I gave you Sir Ramsay’s credentials above including his obituary in the London Times (with date and page number) that spoke of his “abiding fame” and “worldwide recognition”. I also gave you a link to one of his original papers. If you need confirmation, now that you have the correct spelling, you can find it for yourself, either on the 'Net or elsewhere. (Don’t they have libraries where you are?) If you don’t think he’s so great, you’re entitled to hold your opinion.
Once you know that a man held nine doctorates, four academic chairs in the field of archeology, was fluent in all the ancient languages, personally led numerous excavations and made important innovations in his field, wrote nearly a hundred articles for Encyclopedia Brittanica, and wrote the book that was the authoritative text on archeology of the region for a hundred years — and you are not satisfied that he was one of the greatest, then I doubt there can be any convincing you otherwise.
Is your mind really that closed? What a bitter, dark, and mean-spirited approach to learning. No, it wasn’t your post that I refered to. If you had checked JT’s link, you would know that the atheist that I refered to was referenced on that page.
Libertarian is correct. Besides, even if one decides not to consider him one of the world’s greatest archaeologists (and given his extraordinary credentials, one can only wonder what it would take to be considered so great), why should we dismiss his conclusions?
Besides, what is more extraordinary – for a world-renowned expert to claim that Luke’s gospel is fundamentally reliable, based on archaeological evidence (a claim that is decidedly tamer than Ramsay’s glowing praise), or for a mere layman to claim that there is no archaeological evidence to support Christ’s existence?
If your question is : do I personnally believe that Paul and Peter, as described in the scriptures never have existed? My answer is yes. I don’t believe that what we found about this characters in the church documents is true.
If your question is : do I personnally believe that no one like Paul or Peter ever existed, and these figures have been made up out of thin air? My answer is no. I believe the figures appearing in the church documents were inspired by actual men
It is safe to say that I completely distrust the New testament as a reliable source, for reasons I already explained before. Lacking external, independant evidences, I take nothing written in this text, in the epistiles or in the acts at face value.
For instance, there’s a V° century text, expressing the views of a syrian Jewish sect, which refers to Peter as leading figure and explicitely and violently reject the authority of Paul (along with the canonical gospels), who according to them would have rejected the Torah to please the romans, and falsified the Messiah teachings.
They obviously thought that the teachings of Peter and Paul weren’t compatible. Apparently, “their” Peter indeed taught that the Messiah (let’s assume Jesus) already came , but also taught that the Jewish Law wasn’t abolished and had to be obeyed. It would be very interesting to know what was the content of these Peter’s supposed teachings, by the way.
I give to this text as much credit as to a score of regular christian documents. Why? Because they were a little group and there was a very little chance that any element of their doctrina ever fall in our hands, while the victorious church and its propaganda machine was able to spread its official version in all the roman empire, and later to piously preserve and copy element backing its doctrina (and possibly destroy heretical texts). So, the argument of number (more texts on the church side) can’t be applied. Also because it makes sense, if we actually assume there was two competing stances, one teaching the rigorous Jewish Law was abolished, and one teaching it wasn’t, that the former will suceed amongst the gentiles, and the latter won’t.
That is an example of a possible alternate Peter. And what did this Messiah taught and did according to this Peter? What was written in their equivalent of a “gospel according to Peter” ?Who knows…(Just thought about it, given the importance of Peter, the fact he’s supposed to have taught in Rome, to have been the founder of the church, etc…it’s quite strange his disciples wouldn’t have written an authoritative gospel)
I don’t know. My source, as I said above, is the francisan theologian Frederic Manns from the University of Jerusalem. Since in the article I was reading, he gives many more accurate datings in other cases, I assumed he had good reasons to write only “from the hellenistico-roman period” when refering to this basalt masonry. Making my mind would require a more extensive research in other sources. For instance, potteries from the early 1st century doesn’t prove that the building itself was build in the early 1st century. Only that it already existed at this time. Honnestly, I don’t intend to make this research now, if ever.
Don’t know. He only mentions that in passing. Anyway, assuming these were actually his sources, there’s a difference between these statements and others statements I don’t trust. These don’t refer to any element of the church doctrina, and at first glance, I see no reason to believe the church would have wanted to alter, modify, add or remove such facts.
To give an example, if I had commited a murder, I would have an interest in lying about what I was doing when the victim was killed. I’ve no reason to lie about what I was doing the day before. So, a police officer would have some reason to check if I said the truth in the first case (especially if I stated I was riding an Invisible Pink Unicorn at this moment), but not nearly as much to do the same in the second case.
By the way, you consistently say that the presence of actual facts (say, Pilatus was governor) in the gospels somewhat proves that other elements are also true. May i point out that I could follow the same reasonning and say that the presence of false elements (you could easily check a site about the contradictions in the gospels, for instance, but to give an easier example, the tale about a guy walking on water is fine), somewhat proves that other elements are also false?
It doesn’t work if you assume that someone could actually walk on water, of course. But that would hardly be a convincing objective statement. Rather circular logic, since you need the gospels to be true at the first place to assume that.
The outpost isn’t mentionned in the piece I read, but since it mentions the site was a frontier town, it makes sense. Beside, since you’re mentionning the franciscans, I suppose we’re actually using the same sources.
Since I assume there weren’t several garrisons, I suppose it’s true. However, the fact that Josephus had his wrist bandaged in this place doesn’t say anything about Jesus. It’s an unrelated event.
Didn’t find any custom house mentionned, either. Still makes sense in a frontier town. However, how do you know that the taxes collected there were used to finance the synagogue? Is there any archeological evidence of that? I strongly doubt it.
It seems to me that you’re jumping to conclusions without evidences backing your claims.
Let’s see what we know. In Capharnaum (actually, it seems the real name would have been “Nahum”, and Kephar would have meant “village”. If that is true, the author of Luke wouldn’t have had a direct knowledge of this place) we found evidences that some centuries after the supposed time of Christ, people wrote graffitis refering to “Peter” and “Jesus”. At this time, anyway, the gospels already existed, so that’s not surprising. The only thing it tell us is that this little place had a particular signifiance for christians at this time, and was already associated with Peter.
Then, there are apparently evidences (I don’t know which) that this same place was a meeting place at the end of the first century. At this point, I could already nitpick, but it is reasonnable to assume that the people meeting there were early christians. I’m even going to assume that it was already considered as the house of Peter… But…then, what?
What does it tell about the beliefs these people had? The stories they were telling? Their conception of this Peter? Did pilgrims coming there (assuming there were people coming to visit the place) believed the same thing in say, 60 AD and 120 AD, after the gospels were written?
Let’s take any alternate original Peter, and any alternate original Jesus. In what way is my scenario about oral tales modified and magnified over time, intermixed with other stories, less credible in that instance? What does it changes to know that christians were gathering here around the end of the 1st century, as opposed to anywhere else? Nothing, methink.
Does this make the story about the centurion’s servant healed more credible? Nope. Religious people of any faith (well…at least most faiths…) make claims of various miracles. They situated one of thoses in the very town they were thinking had a particular importance in the life of one of their “founding fathers”? Nothing extraordinary here (try the tomb of some famous marabout in north africa, someday).
You’re pointing out that the people who wrote the gospels knew of a Judean village (though apparently not its exact name) which had a particular meaning for them (or for for others “christians” who perhaps had or used to have a different view). They mention a synagogue in their text (a synagogue in a Jewish village…big coincidence) and the story involves a centurion in a garrison town.
Well…ok…they got the context right. Doesn’t mean that the story (let alone other stories) is true.
By the way, thinking about the alternate Peter from my previous post (the Peter faithful to the Jewish Law), people gathering in his house near a synagogue (both are very close, according to the pictures) would seem very consistent too. I could even expand this theory :
The most recent synagogue has been build at the earlier during the second century (second century coins has been found under it). It’s a particulary impressive white building and a very large one when you compare it to the size of the whole site. So, I would guess this place was of particular importance for the people using this synagogue. At a stone throw of it there was a building where many people would gather at the same epoch. A good guess would be that the people gathering in the big synagogue and the building nearby were the same. These people would leave grafittis refering to Peter and Jesus. We know there was a jewish sect considering Peter as an authoritative source and following the Jewish Law. Ergo : the member of this jewish/christian sect which rejected Paul and followed Peter gathered in Peter’s house and build this great synagogue. Until they dissapeared, at which time (V° century) a byzantine church was build on the site. My theory seems perfectly consistent.
Lib, I am not bitter, and my approach is neither dark nor mean-spirited. Try not to project such one-dementional motives to my queries, please. I merely said that most, if not all, websites that refer to Sir Ramsay as “world renown” are Christian sites that tend to overpraise anyone that tells them what they want to hear. The reason I asked for a non-biased website that gave him the same incredble praise was to read of his exploits without the bias. I also added the small note that most of the Christian websites that praise him are the same ones that are mis-spelling his name. This is a fact.
Again, I didn’t say that Sir Ramsay wasn’t parise-worthy. I merely asked for non-biased sources. I would check my local library for information, but the short-sighted taxpayers here in Oregon are riding the “No-Tax” train into oblivion, and services have been cut back severely. The next time the library is open for limited service is Tuesday.
Really? What an extraordinary claim! Surely it demands commensurate proof.
I found several dozen sites which spoke so glowingly of Sir William Ramsay. Did you really take time to thoroughly study all these sites? Did you really evaluate the credentials of all the authories they cited, and compare them to the praise they received? After all, you did say that they overpraise anyone who agrees with their viewpoint.
No offense, but since you were unfamiliar with Ramsay’s work and credentials, I find that rather difficult to believe.
Besides, I can immediately provide a counter-example to your claim. The Tektonics web site – which we cited earlier – echoes the praise accorded to Ramsay, and yet it does not lavish praise on all that agree with their stance. For example, they concur with Josh McDowell’s work, but in that link I provided, they expressed disappointment at his failure to cite more recent work. Similarly, they acknowledge that some ancient sources (e.g. Josephus and Tacitus) are regarded as more reliable than others (e.g. Mara bar-Serapion).
For these reasons, your sweeping claim seems to be an assumption, rather than a demonstrable fact.
Besides, do you really want to quibble about whether Ramsay is one of the all-time greats, or merely an extraordinarily accomplished archaeologist with nine doctorates, four academic chairs, fluency in all the ancient languages of the region and so forth? Do you really want to pin your case on this fine distinction?
I think that’s disputable, as a quick Google search reveals over fifty web sites which spell his name correctly, and which also call him one of the world’s greatest archaeologists.
For the sake of argument though, let us assume this to be true. Do you really want to put so much stock in a common spelling error?
For the last time, JThunder- I was not disparagng Sir Ramsay’s accomplishments. was merely trying to find non-Christian sources on the net to refer to. I am quite familiar with the Tektonics website, and the back-biting going on there constantly on both sides of the issue. And please note the qualifiers “most, if not all” and “tend to” in my statement. Do you really find the claim that a lot of Christian websites tend to support, sometimes overly, those researchers who give them what they want, so extraordinary?
Once more, for the reading impared- I would like to view some NON-Christian websites that talk about the exploits of Sir Ramsay.
I am NOT trying to sabotage his good name.
I am NOT denying his worth.
I am NOT trying to quibble about his accomplishments-I am trying to find out about those accomplishments.
One source you might consult is The Dictionary of National Biography, 1931 - 1940. London: Oxford University Press, 1949. There, you will find a biography of Sir Ramsay by J.G.C Anderson, a Craven University Fellow at the British School of Athens. (There’s a copy online, but it is reprinted by what you might likely call a “Christian site”, so I won’t bother you with it.)
Anderson was a contemporary of Ramsay, and says, in part that he was a “classical scholar and archaeologist and the foremost authority of his day on the topography, antiquities, and history of Asia Minor in ancient times.” He says further that, with respect to Ramsay’s importance, “The value of his New Testament studies is enhanced by the fact that he approached the subject, not as a theologian, but as a Roman historian versed in the working of Roman institutions in the provinces and possessing an intimate knowledge of the country which figured so prominently in the early history of the Church.”
It is also noteworthy that, according to Anderson, I made a couple of factual errors in my report to you. Six of Ramsay’s doctorates were indeed honorary, and he held only three prestigious chairs (Exeter, 1898; Lincoln, 1899; and St. John’s, 1912), not four.
If it is safe to say that you “completely distrust the New [Testament] as a reliable source”, then you might reconsider some of the arguments you’ve gotten from your sources, since some of them are nothing more than pitting one interpretation of a New Testament passage against another (like the speculations about Judah of Gamala, for instance).
One part of your agrument that I find of particular interest, for a number of reasons, is your insistence that an alleged fifth century text by a “a [Syrian] Jewish sect” is more reliable than earlier texts. For one thing, I’m having a devil of a time finding it, and my search skills are generally quite good. There does exist to this day the Syrian Orthodox Church that traces its own beginnings back to 40-50 AD as a “Jesus-Jewish (early Christianity was not yet defined as distinct from Judaism)” community and in the fifth century broke ties with Rome. (See the Syrian Orthodox Church) official site from Lexicorient.)
But it wouldn’t be the only “sect” in which Peter is a leading figure. Peter figures quite prominently as well in the Roman Catholic “sect”. (The Papacy is alleged to be an unbroken chain back to Peter. The Syrian Orthodoxists also trace their Patriarch back to Peter, and in fact, the Acts mentions the Syrian church prominently.) Anyway, I’d greatly appreciate either a link or the publisher information for your source on the alleged document.
Giving you momentarily that it exists, I find it odd that you abandoned one cornerstone of your reasoning (texts too far removed from the period) in favor of another (texts likely to have been tampered with by powerful political forces) especially in light of the fact that the fifth century text, if associated with the Syrians, is unquestionably under the control of the Patriarch because by 451 AD, the Syrian church had split off after the Council of Chalcedon to join the Sees of Antioch and Alexandria. Moreover, in 325 AD, the bishopric of Antioch was recognized as one of the Patriarchates in Christianity at the first Synod at Nicea, so the politics was well in place. By contrast, original manuscripts of the New Testament texts date well before any serious attempt at church political organization, and for good reason. It was outlawed by Rome. Worship had to be done in secret and in private other than in the rare instances where Roman authorities would decide to tolerate the Christians rather than feed them to the lions.
So, I can’t really make any sense out of the argument that a text four hundred years removed is more reliable for the reason you cited (political influence and corruption) than a text that is merely forty or fifty years removed.
If that isn’t talking about the political power and corruption of the “victorious church” doctoring documents and preserving some while destroying others, then what the heck is it talking about?
That powerful church did not exist in 50 AD, and therefore is not an applicable entity to the earliest texts. On the other hand, the very machine that he’s talking about did indeed exist full blown in Syria by the time the document he mentioned allegedly surfaced.
From this site
*Some interesting evidence of the views of the Jewish Christian community of Syria at a later date, probably the fifth century, was discovered by the Israeli scholar Shlomo Pines. While studying a tenth-century Arabic work by ‘Abd al-Jabbar in a manuscript in Istanbul, he was able to prove that one section of this work had actually been incorporated from a Jewish Christian source. The standpoint of this incorporated section is that of the Ebionites: belief in the continuing validity of the Torah, insistence on the human status of Jesus as a prophet, and strong opposition to Paul as the falsifier of Jesus’ teachings. *
The part about this manuscript is longer than that. The rest of the page is very relevant to the current debate, since at first glance, it seems to be an abrigate of a book supporting the idea that the christian church’s teachings are only the Paul’s supporters version of christianism. I still didn’t read it, though.
I found this cite by googling : “Shlomo Pines” and “Syria”. There were around 30 hits, if you want to check. Possibly not all related to the document we’re speaking about.
By the way, if you don’t like this example of alternate early christianism, there are plenty other references to be found, concerning the Nazarenes and the Ebionites, for instance. It’s not like other early christian sects are unheard of.
You’re missing the point. It is extraordinary that you would have actually managed to study all these sites, and therefore arrive at your conclusion. Even if we give allowance for the “most, if not all” and “tend to” qualifiers, that would still require an extensive study of these sites, of which there are several dozen. More importantly, it would also have required researching the credentials of the diverse people whose work they cited, thereby establishing that they indeed “tend to overpraise” those who agree with them. Frankly, it’s rather difficult to understand that you would have studied these credentials, and yet be unfamiliar with Ramsay’s work – or where his credentials may be found.
In other words, your claim regarding these websites sounds more like conjecture and hasty assumptions, rather than an actual evaluation. It is cer tainly possible that these sites tend to overpraise their sources, but such a claim should be founded on more than just speculation.
Besides, why should we be hung up on this point anyway? You say that the existence of Jesus Christ is not corroborated by archaeology, and Sir William Ramsay disagrees. Does it really matter if he’s one of the all-time greats, or merely a less accomplished archaeologist who spent decades trying to refute Luke’s gospel, failed, recanted his position, concluded that Luke was a top-notch historian AND converted to Christianity? Would that really make your claim a tenable one?
BTW, as long as we’re talking about archaeologists who have actually studied the New Testament evidence, you might want to read about Sir Frederic Kenyon and William Foxwell Albright. Kenyon was the curator of the British Museum, and Albright was a well-known archaeologist who specialized in New Testament digs. Like Ramsay, they concluded that the New Testament was thoroughly corroborated by archaeological evidence.
[…slapping forehead…] D’oh! Hyam Maccoby. I should have guessed it. The infamous atheist beside whom even the frothy militance of Madalyn Murray O’Hair pales. Thank you, but I give your source about as much credit as I give Dr. Duane Gish and the Institute for Creation Research.
Like all such eccentric desperados, Maccoby is on the utmost fringe of scholarship. He writes, for example, “That this ‘Simon Magus’ is really Paul is now accepted by scholars, despite many desperate attempts to resist this conclusion made by critics of Baur who realized how profound would be the consequences of such an admission.”
The mainstream view, which you can find in the Catholic Encyclodpedia, is in fact much different. Scholars believe that Simon Magus was a Samaritan Magus (or magician) from Gitta, based on writings by Justin of Flavia Neapolis, who converted to Christianity when he was thirty years old in 130 AD.
Simon declared himself to be the “great power of God” and used his skills in magic to win converts. The most comical thing known about Simon is that, when John and Peter visited Samaria, Simon was there when the Holy Spirit manifested Himself, and he thought it was magic. He offered the apostles money to teach him their magical power.
You can read a thorough debunking of conspiracy theories like those of Maccoby at the site I gave. One of the things mentioned that you’ll see if you bother is that Baur, for whom Maccoby constructs a strawman argument that he spends a lot of time assailing, didn’t even believe that Peter existed!
I don’t understand taking the argument of a known conspiracy theorist, without relevant credentials of any kind, who has grinded his ax for all these years like Lolo on steroids while rejecting the arguments of eminently renowned scholars like Sir William Ramsay. Most puzzling.
But you should reject his argument anyway, because it is another one whose original source is the New Testament. Simon Magus is identified there (in Acts) in the pentecostal story I gave you above, and it is the earliest identification made. So, you should either accept that he is different from Paul since that book identifies them separately, or else you should just disregard his existence altogether, agree with Baur, and toss out Maccoby.
Note that he compared the credit he would give to one alleged fifth century text to the credit that he would give to “scores” (meaning at least 40 or more) of New Testament texts. If I am to interpret that as meaning anything other than the one text is more reliable than the 40, then you need to explain why.
50-70 AD is the consensus date by mainstream modern scholars of the earliest manuscript we possess from the New Testament. See Cecil’s column, in which he acknowledges the existence of the historical Jesus, that I referenced on an earlier page. There was no powerful political machine in place there at that time other than the emperor of Rome and the Jewish Sanhedrin. Certainly not the church. Rome officially suppressed Christianity, and the Sanhedrin considered it heretical.
Cool, I wasn’t aware we had any original manuscripts from 50 AD.
Nevertheless, the overwhelming majority of texts that make up the bible are from a later date.
Despite your debunking of the views on Simon-Peter, professed by Maccoby, there seem to be a number of texts surviving that didn’t make the bible. The Ebionites are also a very interesting movement.
Just to get things straight, are you denying there has been any editing in the composition of the bible?
With regards to the archeology question; proof that certain places, mentioned in the bible, did exist, is not proof Jesus existed, however accurate those descriptions might be.
The chances of finding definitive proof through archeology are very slim, unless exact official documents regarding Jesus were to be dug up somewhere.
While the digs continue and we wait for proof we continue on the premisse that there is none. Not the other way around, we don’t assume there is proof just waiting to be discovered.
