|
|
Post by timoneill on Feb 22, 2013 19:53:31 GMT
Salm: Nazareth, Nazareth, Nazareth, Nazareth, Nazareth, Nazareth, Nazareth ... Vikings (singing): Nazareth, Nazareth, Nazareth, Nazareth, lovely Nazareth! Waitress: Shut up! Bloody vikings! (With apologies to Monty Python)
|
|
|
|
Post by fortigurn on Mar 2, 2013 17:15:00 GMT
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. . |
|
|
|
Post by ignorantianescia on Mar 2, 2013 17:40:25 GMT
Nice and detailed post.
Though may I ask what you mean with this? "Six out of the ten date ranges cited from Fernandez start within the first century,[3] but even then Fernandez only gives a first century date range on two out of those six.[4]" It's in the fifth paragraph (disregarding quotes) under the heading Godfrey’s claims: “he has had to depart from the standard reference”.
Also, you might want to add to the section about springs that Tim was replying to that chap's claim that there was barely enough water in Nazareth to survive summer.
|
|
|
|
Post by fortigurn on Mar 2, 2013 17:53:11 GMT
Thanks. Rapuano cites Fernandez ten times when estimating pottery dates. Each time Fernandez gives a date range (not a single date). Six out of ten times, the date range given by Fernandez starts in the first century; for example, 'c. 53-210 CE'. So the date range starts in the first century, but the date range itself is not a first century date range, it's a first to third century date range. With regard to the second statement, I should have said 'in only three of those cases does Fernandez give a date range which ends inside the first century'. Is that more clear? Thanks, I was wondering if I should. |
|
|
|
Post by timoneill on Mar 2, 2013 19:05:55 GMT
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. . Bravo! I hope this has been brought to the sneering fundie librarian's attention? PS I didn't realise you and I shared alma maters. In fact, you would have been doing your BA at the Uni of Tas when I was finishing my MA there (1991-93). |
|
|
|
Post by fortigurn on Mar 2, 2013 19:08:06 GMT
Bravo! I hope this has been brought to the sneering fundie librarian's attention? Thanks. It links to his blog a couple of times, so he can't miss it. Goodness, I had no idea! I was in the Classics department doing a double Classics major (Greek, Latin, Greek and Roman history, Greek architecture, literature, oratory, and art). What did you study there? Very tidy little uni, my first introduction to university life and a comfortable one it was too.  |
|
|
|
Post by timoneill on Mar 2, 2013 19:41:21 GMT
Goodness, I had no idea! I was in the Classics department doing a double Classics major (Greek, Latin, Greek and Roman history, Greek architecture, literature, oratory, and art). What did you study there? Very tidy little uni, my first introduction to university life and a comfortable one it was too. I was just upstairs in the English Department. I did my thesis on John Gower's Confessio Amantis and was often down your way - Dr Michael Bennett in the History Department specialised in the history of the court of Richard II and was very helpful to me in my research. Given the size of that university, I'm sure we would have know each other by sight, at least. |
|
|
|
Post by fortigurn on Mar 3, 2013 2:03:31 GMT
I was just upstairs in the English Department. I did my thesis on John Gower's Confessio Amantis and was often down your way - Dr Michael Bennett in the History Department specialised in the history of the court of Richard II and was very helpful to me in my research. Given the size of that university, I'm sure we would have know each other by sight, at least. I took a semester course in English history with Dr Bennett, and found him a very amiable, pleasant, and interesting lecturer. He was also very generous in his marking, which I certainly appreciated. |
|
|
|
Post by fortigurn on Mar 3, 2013 12:35:06 GMT
Godfrey has posted a comment on my article. I wonder if he will remove from his article, the pingback which links to mine, when he realizes how much traffic I am receiving from his site? |
|
|
|
Post by ignorantianescia on Mar 3, 2013 14:17:00 GMT
Rapuano cites Fernandez ten times when estimating pottery dates. Each time Fernandez gives a date range (not a single date). Six out of ten times, the date range given by Fernandez starts in the first century; for example, 'c. 53-210 CE'. So the date range starts in the first century, but the date range itself is not a first century date range, it's a first to third century date range. With regard to the second statement, I should have said 'in only three of those cases does Fernandez give a date range which ends inside the first century'. Is that more clear? Yes, I think it is clearer. It might also be a less useful formulation for those who have an interest in distorting what you wrote. I imagine that somebody with a Mythicist agenda would have no qualms in claiming that you are contradicting yourself, otherwise. |
|
|
|
Post by fortigurn on Mar 3, 2013 14:27:18 GMT
Yes, I think it is clearer. It might also be a less useful formulation for those who have an interest in distorting what you wrote. I imagine that somebody with a Mythicist agenda would have no qualms in claiming that you are contradicting yourself, otherwise. Thanks. Meanwhile Godfrey, who spends three paragraphs of his self-introduction on his website describing himself as a librarian, has objected strenuously to me referring to him as a librarian, claiming 'It is clear that you choose the labels you use for reasons that are not forthright and that are more underhanded than you are prepared to admit'. He does not explain the rationale behind his accusation. I have offered to replace the term 'librarian' with anything else of his choice. He has not yet replied. |
|
|
|
Post by ignorantianescia on Mar 3, 2013 19:25:54 GMT
If he keeps complaining and accusing without any substantial points, I'd change his description to "Thoth, deity of magick, writing, scientific progress and juridical affairs of the afterlife, courtesy of Wikipedia". If he also throws a tantrum about such grand a title as well, "boorish bookworm" might be worth considering. At least then he'd have cause to complain about underhanded labels. |
|
|
|
Post by merkavah12 on Mar 4, 2013 0:10:29 GMT
If he keeps complaining and accusing without any substantial points, I'd change his description to "Thoth, deity of magick, writing, scientific progress and juridical affairs of the afterlife, courtesy of Wikipedia". If he also throws a tantrum about such grand a title as well, "boorish bookworm" might be worth considering. At least then he'd have cause to complain about underhanded labels. Why don't you just call him "Ambassador Phantom of Krankor"? www.youtube.com/watch?v=hbFjxNTzzgI |
|
|
|
Post by fortigurn on Mar 4, 2013 0:32:37 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by gakuseidon on Mar 7, 2013 8:58:44 GMT
Rene Salm (RS below) has just written a post on the JesusMysteries yahoo group on Dark's response to Salm: groups.yahoo.com/group/JesusMysteries/message/69189RS: Dark's review was a hatchet job. My (second) Nazareth book in progress will include elementary blunders by Dark in Palestinian archaeology, mostly related to his work at the Sisters of Nazareth convent (which articles I'm confident you have not seen as only one copy of them exists in the USA). Dark really should have restricted himself to his area of expertise--post-Roman Britain. . . Alexandre is much more informed on Galilean archaeology--but I consider her dishonest, while I consider Dark both dishonest and uninformed in Israeli archaeology. I'm rather happy that the tradition picked Dark to carry on its Nazareth work, because he's a blunderer and quite an easy target. JK: My certainty is not only from the literature by Dark, and Jodi Magness and Rachel Hachlili, and Pfann, and others...all professionally trained archaeologists who have excavated there, but also having been there myself. RS: Those are the wrong names, Jack. And don't stop there. . . What about Kuhnen, Deines, Sussman, Rosenthal, and Kloner? Have you read them too? And have you itemized all their Nazareth findings? BTW, Magness and Hachlili are *Judean* experts, while Pfann is a generalist, not a "professionally trained archaeologist" at all. He's a pseudo-epigrapher who moonlights in archaeology and whose work on the DSS happens to be routinely treated with caution, for it provides a false early chronology of the DSS. The Nazareth stone vessels are the earliest movable evidence from the Middle Roman settlement. Deines, a German archaeologist, personally examined the two stone vessels at Nazareth and wrote about them, dating them as late as 135 CE. Stone vessels are his specialty, as seen from his 1993 PhD dissertation ("Juedische Steingefaesse und Pharisaeische Froemmigkeit"). Dark constantly alludes to Rachel Hachlili's magnum opus on Judean funerary customs, which demonstrates his status as a novice in Palestinian archaeology. On the opening page of Hachlili's fine book, she pointedly limits herself to "the material preserved in the ancient Jewish cemeteries of the Hellenistic and Roman periods *at Jerusalem, Jericho, 'En Gedi, and Qumran*" (Foreword, emphasis added). The title of her book is misleading (unfortunate translation), for "Jewish" would be better rendered "Judean." There is zero applicability of her book and (especially) its chronologies to the Galilee, and Dark's dangerous misuse of that book is a klunker of the first order--as I am pointing out in my present writing. The upshot of Dark's faulty method is that his chronology of Galilean kokhim tombs is a full two centuries too early. . . Of course, such "fudging" is convenient for the Tradition which seeks a Nazareth at the turn of the era! Kuhnen's work (http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hans-Peter_Kuhnen) offers a correct kokhim tomb chronology for the Galilee--but Dark refuses to read it! I know this because Dark still does not include Kuhnen in his 2012 bibliography and continues to use his extremely flawed chronology. . . I've been in touch with Kuhnen, Mordechai Aviam in Israel, and a whole slew of archaeologists until it became obvious that the problem is not competing facts but competing agendas. Kuhnen is a well-respected German archaeologist who exhaustively reviewed the published reports on Roman tombs in Israel before concluding that "only later, from approximately the middle of the first century after Christ, did people begin to build kokh tombs. . . in the Galilee" (cited from Kuhnen in my book, p. 159). That type of tomb, incidentally, continued to be hewn in the Galilee into the fifth century CE. Hence, the tomb evidence at Nazareth (all two dozen are kokh tombs) is *way too late* for a village in the "time of Jesus." But not for Ken Dark! ;-) Incidentally, Kuhnen's work is fully compatible with that of Hachlili. The difference is that Hachlili's tome pertains to Jerusalem in the Second Temple Period, whereas Kuhnen ranges all over the land of Israel in Roman times. Different emphases--but they make a huge difference when you consider that use of the kokh-type tomb took over two centuries to move from Marisa in the south of Palestine to the Galilee in the north. (Ooh. . . The Tradition doesn't want to hear that!) Another problem--but this may be a little too subtle--Hachlili has nothing to contribute regarding the *physical* structure of tombs. She is highly focused on the interest betrayed in her title: Funerary *Customs, Practices, and Rites.* Dark doesn't understand this. He blithely takes her chronology of *customs* (Type I, Type II. . .) and applies it to tomb *architecture*. . . Another incredible blunder. And then you have Varda Sussman. She's probably the world's leading expert on bow-spouted oil lamps. She's shown that they postdate the reign of Herod the Great (references in my book that you won't read). Those oil lamps are the earliest Nazareth pottery evidence. But you can rely Dark, Alexandre, Pfann, and a litany of tradition-serving "archaeologists." Its a sign of the times. So, we have two parallel histories being produced, one based on fact and the other on faith (and commerce). However, they can't both be true. . . Rene |
|
