Nazareth: The Piano Teacher vs the Archaeology

[vridar]

Jan 7, 2013 10:07:08 GMT timoneill said:

Jan 5, 2013 10:26:46 GMT unkleE said:

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?

LOL!!!! Well that says it all! Hello there Tim. Glad you responded. So yes, you can refute my points in the post but you don't feel like doing it. LOL!

But of course the first chance you think you see a slight crack in my arguments you do not lose the opportunity to attempt a rebuttal. Slight inconsistency here??

You wrote:

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.

Of course, Tim is projecting here. I did not say that Tim used the presence of springs to conclude "therefore it [the area] was definitely inhabited". Since Tim seems to have a reasonable grasp of English etc etc the only conclusion here is that he simply lied about what I said, etc etc.

I rest my case. Tim has been checkmated on his Nazareth post. He is arguing against the right and responsibility of us all to expect research reports to explain and provide the data to show how they reached their conclusions. That is standard practice in the research and academic publication world.

[fortigurn]

Jan 14, 2013 21:03:56 GMT vridar said:

Jan 7, 2013 10:07:08 GMT timoneill said:

LOL!!!! Well that says it all! Hello there Tim. Glad you responded. So yes, you can refute my points in the post but you don't feel like doing it. LOL!

I addressed several of your points, in response to your request to do so, and you apparently don't feel like answering.

I did not say that Tim used the presence of springs to conclude "therefore it [the area] was definitely inhabited".

Then quote your own words and explain what you intended them to mean.

I rest my case. Tim has been checkmated on his Nazareth post. He is arguing against the right and responsibility of us all to expect research reports to explain and provide the data to show how they reached their conclusions. That is standard practice in the research and academic publication world.

That is a lie. Tim has said absolutely nothing of the sort, and you have failed to address the key arguments in his post. By the way, have you even read the 'Amendment' written by Rapuano?

[vridar]

Jan 8, 2013 2:09:44 GMT fortigurn said:

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) . . . .

Tim is no more banned from my blog than is anyone else. All Tim has to do is abide by the same rules as everyone else and he is most welcome to comment there. It seems you want me to make special allowance for Tim to be allowed to post with unscholarly and uncivil language, is that correct?

[vridar]

Jan 8, 2013 14:45:53 GMT labarum said:

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" . . . Am I missing something?

Yup, you sure are missing heaps. If you actually read my post you would have seen that I was not dismissing anyone's findings. You will see that my only point re qualifications was specific to Tim's point that the three authors were all "qualified" archaeologists. Well, we know that the Holy Land is full of "archaeologists" without formal qualifications and nothing but lots of field experience in their favourite holy spot and lots of religious commitment. Tim was wrong. but of course you have said he did not mean "qualified" in any technical or official sense. . . .yeh, right. Okay, have it your way if that's the way you like to play the game.

But if you read my post you will see there was no "dismissal" of anything but a serious and reasoned criticisms of Rapuano to address specific criticism of his report that were published in a peer-reviewed journal. Did any of you notice that Salm's criticisms were published in a peer-reviewed journal, by the way? ;-)

And did any of you then read Rapuano's and others' replies and see how they chose to not respond to core criticisms in that peer-review publication?

Oh you guys are a bunch of clowns. I can see why Tim is so big here.

[vridar]

Jan 15, 2013 0:14:57 GMT fortigurn said:

That is a lie. Tim has said absolutely nothing of the sort, and you have failed to address the key arguments in his post. By the way, have you even read the 'Amendment' written by Rapuano?

Gosh you guys are big on calling others liars, here. Well, you can make that claim all you want, but it was the first point I made in my post, and if Tim thought I was lying then he had a chance to defend himself. But of course he won't because, well, he only responds to points where he thinks he can twist what was said and get away with it.

I'm still waiting for a civil (yes, that's the rules, sorry) response from Tim or anyone else giving a point by point response to the criticisms I made in my post. No, that's a lie actually. I'm not waiting for any such thing because I know it'll never come. (But it would be nice if it did. Seriously.)

Well it's been fun seeing you guys squirm with "we can so too answer your criticisms if and whenever we want to!" and "that's a lie!!!!!" Bye byes. :-)

[vridar]

I just checked out the James Randi forum where Tim's post, according to his own commendation, silenced all the critics there. Surprise, surprise, Tim doesn't respond there at all. He only chooses to speak where his faithful god-addicts are found. Who else can this "atheist" call on for support?

[ignorantianescia]

Jan 15, 2013 8:23:47 GMT vridar said:

Jan 15, 2013 0:14:57 GMT fortigurn said:

That is a lie. Tim has said absolutely nothing of the sort, and you have failed to address the key arguments in his post. By the way, have you even read the 'Amendment' written by Rapuano?

Gosh you guys are big on calling others liars, here. Well, you can make that claim all you want, but it was the first point I made in my post, and if Tim thought I was lying then he had a chance to defend himself. But of course he won't because, well, he only responds to points where he thinks he can twist what was said and get away with it.

Jan 14, 2013 21:03:56 GMT vridar said:

I rest my case. Tim has been checkmated on his Nazareth post. He is arguing against the right and responsibility of us all to expect research reports to explain and provide the data to show how they reached their conclusions. That is standard practice in the research and academic publication world.

As Fortigurn has said, Tim has said nothing of the sort in the original post. I wonder why you bring the "right and responsibility of us all to expect research reports to explain and provide the data to show how they reached their conclusions" up when it is not contested. So why do you discuss such rights anyway?

[fortigurn]

Jan 15, 2013 8:17:48 GMT vridar said:

If you actually read my post you would have seen that I was not dismissing anyone's findings. You will see that my only point re qualifications was specific to Tim's point that the three authors were all "qualified" archaeologists. Well, we know that the Holy Land is full of "archaeologists" without formal qualifications and nothing but lots of field experience in their favourite holy spot and lots of religious commitment. Tim was wrong. but of course you have said he did not mean "qualified" in any technical or official sense. . . .yeh, right. Okay, have it your way if that's the way you like to play the game.

This is wrong. You deliberately claimed these archaeologists were unqualified, in an attempt to dismiss their findings. No one has said Tim didn't mean what he said; he did mean what he said. What is clear is that you have claimed you meant something different to what you said.

First you tried to tell us that when you wrote 'qualified' what you really meant was 'academically qualified'. Then you told us what you meant by 'unqualified' was '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'. You provided no evidence for this. I asked you for evidence. You still haven't provided it.

Here, yet again, are the questions you have not answered.

* 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, and do you have any evidence to substantiate this?

But if you read my post you will see there was no "dismissal" of anything but a serious and reasoned criticisms of Rapuano to address specific criticism of his report that were published in a peer-reviewed journal.

No I didn't see that. Perhaps you are referring to another post you wrote. All I saw was your personal attacks on Tim, and a number of false claims about what he wrote in his article, together with a list of issues I've already addressed and to which you have decided not to reply.

Did any of you notice that Salm's criticisms were published in a peer-reviewed journal, by the way?

Yes, and we noted the inadequacy of his criticisms, and the validity of the responses to them.

And did any of you then read Rapuano's and others' replies and see how they chose to not respond to core criticisms in that peer-review publication?

Yes I read the replies. No, I did not see that they chose not to respond to core criticisms. Where is your evidence for this?

Oh you guys are a bunch of clowns. I can see why Tim is so big here.

This is the kind of verbal abuse for which you have made yourself known. It is hypocritical for you to object to Tim using this language, when you insist on using it yourself.

Well, you can make that claim all you want, but it was the first point I made in my post, and if Tim thought I was lying then he had a chance to defend himself. But of course he won't because, well, he only responds to points where he thinks he can twist what was said and get away with it.

No Neil, it's because he knows you don't pay any attention to what he writes and you consistently misrepresent him without apology.

I'm still waiting for a civil (yes, that's the rules, sorry) response from Tim or anyone else giving a point by point response to the criticisms I made in my post. No, that's a lie actually. I'm not waiting for any such thing because I know it'll never come. (But it would be nice if it did. Seriously.)

You could start with the response I gave you, to which you have not replied. Remember this claim of yours?

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.

I asked you this:

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.

You did not reply. I asked if you have even read Rapuano's 'Amendment'. You did not reply.

It seems you want me to make special allowance for Tim to be allowed to post with unscholarly and uncivil language, is that correct?

No I do not. I have never said such a thing. In fact I specifically described Tim's post to you as 'undoubtedly offensive' and noted its 'acidic tone'. But that is the precisely the language you adopt when writing articles on your own blog, so I do not understand why you object to it.

[unkleE]

Jan 15, 2013 8:23:47 GMT vridar said:

Bye byes. :-)

G'day Neil, obviously this suggests you don't intend answering any more comments, but I'm guessing you'll probably drop back to read what people say.

In which case, may I remind you that I have been civil and friendly right through your time here, I don't necessarily see the members of this forum as a monolithic group, certainly not always representing my own viewpoint, and I asked you a few clarification questions at reply no. 38.

I was still hoping you might answer them please. Just to clarify, these were the questions:

1. Does the above statement ("we can see where that bias is clearly influencing the final conclusions of the report") 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?

2. If so, can you offer evidence of this adverse effect on their work? If not, why mention it?

3. 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?

4. 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.

Thanks, and best wishes.

[stevenavery]

Hi,

There really are 3 simple refutations of Nazareth invisibility nonsense. One we can not expect from skeptics and mythicists, and that is the :

1) superb precision historicity of the New Testament, and especially Luke-Acts. (discussed in the Christianity section recently)

However, Richard Carrier gets credit for properly emphasizing the other two, and writing crisply, the:

2) Caesarea Maritima inscription.

3) Poof Factor.

Richard makes a very good point that some people trying to date the priestly traffic in the inscription to post Bar Kochba is not sensible. I wouldn't mind hearing their response, it doesn't really change the basics either way. The simple fact that Nazareth is archaeologically established for the 1st or 2nd century in an external Jewish record is far more than enough external NT collaboration, if any were really needed. (Putting aside other corroborative evidences like Julius Africanus.)

Richard does well with the poof factor. Even René Salm allows a 70 AD Nazareth (apparently he late dates the gospels so the authors are writing about a city that arrived between 30 and 70 AD, sort of like a Disneyland wonder, the City la Jour. Best I can tell, he does not say they fabricated the town.) The whole proposed scenario (often hidden in the Salm and Godfrey rhetoric) is the theater of the absurd, and Richard Carrier did in fact get the handle of this point.

Below I leave those two points in from Richard Carrier.

Jan 14, 2013 9:51:16 GMT gakuseidon said:

Richard Carrier commented on Rene Salm's claims on his blog here:
richardcarrier.blogspot.com.au/2009/03/craig-debate-wrap.html?showComment=1239740100000#c8085560906076284692 ...
... 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 .... 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?).;

Now, one more point. A very compelling case can be made that the Nazara or Nazareth recognized from the 4th century is a poor fit for the Bible Nazareth, by the internal Biblical narrative issues.

One point one having to do with a type of unlikely distance from the general NT Galilee locale around Capernaum, Magdala, Sea of Galilee, to the Nazareth Basin.

A second point, major, having to do with the Luke 4:29 incident and the needed topography. Those are the two easy to follow and receive.

A third having to do with Galilee of the Gentiles, this takes a bit more discussion.

And a fourth (surprise) acknowledging that the Origen silence on location is unexpected, considering his Caesarea location, if in fact present-day Nazareth was bustling along (possible counterpoint, the lack of a textual variant, which pushes some Origen geography). Similar with the Josephus silence, his being headquartered at Sepphoris, virtually a catapults throw away. Evidences from silence are not wonderfully effective, but they are not automatically null sets either.

Now, in the priestly courses moving out of Jerusalem on vacation to Galilee, it looks like four cities are referenced in the extant inscription. Two I do not recognize (Mamliah and Arab, help appreciated if they are notched to some spot) two are Nazareth and Migdal (Nunaiyal) . And the Migdal region is a far more sensible area for a small village (perhaps razed or emptied in the Jewish Wars, Josephus emphasizes the destruction in Galilee) that matches the New Testament descriptions and locales. And topographically this region supplies one of the very few spots with archaeological ruins and a Luke 4:29 cliff, able to be sensible with the NT narrative. (Known today as Har Nitai, there is a web site about this called "The Real Nazareth".)

In summary, it is very likely that all the archaeological piff a puff a Pfann is not even relevant to the question.

What happens is that two questions are mixed together.

1) historicity = 100% certain, as even Richard Carrier understands, even without really accepting NT vibrancy precision on these elements.

2) location = uncertain.

The searching for the real Nazareth predates the whole recent net emphasis on the mythicist nothings, going back to the 1990s. (Acknowledging that questions were discussed about Nazareth earlier.) One researcher used his Army ranger experience from Iraq searching the region with the topographical maps. Research on this question continues, with the possibility of archaeological excavation in the future.

Yours in Jesus,
Steven Avery
Bayside, NY

[fortigurn]

Neil recently posted this article. I asked a question.

[Neil wrote] “This quotation reminds me of the times I have challenged New Testament scholars (in particular McGrath, but also a few others) on their knowledge of historical methods after they insist that historical Jesus scholars are doing history in the same way other historians work. Yet the McGraths have proven completely ignorant of the landmark names and key methodological and philosophical developments, even the fundamentals of document and source analysis, in the field of history, whether oral or written, as it is practiced outside biblical studies. Names like von Ranke, Carr, Elton, White, (even Hobsbawm!), leave them staring like the proverbial rabbits in the spotlight. Quote from any of the many standard works on how postgraduate history students need to analyse documents or oral reports and they can only turn to sarcasm and insult to defend themselves.”

Do you have any evidence for these claims?

Neil's reply was 'Yes', so I asked him 'Please present it'. He then asked 'Is that “a politely phrased request for information” or a demand?'. I informed him it was a politely phrased request for information. A complete unrelated poster said 'I certainly read it as a request; after all this claim is the centrepiece of your article. I also would be interested in examples'.

Neil then made this accusation.

“Fortigurn” (Jonathan Burke’s erstwhile alias on this blog) does not have a history of being a gentleman or polite in his exchanges with me. We shall see how long he can maintain his facade of civility. As long as his comments comply with our comments and moderation guidelines I am happy to post them here.

I asked him to present evidence for his claim that I do 'not have a history of being a gentleman or polite in his exchanges with me'. He trashed the comment so it wasn't posted. I also posted this in reply to the other poster.

To put in context Neil's claims about my tone in previous conversations with him, here are comments made by Neil to me and others (http://jameshannam.proboards.com/index.cgi?board=history&action=display&thread=1143).

* Oh you guys are a bunch of clowns
* Hoo boy, you guys can't even read
* You are a bunch of clowns!
* Well it's been fun seeing you guys squirm
* Oh you are a bunch of clowns
* I am correcting Tim's misinformed and ignorant claims
* he only responds to points where he thinks he can twist what was said and get away with it

I have never addressed him in this way.

Neil trashed this comment as well, so it wasn't posted. I also posted this reply to Neil.

"Well since you are so keen to engage in a polite conversation I will oblige by first telling you that anyone who has been a follower of this blog the last couple of years, and in particular of the exchanges between McGrath and me both here and on matrix will know that what I wrote is nothing more than a summing up of what everyone has witnessed for themselves."

I have been following your blog for the last couple of years, and I do not regard what you wrote as a summary of what has been witnessed.

"I invite you to ask Dr McGrath yourself with a polite effort to ask him for unequivocal, evidence-based and civil answers."

I am asking you to provide evidence of your claims, that's why I'm talking to you and not him. In the next few paragraphs you talk about McGrath. This is not evidence for your claims regarding 'New Testament scholars' you say you have challenged. Could you please provide a list of all the New Testament scholars you have challenged who have 'proven completely ignorant of the landmark names and key methodological and philosophical developments', etc? Could you provide evidence that they were 'staring like the proverbial rabbits in the spotlight', and that 'they can only turn to sarcasm and insult to defend themselves'?

Neil trashed this reply as well, so it was never posted. He also made it clear that he was definitely trashing my posts, and would trash any future posts of mine:

I should take this chance to mention that Jonathan Burke/Fortigurn has been attempting to post further comments in this thread. I have chosen to trash them. No doubt he will take my banning of his posts as a sure sign of hypocrisy on my part, and a demonstration, in his eyes, that I am completely unfair and inconsistent, etc etc. Tough. I have no time for the Fortigurns or the Tim O’Neills of this world. They can have their say but once the continue in their same old form I’ll turn off the tap.

It's ironic that Neil will trash even posts containing his own words.

[ignorantianescia]

The other poster has a blog, so if you want you can post your reply to him there.

[unkleE]

Feb 11, 2013 4:39:47 GMT fortigurn said:

Neil then made this accusation.

Fortigurn, I don't wish to appear critical, but do you think that his accusation was a smokescreen to avoid answering your substantial question about evidence?

I wonder whether tactically it might have been better to ignore all personal comments and just focus on the evidence, and see how he deals with it. As it is, he may avoid your first question.

Just a thought.

[fortigurn]

Feb 11, 2013 8:12:13 GMT ignorantianescia said:

The other poster has a blog, so if you want you can post your reply to him there.

Yes, I am thinking of doing that. unkleE, yes he has a habit of doing that; tone trolling to avoid answering questions, especially any time you ask him for evidence (to which questions he is particularly averse, as you can see from this thread).

I deliberately didn't make any personal comments; he trashed my posts anyway. When he made a false claim about my behavior, I simply quoted his own words, and of course he censored them because he doesn't want other people knowing how he treats others.

[ignorantianescia]

Maybe it's now the right time to post something lighter after Godfrey's war of attrition/misattribution, so have a look at Rene J. Salm's Wikipedia contribution page: en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Contributions/Renejs&limit=500&target=Renejs (the link has been fixed now)