Ken Humphreys On Nazareth

[RoadRunner79]

So what evidence would you require? 

It is my understanding, that Salm admits there was a settlement of Nazareth much earlier than Jesus, and within about 100 years prior to the time of Jesus.  As well as after the time of Jesus.  And as Ehrman cited; pottery, coins, wine and olive presses  from the time where found in this area.    


Frankly, I believe those scholars who found evidence, rather than those who seem to not want to find any, and have to explain away the evidence.
Then again, I don't really believe that you are interested in the truth either.  This is based on something more emotional!

Evidence that a town existed - garbage middens, many houses, shitloads of pottery shards, you know, some indication that the story was true.  

Since you have made it clear that you far prefer ignorance to learning this will probably be wasted on you but I post it because not everyone on this thread is as terrified of having their fairy tales upended as you are.  Read it or not.  

http://www.uhl.ac/old/files/2013/3572/50...ochure.pdf

The segment on the Nazareth Farm Excavation tells us what the "evidence" did find.  

Yes, and once again, the majority seems to be against you.
There is a reason min, why absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.  This is especially true of archeology.  To have evidence of absence, you need to not only demonstrate why you think that a particular thing should be there, by why it's absence leads to your conclusion.  I would suggest that you look up archeology and absence of evidence.  I think you will find a great many cautioning against it.

For specifically, in a claim, that a town doesn't exist, because of what was not found.  In order to make this conclusion; you would need to know precisely where to look (which I would think, would require for it to exist to make that claim).  There could be house's 100 yards away, from where you are digging, and yet, you didn't find anything.  There are also issues, of where your are looking.  The existing town of Nazareth looks to be of decent size.  If you are looking near existing settlements, then this limits what you can find.  Most people are not going to let you tear down their house to look for something from 2000 years ago. 

Then there is the issue in archeology of when you are looking.  In this case, it seems that there is agreement, that there where people there, both before and after this time.  The difficulty has been placing items there, specifically in the time in question.   And this has seemingly been done, given the evidence.  And I don't think anyone is claiming that this a large metropolis.

The arguments from silence and absence of evidence are weak to begin with.   And seeing how there is evidence which contradicts this, it is worse off yet.   I do notice how mythicist tend to attack the motives and even the person, often when they get into trouble.   I think this is very telling.