Luke is writing fiction so he does not have any actual place in mind. It’s just a tale.

But it’s also (by chance) false that Nazareth has no suitable deadfalls. It was actually built up a hill (you can see this yourself in the maps and photographs and accounts of excavations), exactly as Luke says, and the kind of promontory Luke means was often a construct. The Mishnah says it only has to be a platform ten or so feet high in total (twice the height of an average person). That can easily be built alongside the downslope of a hill. It does not require a natural cliff. And Luke did not say “cliff” (krêmnos, akra, etc.) he said “brow” (ophrus), which means any kind of precipice—thus, the executioner’s ramp that would be in every Jewish town, hillside or not. A town with a hill would simply place it’s ramp there, where it can enjoy the advantage of a downslope.

And I have come to believe Tuccinardi is a crank. His conspiracy theories about the Caesarea inscription are not credible (and mind you, I’m the guy who exposed Vardaman’s lunacy later in life, which was not forgery). That is why you’ve never seen them in any official publication but only on another crank’s website, even though this should be a vital report to the academic community if it had any merit. And his reply to my catching his statistical errors with Pliny was to excuse them rather than correct them and test the correct result. Which means he doesn’t want to know what the correct result is. Which is another sign of a crank. I’m afraid the follies have added up to no good here. I’d stop listening to him altogether.

Interesting discussion.

While I have used the Caesarea Maritima Nazareth inscription, I thought Tuccinardi raised some interesting points and put those arguments aside.. Now I will have to review again!

More importantly, for those of us who are Bible believers, you can never get this square peg into a round hole.

Luke 4:29 (AV)
“And rose up, and thrust him out of the city,
and led him unto the brow of the hill whereon their city was built,
that they might cast him down headlong.

Michael Wolter, quoted by others,astutely says “pure fiction”.

“The place to which Jesus is led and from which he is to be thrown down is not topographically verifiable and ancient Nazareth was not located on a mountain but in a high valley. The details regarding this are pure fiction.”
The Gospel According to Luke: Volume I

Except the far better locale for New Testament Nazareth is Har Nitai, (across from Arbel), from which you can actually see “down to Capernaum”. These 900′ cliffs were used for execution. (Josephus describes this for Mount Arbel)

There are many reasons this is an excellent fit.

The first studies that pin-pointed this location afawk were done by Kevin Kluetz, using his Army Ranger skills throughout Galilee and Golan after Desert Storm.

Blessings and grace,
Steven Avery
researcher
Dutchess County, NY USA

you refuse to tell us

Neil, I did tell you. The first time you asked.

So stop bombing my site with spam. Read what I said. Follow the link I supplied. Read what is said there.

Respond to what I actually said.

Stop making things up that I didn’t say. Stop ignoring what I did say.

And if you have a correction to offer, present an actual thing: quote the erroneous statement, and present evidence (not opinions, evidence) that it is in error. And if that checks out I’ll correct it.

Otherwise, what are you doing? Dozens and dozens of spam comments. And still no examples? Ask yourself what is going on here. Honestly. Because this isn’t rational, Neil. It is a problem. And I’m not the problem here.

Neil, you are the one behaving like a child here. So resorting to “you are behaving like a child” amidst this emotional bender you are on is quite rich.

Yes, Neil, dozens of comments repeating the same questions and assertions. No evidence. No examples.

That’s what’s happening here. That you don’t see it worries me. But there is nothing I can do to fix your failure-mode.

Neil, you have not identified a single actual mistake I made.

You have bloviated and bombed my site with repetitive questions, but not a single example of any actual error to correct.

The latter would indeed be productive and lead to a revision or note, if it checks out. But you are at dozens of spam comments now and not a single example yet.

And that is disturbing. You need to take a hard look at yourself and how you are behaving here.

Neil is flooding my blog with dozens of comments, it seems in the hopes of obscuring the fact that I already answered these questions the first time.

My answer is here. I keep linking to it to try and prevent his tactic of trying to hide it by constantly falsely claiming I didn’t answer the question and repetitively re-asking it.

In-context, I answered that I checked “several” of Salm’s claims. Then I linked to my discussion (of why I don’t bother deep-diving any others) that was always here in the original article (which Neil keeps ignoring). That is here.

Salm makes hundreds of claims. But they are all basically the same claim. It does not matter if you give a hundred different examples of the same fallacy. The fallacy is the same. Hence, I explained what someone needs to do if they think there is some exception, some thing Salm said somewhere, that is not already refuted by my points there linked—which appears before the section when I name Salm, so I am starting to suspect Neil did not read my article but only rage-skimmed it for Salm’s name and flipped tables at what I said there, not realizing I already covered my reasons for that conclusion earlier, where I named and linked to Davis, a critic who makes more competent arguments than Salm (Salm is a straw man, Davis the steel man).

So rather than constantly falsely claim I did not already cover this, Neil needs to find a counter-example, some thing Salm said that is not refuted by one or more of the many reasons I gave for why critics aren’t making any valid points. Maybe I missed one. But, you have to present it. If you can’t, then it’s simply dishonest to keep insisting you know there is one. And if you do present one, then we can get a decent discussion going. Neil seems wholly uninterested in that. He’s just getting emotional, and thereby ceasing to be reasonable. Exactly as he did when I caught Tuccinardi at this. He doesn’t like when I criticize people he likes. And he can’t handle even the mildest and most trivial criticism of himself.

Remember, this all started from me merely saying Neil places “some excess trust” (just some) in Salm because “I personally” (personally, me, just me) “find Salm shady and untrustworthy.” That’s literally all I said. I never challenged any specific thing Neil ever said anywhere. So his reaction to this is wildly out of proportion to what happened. And he is completely ignoring what I actually already said about critics of Nazareth historicity, and accordingly, never says any specific thing challenging anything I actually did say. He just keeps insisting I missed something. Something Neil can’t find so as to present to me.

He needs to calm down and rethink his tirade and tactics. And get back to doing what reasonable scholars do: carry an argument, with actual pertinent examples; not gainsaying and rhetoric. He needs to pay attention to what I actually did (and did not) say, not attribute things to me I didn’t say, or ignore things I did say; and thereby respond to my actual argument with actual, pertinent examples. He isn’t doing that. But that’s on him. There isn’t anything more I can do.

Dear Dr. Carrier, which post to you refer to when you say you have replied to Godfrey’s question “have you read Salm’s responses and his argument and evidence?” and his statement “You respond to Salm’s and marik’s statements negatively without digging a little to check their claims.” I do not doubt your scholarly integrity, but it seems Godfrey needs a more direct answer.

What are you talking like this to me? Why can’t you just admit you made a mistake and let’s move on? Why did you turn so hostile against me — you never even read the posts I was writing about your Bayes argument.

Er, no, Richard. Not repeated at all. You obviously assume that without Don’t assert — Quote the repetition! —