Nazareth: The Piano Teacher vs the Archaeology

[unkleE]

Some more information from Ken Dark on archaeology of Nazareth. Not sure if there's any new archaeology there, or just new presentations of existing archaeology, but it seems like the evidence for Nazareth in the first century isn't going away.

[fortigurn]

Meanwhile, in a parallel universe, Neil just posted this priceless comment.

Sometimes a prominent public figure speaks about a field that is outside his or her area of expertise. Those who pull this off the most successfully are comedians.

But when a public figure whom I admire in many ways says something publicly, as if it were fact, that I know is contradicted by the publicly available research data itself, and that is even dangerous because it can fan a wider ignorance and lend support to mischief and harmful actions, then it hurts.

But when it's a piano teacher trying to dispute professional archaeologists, and who's saying something Neil already agrees with, then it's ok.

The next part is the ROTFL moment.

What's more, because there are a few areas where I do have more knowledge, being more widely read in the relevant areas, I do feel some sense of responsibility to try to speak up in some way when I hear a prominent person influencing others with misinformation.

;D

[timoneill]

Jun 11, 2013 13:11:15 GMT unkleE said:

Some more information from Ken Dark on archaeology of Nazareth. Not sure if there's any new archaeology there, or just new presentations of existing archaeology, but it seems like the evidence for Nazareth in the first century isn't going away.

The abstract can be found HERE:

"First discovered by accident in 1884 – and thereafter informally investigated by workmen, nuns and clergy, for several decades – the archaeological site at the Sisters of Nazareth convent in central Nazareth has remained unpublished and largely unknown to scholarship. However, work by the Nazareth Archaeological Project in 2006–10 showed that this site offers a full and important stratified sequence from ancient Nazareth, including well-preserved Early Roman-period and later features. These include a partially rock-cut structure, here re-evaluated and interpreted on the basis of both earlier and newly recorded data as a first-century ad domestic building – perhaps a ‘courtyard house’ – the first surface-built domestic structure of this date from Nazareth to be published, and the best preserved. The site was subsequently used in the Roman period for burial, suggesting settlement contraction or settlement shift."

I've just bought the article and will post a summary once I've read it.

[stevenavery]

We had a little breakthrough in 2016 on the Rene Salm front.
From his blog.

“Jesus has a Nazareth problem” (interview transcript)—Pt. 4
www.mythicistpapers.com/2016/05/21/jesus-has-a-nazareth-problem-interview-transcript-pt-4/

There’s been no discussion to my knowledge of any other Nazareth. I discuss this a little in my books. It would not fly at all… If somebody said that Nazareth was really somewhere else, then you’d have ancient claims of two different Nazareths, and that doesn’t go anywhere… They have nowhere to go. If Nazareth did not exist where it’s traditionally placed now, then I think there’s going to be a big problem. One archeologist who responded to my book—although he panned it—he said, ‘Well, maybe Salm is onto something. Maybe Nazareth was at a place called Har Nitai, which is by the Sea of Galilee.’ But, you know, this is in the last ten years… It’s totally new, and nobody’s ever heard of this theory. And then, of course, you’ve got all those tens of thousands of pilgrims going to Nazareth every year… What are they going to do? [Chuckles.]

However, since Har Nitai is very likely the real Nazareth, the whole issue is over, except what to do with the Pilgrims and Holy Sites. I don't see that as a real problem.

I'd like to find out who is the archaeologist. (Possibly Randall Price, who does know about the Har Nitai spot.)

Steven

[ydoethur]

Feb 18, 2017 16:36:32 GMT stevenavery said:

We had a little breakthrough in 2016 on the Rene Salm front.
From his blog.

“Jesus has a Nazareth problem” (interview transcript)—Pt. 4
www.mythicistpapers.com/2016/05/21/jesus-has-a-nazareth-problem-interview-transcript-pt-4/

There’s been no discussion to my knowledge of any other Nazareth. I discuss this a little in my books. It would not fly at all… If somebody said that Nazareth was really somewhere else, then you’d have ancient claims of two different Nazareths, and that doesn’t go anywhere… They have nowhere to go. If Nazareth did not exist where it’s traditionally placed now, then I think there’s going to be a big problem. One archeologist who responded to my book—although he panned it—he said, ‘Well, maybe Salm is onto something. Maybe Nazareth was at a place called Har Nitai, which is by the Sea of Galilee.’ But, you know, this is in the last ten years… It’s totally new, and nobody’s ever heard of this theory. And then, of course, you’ve got all those tens of thousands of pilgrims going to Nazareth every year… What are they going to do? [Chuckles.]

However, since Har Nitai is very likely the real Nazareth, the whole issue is over, except what to do with the Pilgrims and Holy Sites. I don't see that as a real problem.

I'd like to find out who is the archaeologist. (Possibly Randall Price, who does know about the Har Nitai spot.)

Steven

Out of genuine curiosity Steven, why are you so desperate to prove that Nazareth was not the childhood home of Jesus that you are quoting this notorious pseudoscholar and liar with such passion even while you are criticising him as 'a stopped clock [that's] right twice a day?' And more to the point, why are you making such dogmatic pronouncements about Har Nitai when all that your comments (or for that matter, those of Salm) actually prove is that you have never been to Nazareth and know nothing about its geography, topography or history?

It just seems odd.

[stevenavery]

You get upset that I quote Salm? And that simply his reference to an archaeologist who references Har Nitai.. As mentioned, my guess is Randall Price, since I know that he is aware of the Har Nitai theory.

Beyond that, please do not fabricate my history. I have solid Israel connections, have met and appreciate Stephen Phann (even while viewing his Nazareth Village as mistaken). And know with certainty that if the New Testament is accurate, the modern Nazareth location does not match the NT.

I've been a severe critic of Salm's lack of logic for many years, probably even before I knew of Har Nitai. (I could check ancient email archives.)

My interest here is simply the truth of the matter. The groundwork was begun by Kevin Kluetz long ago, including researching the topography of Galilee. Later, we learned much more. My wife was at Arbel a couple of years back, (a twin cliff to Nitai on the other side of the valley) and learned the history of how it was used as an execution spot, adding to the intrigue and backdrop.

I know that showing the error in the modern Nazareth is upsetting to this whole cottage industry surrounding Salm and his critics, with the fun of referencing various archaeology aspects of central Galilee modern Nazareth. However, in the big picture, both can be wrong (as Salm acknowledged above, with a little dance.)

All of which is neither here nor there. My concern is the accurate understanding of the pure word of God. I do appreciate what Kevin found by diligent labours, looking for the "facts on the ground".

Feb 18, 2017 18:44:48 GMT ydoethur said:

why are you so desperate to prove that Nazareth was not the childhood home of Jesus

This is total nonsense. I believe with full conviction that Nazareth was the childhood home of Jesus, and that the New Testament description of Nazareth is accurate. In fact, that is why I believe that modern Nazareth is a faux identification. And that if the ruins of Har Nitai were excavated, you would be on the trail of the Nazareth which was the childhood home of Jesus.

Steven

[ignorantianescia]

What are Kluetz's qualifications? I noticed one reference to his writings about Nazareth on an Italian website (by a pretty stalwart Roman Catholic) and he gets a number of references from Evangelical sites (mostly on dinosaurs in the Bible), but his personal site (hosted by Geocities) is of course long dead.

[stevenavery]

Kevin was an Airborne Ranger in Desert Storm. This helped him in thinking in terms of topography and reading the maps. There was also simply the time and inclination and Bible interest to drive throughout Galilee looking for sites that might match the Bible. And he is a good Bible reader.

The Geocities site is still up as Reocities archive.

The Real Nazareth?
www.reocities.com/athens/parthenon/3021/nazareth.html

The Italian paper is pretty good. Without speaking for Kevin, afaik his background includes Messianic, maybe Pentecostal and he was involved at Liberty University in Lynchburg, VA for awhile. The archaeologist Randall Price is involved at Libery.

And I might work with him on a new site.

Steven

[ydoethur]

Apr 17, 2017 2:07:38 GMT stevenavery said:

You get upset that I quote Salm? And that simply his reference to an archaeologist who references Har Nitai.. As mentioned, my guess is Randall Price, since I know that he is aware of the Har Nitai theory.

Beyond that, please do not fabricate my history. I have solid Israel connections, have met and appreciate Stephen Phann (even while viewing his Nazareth Village as mistaken). And know with certainty that if the New Testament is accurate, the modern Nazareth location does not match the NT.

I've been a severe critic of Salm's lack of logic for many years, probably even before I knew of Har Nitai. (I could check ancient email archives.)

My interest here is simply the truth of the matter. The groundwork was begun by Kevin Kluetz long ago, including researching the topography of Galilee. Later, we learned much more. My wife was at Arbel a couple of years back, (a twin cliff to Nitai on the other side of the valley) and learned the history of how it was used as an execution spot, adding to the intrigue and backdrop.

I know that showing the error in the modern Nazareth is upsetting to this whole cottage industry surrounding Salm and his critics, with the fun of referencing various archaeology aspects of central Galilee modern Nazareth. However, in the big picture, both can be wrong (as Salm acknowledged above, with a little dance.)

All of which is neither here nor there. My concern is the accurate understanding of the pure word of God. I do appreciate what Kevin found by diligent labours, looking for the "facts on the ground".

Feb 18, 2017 18:44:48 GMT ydoethur said:

why are you so desperate to prove that Nazareth was not the childhood home of Jesus

This is total nonsense. I believe with full conviction that Nazareth was the childhood home of Jesus, and that the New Testament description of Nazareth is accurate. In fact, that is why I believe that modern Nazareth is a faux identification. And that if the ruins of Har Nitai were excavated, you would be on the trail of the Nazareth which was the childhood home of Jesus.

Steven

I am not upset Steven, I am puzzled. Your answer doesn't really clear up that point. You say that you believe Jesus was raised in Nazareth, yet Nazareth must have been somewhere else because in your view, which as I have pointed out here and elsewhere is straightforwardly wrong, Nazareth doesn't match the descriptions in the Bible. In support of this you quote a man you admit is a liar and attribute a view to him that he appears to have reneged upon. As a result, I am afraid despite your claims I feel entitled to have deep misgivings about your connections with the area. I do not think you have visited Nazareth and I do not believe you have the least idea what you are talking about.

As for you liking your own posts, I will assume it was an accident. I would advise you not to try the Carrier defence of 'liking is called self-promotion'!