Lovely stuff, Ken. Scholarly, meticulous, skeptical, rigorous. Yet this place draws us with some unexpected joy. Jung reminded us, after all, of the reality of ever-present Myth.
Excellent video. The Nazareth deniers kinda remind me of the kooks in France who continue to deny that Alise-Sainte-Reine is the site of the battle/siege of Alesa despite the overwhelming evidence (apparently they think that there's a conspiracy among French archeologists to make it look like Alise-Sainte-Reine is the site when it's not... not sure what the motivations for that would be lol). There's always crazy kooks on one topic or another it seems.
From what i've read, having bishops in the holy places became much more important after the reorganization of the church of Jerusalem under the caliphate- prior to that the main dioceses were in heavily hellenized cities like scythopolis/beth shean or caesarea. It got even more important later - it's only under the crusaders that bethlehem first got a bishop for example
1:23:33 My favorite part of Salm’s “refutation” of Alexandre’s findings at the IMC is when he claims that there is absolutely no physical evidence for one of the house walls, when in reality Alexandre describes physical evidence of that very wall on the page immediately following the one cited by Salm.
Thanks. You could say that the making of the Jewish tombs on either side of a house might have been done either because new owners of the land wanted it to be forever uninhabitable, or that owners of the land were not allowed to inhabit the town but could not be prevented from using the land for their burial. It may be that the family of Jesus were exiled from Nazareth. We know that after the Bar Kochba rebellion a lineage of priests were assigned to live in Nazareth probably as the as the high percentage of Jews made ‘marrying out’ far less likely.
Read many times your blog and now I see you also have a channel. Should do an interview or maybe even almost a partnership with Bart Ehrman. What is your opinion of him?
BART is a great scholar and a brilliant public educator. I have read most of his books and agree with him on most things too. I also like the fact he humbly admits it when he gets something wrong and is happy to change his mind. O Certain dogmatists and fanatics could learn from that. He’s also a philanthropist who charges for his appearances and donates those fees to charity. Since I fund History for Atheists out of my own pocket, I can’t afford to have him on my channel right now - I’ve just come back from an excellent but very expensive four week holiday in the US.
I have studied Kabbalah and read the Zohar. I learned that the middle sphere of the middle pillar is called Israel in the ancient text. It doesn’t refer to an actual place on earth. Sad to see what is happening in god’s name.
If you apply the same historical methodology to Roman Catholicism then you lose the Papacy, Purgatory, the Bodily Assumption, the Immaculate Conception, etc. For those Roman Catholics who appeal to history for the existence of Jesus of Nazareth, are you willing to apply history to the slow growth of innovations in beliefs and practices centuries after Christ and His Apostles? But then you would have to go back to Scripture and be Protestant.
@@historyforatheists9363 I know that. I'm pointing out that I agree with the historical consensus. Not everyone who listens to your material is an atheist. That's why I specified 'Roman Catholics.' the 'you' in my comment is the reader who is a Roman Catholic, not 'you' personally.
@@truthisbeautiful7492 Whatever. What the hell has this video got to do with Catholicism? Nothing. Take your stupid, petty sectarian squabbling somewhere else, you twerp.
@@lightningrodofh8509 No. You missed the bit in my FAQ where I note that I have zero time for preaching: "“Who can comment on your articles?” Anyone. But that doesn’t mean any and all comments will see the light of day. Anyone who preaches religion at me or any other commenters will go straight to the spam file. No ifs, no buts." I was nice enough to not instantly delete and ban the clown above. Argue with me about this and you won't be handled so lightly. My channel, my rules kiddo.
The issue here is that Dark's book claims that storage areas and lamps show the buildings in "Nazareth" were lived in. Except lamps, courtyards and storage places are all things found in Jewish burial sites, especially with Kockh tombs, of which only the wealthy could afford. The was a burial agricultural site used by the people of Japha. Of course that realization doesn't bring in the tourists. Of course Tim for some reason likes to reference the "reliable" 'Eusebius' and 'Julius Africanus' as reliable sources, even though hardly anything is known about them.
So I guess Ken Dark, Yardenna Alexandre, Mordechai Aviam, Ariel Berman, Yehudah Rapuano and all the other archaeologists who have excavated at the relevant sites or analysed the finds from them are all idiots and incompetent, are they Tommy? Or are they all in a big conspiracy with the Israeli Antiquities Authority? The tourists would come regardless of what any archaeologists say. The fact is that the actual archaeologists are in agreement, despite the ranting of armchair morons like yourself.
@@historyforatheists9363 Armchair moron? Do you mean someone who has not got relevant credentials in the area, like yourself? If I'm an armchair moron, so be it. The fact remains that everything Dark has said is related to Jewish burials and agriculture. Please tell me at what point in the early first century pious wealthy Jews were forced to build their tombs in an inhabited area?
This is clearly a (deliberately) stupid comment. Obviously, we have unquestionable evidence that Sherlock Holmes was a fictional character created by Arthur Conan Doyle. We have nothing remotely like that for Jesus. On the contrary, we have sufficient evidence that there most likely was a historical Jesus who was the point of origin for the later claims made about him. That's why this is the conclusion of pretty much every scholar on the planet, with the exception of a tiny handful of biased contrarian nobodies. So Dark's title makes perfect sense. Watch and learn: ua-cam.com/video/n_hD3xK4hRY/v-deo.html
Keep up the great work Tim; I always get vividly excited when you post your extremely high equality historical dives
Lovely stuff, Ken. Scholarly, meticulous, skeptical, rigorous. Yet this place draws us with some unexpected joy. Jung reminded us, after all, of the reality of ever-present Myth.
Excellent video. The Nazareth deniers kinda remind me of the kooks in France who continue to deny that Alise-Sainte-Reine is the site of the battle/siege of Alesa despite the overwhelming evidence (apparently they think that there's a conspiracy among French archeologists to make it look like Alise-Sainte-Reine is the site when it's not... not sure what the motivations for that would be lol). There's always crazy kooks on one topic or another it seems.
From what i've read, having bishops in the holy places became much more important after the reorganization of the church of Jerusalem under the caliphate- prior to that the main dioceses were in heavily hellenized cities like scythopolis/beth shean or caesarea.
It got even more important later - it's only under the crusaders that bethlehem first got a bishop for example
Here’s looking at you, Ken Humphreys. Nice interview Tim, please keep it up!
1:23:33 My favorite part of Salm’s “refutation” of Alexandre’s findings at the IMC is when he claims that there is absolutely no physical evidence for one of the house walls, when in reality Alexandre describes physical evidence of that very wall on the page immediately following the one cited by Salm.
Thanks. You could say that the making of the Jewish tombs on either side of a house might have been done either because new owners of the land wanted it to be forever uninhabitable, or that owners of the land were not allowed to inhabit the town but could not be prevented from using the land for their burial. It may be that the family of Jesus were exiled from Nazareth. We know that after the Bar Kochba rebellion a lineage of priests were assigned to live in Nazareth probably as the as the high percentage of Jews made ‘marrying out’ far less likely.
40:20 The part about Sister Chireaux is as heartwarming as it is fascinating.
Really appreciate the work you do, Tim.
Always good to hear Professor Dark!
Absolutely KILLER episode, Tim
Read many times your blog and now I see you also have a channel. Should do an interview or maybe even almost a partnership with Bart Ehrman.
What is your opinion of him?
BART is a great scholar and a brilliant public educator. I have read most of his books and agree with him on most things too. I also like the fact he humbly admits it when he gets something wrong and is happy to change his mind. O
Certain dogmatists and fanatics could learn from that.
He’s also a philanthropist who charges for his appearances and donates those fees to charity. Since I fund History for Atheists out of my own pocket, I can’t afford to have him on my channel right now - I’ve just come back from an excellent but very expensive four week holiday in the US.
I have studied Kabbalah and read the Zohar. I learned that the middle sphere of the middle pillar is called Israel in the ancient text. It doesn’t refer to an actual place on earth. Sad to see what is happening in god’s name.
If you apply the same historical methodology to Roman Catholicism then you lose the Papacy, Purgatory, the Bodily Assumption, the Immaculate Conception, etc. For those Roman Catholics who appeal to history for the existence of Jesus of Nazareth, are you willing to apply history to the slow growth of innovations in beliefs and practices centuries after Christ and His Apostles? But then you would have to go back to Scripture and be Protestant.
I'm an atheist. Your move, genius.
@@historyforatheists9363 I know that. I'm pointing out that I agree with the historical consensus. Not everyone who listens to your material is an atheist. That's why I specified 'Roman Catholics.' the 'you' in my comment is the reader who is a Roman Catholic, not 'you' personally.
@@truthisbeautiful7492 Whatever. What the hell has this video got to do with Catholicism? Nothing. Take your stupid, petty sectarian squabbling somewhere else, you twerp.
@@lightningrodofh8509 No. You missed the bit in my FAQ where I note that I have zero time for preaching:
"“Who can comment on your articles?”
Anyone. But that doesn’t mean any and all comments will see the light of day. Anyone who preaches religion at me or any other commenters will go straight to the spam file. No ifs, no buts."
I was nice enough to not instantly delete and ban the clown above. Argue with me about this and you won't be handled so lightly. My channel, my rules kiddo.
The issue here is that Dark's book claims that storage areas and lamps show the buildings in "Nazareth" were lived in. Except lamps, courtyards and storage places are all things found in Jewish burial sites, especially with Kockh tombs, of which only the wealthy could afford. The was a burial agricultural site used by the people of Japha. Of course that realization doesn't bring in the tourists. Of course Tim for some reason likes to reference the "reliable" 'Eusebius' and 'Julius Africanus' as reliable sources, even though hardly anything is known about them.
So I guess Ken Dark, Yardenna Alexandre, Mordechai Aviam, Ariel Berman, Yehudah Rapuano and all the other archaeologists who have excavated at the relevant sites or analysed the finds from them are all idiots and incompetent, are they Tommy? Or are they all in a big conspiracy with the Israeli Antiquities Authority? The tourists would come regardless of what any archaeologists say. The fact is that the actual archaeologists are in agreement, despite the ranting of armchair morons like yourself.
@@historyforatheists9363 Armchair moron? Do you mean someone who has not got relevant credentials in the area, like yourself? If I'm an armchair moron, so be it. The fact remains that everything Dark has said is related to Jewish burials and agriculture. Please tell me at what point in the early first century pious wealthy Jews were forced to build their tombs in an inhabited area?
I suppose his next title will be, "Archaeology in Sherlock Holmes' London."
This is clearly a (deliberately) stupid comment. Obviously, we have unquestionable evidence that Sherlock Holmes was a fictional character created by Arthur Conan Doyle. We have nothing remotely like that for Jesus. On the contrary, we have sufficient evidence that there most likely was a historical Jesus who was the point of origin for the later claims made about him. That's why this is the conclusion of pretty much every scholar on the planet, with the exception of a tiny handful of biased contrarian nobodies. So Dark's title makes perfect sense.
Watch and learn:
ua-cam.com/video/n_hD3xK4hRY/v-deo.html
If that was a joke, it ain't funny
No response? Thought so.