Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Metacrock · 10-03-2002, 09:22 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Vorkosigan:
Two quick points:

Reed, in Archaeology and the Galilean Jesus, says that massive church building activities obscure much of the evidence for first century Nazareth. However, evidence says that there was a small village of 400 at the time, about 4 hectares in size. There is no evidence for public structures, no inscriptions, and no evidence of houses. Reed says later building has destroyed the evidence of houses. Traces of terracing and traces of a vineyard tower have been found, along with straining depressions, fermenting vats, and depressions to hold storage jars. Reed is an archaeologist and has written a book with Crossan.

Meta =>If you look at the link, it shows pictures of houses which they found there. And it all three excavations, but especially Pfann clearly say they found evidence of habitation. habitation doesn't have to be just houses.

clearification needed.

At this point it would help to know if your position is that Jesus didn't eixst? Or is it just that the NT got some detail wrong?

Quote:

As for the oft-repeated "why didn't anyone deny Jesus in the early days," the question is answered by Ignatius in Trallians and Magnesians, and in John as well. People clearly did go around denying the historicity of Jesus, or Ignatius would not have listed historical details to rebut them. And of course, there is Hebrews 8:4 "Now if he had been on Earth..."

Meta =>O shades of that noxious Doherty person! That guy has caused more harm with his unqualified uninfomred ignorant speculation. the Book of Hebrews clearly refurst to Jesus life on earth. That verse is taken out of context. Look it up.

As for The chruch fathers, they are not defending the faith form the charge that Jesus didn't exist. No one ever made that charge, and if you think they did, who were they? Produce the text!

Now here is the link to the site of the archaeologist about his excavations (that's Dr. Pfann)

<a href="http://www.csec.ac.uk/dig.html" target="_blank">http://www.csec.ac.uk/dig.html</a>

The site says:

"We learned from these terraces the long history of the terrace farm at Nazareth Village. Pottery was found from the 1st to the 3rd cent. as well as the 11th to the 12 cent. AD. Local residents remember beans, lentils and carobs being harvested only decades ago. "

image of wine press.

wine press, agricultural terraces, look out towers, irrigation and a farm house. These are signs of habitation. Why would they build all that out in the middle of nowhwere and not live there?

image of agricultural terraces

the site:

"The ruins of three watchtowers surmount the walls of three separate terraces. Structures: Three watchtowers, agricultural terraces. Possibly farmhouse, aqueducts, a threshing floor and a tomb (all need to be investigated). 1 column drum type crushing stone.

The valley along with its slopes likely comprises the property of a single family’s farm which produced a variety of crops. This includes both areas A, B and C. The center of the farm should be identified with the watchtowers, the terraces and the water dispersement system. Most of the extent of the original farm is therefore almost entirely preserved. This farm remains the most important, and perhaps the only, witness to the life and livelihoods of the ancient Nazarenes. It remains today as the last vestiges of virgin farmland directly connected with the ancient village of Nazareth."

You say:"which pretty much settles the matter."

Meta => Yea if you have no concern for truth and can't evaluate evidence. The archaeologists who excavated Naz clearly said it existed and was inhabited. I've quoted them. It's empirical. All you have is argument from silence, vs. my empirical studies.

[ October 03, 2002: Message edited by: Metacrock ]

[ October 03, 2002: Message edited by: Metacrock ]

[ October 03, 2002: Message edited by: Metacrock ]

Peter Kirby · 10-03-2002, 09:30 PM

Metacrock: It was Tacitus' hobby to expose resurrection hoaxes.

His hobby? How do you go about showing that?

Metacrock: He never even attempted to expose that of Jesus' however.

As is often lamented, the section of Tacitus covering the years around 30 CE is lost.

best,
Peter Kirby

Metacrock · 10-03-2002, 09:40 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Peter Kirby:
Metacrock: It was Tacitus' hobby to expose resurrection hoaxes.

His hobby? How do you go about showing that?

Metacrock: He never even attempted to expose that of Jesus' however.

As is often lamented, the section of Tacitus covering the years around 30 CE is lost.

best,
Peter Kirby

e gad I did not know that Pete. But look, are you going to sit there and and not say a word about this silly argument? I mean come on dude, three excavations vs. argument from silence?

Peter Kirby · 10-03-2002, 10:28 PM

Well here is a Usenet post dated Dec. 29, 2000 that I once wrote. Maybe some people will find it helpful and/or interesting.

Quote:

J.D. Crossan comments on the inscription mentioning Nazareth (_The Historical Jesus_, p. 15):

"The very first mention of Nazareth in any non-Christian text comes from a fragmented inscription on a piece of dark gray marble excavated at Caesarea in August of 1962 and dating from the third or fourth century of the common era. In 70 C.E., during the First Roman-Jewish War, the Temple of Jerusalem was totally destroyed by the future emperor Titus, and, at the end of the Third Roman-Jewish War in 135 C.E., the defeated Jews were expelled from the territory of Jerusalem, renamed Aelia Capitolina by the emperor Hadrian. The surviving priests, divided from ancient times into twenty-four courses that took weekly turns in Temple service, were eventually reorganized and resettled in various Galilean towns and villages. A list of those assignments was affixed to the wall of Caesarea's synagoge built around the year 300 C.E. The restored line reads: 'The eighteenth priestly course [called] Hapizzez, [resettled at] Nazareth.' Both communal relocation and synagogal inscription served, no doubt, both to recall the Second Temple's past and to await a Third Temple's future (Vardaman; Avi-Yonah)."

So this inscription comes from the third or fourth century and purports to record the existence of this village in the mid second century.

Personally, I have no qualms with the existence of a village called Nazareth in the first century. The two sources which are usually called upon to cast doubt on Nazareth are Josephus, who names fourty-five towns in Galilee, and the Talmud, which names sixty-three Galilean towns. The latter can be dismissed because the Talmud is roughly contemporaneous with this inscription and thus only shows that Nazareth existed without necessarily having to be included in a list of towns. Josephus most likely did not mention Nazareth because it was merely one of a few satellites to the major city of Sepphoris, three or four miles away. Josephus speaks of Sepphoris as "situated in the heart of Galilee, surrounded by numerous villages" (Life 346), and Nazareth would be among those unnamed villages.

Archaeological digs indicate that the site of Nazareth, although occupied from quite ancient times, seems to have been refounded in the second century BCE (ibid., pp. 15-16). It is at from this period forward that the most extensive remains are found. Crossan suggests that the refounding of Nazareth may be connected to the annexation of Galilee at approximately the same time by the Hasmoneans. It is sensible enough to assume that the name of the village would have remained constant unless there was some kind of major upheaval after its refounding, of which there is no indication.

Finally, even if the Gospels are regarded as utter fiction, it is not daring to suggest that the mention of Nazareth in them provides a modicum of evidence for the existence of a first century village in Galilee of the same name. The writer of Mark does evince at least minimal knowledge of the geography of Galilee. Even if we suppose that the author hit upon the name of Nazareth as a punning reference to the word for branch or some other linguistic legerdemain, it is entirely plausible that the author had heard of a village called Nazareth and that this informed the writing of his fiction. This would further explain why this is not corrected by the authors of Matthew, Luke, or John. It is just easier to suppose that the silly village of the name had historical reality -- at the very least, I do not believe that this is a very good reason to cast aspersions on the texts.

best,
Peter Kirby

Vorkosigan · 10-03-2002, 10:41 PM

Meta => Yea if you have no concern for truth and can't evaluate evidence. The archaeologists who excavated Naz clearly said it existed and was inhabited. I've quoted them. It's empirical. All you have is argument from silence, vs. my empirical studies.

Meta --

I thought my post was clear. The evidence for a small village at Nazareth in the first century is good.

If Hebrews 8:4 is out of context, by all means explain. I would be happy to see a rebuttal.

Vorkosigan

Metacrock · 10-04-2002, 02:09 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Vorkosigan:
Meta => Yea if you have no concern for truth and can't evaluate evidence. The archaeologists who excavated Naz clearly said it existed and was inhabited. I've quoted them. It's empirical. All you have is argument from silence, vs. my empirical studies.

Meta --

I thought my post was clear. The evidence for a small village at Nazareth in the first century is good.

If Hebrews 8:4 is out of context, by all means explain. I would be happy to see a rebuttal.

Vorkosigan

ah! I'm sorry man. I didn't make myself clear. I wasn't saying that at you. Yea it was in response to you're post,but I meant the editorial you; I was speaking to those who are claiming argument from silence.

My apologies.

Layman · 10-04-2002, 02:36 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Vorkosigan:
Meta => Yea if you have no concern for truth and can't evaluate evidence. The archaeologists who excavated Naz clearly said it existed and was inhabited. I've quoted them. It's empirical. All you have is argument from silence, vs. my empirical studies.

Meta --

I thought my post was clear. The evidence for a small village at Nazareth in the first century is good.

If Hebrews 8:4 is out of context, by all means explain. I would be happy to see a rebuttal.

Vorkosigan

Which translation are you relying on to put this in the past tense? ("If he had been on earth").

Hebrews 8:4:

"Now if he were on earth, he would not be a priest at all, incce there are pirests who offer gifts according to the law."

Revise Standard Version.

Or, the New Living Translation:

"The sacrifice He offers is far better than those offered by the earthly priests. (But even so, if He were here on earth He wouldn't even be permitted to be a pirest, because down here the priests still follow the old Jewish system of scacrifices)."

Or, the New King James:

"For if he were on earth, he would not be a priest, since there are priests who offer the gifts according to the law; who serve the copy and shadow of heavenly things."

Or, the NIV:

"Now if He were on earth, He would not be a priest at all, since there are those who offer the gifts according to the Law...."

Or, the NASB:

"Now if He were on earth, He would not be a priest at all, since there are those who offer the gifts according to the Law;"

The statement does not deny that Jesus was on earth, it notes that he is not there now. Why? Because he's now in heaven, where he has taken the role of high priest.

Jesus died on earth so he could perform his priestly functions in heaven.

"And just as it is appointed for men to die once, and after that comes judgment, so Christ, having been offered once to bear the sins of many, will appear a second time, not to deal with sin but to save those who are eagerly waiting for him."

Hebrews 9:27-28.

Jesus came to earth once to die and will return to earth a second time to retrieve his church.

I know this scripture gives Doherty fits, but he's forced to rely on a an 18th century translation to argue against it.

[ October 04, 2002: Message edited by: Layman ]

Layman · 10-04-2002, 05:13 PM

I would add that the reason that Jesus could not be a High Priest on earth is because the author of Hebrews is stuck with the somewhat embarrasing fact that Jesus was born of the Tribe of Judah and not of the Tribe of Levi.

In some ways, parts of his Epistle are an apologetic for the fact that "it is evident that our Lord was descended from Judah, and in connection with that tribe Moses said nothing about priests." Heb. 7:14.

Of course, if the author of Hebrews were just talking about heavenly archetypes it would have been natural for Jesus -- as the ultimate high priest -- to be metaphorically (in Doherty's world) "descended" from the tribe of Levi. Or even descended from both the tribe of Judah AND the Tribe of Levi. Jesus is the heavenly High Priest. The Priests on earth are only shadowy representations of Jesus' ministry.

So why is Jesus only from the tribe of Judah? Why is the author of Hebrews stuck with this fact which impairs his portrayal of Jesus as High Priest? Because his parents were of the tribe of Judah (which is historically much more likely than his parents being of the much smaller tribe of Levi).

[ October 04, 2002: Message edited by: Layman ]

10-04-2002, 05:13 PM	#18
Layman Veteran Member Join Date: Feb 2001 Location: Los Angeles, CA Posts: 2,635	I would add that the reason that Jesus could not be a High Priest on earth is because the author of Hebrews is stuck with the somewhat embarrasing fact that Jesus was born of the Tribe of Judah and not of the Tribe of Levi. In some ways, parts of his Epistle are an apologetic for the fact that "it is evident that our Lord was descended from Judah, and in connection with that tribe Moses said nothing about priests." Heb. 7:14. Of course, if the author of Hebrews were just talking about heavenly archetypes it would have been natural for Jesus -- as the ultimate high priest -- to be metaphorically (in Doherty's world) "descended" from the tribe of Levi. Or even descended from both the tribe of Judah AND the Tribe of Levi. Jesus is the heavenly High Priest. The Priests on earth are only shadowy representations of Jesus' ministry. So why is Jesus only from the tribe of Judah? Why is the author of Hebrews stuck with this fact which impairs his portrayal of Jesus as High Priest? Because his parents were of the tribe of Judah (which is historically much more likely than his parents being of the much smaller tribe of Levi). [ October 04, 2002: Message edited by: Layman ]</p>

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

10-03-2002, 09:30 PM	#12
Peter Kirby Veteran Member Join Date: Jul 2001 Location: the reliquary of Ockham's razor Posts: 4,035	Metacrock: It was Tacitus' hobby to expose resurrection hoaxes. His hobby? How do you go about showing that? Metacrock: He never even attempted to expose that of Jesus' however. As is often lamented, the section of Tacitus covering the years around 30 CE is lost. best, Peter Kirby

10-03-2002, 10:41 PM	#15
Vorkosigan Contributor Join Date: Jan 2001 Location: Barrayar Posts: 11,866	Meta => Yea if you have no concern for truth and can't evaluate evidence. The archaeologists who excavated Naz clearly said it existed and was inhabited. I've quoted them. It's empirical. All you have is argument from silence, vs. my empirical studies. Meta -- I thought my post was clear. The evidence for a small village at Nazareth in the first century is good. If Hebrews 8:4 is out of context, by all means explain. I would be happy to see a rebuttal. Vorkosigan

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.