler points out the lack of evidence.

What sort of idiot wants evidence, seems to be the tone? Don't people realise they can't expect evidence to exist?

'This was indeed faulty, but doubts about the identification of Peter's house should not lead us to undervalue the fact that the kind of house in which Peter would have lived has been found.'

Gosh.

How much should we value the fact that Casey gives us there?

Well, the University of Nottingham will be charging students 9000 pounds a year to listen to such facts.

For just 20 quid, I will happily tell anybody who asks that we have found the type of fish Peter would have caught. How's that for a bargain?

bacht · 07-12-2011, 12:10 PM

I didn't realize that so many of these places were unknown or disputed, certainly doesn't help those trying to piece together an historical itinerary

andrewcriddle · 07-12-2011, 12:55 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

In contrast, Frank Zindler: Where Jesus Never Walked

Quote:

...

Capernaum

Since Capernaum is supposed to have been the site of Jesus' second home, the home of St. Peter, and the site of some of the most impressive miracles, we need to take a look at the evidence for Capernaum.

At first glance, Capernaum differs from Nazareth by virtue of the fact that it is said to be mentioned by Josephus, both in his Life (72:403) and in his Jewish War (III:8:519). But the sites mentioned in Josephus' Life and Jewish War are two different places, and neither is the equivalent of the Capernaum of the gospels. ...

The Capernaum in the Jewish War and the Capernaum in the Life are spelt slightly differently and described differently. (Jewish War speaks of a fountain, the Life of a village.) However they are at most a few miles apart and it seems simplest to assume Josephus is speaking of the same location in both texts.

Andrew Criddle

stephan huller · 07-12-2011, 04:09 PM

It is harder to make the same defense for Bethsaida - a completely non-existent place.

Diogenes the Cynic · 07-12-2011, 05:47 PM

Bethsaida basically means "fish town," or "fishing village" though, so could just be a generic designation akin to "cow town," rather than a proper name.

yalla · 07-12-2011, 07:26 PM

Emmaus, from "Luke", is another shonky one.
The known Emmaus was too far away from Jerusalem for the 2 blokes "Luke" has walking there and back and meeting JC on the way to be done in one day.

There are several other 'shonkies' in the gospels which suggest none of the authors of such had first hand local knowledge of the region but were simply, frequently, plonking down names for literary reasons and simply to have a locale for their particular story.

One church father, Origen perhaps, got really concerned about the whereabouts of one place.
Gerasa as the setting for the legion of swine in "Mark" I think it was.

stephan huller · 07-12-2011, 09:05 PM

Quote:

Bethsaida basically means "fish town," or "fishing village" though, so could just be a generic designation akin to "cow town," rather than a proper name.

You seem to have taken a deep interest in my musings. How many fishing villages do you know on hill tops our mountain tops?

Diogenes the Cynic · 07-12-2011, 10:36 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by stephan huller

Quote:

Bethsaida basically means "fish town," or "fishing village" though, so could just be a generic designation akin to "cow town," rather than a proper name.

You seem to have taken a deep interest in my musings. How many fishing villages do you know on hill tops our mountain tops?

Why does it have to be on a mountain top?

stephan huller · 07-13-2011, 12:16 AM

Because the Marcionite narrative reads 'Bethsaida' instead of 'Nazareth' in Luke chapter 4. The topography of the narrative can't possible fit a fishing village if you know Israelite geography. Nazareth lies about 1200 feet above sea level. When you leave Nazareth you descend and make this massive transition to about 700 feet below sea level in a short amount of time. That's why the narrative ends with Jesus being cornered against one of those high cliffs and then he either passed through the crowd (Marcionite gospel) or flew above them (Diatessaron) and then presumably sent the people trying to push him off the cliff over the edge.

When the Marcionite gospel preserved this name of this place as 'Bethsaida' it is impossible to imagine that this was a fishing village set on a mountain top. Not only don't they exist but the name bethsaida is also used of the temple (or a place related to Jerusalem) in John chapter 5. Notice also that the description here matches those of the literature associated with Solomon and the imprisonment of demons in waterpots.

Bethsaida means 'house of demons' and ultimately derives from Ecclesiaistes 2:8. In this way the gospel of Marcion likely had a similar appearance to the gospel of John (i.e. a confrontation at the temple) at the very beginning.

For some of Professor Markus Vinzent's evaluation of my reconstruction

http://markusvinzent.blogspot.com/20...r-galilee.html

There's also this for some background:

http://stephanhuller.blogspot.com/20...erence-to.html

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

07-12-2011, 12:10 PM	#2
Steven Carr Veteran Member Join Date: Jul 2001 Location: England Posts: 5,629	Casey pours scorn on Zindler when Zindler points out the lack of evidence. What sort of idiot wants evidence, seems to be the tone? Don't people realise they can't expect evidence to exist? 'This was indeed faulty, but doubts about the identification of Peter's house should not lead us to undervalue the fact that the kind of house in which Peter would have lived has been found.' Gosh. How much should we value the fact that Casey gives us there? Well, the University of Nottingham will be charging students 9000 pounds a year to listen to such facts. For just 20 quid, I will happily tell anybody who asks that we have found the type of fish Peter would have caught. How's that for a bargain?

07-12-2011, 12:10 PM	#3
bacht Veteran Member Join Date: Aug 2008 Location: Canada Posts: 2,305	I didn't realize that so many of these places were unknown or disputed, certainly doesn't help those trying to piece together an historical itinerary

07-12-2011, 04:09 PM	#5
stephan huller Veteran Member Join Date: Jun 2010 Location: seattle, wa Posts: 9,337	It is harder to make the same defense for Bethsaida - a completely non-existent place.

07-12-2011, 05:47 PM	#6
Diogenes the Cynic Moderator - Join Date: Sep 2004 Location: Twin Cities, Minnesota Posts: 4,639	Bethsaida basically means "fish town," or "fishing village" though, so could just be a generic designation akin to "cow town," rather than a proper name.

07-12-2011, 07:26 PM	#7
yalla Veteran Member Join Date: May 2002 Location: oz Posts: 1,848	Emmaus, from "Luke", is another shonky one. The known Emmaus was too far away from Jerusalem for the 2 blokes "Luke" has walking there and back and meeting JC on the way to be done in one day. There are several other 'shonkies' in the gospels which suggest none of the authors of such had first hand local knowledge of the region but were simply, frequently, plonking down names for literary reasons and simply to have a locale for their particular story. One church father, Origen perhaps, got really concerned about the whereabouts of one place. Gerasa as the setting for the legion of swine in "Mark" I think it was.

07-13-2011, 12:16 AM	#10
stephan huller Veteran Member Join Date: Jun 2010 Location: seattle, wa Posts: 9,337	Because the Marcionite narrative reads 'Bethsaida' instead of 'Nazareth' in Luke chapter 4. The topography of the narrative can't possible fit a fishing village if you know Israelite geography. Nazareth lies about 1200 feet above sea level. When you leave Nazareth you descend and make this massive transition to about 700 feet below sea level in a short amount of time. That's why the narrative ends with Jesus being cornered against one of those high cliffs and then he either passed through the crowd (Marcionite gospel) or flew above them (Diatessaron) and then presumably sent the people trying to push him off the cliff over the edge. When the Marcionite gospel preserved this name of this place as 'Bethsaida' it is impossible to imagine that this was a fishing village set on a mountain top. Not only don't they exist but the name bethsaida is also used of the temple (or a place related to Jerusalem) in John chapter 5. Notice also that the description here matches those of the literature associated with Solomon and the imprisonment of demons in waterpots. Bethsaida means 'house of demons' and ultimately derives from Ecclesiaistes 2:8. In this way the gospel of Marcion likely had a similar appearance to the gospel of John (i.e. a confrontation at the temple) at the very beginning. For some of Professor Markus Vinzent's evaluation of my reconstruction http://markusvinzent.blogspot.com/20...r-galilee.html There's also this for some background: http://stephanhuller.blogspot.com/20...erence-to.html

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.