Thanks for the link, PZ. I am available to explain all English culture in-jokes before my descent to a fictional Hell.
Richard Harrissays
What a load of feckin’ crap! (Both versions.)
And I thought that Nazareth didn’t even exist at that time.
From Wikipedia – Emmett claims that archaeological excavations in the vicinity of the present-day Basilica of the Annunciation and St. Joseph have revealed pottery dating from the Middle Bronze Age (2200 to 1500 BC) and ceramics, silos and grinding mills from the Iron Age (1500 to 586 BC).[9] However, excavations conducted prior to 1931 in the Franciscan venerated area revealed “no trace of a Greek or Roman settlement” there,[10] and according to studies written between 1955 and 1990, no archaeological evidence from Assyrian, Babylonian, Persian, Hellenistic or Early Roman times have been found.[11][12] Bagatti, the principal archaeologist at the venerated sites in Nazareth, unearthed quantities of later Roman and Byzantine artifacts,[13] attesting to unambiguous human presence there from the 2nd century AD onward.
Mikey Msays
“Bunch of winged gits”
My 1970’s obsession with Monty Python holds me in good stead for understanding British slang. But I’m on my own re: internet acronyms.
The Heavenly Host singing “Last Christmas” – that’s hilarious. I hope they cracked out some Slade later on.
Peter Ashbysays
I’ll explain one of the Britishisms. The CSA that Mary threatens to report Teh Angle of Teh Lord to for parenting Baby Jebus is the Child Support Agency. This is the govt agency tasked in collecting child support payments from absent parents, usually fathers.
M as a typical feckless teenage mum is just bril I thought.
SC, OMsays
Thanks. I haven’t laughed that hard since I read Owlmirror’s play.
I agree w/ Benjamin and Blake. I made it through about three “sentences” before conceding defeat.
Marc Abiansays
I got as far as what I recognised as a little britain reference, and am now going to close the window and log off the computer.
Miguelsays
Absolute classic! I pissed myself laughing…
firemancarlsays
J.Carpenter: Here’s three nails, put me up for the night
Receptionist: LOL, that’s an Easter joke, sir
Wow! Pissed my pants laughing.
Mick McTsays
What do you mean the interweb netty thing didn’t exist in 4BCE? Here’s proof that it was around in Crete long before then! (It must be true I saw it on the web)
Veery funny, it reminds me of some “pastorelas” i have seen latelly.
Pastorelas were representations of the nativity, done by the first spanish misionaries to convert the natives in the new spain (Mexico).
In order they were interesting for the natives, the story had to be adapted. I recall one in nahuatl (done by a converted aztec about 1590), where Herodes claimed he will convert the Magi into “chicharon” ( a local delicacy) and eat them with molli sauce (another local delicacy). I am not shure if the priests could understand it… probably they would had been horrified by the liberties taken with the story.
Today some “pastorelas” take more liberties with the story (probably their authors would have been burned 500 years ago..
Just last week I saw one where the good guys were the executives of a cellular phone company (Nextel) and the bad guys (the devil and company) the other celluar companis, that tried to prevent the arriving of Jesus.
Imagine, Jesus arriving thanks to the efforts of a cell phone company :)
Erpsays
As far as citing wikipedia and Nazareth not existing circa 4BCE, check the talk section for the article; this is an article with edit wars. Check the peer reviewed scholarly articles.
Many people writing have strong biases some to prove Jesus existed and was the messiah etc and some to prove he did not exist at all. Beware of both extremes.
David Marjanović, OMsays
Still laughing at “Here’s three nails, put me up for the night”. :-D
BTW, did you Brits import “oh, COCK” from Poland? (Chuuuuuj!)
I recall one in nahuatl […]
That sounds very interesting. Where can I learn more?
CJOsays
Many people writing have strong biases some to prove Jesus existed and was the messiah etc and some to prove he did not exist at all. Beware of both extremes.
Always a good idea when consulting Wikipedia for information on any controversial subject. However, in reading over the entry, I see nothing terribly problematic, nor does it seem overly one-sided. There is considerable doubt that the site was settled 100BCE – 100CE. And it is true that Nazareth is not included among the 45 cities of Galilee mentioned by Josephus or among the 63 towns of Galilee mentioned in the Talmud.
I had never heard before the suggestion cited there, that Matthew arrived at the word “Nazarene” through a play on words. Professor Brown elaborates that the text used by Matthew was the one in Isaiah 11:1 which says, “A shoot will come from the stump of Jesse; from his roots a Branch will bear fruit.” The word for “Branch” in Hebrew is “netser” thus explaining the inclusion of this text in the Gospel of Matthew.
Which is interesting, but it still wouldn’t clear up the setting of Nazareth in Mark, which is prior to Matthew, and in which one doesn’t expect the kind of literary wordplay that is characteristic of Matthew’s much more erudite account.
'Tis Himselfsays
Rose #11
I agree w/ Benjamin and Blake. I made it through about three “sentences” before conceding defeat.
#9 / #10 / #11 – You either get it or you don’t. And frankly, I don’t blame you if you are in the latter category.
You might be relieved to learn that I actually write in English 99% of the time.
RickrOllsays
CJO- No Nazereth eh? And Bethleham? I still take the idea that Jesus is an amalgamation of different persons that existed back then. My favorite theory of what happened. We already know that the monarchy was fucked in the telling:
Tim H:
“Luke isn’t historically accurate.”
“Let’s look at the nativity story in chapters 1 & 2.
John the Baptist is conceived when Herod (presumably the Great, but maybe not) is king of Judea. Jesus is conceived about 5 1/2 months later. Jesus is born in Bethlehem due to the Census ordered by Rome. We will assume a normal 9 month gestation period for Jesus.”
“The first census in Judea was taked about 8 years AFTER the death of Herod the Great, and AFTER the death or deposition by Rome of his successor. Herod and his successor were cient kings. Rome set up client kings to have cooperative border states that they themselves wouldn’t have to manage. Client kings kept the peace, followed Roman foriegn policy and paid some tribute in return for Roman support and internal freedom of action. Rome not only would not take a census in a client kingdom, they had no right to.”
“It was the failure of Herod the Great’s succesor to rule effectively that prompted Rome to kick him out and take over Judea directly. (They attached it to Syria.) That’s when and why they took a census.”
And wasn’t it supposed to be Herod that ordered the death of the infants? Wow, rampant contradiction there!
CJOsays
Yeah, the census business is screwed from the start, never mind the chronology issues. Not only would Rome not have taken a census in a client state, there never was a Roman census that compelled the subjects to travel to an ancestral locale, the Romans being, if anything, competent administrators and not complete idiots.
Luke needs Jesus to be born in Bethlehem for purposes of prophesy fulfillment (Micah 5:1-2 “But you, Bethlehem Ephrathah, though you are little among the thousands of Judah, yet out of you shall come forth to Me the One to be Ruler in Israel, whose goings forth are from of old, from everlasting.”) but he has a received tradtion in Mark that Jesus was from Nazareth. The census and the nativity in the manger in Bethlehem is purely a Lukan fiction.
Matthew faces the same issues but solves the problem differently, by having Joseph and Mary living in Bethlehem at the time of Jesus’ birth but fleeing to Egypt to escape the Herodian purge of infant males (a Matthean fiction), and only later settling in Nazareth, thereupon to take up the Markan narrative, which begins there.
Qwertysays
While I didn’t wet myself laughing, I did find it amusing.
I was disappointed to see that scaryduck actually had a correct “the” towards the end.
RickrOllsays
Much oblidged CJO. I will take this info to the nearest thread at once and post it in your name. Godless Bible Study- Suddenly Atheist, if you would like to know.
It’s a nice sense of community amoung the Internet Atheists, far more satisfying than church. You can’t Learn in church, for one thing!
John Moralessays
“Lukan fiction”,”Herodian purge”, “Matthean fiction”, “Markan narrative”…
The use of modified proper nouns as attributive adjectives seems so erudite and scholarly. :)
David Marjanović, OMsays
I had never heard before the suggestion cited there, that Matthew arrived at the word “Nazarene” through a play on words. Professor Brown elaborates that the text used by Matthew was the one in Isaiah 11:1 which says, “A shoot will come from the stump of Jesse; from his roots a Branch will bear fruit.” The word for “Branch” in Hebrew is “netser” thus explaining the inclusion of this text in the Gospel of Matthew.
No. Not another pun in the Bible! PLEEEEEEASE!!!1!
You can’t Learn in church, for one thing!
Please learn not to use capitals for emphasis. :-)
CJOsays
The use of modified proper nouns as attributive adjectives seems so erudite and scholarly. :)
What a particularly Johannine criticism!
Grumpysays
If you’d come today
You could have reached the whole nation
Israel in 4 BC had no mass communication
John Moralessays
CJO, it wasn’t a criticism, but an observation. They do sound so much better than the possessive form.
Still, it’ll probably seem odd to see such phrases used with RickrOll’s style (RickrOllian?). Heh.
PS Did I ever mention I’ve anglicised my name? I’m glad I have, otherwise you’d’ve written Juanine.
RickrOllsays
GRUMPY! Hey, aren’t you a regular at PhysOrg forums? If you are, could you point me to the thread where human development was discussed? I was looking for the guy who was talking a great deal about the notion that humans were semi-aquatic mammals. Ring any bells?the Hopefully i don’t have the wrong Grumpy.
David, i like my style- besides, i don’t all-caps very often. Grammer is nice, but largely unnecessary for the purposes of what i say. It’s not often i forget punctuation anyway. I’m thinking about changing my comment style- i’ll try it out when i i get the proper opportunity to do so.
RickrOllsays
GRUMPY! Hey, aren’t you a regular at PhysOrg forums? If you are, could you point me to the thread where human development was discussed? I was looking for the guy who was talking a great deal about the notion that humans were semi-aquatic mammals. Ring any bells?the Hopefully i don’t have the wrong Grumpy.
David, i like my style- besides, i don’t all-caps very often. Grammer is nice, but largely unnecessary for the purposes of what i say. It’s not often i forget punctuation anyway. I’m thinking about changing my comment style- i’ll try it out when i get the proper opportunity to do so. I totally fail at hyperlinks.
RickrOllsays
“Ring any bells?the Hopefully i don’t have the wrong Grumpy.”
UGH!
/facepalm
To think i previewed it like 5 times trying to figger out the hyperlink conundrum. What a dunce.
Yeah, the census business is screwed from the start, never mind the chronology issues. Not only would Rome not have taken a census in a client state, there never was a Roman census that compelled the subjects to travel to an ancestral locale, the Romans being, if anything, competent administrators and not complete idiots.
I think about it this way: in the modern age, we can travel long distances much more easily than anyone could in Roman times, but I still don’t have to return to the town of my ancestors to fill out my 1040.
The Chimp's Raging Idsays
J. Carpenter: A reservation. I HAZ ONE. Name of Carpenter
Receptionist: SOZ. Computer Says No. In fact, fck off
I loled
Erpsays
The problem is the Wikipedia article on Nazareth can’t be judged just on its internal content. I find it odd that no reputable scholar in the field seems to claim the non-existence of Nazareth. Note there are plenty of reputable scholars who point out the factual holes elsewhere in the Bible. Even respectable scholars who doubt the existence of Jesus accept Nazareth. The Richard Dawkins Site has a bit of a discussions on the same topic at
Those supporting Nazareth being in existence cite peer reviewed archaeologists. Those against,…..
CJOsays
I find it odd that no reputable scholar in the field seems to claim the non-existence of Nazareth.
“Reputable scholar” can easily be defined as “a scholar who affirms the settlement of Nazareth c.1,” so unless we have a common point of reference for that term, I’d say leave it out.
And I don’t really find it odd that no scholar claims that definitively. I’ve read that it’s considered inconclusive; some archaeologists have done work suggesting that if it was settled in the period 100 BCE – 100 CE it was very small indeed.
I take you to mean that you find it odd that the assertion that it might not have been inhabited c.1 would be included in a Wiki entry on the subject in light of the fact that there is no archaeologist claiming categorically that it wasn’t.
I’ll take a look at the thread on RD.net, since I haven’t read anything about it recently.
I will also note that the old school of dogmatic Biblical archaeology is over, done, not taken seriously anymore, and so these kinds of questions are getting a harder look, and often less faith-friendly conclusions, than they once were.
Ichthyicsays
sounds like it’s time for a gratuitous link to Hector Avalos:
Trying to get the archaeology to fit an inerrant or mostly reliable Bible is going or even gone in modern archaeology. What I mean by reputable scholars are those trained in the area (archaeology, history) and published in peer review journals.
The Wikipedia article quotes Chad Emmet, a sociologist, on the archaeological evidence (or non-evidence) for Nazareth. This is not a scholar in the area and the book cited seems to be primarily concerned about other matters. Frank Zindler is also cited. I don’t think he has ever published anything peer reviewed in the area (he has a PhD in Biology). He did publish (and edit) a book by Rene Salm on the matter; however American Atheist Press is not a scholarly press (Salm is not cited in the Nazareth article). Nothing in anything peer reviewed that I could find by Salm. Nor can I find anything on Salm’s qualifications (apparently he teaches piano and composes but perhaps there is something else).
The red flag is that they don’t seem to have submitted to scholarly journals and allowed the experts in the field to examine their claims.
CJOsays
You’re misreading the citations. Emmett’s book is cited, and it appears that there are one or more chapters in that book about archaeology, in which Emmett cites peer-reviewed Archaeology to make his case. Notes 10-13 in the Wiki entry seem to me to cite the results of those studies, perhaps via notes in Emmett. Emmett’s book is not being cited as the primary source for the Archaeology but a secondary one.
Erpsays
But why did they have to go to a sociologist’s book as a secondary source?
Also I checked Emmett and double checked the article; the article redactor weaves his own commentary amongst the citations. Emmett has no doubt that Nazareth was settled at the time in question. Also tombs and pottery have been found from the period. In particular I like the bit http://www.uhl.ac/articles/NazarethVillageFarm-FinalReport.pdf page 68 when pottery of late Hellenistic periord (1st and 2nd century BCE) and early Roman (1st century BCE and 1st century CE). The report itself does have a Christian bias but it was done under license from the Israeli government which requires a certain minimum expertise.
RickrOllsays
yet another unteresting series of videos on this discussion. Note: questionable accuracy.
Thanks for the link, PZ. I am available to explain all English culture in-jokes before my descent to a fictional Hell.
What a load of feckin’ crap! (Both versions.)
And I thought that Nazareth didn’t even exist at that time.
From Wikipedia – Emmett claims that archaeological excavations in the vicinity of the present-day Basilica of the Annunciation and St. Joseph have revealed pottery dating from the Middle Bronze Age (2200 to 1500 BC) and ceramics, silos and grinding mills from the Iron Age (1500 to 586 BC).[9] However, excavations conducted prior to 1931 in the Franciscan venerated area revealed “no trace of a Greek or Roman settlement” there,[10] and according to studies written between 1955 and 1990, no archaeological evidence from Assyrian, Babylonian, Persian, Hellenistic or Early Roman times have been found.[11][12] Bagatti, the principal archaeologist at the venerated sites in Nazareth, unearthed quantities of later Roman and Byzantine artifacts,[13] attesting to unambiguous human presence there from the 2nd century AD onward.
“Bunch of winged gits”
My 1970’s obsession with Monty Python holds me in good stead for understanding British slang. But I’m on my own re: internet acronyms.
The Heavenly Host singing “Last Christmas” – that’s hilarious. I hope they cracked out some Slade later on.
I’ll explain one of the Britishisms. The CSA that Mary threatens to report Teh Angle of Teh Lord to for parenting Baby Jebus is the Child Support Agency. This is the govt agency tasked in collecting child support payments from absent parents, usually fathers.
M as a typical feckless teenage mum is just bril I thought.
Thanks. I haven’t laughed that hard since I read Owlmirror’s play.
O HAI! OTHER BIBLE TRANSLATEDS HEIR:
http://www.lolcatbible.com/index.php?title=Main_Page
Ho! Ho! Ho!
My head a splode.
What is this strange perversion of language and typographic convention?
I now feel very old. The next thing you know, I’ll be complaining that movie trailers give me a headache.
I agree w/ Benjamin and Blake. I made it through about three “sentences” before conceding defeat.
I got as far as what I recognised as a little britain reference, and am now going to close the window and log off the computer.
Absolute classic! I pissed myself laughing…
Wow! Pissed my pants laughing.
What do you mean the interweb netty thing didn’t exist in 4BCE? Here’s proof that it was around in Crete long before then! (It must be true I saw it on the web)
http://azogires-alpha.blogspot.com/search?updated-max=2008-01-21T03%3A41%3A00-08%3A00&max-results=7
Here’s three nails, put me up for the night
Ohhhhhh, mercy!
The audio version should be read by Ali G, doing all the voices.
“oh COCK’
Veery funny, it reminds me of some “pastorelas” i have seen latelly.
Pastorelas were representations of the nativity, done by the first spanish misionaries to convert the natives in the new spain (Mexico).
In order they were interesting for the natives, the story had to be adapted. I recall one in nahuatl (done by a converted aztec about 1590), where Herodes claimed he will convert the Magi into “chicharon” ( a local delicacy) and eat them with molli sauce (another local delicacy). I am not shure if the priests could understand it… probably they would had been horrified by the liberties taken with the story.
Today some “pastorelas” take more liberties with the story (probably their authors would have been burned 500 years ago..
Just last week I saw one where the good guys were the executives of a cellular phone company (Nextel) and the bad guys (the devil and company) the other celluar companis, that tried to prevent the arriving of Jesus.
Imagine, Jesus arriving thanks to the efforts of a cell phone company :)
As far as citing wikipedia and Nazareth not existing circa 4BCE, check the talk section for the article; this is an article with edit wars. Check the peer reviewed scholarly articles.
Many people writing have strong biases some to prove Jesus existed and was the messiah etc and some to prove he did not exist at all. Beware of both extremes.
Still laughing at “Here’s three nails, put me up for the night”. :-D
BTW, did you Brits import “oh, COCK” from Poland? (Chuuuuuj!)
That sounds very interesting. Where can I learn more?
Many people writing have strong biases some to prove Jesus existed and was the messiah etc and some to prove he did not exist at all. Beware of both extremes.
Always a good idea when consulting Wikipedia for information on any controversial subject. However, in reading over the entry, I see nothing terribly problematic, nor does it seem overly one-sided. There is considerable doubt that the site was settled 100BCE – 100CE. And it is true that Nazareth is not included among the 45 cities of Galilee mentioned by Josephus or among the 63 towns of Galilee mentioned in the Talmud.
I had never heard before the suggestion cited there, that Matthew arrived at the word “Nazarene” through a play on words. Professor Brown elaborates that the text used by Matthew was the one in Isaiah 11:1 which says, “A shoot will come from the stump of Jesse; from his roots a Branch will bear fruit.” The word for “Branch” in Hebrew is “netser” thus explaining the inclusion of this text in the Gospel of Matthew.
Which is interesting, but it still wouldn’t clear up the setting of Nazareth in Mark, which is prior to Matthew, and in which one doesn’t expect the kind of literary wordplay that is characteristic of Matthew’s much more erudite account.
Rose #11
U R MKNG BABY JEBUS CRY!!!11!ELEVENTY-ONE!!!1!
#9 / #10 / #11 – You either get it or you don’t. And frankly, I don’t blame you if you are in the latter category.
You might be relieved to learn that I actually write in English 99% of the time.
CJO- No Nazereth eh? And Bethleham? I still take the idea that Jesus is an amalgamation of different persons that existed back then. My favorite theory of what happened. We already know that the monarchy was fucked in the telling:
Tim H:
“Luke isn’t historically accurate.”
“Let’s look at the nativity story in chapters 1 & 2.
John the Baptist is conceived when Herod (presumably the Great, but maybe not) is king of Judea. Jesus is conceived about 5 1/2 months later. Jesus is born in Bethlehem due to the Census ordered by Rome. We will assume a normal 9 month gestation period for Jesus.”
“The first census in Judea was taked about 8 years AFTER the death of Herod the Great, and AFTER the death or deposition by Rome of his successor. Herod and his successor were cient kings. Rome set up client kings to have cooperative border states that they themselves wouldn’t have to manage. Client kings kept the peace, followed Roman foriegn policy and paid some tribute in return for Roman support and internal freedom of action. Rome not only would not take a census in a client kingdom, they had no right to.”
“It was the failure of Herod the Great’s succesor to rule effectively that prompted Rome to kick him out and take over Judea directly. (They attached it to Syria.) That’s when and why they took a census.”
And wasn’t it supposed to be Herod that ordered the death of the infants? Wow, rampant contradiction there!
Yeah, the census business is screwed from the start, never mind the chronology issues. Not only would Rome not have taken a census in a client state, there never was a Roman census that compelled the subjects to travel to an ancestral locale, the Romans being, if anything, competent administrators and not complete idiots.
Luke needs Jesus to be born in Bethlehem for purposes of prophesy fulfillment (Micah 5:1-2 “But you, Bethlehem Ephrathah, though you are little among the thousands of Judah, yet out of you shall come forth to Me the One to be Ruler in Israel, whose goings forth are from of old, from everlasting.”) but he has a received tradtion in Mark that Jesus was from Nazareth. The census and the nativity in the manger in Bethlehem is purely a Lukan fiction.
Matthew faces the same issues but solves the problem differently, by having Joseph and Mary living in Bethlehem at the time of Jesus’ birth but fleeing to Egypt to escape the Herodian purge of infant males (a Matthean fiction), and only later settling in Nazareth, thereupon to take up the Markan narrative, which begins there.
While I didn’t wet myself laughing, I did find it amusing.
I was disappointed to see that scaryduck actually had a correct “the” towards the end.
Much oblidged CJO. I will take this info to the nearest thread at once and post it in your name. Godless Bible Study- Suddenly Atheist, if you would like to know.
It’s a nice sense of community amoung the Internet Atheists, far more satisfying than church. You can’t Learn in church, for one thing!
“Lukan fiction”,”Herodian purge”, “Matthean fiction”, “Markan narrative”…
The use of modified proper nouns as attributive adjectives seems so erudite and scholarly. :)
No. Not another pun in the Bible! PLEEEEEEASE!!!1!
Please learn not to use capitals for emphasis. :-)
The use of modified proper nouns as attributive adjectives seems so erudite and scholarly. :)
What a particularly Johannine criticism!
If you’d come today
You could have reached the whole nation
Israel in 4 BC had no mass communication
CJO, it wasn’t a criticism, but an observation. They do sound so much better than the possessive form.
Still, it’ll probably seem odd to see such phrases used with RickrOll’s style (RickrOllian?). Heh.
PS Did I ever mention I’ve anglicised my name? I’m glad I have, otherwise you’d’ve written Juanine.
GRUMPY! Hey, aren’t you a regular at PhysOrg forums? If you are, could you point me to the thread where human development was discussed? I was looking for the guy who was talking a great deal about the notion that humans were semi-aquatic mammals. Ring any bells?the Hopefully i don’t have the wrong Grumpy.
David, i like my style- besides, i don’t all-caps very often. Grammer is nice, but largely unnecessary for the purposes of what i say. It’s not often i forget punctuation anyway. I’m thinking about changing my comment style- i’ll try it out when i i get the proper opportunity to do so.
GRUMPY! Hey, aren’t you a regular at PhysOrg forums? If you are, could you point me to the thread where human development was discussed? I was looking for the guy who was talking a great deal about the notion that humans were semi-aquatic mammals. Ring any bells?the Hopefully i don’t have the wrong Grumpy.
David, i like my style- besides, i don’t all-caps very often. Grammer is nice, but largely unnecessary for the purposes of what i say. It’s not often i forget punctuation anyway. I’m thinking about changing my comment style- i’ll try it out when i get the proper opportunity to do so. I totally fail at hyperlinks.
“Ring any bells?the Hopefully i don’t have the wrong Grumpy.”
UGH!
/facepalm
To think i previewed it like 5 times trying to figger out the hyperlink conundrum. What a dunce.
Brilliant. I’m an Aussie so I got all of the jokes. The French Wise man saying “Good Moaning” just killed me.
I think about it this way: in the modern age, we can travel long distances much more easily than anyone could in Roman times, but I still don’t have to return to the town of my ancestors to fill out my 1040.
I loled
The problem is the Wikipedia article on Nazareth can’t be judged just on its internal content. I find it odd that no reputable scholar in the field seems to claim the non-existence of Nazareth. Note there are plenty of reputable scholars who point out the factual holes elsewhere in the Bible. Even respectable scholars who doubt the existence of Jesus accept Nazareth. The Richard Dawkins Site has a bit of a discussions on the same topic at
http://www.richarddawkins.net/forum/viewtopic.php?f=3&t=63506&hilit=nazareth+evidence&start=125
Those supporting Nazareth being in existence cite peer reviewed archaeologists. Those against,…..
I find it odd that no reputable scholar in the field seems to claim the non-existence of Nazareth.
“Reputable scholar” can easily be defined as “a scholar who affirms the settlement of Nazareth c.1,” so unless we have a common point of reference for that term, I’d say leave it out.
And I don’t really find it odd that no scholar claims that definitively. I’ve read that it’s considered inconclusive; some archaeologists have done work suggesting that if it was settled in the period 100 BCE – 100 CE it was very small indeed.
I take you to mean that you find it odd that the assertion that it might not have been inhabited c.1 would be included in a Wiki entry on the subject in light of the fact that there is no archaeologist claiming categorically that it wasn’t.
I’ll take a look at the thread on RD.net, since I haven’t read anything about it recently.
I will also note that the old school of dogmatic Biblical archaeology is over, done, not taken seriously anymore, and so these kinds of questions are getting a harder look, and often less faith-friendly conclusions, than they once were.
sounds like it’s time for a gratuitous link to Hector Avalos:
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=2569440864215926514
http://www.philrs.iastate.edu/avalos.shtml
his best book:
http://www.amazon.com/End-Biblical-Studies-Hector-Avalos/dp/1591025362
I liked this one which was closely related: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=llCm3gLU6tM&NR=1
And this very, very interesting fellow that currently has my attention: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fUXQmOaCzkI&
I’ll keep you guys posted on this…fascinating. Looks like Mormons are the True Christians after all?
Blocked in Oman as “pornography”.
Just what are you linking to here, PZ?
Oh, i am regretting the link about the 2nd guy- he does not beleive the Document Hypothesis it would seem. Seriously, skip part 2 if you can. Sheesh.
“Oh, i am regretting the link about the 2nd guy..”
OR NOT! Wow! http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4ipRZyqr3RE&
I know, seriously OT. But fascinating stuff. But what the hell does this guy believe?
#43 – I’m pr0n in Oman? Wow. What an honour.
If you’re that desperate to see the item, try the alternative URL : http://feeds.feedburner.com/scaryduckusss
Trying to get the archaeology to fit an inerrant or mostly reliable Bible is going or even gone in modern archaeology. What I mean by reputable scholars are those trained in the area (archaeology, history) and published in peer review journals.
The Wikipedia article quotes Chad Emmet, a sociologist, on the archaeological evidence (or non-evidence) for Nazareth. This is not a scholar in the area and the book cited seems to be primarily concerned about other matters. Frank Zindler is also cited. I don’t think he has ever published anything peer reviewed in the area (he has a PhD in Biology). He did publish (and edit) a book by Rene Salm on the matter; however American Atheist Press is not a scholarly press (Salm is not cited in the Nazareth article). Nothing in anything peer reviewed that I could find by Salm. Nor can I find anything on Salm’s qualifications (apparently he teaches piano and composes but perhaps there is something else).
The red flag is that they don’t seem to have submitted to scholarly journals and allowed the experts in the field to examine their claims.
You’re misreading the citations. Emmett’s book is cited, and it appears that there are one or more chapters in that book about archaeology, in which Emmett cites peer-reviewed Archaeology to make his case. Notes 10-13 in the Wiki entry seem to me to cite the results of those studies, perhaps via notes in Emmett. Emmett’s book is not being cited as the primary source for the Archaeology but a secondary one.
But why did they have to go to a sociologist’s book as a secondary source?
Also I checked Emmett and double checked the article; the article redactor weaves his own commentary amongst the citations. Emmett has no doubt that Nazareth was settled at the time in question. Also tombs and pottery have been found from the period. In particular I like the bit http://www.uhl.ac/articles/NazarethVillageFarm-FinalReport.pdf page 68 when pottery of late Hellenistic periord (1st and 2nd century BCE) and early Roman (1st century BCE and 1st century CE). The report itself does have a Christian bias but it was done under license from the Israeli government which requires a certain minimum expertise.
yet another unteresting series of videos on this discussion. Note: questionable accuracy.