|
|
Post by unkleE on Jan 4, 2013 3:26:58 GMT
Neil/Vridar It seems that your visit to this forum is becoming a slanging match, and I for one am sorry. I have no intention of entering into that sort of response, so I will make a couple of points and see where you take them. I'm not sure who you had in mind by "your mob", but I hope you realise this forum is not homogeneous. We have many different beliefs here, from straightforward christian, through liberal christian to agnostic and atheist, with an occasional Jew or Muslim or Buddhist. And our approach to discussion is not all the same either. You came here to draw our attention to a reasonably combative post, and Sankari has responded in kind. I don't agree with Sankari about many aspects of first century christianity, not do I agree with his combative approach, and we have discussed both of these here at times. You will note that I have not used any pejorative terms or invective, I have not belittled your views. I have rather asked you some slightly critical but polite questions. I still hope you will answer my most recent post. But regardless, please understand that there is no fixed view or approach here, and we do not all agree. Also note that by some freak of geography, many of us here are Australians, and it is currently the height of the summer holiday season here, and many of us will be away from home and not looking up this forum. I was that "one in the crowd" who made that typographical error, and I must say I am surprised you have even noted it, let alone believed that I didn't actually know the "subtle difference" as you named it. Typos are a fact of life, and it was obvious in the context (that word again) that I do in fact know the difference, a fact that I have difficulty believing I have to repeat. Just for the record, let me explain. My son has an interest in architecture, and regularly checks out a site Archdaily, which gives photos and information about architecture around the world (even Architecture in Helsinki, an in-joke for Aussies). He emails interesting pages to me quite regularly and I'm guessing that he had sent me something not long before I posted, and my brain and fingers slipped into the wrong places on the keyboard. Anyway, I'm guessing Sankari, Fortigurn and anyone else reading this intuitively understood the occurrence of typos on the web and either didn't notice or didn't care about my slip. So if you make some serious point about this, it can only make people wonder why you could even imagine that someone could spell architecture and archaeology and yet not know the "subtle difference" between them, didn't understand typos too, or bothered to bring the matter up twice. I have dealt with this at greater length than it deserves to try to clear the decks, and leave you at peace to reply to my most recent questions, which I think will help me understand where you are coming from. Thanks and best wishes. |
|
|
|
Post by fortigurn on Jan 4, 2013 3:49:37 GMT
I never said 'the IAA produces an architectural report'. Why did you make that claim? Oh, now all of a sudden we switch back to ignoring the context, do we? You guys keep changing the rules here. I said "you guys" so the context was clearly what "you guys" say and that's certainly what I did hear from your mob. I addressed it. No I am not changing the context. You quoted me, and attributed to me a statement I had never made. Now you claim you were attributing that statement to all of us, which is completely illogical because it was only made by one of us. It is irrational to take our silence on that point as agreement; I didn't even read unkleE's post. Could we take your silence on any post here as agreement with that post? Of course we couldn't, that would make no sense at all. What you write doesn't rescue you from the problem of your own making, and fails to answer the very simple questions I put to you. Here are the questions again. * Could I be clear however on the fact that you are now saying you believe all three authors are archaeologists? * On what basis did you make your claim that they are not qualified simply because they 'have experience, yes, but not qualifications'? Can you provide any evidence that the scholarly community considers either Pfann or Voss to be 'unqualified'? Do you consider them insufficiently qualified to comment and publish on the subject? If so, please provide your evidence. Yes. The burden of evidence is always on the claimant. This is a fundamental principle which you need to accept and to which you must submit, if you want your articles to become credible. I have read Tim's post, and it does contain an evidential basis. I am not convinced by your claims it has no evidential basis, especially when you do not even address all the points in his argument, or all the evidence to which he refers. Your article contains no hyperlinks on the names of Rapuano, Pfann, or Voss. In fact Voss' name never even appears in your article. Pfann's name appears twice, never with a link. Rapuano's name appears 21 times, never with a link. So where in your article are the links on these names, that you claim take me 'directly to the pages where you see the evidence'? If you read my previous post, you will see that I did a web search and found that all three are qualified. No that is not our definition of 'qualified archaeologists'. Please provide evidence for your claim that Pfann and Voss are 'Religious nutters without qualifications going out there to find proof the Bible is true and calling themselves archaeologists because they do it all the time'. I note Tim said 'Salm’s book, The Myth of Nazareth: The Invented Town of Jesus, bears many similarities to Creationist classics like Duane Gish’s Evolution? The Fossils Say No!'. You denied his claim, but failed to actually address any of the similarities he raised. Here are the similarities he raised. * You have an amateur with no training in the relevant field * You have them desperately trying to critique published work by actual specialists and experts and nitpick at it to find reasons for doubt * You have triumphant leaping on the smallest error (eg a mislabeled diagram) as evidence of incompetence if not outright fraud * You have an assumption that the experts secretly know they are wrong and are trying to deceive laypeople for nefarious reasons * And you have a driving ideological bias motivating all of the above, but masquerading as objective critical analysis for the public good This is one of several examples of you failing to address what Tim wrote in this article. You cannot claim to be refuting his case if you avoid addressing his arguments. |
|
|
|
Post by fortigurn on Jan 4, 2013 4:02:43 GMT
I was that "one in the crowd" who made that typographical error, and I must say I am surprised you have even noted it, let alone believed that I didn't actually know the "subtle difference" as you named it. Typos are a fact of life, and it was obvious in the context (that word again) that I do in fact know the difference, a fact that I have difficulty believing I have to repeat. Actually it's ironic that the IAA does write architectural reports as part of their archaeological research (all archaeologists write architectural reports on structures they find), and even more ironic that the IAA wrote such reports on structures found at Nazareth. |
|
|
|
Post by vridar on Jan 5, 2013 1:08:06 GMT
No, I am not saying there are substantial failings in the architectural reports of the IAA. In fact, I never knew the IAA issued any architectural reports. Their business is antiquities, not architecture. There is a subtle difference if you care to look it up. ;D I was aware of the "subtle" difference - we Aussie's know about these things, we just don't spell so well!  Sorry about typing the wrong word, but I'm sure you figured it out! I'm not sure why you think I didn't read your comments, for I did read them, and while they were very clear about the things that you write, they weren't clear (to me) about the questions that I asked, which is why I asked them. This comes close to the question I was asking, so may I now clarify with you please: 1. What "ideological interest" are you alleging here, and what is your basis for saying that this makes their report of questionable authority? The ideological interest of the UHL is very clear. I explicitly explained it in my post and pointed to where you can read it for yourself online. We can also see Rapuano's biases in his other comments to which I referred. Now I did not say t hat such bias makes their report of questionable authority. You are putting words into my mouth. It is clear -- it is a simple truism -- that any bias of any researcher needs to be taken into account and to ignore it is being naive. That is true across all disciplines. It is when we read the other weaknesses and gaps in the report that we can see where that bias is clearly influencing the final conclusions of the report. Do you think that you can sweep aside the criticisms I made in my post by these sorts of questions? The criticisms I made are valid -- I work in the area of research data management and I know that "the peer review process" does not always guarantee "true" or "unchallengable" or even "correct" information. That is a fact of life across all disciplines. But it is especially common in the most ideological of disciplines. If you read my post you would see that it is not ideological bias alone that I am addressing, but I am explaining or suggesting an explanation for the methodological flaws and absence of published data be explained by that ideological bias. And yes, the peer-review process does not always guarantee a completely objective publication. I have demonstrated that in this case for starters and you are not addressing that argument but appealing to authority of the process as if that means the evidence I cite must be wrong. I also demonstrate that it is not just a matter of interpretation but also of method and of availability of detailed evidence. Those are not matters of interpretation. And you wonder why I suggest you have not read my post! I welcome engagement with the content of my post. All I have got here so far are questions for my daring to criticize an article in a peer-reviewed journal and a lot of hair-splitting over the meaning of "qualifications" when it is clear as day to everyone that Rapuano is the only one who has certified qualifications as an archaeologist. I learn a lot from experts. But experts need to be able to answer questions about their conclusions and interpretations. If they can't do that then we have a right not to accept their conclusions. Academic flaws and mistakes do happen. You cannot appeal to an ideal view of the world and say it doesn't. We are educated and are able to read and think and ask questions. That is what Tim's post is saying we must not do. I suggest you read it again. Tim was abusive, combative, insulting and ignorant -- and putting down anyone who dares question an authority in this matter. Yes. Read my post. They have theological qualifications but not quals in archaeology. Just do a web search. It's no secret. No, I am not saying I am as qualified in technicalities as they are. You are again putting words in my mouth. I am saying I can read widely and see how archaeology works and how dating is done and ask questions when I see Rapuano not applying the same standards in this report. He does not even provide the evidence that others need to be able to make an assessment of the data for themselves. The report does not meet the standards of public accountability. It is methodologically flawed. If I am wrong then show me in what and where I am wrong. |
|
|
|
Post by vridar on Jan 5, 2013 3:36:51 GMT
It might also be appropriate to remind you (or point out to you since it seems none of you read my post with any care) that the peer-review process which you seem to uphold as a guarantee that anything published is not to be questioned by mere laypersons -- that very same peer-review process also saw fit to post Rene Salm's criticisms of the initial report. Then corrections to the original report were published as a result of that. So this idea that I am not entitled to question a peer-review article is nonsense and anti-rationalist dogma.
Understanding dating processes and comparing pottery patterns is not quantum physics. Yes of course we learn from the specialists. But we can also ask questions and expect clear and supported answers in response. Most researchers I believe can do this. But we have had only excuses from Rapuano as to why he has not published the details necessary for anyone to see how he arrived at his conclusions.
We have also had a failure of Rapuano to defend his dating techniques that according to the scholarly literature (also cited in my post) are anachronistic and tendentious. The peer-review process of which you speak published Salm's criticisms of that, and none of the authors of the report chose to respond to those particular criticisms. Now that is significant yet you don't want to address that.
As for attempts here to deflect attention from my criticisms of Tim's post by hairsplitting over the meaning of "qualified", I simply say that when someone speaks of "three qualified archaeologists" in the context where it is well known that many archaeologists in the Holy Land are not qualified but are only religious amateurs then the general meaning is clear: he is inferring that the three are "qualified" in the normal sense of having formal qualifications. That is the normal sense of what Tim's message conveyed. Trying to deny this is like trying to deny that there was anything wrong in making a typo and writing "architectural" instead of "archaeological."
Yes, I was flippant against you all here because I saw fortigurn carrying on with his usual hair splitting that could argue the world was flat if he wanted to, and I really can't take the likes of him seriously so I had no hesitation in giving him what he and Tim give others.
But if there is anyone who wants a serious discussion then I am open to that. I would love nothing more.
|
|
|
|
Post by fortigurn on Jan 5, 2013 4:56:38 GMT
Neil if you want a serious discussion then you have to scale back the bombastic rhetoric, unsupportable claims, and false accusations, and focus on the actual data. That would be a good starting point.
|
|
|
|
Post by vridar on Jan 5, 2013 6:51:45 GMT
Neil if you want a serious discussion then you have to scale back the bombastic rhetoric, unsupportable claims, and false accusations, and focus on the actual data. That would be a good starting point. Okay, then respond to my post. I have made no unsupportable claim that I am aware of. My rhetoric is hardly bombastic. Can you cite otherwise? If I have made false accusations then demonstrate them. Meanwhile, I request you focus on the actual data of my post. I have demonstrated that Tim's post was riddled with ignorance and disinformation. Demonstrate otherwise and that I am wrong if you can. All I have got so far from anyone here is a complaint that I said only one of the report's authors was a qualified archaeologist. I stand by that claim since in the normal sense of the word and especially in the context of my original post and O'Neill's post that is what is meant. You can deny that all you want but you do know what I mean and continuing to harp upon it is only an exercise in avoidance of the fact that the original report does not contain the data descriptions that are necessary for any reader to see how Rapuano arrived at his conclusions. (This, after all, is a central point of Salm's concerns -- that so many archaeologists in Palestine only have field experience and no formal qualifications. That does not mean Salm is saying he knows more than they do. It does mean he is entitled to raise concerns when he sees discrepancies and flaws in the report. Amateurs can do that, you know, when they are well-read enough. We can see flaws in the arguments and evidence of academics often enough. That doesn't mean we are making ourselves better than them. It means we are using our brains and asking legitimate questions.) The report was published in a peer-reviewed journal and so were Rene Salm's criticisms of that report -- they were published in the same peer-reviewed journal. Now how can any of you legitimately protest that I am somehow being arrogant or bombastic for questioning the conclusions of one report in the same journal. That journal itself published a layman's criticisms and we can read the responses to those criticism. We can see that the professional, qualified archaeologist published corrections to his original report as a result of a layman's criticisms published in the peer-reviewed journal. We can also see that only selected criticisms of Salm were answered by Rapuano. Now none of that is bombast. It is legitimate public observation and questioning. I did not say that the report should be dismissed because of bias. I said bias explains the discrepancy between the faulty methodology (faults that were contained in Salm's criticisms that the peer-review journal published! and only some of which Rapuano answered!), the data described and the conclusions pronounced at the end. Tim and it seems you want me to just shut down my brain and accept those conclusions even though the author did not respond to all criticisms of them in a peer-reviewed journal. Tim demonstrated right from the outset that he only has a superficial grasp of the issues. He did not know that only one of the authors as qualifications in archaeology and he did not even know that the Jesus house is nowhere near the site of the archaeological dig. And you have even yourself said (I think it was you, correct me if I am wrong) that even if every one of my criticisms were true it would not affect the validity of Tim's conclusions. So what was his post all about then? In other words you don't care what the facts are, so long as Tim repeats an authority then that settles it. Anyone who investigates and asks serious questions is abused and ridiculed. That's where you and Tim stand on the matter. |
|
|
|
Post by fortigurn on Jan 5, 2013 7:50:51 GMT
Okay, then respond to my post. There is no need to until you have made a case which addresses all of Tim's argument (which yours does not), and which actually falsifies his conclusion (which yours does not). For a start, you have claimed that Pfann Ross and are unqualified. You have explained that by this you mean they are 'Religious nutters without qualifications going out there to find proof the Bible is true and calling themselves archaeologists because they do it all the time -- "field experience"'. You have provided no evidence for this claim. For more, see the list I'm about to provide. Here. Note that you provide no evidence for any of the claims in bold. * He is defending the right of academics to make pronouncements of breakthroughs and new discoveries and then say, “ Nope, you can’t examine all the details of the data for yourself. I’m a professional! How dare you question my judgements!” * One can glean an insight into his religious interest in the Nazareth site from online scribblings from years back * This post goes through O’Neill’s key criticisms and concludes with a demonstration that he has put himself squarely in the anti-intellectual, we-must-always-defer-to-the-authoritative-pronouncements-of-scholars-and-never-be-so-impertinent-as-to-question-them corner of the fight* His language and tone are further evidence of his anti-intellectualism and bullying demands to have others submit to his own arguments (or he’ll call you bad names)* O’Neill’s assertion that Salm’s book has an uncanny resemblance to creationist literature is fabricated fancy. It is a falsehood* This translates in Tim’s mind into: When Rapuano says a fragment “could possibly” be from the Hellenistic or early Roman eras, then unless you treat the Hellenistic to early Roman periods as an established fact for that fragment you are being “ludicrous” * Rapuano has spoken: pottery “may be”, “could be” Hellenistic or Early Roman (compare Fernandez!), so O’Neill throws all caution to the wind and demands we all accept on authority of one scholar that it is Hellenistic or Early Roman* And Dark will repeat the same message: So Rapuano expresses some doubt? That’s because he’s a cautious scholar. Now it’s your job to ignore those words of caution and defer to his other words as dogma! And no, you can’t examine the evidence more closely for yourself* Presumably O’Neill concludes that every spring in the Levant was the site of a village for 2000 years before Christ* But the authors of the Nazareth Farm Report do not yield sufficient information for anyone to assess their conclusions criticallySee the previous list. Additionally, I have already demonstrated that both Pfann and Ross are qualified; you claimed they were not, saying they are 'Religious nutters without qualifications going out there to find proof the Bible is true and calling themselves archaeologists because they do it all the time -- "field experience"'. No that is not all you have got so far. Look at the other points which have been raised here. Yes I do. You have explained that you mean they are 'Religious nutters without qualifications going out there to find proof the Bible is true and calling themselves archaeologists because they do it all the time -- "field experience"'. You have provided no evidence for this. Evidence please. Why is this a concern? Does the scholarly community only accept as qualified, those with formal qualifications in archaeology? Does the scholarly community not accept as qualified, those with no formal qualifications in archaeology but decades of field experience, and/or formal teaching positions in the field? No one is doing any such thing. This is yet another example of you making completely false statements instead of addressing the issues at hand. Please identify each of the specific corrections which Rapuano made in acknowledgement of Salim's claims, in Y. Rapuano, The Nazareth Village Farm Project Pottery (1997-2002): Amendment. I can't see that until I read Y. Rapuano, The Nazareth Village Farm Project Pottery (1997-2002): Amendment, to which I do not have access. Evidence please. This is yet more of your bombastic rhetoric. Incredibly, in your article you wrote 'And O’Neill is more wrong than he realizes. He says here that the recently excavated house (of Jesus’ time!) was “there” at the site of the agricultural terraces at Nazareth'. But Tim said no such thing. He said 'I recalled that had actually accepted the dating of some of the agricultural terraces at Nazareth and of the recently excavated house there'. To what does 'there' refer? It refers to Nazareth, which is precisely where the recently excavated 'Jesus-era house' is located, near the Church of the Annunciation. The way you write paragraphs on complete trivialities and misrepresentations such as these, and only a couple of sentences on the actual evidence, is another reason why it's difficult to take your articles seriously. Correct, because you didn't address all of his arguments, and you didn't generate any criticisms falsifying his case. That is a complete lie. How can you expect to be taken seriously when you lie like this? |
|
|
|
Post by unkleE on Jan 5, 2013 10:26:46 GMT
G'day Neil, thanks again for your comments. But I don't seem to be getting closer to answers, so let me try again. (I have put my questions to you in bold so you can find them more easily.) Let me make myself clear again. I am not interested much in your dispute with Tim. As I said before, he can answer for himself. I am simply interested in your views on the work of the IAA and the reports on the Nazareth excavations and investigations. I have read your blog, skimming over the bits that were arguing against Tim, which I have never attempted to discuss with you, and concentrating on the much shorter section where you briefly discuss the question of bias in Rapuano, Voss & Pfann, and I don't find the answers to the questions I asked. If you don't want to answer them, that's fine, just say so. But if you do, please understand that I can't find the answers that I am looking there, and so I am asking you again. The fact remains that this dig was conducted under licence from the IAA, and published in a reputable journal. The guidelines for granting licenses indicate that they felt Pfann et al were competent archaeologists. You allege an unworthy ideological motivation on behalf of Pfann et al in your post, and you even say "we can see where that bias is clearly influencing the final conclusions of the report". I don't see any evidence you have offered that this has affected the quality of their work. So I ask you again, does the above statement amount to a serious allegation that their work and their conclusions have been adversely affected by this "ideological interest"? Are you saying that this has escaped the IAA, which has worked with Dr Pfann on several other occasions (e.g. see here)? If so, can you offer evidence of this adverse effect on their work? If not, why mention it? I suggest it is not that simple. Pfann et al's work has been reviewed by Dark, and read by readers of the Bulletin of the AIAS. I have read other competent scholars who seem to find the work to be competent. The main arguments turn on the dating of a bunch of artefacts. I have not seen the artefacts and I have no competence in assessing their age. I cannot see how you can say this is not a matter of interpretation. That is exactly what it is. There are no date stamps on the remains, only a subject assessment, based on experience dealing with many similar artefacts. So I am left with a bunch of qualified and/or experienced experts (in ancient history, language, culture, archaeology, religion, or whatever) telling me one thing and you and Mr Salm telling me something different. I am not competent to assess these arguments, so I have to go by my assessment of expertise. Hence my interest in your allegations of bias, because unless that serious (and perhaps even libellous) allegation can be sustained, their evidence stands. They worked on the site, you have not; they have experience and qualifications that you don't have. Perhaps you can show me please? If you can allege that ideological bias has adversely affected their report, can you show me how I can be sure that ideological bias has not affected your discussion?That is all I have been asking for all along - clarification of exactly what you are alleging about Pfann et al, the evidence you have that this has made their report inaccurate, and demonstration that you do not suffer from the charge you level at others. Then I would be in a position to know who I should trust. Thanks, and best wishes. |
|
|
|
Post by timoneill on Jan 7, 2013 10:07:08 GMT
I am not interested much in your dispute with Tim. As I said before, he can answer for himself. Yes, but why the hell would I bother? Just about everyone here is aware of Neil Godfrey and knows that he's a bizarre, monomaniacal fanatic. It's not like he, his minion Steve "I type my surname in all-caps" Carr or the rest of his tiny band of obsessives are going to admit their unreasonable nonsense and back down. So what's the point? When you are dealing with creepy slander like Neil's disturbingly weird and slightly unhinged post over at his little blog, the best thing to do is leave the Treehouse Club to their babble and walk away, wide-eyed and whistling. Take this gem, for example: Such chuckles! That O'Neill guy - what an idiot! Well, at least I would be if these sentences actually reflected what I said in any way. But they don't. Here's what I actually said: I responded to this comment the Salm fan on the JREF forum: So, this guy, like the piano teacher, was claiming that there couldn't have been a village there because the site had "barely enough water" and "barely got enough water to even survive the summer." I responded: Anyone with a grasp of English above remedial level can see that I'm rejecting the claim the site didn't have enough water to sustain a village. No-one but a total moron could read what I wrote above and conclude I was saying the site had water therefore it was definitely inhabited. Since Neil seems to have a reasonable grasp of English and doesn't seem functionally moronic, the only conclusion here is that he simply lied about what he said. After all, it's not like anyone in the Treehouse Club was going to object. It's okay for the Righteous and the Elect to lie about the Servants of the Deceiver. Neil learned that from his masters, the Armstrongites. And he learned his lessons well. He has form with this lying to defeat the Wicked Ones stuff. His weird vendetta goes back several years, but he got his knickers decidedly twisted when he accused me of lying (there's that word again) about something Richard "Artie Ziff" Carrier claimed in one of his many moments of bombastic narcissism. This was back in July 2005, when ol' Artie had first managed to convince himself that his use of Bayes Theorem was going to revolutionise the study of history and make everyone else realise what little Mr Ziff already knew - that he is the greatest genius the world has ever beheld. In a moment of crazed gibber astounding even for him, little Artie waved his Bayesian magic wand, said his incantations and then proclaimed: "In other words, I think anyone who is aware of all the facts that I have so far become aware of, and who does not have any dogmatic commitments biasing their judgment on this particular issue (as I do not--since ~H does not include merely the absurd fundamentalist theory which I do have a commitment against, but also all other historicist theories, most of which are completely compatible with my worldview and some in fact which I once promoted), will agree with my assignments above, and therefore they must agree with my conclusion: that there is a 73% chance that Jesus never existed."This fatuous announcement by the internet's most pompous unemployed library assistant caused guffaws of laughter amongst many. But when I dared to mock the little mop-head, Neil grew wroth and was much displeased. He accused me in the comments on one of his zillions of blog posts of lying (that word again) and slandering poor Artie. Not surprisingly, I responded with the quote in question and the link to where it was said - anyone can read Carrier's ridiculous claim 3/4 of the way down THIS POST from the old FRDB. Of course, Neil knew what I said wasn't a lie, but he had a "cunning plan". He blocked me from comments on his blog before I could post my evidence and then smugly announced to the Treehouse Club that I had been banned because I has told lies about Carrier, so there! This man I should remind you, ladies and gentlemen, is a grown adult and not a petulant ten year old girl. Just thought I should note this in case anyone lost track back there. Once upon a time Neil was a member of the Worldwide Church of God. Well into his adult life he believed everything Herbert W. Armstrong told him and the rest of the elect few. Neil believed he and the others in the WCG were the Elect - the select few who knew the truth. Everyone else were deluded fools befuddled by false doctrines. Or, worse, enemies of the elect and servants of Satan who tried to deceive the faithful with their lies. Neil was firm in his faith, proud of his elect status and a mighty warrior against the foes of the Elect. In other words, he hasn't changed at all. As I've often said, he deserves pity more than scorn. Though scorn is much more fun. Happy new year boys and girls.  |
|
|
|
Post by himself on Jan 8, 2013 0:24:00 GMT
Carrier's use of Bayes Theorem also caused much amusement among Bayesian statisticians.
|
|
|
|
Post by fortigurn on Jan 8, 2013 2:09:44 GMT
Neil, as much as Tim's utterly scathing reply is undoubtedly offensive (with its brutally direct takedown, punishing blows, devastating criticism, biting wit, crushing retorts and acidic tone), you have to admit he makes a number of excellent points. The fact is you haven't been honest in your dealings with him (especially banning him from making comments on your site, and then telling other people he's welcome to make comments on your site), and it can't be denied you've made him something of a personal target. It's difficult to avoid the conclusion that you've brought this on yourself; what goes around comes around.
|
|
labarum
Master of the Arts
Posts: 122
|
Post by labarum on Jan 8, 2013 14:45:53 GMT
Well, I decided to check in here to see if anything is going on and look what happened!! ;D
I will be the first to admit my knowledge of the archaeology of the region under discussion could fit on the head of a very small pin but I found something odd about Vridar's dismissal of the findings of real archaeologists. Namely, he brushed them aside because some people on the team might not have been "official archaeologists" (although from Fortigurn's post that turns out to be not quite right either) but then all he has is the word of a part- time piano teacher who, as far as I can tell, has never set foot in Nazareth. Even if one wants to dispute technical details of the status of those involved in the dig, they were certainly involved people trained in the field and their results have not been denied by any qualified persons. On Vridar's side is some guy with no training but lots of ideology (alleged bias does not fall on just one side of this argument) who every qualified person seems to think is a crank. Am I missing something?
|
|
|
|
Post by gakuseidon on Jan 14, 2013 9:51:16 GMT
Richard Carrier commented on Rene Salm's claims on his blog here: richardcarrier.blogspot.com.au/2009/03/craig-debate-wrap.html?showComment=1239740100000#c8085560906076284692Carrier was asked the following: "Current "Nazareth" only seems to have acquired this title following the visit of the Empress Helena, and probably wasn't even inhabited at the time of Jesus (IIRC it's not even mentioned in Josephus, despite his extensive coverage of events in the region)."Carrier's response: "Josephus says there were hundreds of cities in Galilee. He names only a fraction. The last argument is therefore a non sequitur (typical of Nazareth ahistoricity nonsense circulating on the web, don't fall for this stuff). The first argument is refuted by an inscription of the 3rd or 4th century A.D. establishing the existence of Nazareth as a haven for refugee priests after the Jewish War (and that can only mean the first war, since the temple was then destroyed and unmanned, not later). This inscription was erected by Jews (not Christians) decades before Helena, and certainly reflects data from the 1st century (I can't imagine where else it would have come from).
Your middle claim could be true (some peer reviewed discussions of late seem to concede the possibility that there is no definite evidence of an early 1st-century Nazareth), though there is a difference between not having evidence and the town not being there. Personally, I find it hard to believe the town would suddenly appear and get that name just in time to take in priests after the first Jewish War (entailing a narrow window between 36 and 66 A.D. for its founding or renaming, but if it could happen then, why not earlier?).
I know Salm has arguments against all this, but they don't seem that strong to me (in his book, in fact, all he has are mere possibilities, and some quotations of Schürer, a long-dead historian whose assertions were often vague and speculative and whose work has been rendered largely obsolete by more recent scholarship on the 1st century and Judaism). I leave it to the experts to debate the matter. Until there is a consensus against an early 1st century Nazareth, we should be skeptical of claims to the contrary." |
|
|
|
Post by sankari on Jan 14, 2013 10:54:32 GMT
A refreshing response from young Richard! We'll make a scholar of him yet. |
|
?
Sorry about typing the wrong word, but I'm sure you figured it out!
