Ken Humphreys On Nazareth

[Minimalist]

I have Rene Salm's book on the subject but I am looking for an online version to use as backup.

[Amarok]

Good history 

Now the theists will try and argue it's all wrong and counter with loons and apologist crackpots .

[Minimalist]

They have.

But there are problems with "Bethlehem", too.  Not that they want to hear it.

http://www.religioustolerance.org/xmaswwjb.htm

Perhaps the most important reason to suspect the accuracy of Matthew and Luke is that Bethlehem in Judea did not exist as a functioning town between 7 and 4 BCE when Jesus is believed to have been born. Archaeological studies of the town have turned up a great deal of ancient Iron Age material from 1200 to 550 BCE 7 and lots of material from the sixth century CE, but nothing from the 1st century BCE or the 1st century CE.
Aviram Oshri, a senior archaeologist with the Israel Antiquities Authority wrote in Archeology magazine:
" 'Menorah,' the vast database of the Israel Antiquities Authority (IAA), describes Bethlehem as an 'ancient site' with Iron Age material and the fourth-century Church of the Nativity and associated Byzantine and medieval buildings. But there is a complete absence of information for antiquities from the Herodian period--that is, from the time around the birth of Jesus.

[ignoramus]

Ha... Surely they're not going to let a few facts get in the way of a good story!

[Minimalist]

Never stopped them before.

[RoadRunner79]

Good history 

Now the theists will try and argue it's all wrong and counter with loons and apologist crackpots .

So, if there is evidence, would you change your mind?

Did Nazareth Exist?

[Amarok]

[Minimalist]

As it turns out, another discovery was made in ancient Nazareth, a year after Salm’s book appeared.   It is a house that dates to the days of Jesus.

Yes..."a" house was found.  This is actually in keeping with the findings of the noted xtian scholar, Stephen Pfann who excavated under the auspices of the IAA and found a single family farm which was dated to the Early Roman Period.

http://www.cnn.com/2009/WORLD/meast/12/2...index.html

The find marks the first time researchers have uncovered the remains of a home in Nazareth from that time period, the Israeli Antiquities Authority said in a statement.

You do understand that farmers would most likely live in a house on the farm and that one house does not make a city?

And, as for the "days of jesus?"  When was that?  When the myth was written or when the myth writers claimed it to be?

Salm is the first to admit that he is not an archaeologist himself but he has examined the archaeological papers and carefully foot-noted them.  He also can't help but point out that the prime "work" was done by the Italian archaeologist Bellarmino Camillo Bagatti.  Bagatti was also a catholic priest of the Franciscan order.  Would you care to hazard a guess which gang of catholics is in charge of the site?  The Franciscans. 

I have researched the textual claims which Salm made about Origen, Eusebius ( who wrote the tale of Helena visiting the Holy Land) and the Pilgrim of Bordeaux.  Salm is correct.
No one seemed to know fuckall about any "Nazareth" until after the church was recognized by Constantine.  That's when the whole pilgrimage/relic horseshit started.  Josephus campaigned extensively in 67AD right across the spot near Sepphoris and never seems to have bumped into any "Nazareth."  The OT and Talmud know nothing of it.

In spite of the insistence of the gospel writers that "Nazareth" was a polis with a synagogue xtians have tried to downsize it down to a small hamlet.  Let me know when you get it down to a single family farm, will you?

Oh, it's late now but if you'd like to read Professor Pfann's article about his Nazareth excavations I'm sure I can find it for you.  That is.... if you are willing to read it?

[Amarok]

Not to mention artifacts were found on the site . Which place it at a later date then is traditionally held by mainstream scholars . As Richard Carrier points out when some apologist fool tried using the house as evidence .
(i'll locate the post )

[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!