Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Reliable Skeptic · 03-08-2009, 02:59 PM

Just pointing out how contradictions abound in this. No one really knows and you cannot rely on NT authors for valid evidence of anything since they were way out in left field.

Switch89 · 03-08-2009, 05:01 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by GakuseiDon

Quote:

Originally Posted by GakuseiDon

Randi says at 1:30 min in:

"Of course, the religious faction has reacted furiously to the book. Specifically in the Bulletin of the Anglo-Israel Archaeological Society, which devotes some 47 pages to 5 angry rebuttals."

That's all he says. Nothing to say what he thought of the rebuttals (other than that they were "angry"), or even that he read them.

I've sent them an email on what they thought of Salm's book, and what the consensus is on the question of the existence of Nazareth in the first half of the First Century CE. I'll post the response here.

Well, I've heard back from the Anglo-Israel Archaeological Society. It seems that their Bulletin Vol 25 (2007) had an article by S. Pfann, R. Voss and Y. Rapuano called Surveys and Excavations at the Nazareth Village Farm (1997-2002): Final Report, which was published too late to be considered in Salm's book. (Randi refers to this article in his video clip.)

Salm wrote to them, criticising the report. They admitted that some of those criticisms were valid ("angrily" admitted, no doubt!), and Vol 26 (2008) contained their responses to Salm's criticisms as well as a detailed review of Salm's book by Dr Ken Dark (PhD Archaeology, Cambridge and Director of the Nazareth Archaeological Project). Dark concluded:

"This is not a well-informed study and ignores much evidence and important published work of direct relevance. The basic premise is faulty, and Salm's reasoning is often weak and shaped by his preconceptions. Overall, his central argument is archaeologically unsupportable".

On Nazareth, Dark wrote:

"The available archaeological evidence from the centre of contemporary Nazareth, by contrast, suggests that the settlement of Nazareth existed in the Second Temple period..."

They recommended me reading through the bulletin to understand the details of the controversy. If there are 47 pages on the subject, then they have appeared to have tried to go into some depth.

Where do you go to read the full-length report? I've checked the website and it seems you cannot get it unless you pay for it (20 pounds per issue, which is quite a lot in US $). I wish there was some way to access it for free.

GakuseiDon · 03-08-2009, 06:00 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Switch89

Where do you go to read the full-length report? I've checked the website and it seems you cannot get it unless you pay for it (20 pounds per issue, which is quite a lot in US $). I wish there was some way to access it for free.

You might want to try any nearby academic or state library. Your local library might be able to track the periodical down, and even organize an interlibrary loan for it.

I've found it in the on-line catalogue for my State Library, so I'll try to get in and read the articles sometime in the next few weeks, esp Dr Dark's review of Salm's book. (I love that name, "Dr Dark"! A great name for a supervillian, and an even better one for someone studying European history).

Toto · 03-09-2009, 12:46 AM

I attended Carrier's lecture today in Ventura. His position on the existence of Nazareth is that the gospels are so clearly mythical and not historical that the existence of Nazareth is a detail of no consequence.

Steven Carr · 03-09-2009, 12:56 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

I attended Carrier's lecture today in Ventura. His position on the existence of Nazareth is that the gospels are so clearly mythical and not historical that the existence of Nazareth is a detail of no consequence.

Did Arimathea exist?

Toto · 03-09-2009, 12:56 AM

Ken Dark is the director of Nazareth Archaeological Project

link

Quote:

Recent Roman and Byzantine discoveries in Nazareth, Israel
Ken Dark
Director, Research Centre for Late Antique and Byzantine Studies, University of Reading
Since 2004, a British archaeological project has been conducting the first modern archaeological investigation of Nazareth - the childhood home of Jesus Christ - and its hinterland. This project, which focuses on the Roman and Byzantine periods, has discovered a wide range of new evidence both inside and near the ancient settlement of Nazareth - including a network of Roman-period farms and villages in the surrounding countryside and what may be the first village house dating to the early Roman period yet identified inside Nazareth itself. This lecture will summarise some of the results of this ongoing study to date.

Toto · 03-09-2009, 12:58 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Steven Carr

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

I attended Carrier's lecture today in Ventura. His position on the existence of Nazareth is that the gospels are so clearly mythical and not historical that the existence of Nazareth is a detail of no consequence.

Did Arimathea exist?

I think spin thinks that it refers to an actual place. But again, this does not make Jospeh of Arimathea historical.

GakuseiDon · 03-09-2009, 04:13 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

I attended Carrier's lecture today in Ventura. His position on the existence of Nazareth is that the gospels are so clearly mythical and not historical that the existence of Nazareth is a detail of no consequence.

Well, colour me mystified and use me as a dip at a fondue party.

There has to be more to his answer than that, surely.

It almost sounds like you have him saying "the existence of Nazareth is a detail of no consequence for the existence of Nazareth." What do the gospels have to do with anything?

Given the nature of his lecture, can I assume that he meant "towards validating the gospels"? Otherwise, I can't see how the gospels being mythical or not impacts on the archaeological evidence towards the existence of a First Century Nazareth.

In the link I gave earlier, Carrier apparently had looked at the archaeological evidence and concluded, "The bottom line: there is absolutely no doubt that Nazareth existed in the time of Jesus." It would have been interesting to hear if he has re-evaluated his position since then. Perhaps Salm has been able to change Carrier's mind.

(ETA) I'd be interested in what you thought of Carrier's lecture. I assume it is the one mentioned in the sticky?

Toto · 03-09-2009, 08:43 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by GakuseiDon

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

I attended Carrier's lecture today in Ventura. His position on the existence of Nazareth is that the gospels are so clearly mythical and not historical that the existence of Nazareth is a detail of no consequence.

Well, colour me mystified and use me as a dip at a fondue party.

There has to be more to his answer than that, surely.

It almost sounds like you have him saying "the existence of Nazareth is a detail of no consequence for the existence of Nazareth." What do the gospels have to do with anything? ...

No consequence for the question of the historicity of Jesus. Do you think anyone cares a fig about Nazareth otherwise?

Quote:

In the link I gave earlier, Carrier apparently had looked at the archaeological evidence and concluded, "The bottom line: there is absolutely no doubt that Nazareth existed in the time of Jesus." It would have been interesting to hear if he has re-evaluated his position since then. Perhaps Salm has been able to change Carrier's mind.

He has not read Salm's book and is waiting for a specialist in that particular area to critique it.

Quote:

(ETA) I'd be interested in what you thought of Carrier's lecture. I assume it is the one mentioned in the sticky?

It was brilliant. Christian apologists will just have to fold up shop and find some other way to scam people.

PhilosopherJay · 03-09-2009, 09:19 AM

Hi Toto,

Apparently Ken Dark is now a Holy land Tour Guide as well, or at least a guest lecturer on tours. I wonder how many people are going to spend $2,000 Euros to be told "The place you have just made a pilgrimage to is really not the birthplace of Jesus. This is just a place that we've named Nazareth to cash in on the hype. Nazareth is a mythical place made up to explain why Jesus was called a Nazarene."

Warmly,

Philosopher Jay

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

Ken Dark is the director of Nazareth Archaeological Project

link

Quote:

Recent Roman and Byzantine discoveries in Nazareth, Israel
Ken Dark
Director, Research Centre for Late Antique and Byzantine Studies, University of Reading
Since 2004, a British archaeological project has been conducting the first modern archaeological investigation of Nazareth - the childhood home of Jesus Christ - and its hinterland. This project, which focuses on the Roman and Byzantine periods, has discovered a wide range of new evidence both inside and near the ancient settlement of Nazareth - including a network of Roman-period farms and villages in the surrounding countryside and what may be the first village house dating to the early Roman period yet identified inside Nazareth itself. This lecture will summarise some of the results of this ongoing study to date.

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

03-08-2009, 02:59 PM	#31
Reliable Skeptic Junior Member Join Date: Nov 2008 Location: Southern US Posts: 44	Just pointing out how contradictions abound in this. No one really knows and you cannot rely on NT authors for valid evidence of anything since they were way out in left field.

03-09-2009, 12:46 AM	#34
Toto Contributor Join Date: Jun 2000 Location: Los Angeles area Posts: 40,549	I attended Carrier's lecture today in Ventura. His position on the existence of Nazareth is that the gospels are so clearly mythical and not historical that the existence of Nazareth is a detail of no consequence.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.