No Evidence for 1st Century Nazareth

[angellous_evangellous]

opportunistic snot, or snotty opportunist?

Just answer the question: is the translation from the Greek NT to 'polis' to 'city' correct or incorrect? Biblos.com does not seem to making any kind of fuss over this, as you and FB are. Of course, that's most likely because, like everyone else on your list, they're just ignorant, right?

I see no reason to clarify myself further on this.

 

[angellous_evangellous]

Prof. Freund really did do a lot of work there, summarized in his 2009 book:

Digging Through the Bible: Modern Archaeology and the Ancient Bible By Richard A. Freund.

Some of it is available on google books.

 

[fallingblood]

Apparently I was mistaken. I thought you had been reading the links I have been providing. You could have read in the link I provided. "Professor Richard Freund, head of the Maurice Greenberg Centre for Judaic Studies at Hartford University in Connecticut, decided to redirect his energies at the Nazareth site and away from his existing projects. He brought in the latest technology to settle once and for all the mystery of what was under Cactus.

His conclusions are earth-shattering. Freund believes that Elias has revealed a Roman bathhouse from 2,000 years ago – from the time of Jesus in the town in which Jesus was raised.

"I am sure that what we have here is a bathhouse from the time of Jesus," he says, "and the consequences of that for archeology, and for our knowledge of the life of Jesus, are enormous."

Well, you are mistaken in one sense. You are mistaken in the fact that you are addressing a source that I was not.

I was addressing the source that you post as The Myth of Nazareth. I addressed this source as it was the one that you posted as evidence for your claim. If you read the link that you provided, the author of the site states clearly that the name of the author of the quote he is using has been withheld. That is what I was speaking of. I was not speaking of your other sources, that really had nothing to do with what I was talking about.

That is why you need to read more carefully. Context, such as the portion of your statement that I quoted, would have greatly helped in your figuring out what I was speaking about. Again, I was not speaking of the sources you previously provided, but the source you label as (in the link) The Myth of Nazareth.

As for the professor that is used in your other source, that is just laughable. He definitely shows no credibility, especially when any credibility he had is destroyed by his illogical look for Atlantis.

Have you not been reading the links I have provided, or do you just have a problem remembering what you read?

Again, context should have told you what I was speaking about. I was addressing only one of your links, and context should have told you which one I was addressing. Trying to discredit me, or belittle me because you can't follow the context, simply is asinine.

On a separate note, still can't produce any rebuttal to my argument about Josephus and Jesus? I'm still waiting. You can always just admit that you can't create a rebuttal though.

 

[Tellurian]

I was addressing the source that you post as The Myth of Nazareth. I addressed this source as it was the one that you posted as evidence for your claim. If you read the link that you provided, the author of the site states clearly that the name of the author of the quote he is using has been withheld. That is what I was speaking of. I was not speaking of your other sources, that really had nothing to do with what I was talking about.

That is why you need to read more carefully. Context, such as the portion of your statement that I quoted, would have greatly helped in your figuring out what I was speaking about. Again, I was not speaking of the sources you previously provided, but the source you label as (in the link) The Myth of Nazareth.

If you had paid more attention to the information in the Myth of Nazareth link you would have noticed the "director at the Albright" words were a link to the director of at the Albright who was referred to in the article. Clicking those words would have provided you with the following information so you wouldn't need to go into a hissy fit:

Seymour (Sy) Gitin, Dorot Director and Professor of Archaeology
Albright Institute
P.O. Box 19096
91 190 Jerusalem
Israel
E-mail: [email protected]
Tel.: 972-2-628-8956
Fax: 972-2-626-4424

As you said, "you need to read more carefully".

 

[angellous_evangellous]

If you had paid more attention to the information in the Myth of Nazareth link you would have noticed the "director at the Albright" words were a link to the director of at the Albright who was referred to in the article. Clicking those words would have provided you with the following information so you wouldn't need to go into a hissy fit:

Seymour (Sy) Gitin, Dorot Director and Professor of Archaeology
Albright Institute
P.O. Box 19096
91 190 Jerusalem
Israel
E-mail: [email protected]
Tel.: 972-2-628-8956
Fax: 972-2-626-4424

As you said, "you need to read more carefully".

Can you find anything on Nazareth published by the Albright Institute?

Publications of the W. F. Albright Institute of Archaeological Research

One has to wonder if you even know who Albright is....

 

[fallingblood]

If you had paid more attention to the information in the Myth of Nazareth link you would have noticed the "director at the Albright" words were a link to the director of at the Albright who was referred to in the article. Clicking those words would have provided you with the following information so you wouldn't need to go into a hissy fit:

Seymour (Sy) Gitin, Dorot Director and Professor of Archaeology
Albright Institute
P.O. Box 19096
91 190 Jerusalem
Israel
E-mail: [email protected]
Tel.: 972-2-628-8956
Fax: 972-2-626-4424

As you said, "you need to read more carefully".

Come on. It doesn't have to be this hard. The director at Albright is not the author of that quote. The director at Albright is a friend of the author. Yes, you need to read more carefully: I contacted a friend of mine who is a director at the Albright. *quoted from your Myth of Nazareth link.

Again, the author of the quote is unnamed. Actually, he has his name purposely withheld. Why? One has to assume that it doesn't help the author of your links cause to name the individual. And without knowing who the author is (really, it doesn't actually matter. What matters is that the author of your link purposely withheld the information), it is not possible to determine their credibility. In fact, we don't even know that they are an archeologist. We don't even know that it isn't the author himself, which it could definitely be (and that would explain why the name is withheld). Really, it simply is not credible.

Now, please, before you respond again and accuse me of not reading, please actually read you link. Because I really shouldn't have to keep breaking this down for you.

And, repeating myself: On a separate note, still can't produce any rebuttal to my argument about Josephus and Jesus? I'm still waiting. You can always just admit that you can't create a rebuttal though.

 

[Tellurian]

Again, the author of the quote is unnamed. Actually, he has his name purposely withheld. Why? One has to assume that it doesn't help the author of your links cause to name the individual. And without knowing who the author is (really, it doesn't actually matter. What matters is that the author of your link purposely withheld the information), it is not possible to determine their credibility. In fact, we don't even know that they are an archeologist. We don't even know that it isn't the author himself, which it could definitely be (and that would explain why the name is withheld). Really, it simply is not credible.

If you don't think it was him, then do you think it might have been one of the following?

Prof. Thomas Thompson…
…René Salm’s The Myth of Nazareth has been waiting to be written for twenty years now and I am glad to see that someone has finally taken up the challenge.…—Thomas L. Thompson PhD, University of Copenhagen (Emeritus). Author, The Mythic Past: Biblical Archaeology and the Myth of Israel; The Messiah Myth: The Near Eastern Roots of Jesus and David, etc.

Robert M. Price…
…René Salm has shown that we have an utter void of archaeological vestiges of the Galilean home town of Jesus. At least there was no such town in the early part of the first century… Salm examines every bit of known evidence from the Nazareth Plateau. What a disparity between his results (none of them methodologically dubious, none controversial except in result) and the blithe generalizations of certain well-known Bible encyclopedias and Bible archaeology handbooks[!]…

Salm’s archaeological outcome does fit quite well with other literary considerations, namely the entire silence of both Josephus and the Mishnah when it comes to Nazareth…

It must now become apparent that we must bracket the gospel stories till we can independently reconstruct an account of Christian origins from the evidence on the ground—or the lack of it. New Testament minimalism: full speed ahead!—Robert M. Price, PhD, ThD. Author, The Pre-Nicene New Testament, Jesus is Dead, etc.

Robert Eisenman…
“I have been looking over your ‘Nazareth’ volume which you sent me and it is, of course, very thorough in your usual manner. But as I told you early on, you don’t have to convince me. I am a believer. I know there was no ‘Nazareth’… at least not where they were talking about it, from the first days I read Josephus who virtually catalogued all the important locations in Galilee and of course, no Nazareth!”—Prof. Robert Eisenman, PhD. Author, James the Brother of Jesus, etc.

H. P. Kuhnen…
(on the critical post-50 CE dating of the Nazareth tombs)
“I have studied your work relating to the archaeology of Nazareth and find your position very interesting. Concerning the [post-50 CE] dating of the known tombs, you are certainly correct.”—Prof. Hans-Peter Kuhnen, PhD. Author, Pälastina in Griechisch-Römischer Zeit, the world’s foremost authority on Roman tombs in the Galilee.

The Real Jesus Challenge, Bart Erhman, and Nazareth « Vridar

 

[godnotgod]

I see no reason to clarify myself further on this.

No one is asking you to 'clarify' yourself; I am asking a simple question. Can you provide an honest answer or not?

 

[fallingblood]

If you don't think it was him, then do you think it might have been one of the following?

I know it wasn't him. As I pointed out in my last post, the director was a friend of his, and not him. The author of the link you provided purposely withheld the name so we wouldn't know who the quote is from.

Prof. Thomas Thompson…

I'm not listing all of the authors you posted, but this goes for all of them. The simple fact is we do not know who the author of the quote in question is. The author of the site you provided made it so that we wouldn't know. As he stated, he withheld the name. It was something purposeful, and intended to keep us from knowing who the author is. That takes away any credibility that quote may have, and it brings into question the authors intentions.

You can keep posting various names, but it really is getting you no where. The fact is, you don't know who the quote belongs to as the name was purposely withheld. Just deal with it.

The Real Jesus Challenge, Bart Erhman, and Nazareth « Vridar

Here's one of the only good quotes from that site: “I think it is historically virtually certain that Jesus existed.”—Bart D. Ehrman Bart Ehrman is right here. It is virtually certain that Jesus existed. Josephus, as I have said multiple times (and you have yet to offer a logical rebuttal to), is more than enough evidence for the existence of Jesus.

On a side note, I find it funny how you would think Robert Price is a good source (or at least good enough in this case). His three pillars for the Jesus myth are ignorant, and full of holes based on poor research. I have offered a rebuttal to all three, and if you are interested in actually debating it, I will show you the links. But since you haven't even dealt with the pillar concerning Jesus and Josephus, I won't hold my breath.

 

[fallingblood]

No one is asking you to 'clarify' yourself; I am asking a simple question. Can you provide an honest answer or not?

I think he already has. You simply don't want to accept it. Which isn't surprising as there is quite a bit you won't accept because it doesn't agree with your view.

 

[Tellurian]

Here's one of the only good quotes from that site: “I think it is historically virtually certain that Jesus existed.”—Bart D. Ehrman Bart Ehrman is right here. It is virtually certain that Jesus existed. Josephus, as I have said multiple times (and you have yet to offer a logical rebuttal to), is more than enough evidence for the existence of Jesus.

WHICH Jesus existed? Was Ehrman referring to the biblical Jesus character in the gospel tales, or was he referring to the historical Jesus based on Yeshu ben Pantera and others who were used to form the composite Jesus character?

Josephus writes about 20 different men named Jesus in his works, but he NEVER wrote about any biblical Jesus character, even though he did write about John the Baptist and James the Just. The following sites provide several reasons why the Jesus forgery passages in the works of Josephus are redacted insertions:

Josephus on Jesus | Forgery and Fraud? | Flavius Testimonium

The Testimonium Flavianum - a chronological summary of its Censure

 

[outhouse]

Yeshu ben Pantera and

historical jesus has never been though to be ben pantera by any mainstream scholar.


only individuals way off base with a biased view

 

[fallingblood]

WHICH Jesus existed? Was Ehrman referring to the biblical Jesus character in the gospel tales, or was he referring to the historical Jesus based on Yeshu ben Pantera and others who were used to form the composite Jesus character?

Could you ask any more of an asinine question?

The Jesus in which Ehrman is speaking about, and that any NT scholar, theologian, Jesus scholar, etc, is Jesus Christ, the Jesus from the Bible, the Jesus who lived in the first century. The Jesus that Paul followed, the Jesus that the Gospels speak of, and the Jesus that Josephus writes about and says is the brother of James, and the so called Christ.

There is no evidence that Jesus, the character in the Gospel stories, is based off of Yeshu ben Pantera. I have already covered this. The fact that the Jesus of the Bible, the Jesus Paul writes about, the Jesus that the Gospels write about, and the Jesus that Josephus writes about predate any writing about this Yeshu ben Pantera shows that it is illogical to assume that Jesus was based off of such a character.

There is no evidence that Yeshu ben Pantera is the same character as Jesus from the Bible. Now, instead of repeating all the points I have in the past, here is a link to my rebuttal of your claim: http://www.religiousforums.com/forum/general-religious-debates/119223-no-evidence-1st-century-nazareth-21.html#post2575491

Josephus writes about 20 different men named Jesus in his works, but he NEVER wrote about any biblical Jesus character, even though he did write about John the Baptist and James the Just. The following sites provide several reasons why the Jesus forgery passages in the works of Josephus are redacted insertions:

How many times do you want to repeat this garbage? I have already created a thorough rebuttal to this junk, and you refuse to actually deal with it, but instead make ridiculous excuses about why you can't. Maybe for once you want to actually back yourself up and offer a rebuttal to my position which is detailed in this thread: http://www.religiousforums.com/forum/general-religious-debates/107541-josephus-jesus.html

And yes, Josephus wrote about Jesus. In fact, there are two passages. The shorter of which, which calls Jesus the brother of James, is universally accepted as authentic. But since you are either too lazy to offer a rebuttal to my position, or simply are incapable of doing so, I will address the issues in the links that you posted.

Josephus on Jesus | Forgery and Fraud? | Flavius Testimonium

I first have to say that the sources you pick are laughable at best. If you had actually done any critical research, you would know the author of this site is hardly credible in anyway. But as it fits your position, I'm sure you're more than happy to support her.

the Testimonium Flavianum has been demonstrated continually over the centuries to be a forgery

That simply is a lie. In fact, most scholars and individuals have seen it either as completely authentic or at least partially authentic. This can be seen by reviewing the various works on the subject. Today, out of the many different books that mention the passage, only a handful claim it to be a forgery. And those individuals are also the same individuals who claim that Jesus did not exist. And for the most part, they are not scholars or authorities in their fields.

So thorough and universal has been this debunking that very few scholars of repute continued to cite the passage after the turn of the 19th century.

Again, another lie based on ignorance. Obviously the author has not read any modern scholarship on the subject. For instance, Louis Feldman reviewed material on the subject from 1937-1980 and found that the vast majority accepted it to be at least partially authentic. Out of 87 reports, only 13 believed it to be completely fraudulent. Since 1980, only 3 articles have been written saying that it is completely false. So again, obviously, the author of your link is not reading current scholarship.

Notably, not all of these authors who are claiming it to be at least partially authentic are Christian. Just on my bookshelf, I have at least one agnostic who would agree, as well a few Jewish scholars. So it is not just a Christian position.

Here, in Origen's words, is the assertion that Josephus, who discusses more than a dozen Jesuses, did not consider any of them to be "the Christ."

Another asinine statement. This is what Origen says:

Now this writer [Josephus], although not believing in Jesus as the Christ, in seeking after the cause of the fall of Jerusalem and the destruction of the temple, whereas he ought to have said that the conspiracy against Jesus was the cause of these calamities befalling the people, since they put to death Christ, who was a prophet, says nevertheless--being, although against his will, not far from the truth--that these disasters happened to the Jews as a punishment for the death of James the Just, who was a brother of Jesus (called Christ)--the Jews having put him to death, although he was a man most distinguished for his justice"

So what does this mean? Basically Origen is saying that Josephus did in fact talk about Jesus, called Jesus the brother of James, yet he did accept Jesus as Christ, but acknowledged that Jesus was called Christ. Yes, Josephus did not accept Jesus as Christ, but that really is irrelevant. According to Origen, Josephus still mentions Jesus, who is called Christ. A key to understanding this is that the only person that we know who is called Christ in that time, was Jesus. Christ, simply, had basically become the last name of Jesus.

Origen was paraphrasing Josephus.

In any event, as G.A. Wells points out in The Jesus Myth, not only do several Church fathers from the second, third and early fourth centuries have no apparent knowledge of the TF, but even after Eusebius suddenly "found" it in the first half of the fourth century, several other fathers into the fifth "often cite Josephus, but not this passage."

This again is a ridiculous argument. Was there any need to cite this passage? Does it add anything to the story of Jesus? No. There wasn't much reason to mention this passage at all as the Gospels and Paul were good enough sources. No one was doubting that Jesus existed. Never did the idea come up until over a thousand years later.

Do we have authors even mentioning that vast majority of things in Josephus? No we don't. We have no one mentioning the passage about James without Jesus being mentioned. In fact, we have no one even mentioning that passage about James until Origen. And then he does mention Jesus as well.

Yes, no one mentions the passage. But hardly anyone mentioned it even after Eusebius. Why? Because it adds nothing at all. In fact, the passage itself, as reconstructed, really takes away from the story of Jesus. So again, there was no reason to mention it.

Up to this point in the link, the authors main defense is that some individuals in the past denied that the TF was authentic, and an argument from silence.

G.A. Wells~ "As I noted in The Jesus Legend, there is an ancient table of contents in the Antiquities which omits all mention of the Testimonium. Feldman (in Feldman and Hata, 1987, p. 57) says that this table is already mentioned in the fifth- or sixth-century Latin version of the Antiquities, and he finds it 'hard to believe that such a remarkable passage would be omitted by anyone, let alone by a Christian summarizing the work.'"

It should be noted that Feldman accepts that the TF is partially authentic. So the quote by Wells is taken out of context. If one reads Feldman, one would see that he accept the TF as partially authentic, and accepts the reconstruction of the passage as it most likely was written by Josephus. That is why it isn't mentioned in the table of contents. Because without the interpolations, it is not remarkable at all.

That is as far as I will go with that source. The rest I cover in my thread, which I have already linked to. I just don't feel like wasting time when you won't even take the time yourself to deal with my argument in the first place.

Looking at her sources though, it is clear that she is not up to date on modern scholarship. More so, it should be mentioned that G.A. Wells now accepts that Jesus did in fact exist.

The Testimonium Flavianum - a chronological summary of its Censure

This one is just as laughable as the first. It ignores the fact that most scholarship has stated that the TF is at least partially authentic. Instead, it only focuses on those who claim that it is a forgery. And even those who claim it is a forgery are not a majority.

And again, I already cover his arguments, and more, in my thread, which you refuse to actually address. So please, stop peddling your garbage, and actually deal with my rebuttal on this subject. If you can't, or won't, then you might as well admit you don't have an argument.

 

[fallingblood]

historical jesus has never been though to be ben pantera by any mainstream scholar.


only individuals way off base with a biased view

That or people who want to blindly follow anything that supports their position. Our friend seems to have some pretty large blinders on here.

 

[angellous_evangellous]

No one is asking you to 'clarify' yourself; I am asking a simple question. Can you provide an honest answer or not?

Why else would you ask a question other than a plea for clarity?

Either you can't understand me or I'm being unclear. Or you do understand me and you're asking stupid questions.

But I've clarified myself enough and it's time for you to think on your own. If that's not possible, it's useless for me to try and simplify it any farther.

 

[godnotgod]

I think he already has. You simply don't want to accept it. Which isn't surprising as there is quite a bit you won't accept because it doesn't agree with your view.

Ha ha ha...this is a typical Christian scenario: one of you does not have an answer or sees the real truth and refuses to answer, so another one of you steps in to protect him. What a joke! Happens time and time again.

It is not about 'my view' or 'your view', but about what is factual. I do not accept his answer because his is a non-answer, just as yours is.

In case you missed what, in fact, the FACT is, it is that the translation from the Greek 'polis' into English is, is 'city' or 'town'. Your mentor is trying to tell us that my source, biblos.com, is not a credible source. All I am asking him is whether the translation is correct or not, in light of his assessment of the source. Now, if you think you can handle the question, tenderfoot, then please, by all means, step in and represent him. Otherwise, step aside and allow him to speak for himself.

Whenever Christians cannot answer a logical question, they back off and throw up smoke screens, or claim it is a matter of 'faith', or some such nonsense.

Waiting....

 

[fallingblood]

Hey fallingblood, have you heard of this before? (and I mean outside whatever sensationalist source Tellurian is using)

I don't care if Nazareth was a Roman camp. It just seems like there would be a lot more remnants of the other permanent buildings. And why on earth would the Roman army have an outpost there considering all their other forts and their huge presence in Jerusalem?

I'm highly skeptical that the bathhouse was there in the first century. From what I can tell, it is a Roman era bathhouse, but that's all that is proven. Considering the complete lack of serious interest in it -- I mean, if scholars were really convinced it was a legitimate find, someone would figure out how to get a proper dig going.

So far it is what it is - a tourist attraction.

The only thing similar to this that I have heard has been in connection with the story of Jesus's real father being a Roman solider, and even then, I don't think the bath house was mentioned. I think I recall hearing about the bath house in passing once, but there was no real argument.

That is just one of the major problems with the internet. There is so much garbage out there and everyone thinks they can become a scholar.

I agree though that it is a tourist attraction. I know if I had land around there, I would try to do something to bring more people around as well. And lies, and misinformation sell very well.

 

[angellous_evangellous]

Ha ha ha...this is a typical Christian scenario: one of you does not have an answer or sees the real truth and refuses to answer, so another one of you steps in to protect him. What a joke! Happens time and time again.

It is not about 'my view' or 'your view', but about what is factual. I do not accept his answer because his is a non-answer, just as yours is.

In case you missed what, in fact, the FACT is, it is that the translation from the Greek 'polis' into English is, is 'city' or 'town'. Your mentor is trying to tell us that my source, biblos.com, is not a credible source. All I am asking him is whether the translation is correct or not, in light of his assessment of the source. Now, if you think you can handle the question, tenderfoot, then please, by all means, step in and represent him. Otherwise, step aside and allow him to speak for himself.

Whenever Christians cannot answer a logical question, they back off and throw up smoke screens, or claim it is a matter of 'faith', or some such nonsense.

Waiting....

Hey, if fallingblood wants to stick up for me, he could certainly do a better job.

:yes:

 

[fallingblood]

Ha ha ha...this is a typical Christian scenario: one of you does not have an answer or sees the real truth and refuses to answer, so another one of you steps in to protect him. What a joke! Happens time and time again.

It is not about 'my view' or 'your view', but about what is factual. I do not accept his answer because his is a non-answer, just as yours is.

In case you missed what, in fact, the FACT is, it is that the translation from the Greek 'polis' into English is, is 'city' or 'town'. Your mentor is trying to tell us that my source, biblos.com, is not a credible source. All I am asking him is whether the translation is correct or not, in light of his assessment of the source. Now, if you think you can handle the question, tenderfoot, then please, by all means, step in and represent him. Otherwise, step aside and allow him to speak for himself.

Whenever Christians cannot answer a logical question, they back off and throw up smoke screens, or claim it is a matter of 'faith', or some such nonsense.

Waiting....

Well instead of waiting, maybe you could actually read the response of A_E? I mean, that would be the logical thing to do.

 

[angellous_evangellous]

The only thing similar to this that I have heard has been in connection with the story of Jesus's real father being a Roman solider, and even then, I don't think the bath house was mentioned. I think I recall hearing about the bath house in passing once, but there was no real argument.

That is just one of the major problems with the internet. There is so much garbage out there and everyone thinks they can become a scholar.

I agree though that it is a tourist attraction. I know if I had land around there, I would try to do something to bring more people around as well. And lies, and misinformation sell very well.

Yeah, I've heard about the Roman soldier bit, too. That's plausible (however remote).

The Roman military camp is just too far out there for me - especially considering the military uselessness of such a location with Jerusalem and all the other great fortresses in the area.