Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Toto · 11-15-2007, 09:21 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Antipope Innocent II

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

But of course, experts disagree

Experts rebut claim of biblical bathhouse

The experts disagreed back in 2002, when the first evidence of the bath was found and nothing other than an initial survey of those early finds had been done. They don't disagree now that several seasons of excavations have been carried out and finds (like the pot sherds from the cistern that Freund mentioned in my e-mail) have dated it conclusively to the First Century. The date on the story you cite was Dec 17th 2002. Freund's excavations didn't start until 2004 and they are continuing.

I will wait for more information. As I said, I don't think that this is an earth shattering issue, which ever way it is resolved.

Quote:

Okay, so can you explain what you mean by this cryptic observation then?:

"Jews might not need Nazareth to exist, but tourist dollars are not inconsiderable, if you need a motive to question anyone's work."

You are quick to accuse Zindler of having an ideological bias. I just wanted to point out there are lots of ideologies and other motives involved.

I don't think anyone needs to lie. Your presuppositions can always shape the evidence. I think that Hershel Shanks makes a lot of money from Christians with his Biblical Archeology Review, and that led him to accept the fraudulent James Ossuary.

Toto · 11-15-2007, 09:29 PM

There is a long exchange here on the blogspot Rookthehistorian involving Rook, a member of the RationalResponders, who is an atheist and a mythicist, who rejects the idea that Nazareth did not exist. There is correspondence involving Zindler, Salm, and Robert Price, and links to the RR forum. I haven't had time to read through it yet.

Antipope Innocent II · 11-15-2007, 09:30 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

I will wait for more information.

Freund's research should begin to be published in the next couple of years, either by the IAA or by the Maurice Greenberg Centre for Judaic Studies at Hartford. If you don't want to wait until then you (or anyone else) could write to the IAA and get a copy copy of the preliminary excavation report from their periodic bulletin - Alexandre, Y. “Archaeological Excavations at Mary’s Well, Nazareth,” Israel Antiquities Authority Bulletin, May 1, 2006.

Quote:

As I said, I don't think that this is an earth shattering issue, which ever way it is resolved.

As I said, the way certain people bring up the same hoary old amateurish crap from Zindler and Salm as though these guys have any credibility when amongst the actual archaeologists there is no doubt that Nazareth existed throughout the Roman Iron Age speaks volumes about the nature of the arguments some JMers cling to.

Quote:

Okay, so can you explain what you mean by this cryptic observation then?:

"Jews might not need Nazareth to exist, but tourist dollars are not inconsiderable, if you need a motive to question anyone's work."

You are quick to accuse Zindler of having an ideological bias. I just wanted to point out there are lots of ideologies and other motives involved.

Really? With whom? Zvi Gal? Freund? Feig?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

There is a long exchange here on the blogspot Rookthehistorian involving Rook, a member of the RationalResponders, who is an atheist and a mythicist, who rejects the idea that Nazareth did not exist. There is correspondence involving Zindler, Salm, and Robert Price, and links to the RR forum. I haven't had time to read through it yet.

I have. It's pretty typical of Rook "I'm an EXPERT because my MySpace page says so!" Hawkins' stuff - wordy, pretentious and actually pretty weak. He could have saved himself most of those long, wheezing, syntactically-tangled paragraphs if he'd just gone to a research library and looked up the relevant archaeological material.

Magdlyn · 11-16-2007, 06:25 AM

Thank you for all the links, Toto. You rock.

PhilosopherJay · 11-16-2007, 07:04 AM

Hi Antipope Innocent II,

I take from this that Feig has produced evidence in 2001 showing that this site is Nazareth or was inhabited in the First half of the First century. Where may I find this evidence? Thank you.

Warmly,

Philosopher Jay

Quote:

Originally Posted by Antipope Innocent II

In this post we find a quote from an earlier paper by Feig - "Burial Caves at Nazareth" (Atiqot, 10, 1990, 67-79). Last time I looked 2001 was 11 years after 1990.

Quote:

In others words, it seems that one of the archaeologists you cited as proving the existence of Nazareth in the time of Jesus, actually found the opposite, that the evidence that Baggatti had touted as proving the habitation of Nazareth (or an area he called Nazareth) in the time of Jesus really was evidence of habitation from after the alleged time of the gospel Jesus character.

Er, in that earlier excavation certainly. Selective evidence much Jay?

PhilosopherJay · 11-16-2007, 07:13 AM

Hi All,

The only description of Nazareth in the gospels is that it is a city in Galilee, has a synagogue (Luke: 4.1) and is built on a hill (Luke 4.29). May I ask why the site currently being excavated and being called Nazareth is being identified as Nazareth? How do we know that a city called Nazareth was on this site as opposed to a city called Springfield?

Warmly,

Philosopher Jay

PhilosopherJay · 11-16-2007, 09:49 AM

Hi All,

Here is Frank Zindler's take on the Caesarea inscription which may mention Nazareth http://www.atheists.org/christianity...life.html#F21B "How Jesus Got A Life":

Quote:

The first inscriptional mention of the place-name Nazareth is thought to be on a fragment of marble found at the site of ancient Caesarea in 1962. ["A List of Priestly Courses from Caesarea," M. Avi-Yonah, Israel Exploration Journal, 12:137-9] The synagogue in which the marble fragment was found appears to date from the end of the third or the beginning of the fourth century CE [The Archeology of the New Testament, Jack Finegan, Princeton Univ. Press, 1992, p. 46], thus ruling out the inscription as a witness to any first-century place called Nazareth.

It is doubtful, however, that the inscription really mentions Nazareth. The several related fragments of the inscription were interpreted by means of Hebrew liturgical poems dating from the sixth to seventh centuries - when present-day Nazareth was already a thriving tourist site and the name was well-known. The letters n-ts-r-t are bounded by broken edges of the stone (in fact, the n is only partially present), and it is not certain what letter may have preceded the n. In my opinion, the damaged n probably was preceded by a g (a narrow letter in Hebrew, easily fitting into the space hypothesized by the discoverers of the inscription) and read Gennesaret, not Nazareth. Gennesaret was founded in Hellenistic times and was well known.

Does anyone have the short article. "A List of Priestly Courses from Caesarea," M. Avi-Yonah, Israel Exploration Journal, 12:137-9"?

Warmly,

Philosopher Jay

Ben C Smith · 11-16-2007, 10:43 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by PhilosopherJay

Hi All,

Here is Frank Zindler's take on the Caesarea inscription....

That is why I would like to see the inscription itself. If it is indeed as fragmentary as Zindler makes out, then I can certainly understand any doubts as to its usefulness.

Ben.

Magdlyn · 11-16-2007, 11:01 AM

Now we don't even have a clear idea if it was a mosaic or just a "fragment of marble? And it was found in Cesearea, not Nazareth itself, anyway?

Gerasa and Gadara were already confused in the Synoptics.

From reading one of Toto's links, I see Jesus' "other hometown" of Capernaum also seems to be doubtfully identified. I've already mentioned Magdala's questionable link to Mary called Magdalene. Anyone see a bit of a pattern. Even tho, as Amaleq avers, Jesus' story is prima facie set in history, more than one of the alleged 1st century towns or "cities" mentioned (or implied, or touted for reasons of tourist dinarii) may be as fictional as Hogsmeade.

Ben C Smith · 11-16-2007, 11:08 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Magdlyn

And it was found in Cesearea, not Nazareth itself, anyway?

That much was never in doubt.

Ben.

11-16-2007, 07:13 AM	#46
PhilosopherJay Veteran Member Join Date: Aug 2004 Location: Orlando Posts: 2,014	Sense and Reference of Nazareth Hi All, The only description of Nazareth in the gospels is that it is a city in Galilee, has a synagogue (Luke: 4.1) and is built on a hill (Luke 4.29). May I ask why the site currently being excavated and being called Nazareth is being identified as Nazareth? How do we know that a city called Nazareth was on this site as opposed to a city called Springfield? Warmly, Philosopher Jay

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

11-15-2007, 09:29 PM	#42
Toto Contributor Join Date: Jun 2000 Location: Los Angeles area Posts: 40,549	There is a long exchange here on the blogspot Rookthehistorian involving Rook, a member of the RationalResponders, who is an atheist and a mythicist, who rejects the idea that Nazareth did not exist. There is correspondence involving Zindler, Salm, and Robert Price, and links to the RR forum. I haven't had time to read through it yet.

11-16-2007, 06:25 AM	#44
Magdlyn Veteran Member Join Date: Mar 2004 Location: Massachusetts Posts: 2,230	Thank you for all the links, Toto. You rock.

11-16-2007, 11:01 AM	#49
Magdlyn Veteran Member Join Date: Mar 2004 Location: Massachusetts Posts: 2,230	Now we don't even have a clear idea if it was a mosaic or just a "fragment of marble? And it was found in Cesearea, not Nazareth itself, anyway? Gerasa and Gadara were already confused in the Synoptics. From reading one of Toto's links, I see Jesus' "other hometown" of Capernaum also seems to be doubtfully identified. I've already mentioned Magdala's questionable link to Mary called Magdalene. Anyone see a bit of a pattern. Even tho, as Amaleq avers, Jesus' story is prima facie set in history, more than one of the alleged 1st century towns or "cities" mentioned (or implied, or touted for reasons of tourist dinarii) may be as fictional as Hogsmeade.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.