|
Post by unkleE on Feb 20, 2015 3:38:44 GMT
We have discussed archaeology at Nazareth before, and the claims that Nazareth didn't exist at the time of Jesus. I don't know if others have seen it, but some new information (apparently) has been published that surely settles the matter. 1. Archaeologist Ken Dark of University of Reading has published on excavations in the centre of the present day city of Nazareth (and with a PhD in archaeology from Cambridge, his position as Assistant professor and his long record of archaeological digs and publications, he clearly is qualified to write on this subject, and it is hard to see how sceptics can argue he is a christian apologist or a promoter of Jewish tourism). 2. He published a paper, Early roman-period Nazareth and the sisters of Nazareth convent in Antiquaries Journal (Cambridge University) and the text is available from Reading University. 3. He has also got an article in Biblical Archaeology Review (March/April 2015 - you read it here before it even happens!) which I don't have access to, but Larry Hurtado refers to it briefly. 4. I have also found a brief account of his findings following a talk he gave at Uni of Edinburgh. 5. The work he reports on relates to Nazareth and Sepphoris and villages in between, with interesting findings such as (1) that there was no direct road from Nazareth to Sepphoris, making conjecture that Jesus and Joseph might have worked there a little less likely, (2) artefacts found in the area suggest a stronger Roman influence in villages closer to Sepphoris, but little or no Roman influence in Nazareth, which would therefore have been a fully Jewish settlement, and (3) and suggestions that Nazareth may at times been a slightly larger village or even town than sometimes thought. 6. But the interesting info for the sceptics is the excavation of " an exceptionally well-preserved domestic building, probably a ‘courtyard house’" that he dates to early first century (giving his reasons of course), which was later (late first century) used for burials. This of course is unusual, the Jews always separating living from tombs, but he argues that the evidence suggests that the house went out of use mid first century (perhaps after the rebellion in the 60s? [my thought, not his]) as the town either shrunk, or people relocated. The type of tomb gives a latest date for the house, and the style of construction (with comparisons to another similar house nearby) and some artefacts found (e.g. a "stone spindle whorl") all indicate first century, so the case is now pretty strong. He concludes that it was a domestic building with a family living there (only women did weaving in those days) in a Jewish small town or village. "The finds from all these sites suggest a culturally Jewish community obeying the Jewish purity laws as they were understood in this period, just as our earlier work in the countryside would lead one to expect." It seems pretty conclusive, but I wonder if the sceptics like Rene Salm will finally be convinced? If this info has been presented here before, I'm sorry, I must have forgotten it. Later edit: I seem to have cut and pasted some stuff in the wrong place, so I corrected it.
|
|
|
Post by unkleE on Feb 20, 2015 5:48:11 GMT
|
|
labarum
Master of the Arts
Posts: 122
|
Post by labarum on Feb 20, 2015 6:07:42 GMT
Not surprising. This threatens Salm's livelihood. If everyone acknowledges Nazareth already existed, he'll be reduced to speaking at conspiracy theorist conventions between the guy who thinks the moon landings were a hoax and the guy who thinks the earth is hollow and the interior is occupied by aliens.
|
|
|
Post by wraggy on Feb 20, 2015 7:13:58 GMT
Just what are Salm's qualifications?
|
|
|
Post by ignorantianescia on Feb 20, 2015 7:48:31 GMT
Just what are Salm's qualifications?
|
|
|
Post by wraggy on Feb 20, 2015 7:51:55 GMT
So you are saying that he has no qualifications at all in archeology?
|
|
|
Post by evangelion on Feb 20, 2015 9:00:51 GMT
We have discussed archaeology at Nazareth before, and the claims that Nazareth didn't exist at the time of Jesus. I don't know if others have seen it, but some new information (apparently) has been published that surely settles the matter. 1. Archaeologist Ken Dark of University of Reading (and with a PhD in archaeology from Cambridge) has published on excavations in the centre of the present day city of Nazareth. With that PhD, his position as Assistant professor and his long record of archaeological digs and publications, he clearly is qualified to write on this subject, and it is hard to see how sceptics can argue he is a christian apologist or a promoter of Jewish tourism. 2. He published a paper, Early roman-period Nazareth and the sisters of Nazareth convent in Antiquaries Journal (Cambridge University) and the text is available from Reading University. 3. He has also got an article in Biblical Archaeology Review (March/April 2015 - you read it here before it even happens!) which I don't have access to, but Larry Hurtado refers to it briefly. 4. I have also found a brief account of his findings following a talk he gave at Uni of Edinburgh. 5. The work he reports on relates to Nazareth and Sepphoris and villages in between, with interesting findings such as (1) that there was no direct road from Nazareth to Sepphoris, making conjecture that Jesus and Joseph might have worked there a little less likely, (2) artefacts found in the area suggest a stronger Roman influence in villages closer to Sepphoris, but little or no Roman influence in Nazareth, which would therefore have been a fully Jewish settlement, and (3) and suggestions that Nazareth may at times been a slightly larger village or even town than sometimes thought. 6. But the interesting info for the sceptics is the excavation of " an exceptionally well-preserved domestic building, probably a ‘courtyard house’" that he dates to early first century (giving his reasons of course), which was later (late first century) used for burials. This of course is unusual, the Jews always separating living from tombs, but he argues that the evidence suggests that the house went out of use mid first century (perhaps after the rebellion in the 60s? [my thought, not his]) as the town either shrunk, or people relocated. The type of tomb gives a latest date for the house, and the style of construction (with comparisons to another similar house nearby) and some artefacts found (e.g. a "stone spindle whorl") all indicate first century, so the case is now pretty strong. He concludes that it was a domestic building with a family living there (only women did weaving in those days) in a Jewish small town or village. "The finds from all these sites suggest a culturally Jewish community obeying the Jewish purity laws as they were understood in this period, just as our earlier work in the countryside would lead one to expect." It seems pretty conclusive, but I wonder if the sceptics like Rene Salm will finally be convinced? If this info has been presented here before, I'm sorry, I must have forgotten it. Execllent material, thanks mate!
|
|
labarum
Master of the Arts
Posts: 122
|
Post by labarum on Feb 20, 2015 11:12:25 GMT
Just what are Salm's qualifications? He was a part-time piano teacher, a friend of Frank Zindler of American Atheists, a Jesus mythicist, and the author of a book published by American Atheists on the subject. For most people, this qualifies him as an amateur crank. For Jesus mythicists, this makes him a "scholar." Go figure.
|
|
labarum
Master of the Arts
Posts: 122
|
Post by labarum on Feb 20, 2015 11:20:27 GMT
What is truly hilarious is sections of Salm's reply. Example: At one point he mentions that Dr. Dark is an expert in the archaeology of first century and medieval Britain and then replies "Dark cannot be expected to have gained a deep knowledge of Palestinian archaeology." This from a guy who has zero qualifications of any kind, lacks any expertise in archaeology, has never even witnessed an archaeological dig anywhere in the world, and whom qualified archaeologists either have never heard of him or, if they have, consistently place him among the many pseudoarchaeologists running around these days with their conspiracy theories. My only surprise is that the conspiracy theorist outlet that refers to itself as the History Channel has not offered Salm a TV show yet.
|
|
|
Post by unkleE on Feb 20, 2015 12:20:33 GMT
Yes I noticed that little attempt to overlook the obvious. Ken Dark's CV shows he has published not only on ancient Britain, but also Byzantine period and other Galilean locations. He has clearly worked at the Nazareth site as he has taken photos there. The key argument Salm puts forward is the dating of kokhim tombs in Galilee, which he says were used in Galilee well after the first century. I know nothing about this, but this paper (dated 1999) seems to support a first century date for them in Galilee, including at Nazareth as does this book by the same author (dated 2000). So unless I'm missing something, it doesn't really matter for how long they were used, if the experts agree these ones at Nazareth are to be dated late first century, or even just somewhere in the first century, it seems like Salm is arguing against the facts. The author of those two references is Jonathan Reed, "Professor of Religion at the University of La Verne in La Verne, California. A specialist in early Christianity and the sayings gospel Q, he earned his Ph.D. from the Claremont Graduate School in Claremont, California, where he studied with Burton Mack. .... He serves as the Director of the Sepphoris Acropolis Excavations in Israel and was previously square supervisor for the Israel Antiquities Authority Excavations in Capernaum, Israel. He was also an Instructor and as Associate Director of the Institute for Antiquity and Christianity at the Claremont Graduate School, and a Guest Lecturer in the theological faculty and Director of the University of La Verne Study Abroad Program at Philipps University in Marburg, Germany." It sounds like he might know a thing or two more than Salm does! So far, that is what I have found about this stuff.
|
|
|
Post by ignorantianescia on Feb 20, 2015 13:12:29 GMT
So you are saying that he has no qualifications at all in archeology? Exactly. As Labarum already explained, he is a piano teacher. "Fantaisie-Impromptu" refers to his fanciful hypothesising, "American Berserk" to the anti-religious crusade of this man from Oregon and "Children's Corner" to the good man being a lightweight.
|
|
|
Post by ignorantianescia on Feb 20, 2015 13:26:28 GMT
The key argument Salm puts forward is the dating of kokhim tombs in Galilee, which he says were used in Galilee well after the first century. I know nothing about this, but this paper (dated 1999) seems to support a first century date for them in Galilee, including at Nazareth as does this book by the same author (dated 2000). So unless I'm missing something, it doesn't really matter for how long they were used, if the experts agree these ones at Nazareth are to be dated late first century, or even just somewhere in the first century, it seems like Salm is arguing against the facts. Kuhnen, Salm's reference of choice, broadly dates the kokhim as a dominant to the 1st century BC and the 1st century AD. He also states that there were others that date to the 2nd or 3rd century AD, but these are more rare. But Kuhnen wrote in the early nineties and the field may have moved past that since. On the other hand, he clearly states that the grave type became used everywhere in Israel during the first century AD. The first century date is clearly affirmed even by the scholar whom Salm picked as his champion. But I think Salm is okay with a 1st century AD date, as long as it is post-revolt.
|
|
|
Post by unkleE on Feb 20, 2015 23:06:45 GMT
Exactly. As Labarum already explained, he is a piano teacher. "Fantaisie-Impromptu" refers to his fanciful hypothesising, "American Berserk" to the anti-religious crusade of this man from Oregon and "Children's Corner" to the good man being a lightweight. IN, you are a classic!
|
|
|
Post by unkleE on Feb 20, 2015 23:20:26 GMT
Kuhnen, Salm's reference of choice, broadly dates the kokhim as a dominant to the 1st century BC and the 1st century AD. He also states that there were others that date to the 2nd or 3rd century AD, but these are more rare. But Kuhnen wrote in the early nineties and the field may have moved past that since. On the other hand, he clearly states that the grave type became used everywhere in Israel during the first century AD. The first century date is clearly affirmed even by the scholar whom Salm picked as his champion. But I think Salm is okay with a 1st century AD date, as long as it is post-revolt. Do you have a readily available reference for Kuhnen in English? I googled him but couldn't find much (perhaps he wrote long enough ago not to be on the internet??) and what I found was in German. Dark's point is that the Jews of Nazareth wouldn't have lived in close proximity to tombs, so the house had to go out of use before the tombs would be built - and the type of construction means it would have taken some time to construct. So even if the gap was short, a date of 70CE for the tombs means a date of pre 50CE (say) for construction of the house, making it "dangerously" close to Jesus for Salm. So Salm really needs the tombs to be very late first century at least, and preferably second century. The point he doesn't seem to address is, whatever the date of those types of tombs generally, several archaeologists date these ones to first century. He may have shown (I don't know enough to say) that a later date is "possible", but he hasn't done much apart from mud-slinging to show that the archaeologists are wrong.
|
|
|
Post by ignorantianescia on Feb 21, 2015 14:02:21 GMT
Do you have a readily available reference for Kuhnen in English? I googled him but couldn't find much (perhaps he wrote long enough ago not to be on the internet??) and what I found was in German. No, unfortunately not. The only reference I have by him is in German. Dark's point is that the Jews of Nazareth wouldn't have lived in close proximity to tombs, so the house had to go out of use before the tombs would be built - and the type of construction means it would have taken some time to construct. So even if the gap was short, a date of 70CE for the tombs means a date of pre 50CE (say) for construction of the house, making it "dangerously" close to Jesus for Salm. So Salm really needs the tombs to be very late first century at least, and preferably second century. The point he doesn't seem to address is, whatever the date of those types of tombs generally, several archaeologists date these ones to first century. He may have shown (I don't know enough to say) that a later date is "possible", but he hasn't done much apart from mud-slinging to show that the archaeologists are wrong. Dark's argument is entirely reasonable and I'm not enough up to date with the history of the debate surrounding kokhim to know whether he and Kuhnen would be in conflict. Whatever is the case, it is the smartest to accept Dark's argument. It's not as if he is saying stuff that causes controversy among the experts.
|
|