Now, the implications for this discovery, if genuine and confirmed, are heavy for Christianity and non-believers alike. Not to mention Dan Brown. It would cast doubt on the most literal take on the New Testament story of Jesus and his final act. As it stands now, however, the debate is just beginning and there will, no doubt, be additional revelations in the months/years to come as new tests are performed or new discoveries come to light.
As vindicating as this find would be for a non-believer who has always doubted and debated even the existence of Jesus, much less the magic stories about him, I nonetheless remain skeptical until more evidence is presented. Ironically enough, skepticism is not in short supply for many Christians as well, it would seem. From personal conversations on the topic, I have seen reactions range from indifference to shrill cries of fraud and forgery. It seems some Christians are still smarting over the "James ossuary" debacle from a few years ago and are doubly incensed that a find of this magnitude would be brought forward in this pre-Easter season.
Thus, many debates I have been in were not focused on defending the conclusions of the filmmakers but in defending against the misinformation being put out by Christian zealots who apparently have a deep, abiding passion to see this thing exposed as some fakery. A website of such information was recently brought to my attention via one of the IRC channels I frequent and where this topic has been discussed almost daily since its initial announcement.
This means I must counter flatly WRONG information before I can even move forward in discussing CORRECT information and any evidence it provides. So, here we go:
The Location of the Tomb
As an individual in the ancient society Jesus lived in it was tradition to be buried in the town of their birth. Joseph and Mary were both from Nazareth, Mary Magdalene was born in Magdala, and Jesus was born in Bethlehem, as was Anna, Mary's mother. It would be highly unusual to find three bodies; Jesus of Nazareth Mary, either Jesus’ mother, Mary of Nazareth or Mary of Magdala, all buried in tombs in Jerusalem, none of whom had any family or long-standing personal ties to the Jerusalem area.
Some of the events that occurred in the biblical scenario did occur in Jerusalem, but these can easily be attributed to the fact that the Temple, and the Sanhedrin, the puppet governing body of the Jews were both based in Jerusalem. Another false presumption was that Jesus was raised or worked extensively in Jerusalem, which is not correct by any data available; Nazareth and the immediate surrounding areas.
First of all, no claim has been made about where Jesus spent a majority of his time and work, nor about where he was raised. Responding to a charge which has not been made is as deceptive falsely claiming something in the first place.
As for the burial practice of returning the body to the hometown, it's worth pointing out the tumultuous time period in which we are dealing. On the timeline of the Bible's narrative of Jesus alone, a Roman crackdown was in the making, resulting in the destruction of the Temple in 70 AD. Additionally, placing bodies in ossuaries was a practice peculiar to Jews of that time and place in the world only, for unknown reasons. Given the emergence of such a practice and in such a time period of unrest, it is small wonder that a man such as Jesus, as described, would remain in the very place the Bible places him at the end of his life and surrounded by the people who had followed him throughout his career.
The DNA Evidence
One of the alleged supporting theories of the "Jesus Tomb" project is that one of the Mary's DNA in the tomb does not match the DNA of the body labeled Jesus. There is no DNA evidence that this is the historical Jesus of Nazareth, 0r Mary Magdalene; they are starting with a false premise. Then, there is the problem of whether or not any of the DNA matches any of the other bodies in the tomb. We are not sure the extent or the nature of the testing done and will comment further on this aspect when the documentary airs.
This another response to an unmade charge. No one has alleged the DNA is of anyone of note. The DNA analysis has only ever been to determine familial relations among those in the crypt. Given the fact this was a family tomb, a lack of DNA match between the Mary and Jesus remains indicates a probable marriage.
The Number Crunching
The documentary claims that statistics help to verify the claim that this is the tomb of Jesus, the Christ of Nazareth. They claim that finding both the names of Jesus and Mary together in one tomb was a statistical anomaly. The six ossuaries bear the names Jesus, 2 Marys, Matthew, Joses, the name of one of Jesus’ brothers, and Judah, son of Jesus. If this was the tomb of Jesus’ family what are the statistical odds that neither Joseph, Jesus’ human father, nor James, Simon, and Judas, the other brothers of Jesus, and at least two sisters, who are unnamed in the Bible? "Is not this the carpenter's son? is not his mother called Mary? and his brethren, James, and Joses, and Simon, and Judas? And his sisters, are they not all with us? Whence then hath this man all these things?" (Matthew 13:55-56)
The name "Jesus" was a very popular name in the first century, appearing in 98 other tombs and on 21 other ossuaries. Mary was actually so common as a female name that six New Testament women bear the name 'Mary' and that 30 percent of women in those days had the name Mary or Miriam. It is, also, highly unlikely that Joseph, who died earlier in Galilee, was buried in Jerusalem, since the historical record connects him only to Nazareth or Bethlehem. All things considered, the statistical analysis is untrustworthy, at the very least.
While both the names Jesus and Mary were quite common, there are no other inscriptions which say "Jesus, son of Joseph", as this one does. That in itself is a statistical anomoly and moreso when combined with the other names there. Even with the commonality of the names, finding them all together, matching the same group mentioned in the Bible, becomes highly statistically relevant. Additionally, there is no claim of Joseph being buried in this crypt. That is simply another response to a charge not made.
Jesus the "Husband and Father"
This theory, often repeated and perpetually debunked throughout history, that Jesus did not die was recently popularized by the book and movie The DaVinci Code. The tomb in question was actually discovered in 1980 and the same concepts were quickly debunked by archeologists, historians, and biblical scholars. This project was actually started in 1980 at the time of the brief popularity of The DaVinci Code, and before the mountain of evidence proving that book was actually what it was published as; a fiction. See The Da Vinci Code Debunked http://www.debunkingdavinci.com/. There is absolutely no proof that Jesus did not die, remained on the Earth, married, or had children. Conversely, the opposite is clearly backed by historical reference within, and outside the Bible.
There is no extra-Biblical history of any so
rt which speaks to whether or not Jesus was married and lived past the alleged resurrection.
Joseph of Aramethia
Completely ignored in the equation is presence and the tomb of Joseph of Aramethia. "When the even was come, there came a rich man of Arimathaea, named Joseph, who also himself was Jesus' disciple: He went to Pilate, and begged the body of Jesus. Then Pilate commanded the body to be delivered. And when Joseph had taken the body, he wrapped it in a clean linen cloth, And laid it in his own new tomb, which he had hewn out in the rock: and he rolled a great stone to the door of the sepulchre, and departed." (Matthew 27:57-60)
Joseph of Arimathea was the uncle of Mary, the mother of Jesus, a merchant involved in the tin trade with Gaul, (Britian), for the Roman Empire, and a member of the Sanhedrin, the ruling body of the Jews. He was considered a very wealthy man.
It's ironic that Arimathea was considered wealthy, but that Jesus and family would never have been able to afford such a tomb as this. Aside from that, there is no indication this is Arimathea's tomb, just as there is no indication it is not. Christians have, for centuries, venerated the Church of the Holy Seplechur as the tomb of Jesus, relying only on tradition and no physical evidence.
Historical Evidence for the Crucifixion
Pontius Pilate, Procurator of Judaea
The Report of Pontius Pilate, Procurator of Judaea to Tiberius Caesar: "And when he had been crucified, there was darkness over the whole earth, the sun having been completely hidden, and the heaven appearing dark though it was day, so that the stars appeared, but had at the same time their brightness darkened, as I suppose your reverence is not ignorant of, because in all the world they lighted lamps from the sixth hour until evening. And the moon, being like blood, did not shine the whole night, and yet she happened to be at the full."
It's very interesting, and telling, that this passage is considered pseudepigraphical by even the Catholic Church, which declares "This composition is clearly apocryphal though unexpectedly brief and restrained." As such, it is NOT extra-Biblical evidence of anything.
Flavius Josephus
Now there was about this time Jesus, a wise man if it be lawful to call him a man, for he was a doer of wonders, a teacher of such men as receive the truth with pleasure. he drew many after him both of the Jews and the Gentiles. he was the Christ. When Pilate, at the suggestion of the principal men among us, had condemned him to the cross, those that loved him at the first did not forsake him, for he appeared to them alive again the third day, as the divine prophets had foretold these and then thousand other wonderful things about him, and the tribe of Christians, so named from him, are not extinct at this day (Antiquities 18:63-64).
Here again, the author of the website fails to note the controversy surrounding this passage from Josephus' works, which has raged since the 17th century. In fact, an 18th century church bishop described the passage as "a rank forgery, and a very stupid one, too". The Antiquities was written in 93 AD, yet no other writer, Christian or otherwise, ever referenced it until Eusebius, nearly 200 years later, despite numerous citations of Josephus' work during this time period. Thus, once again we do not have extra-Biblical evidence.
Julius AfricanusWhat is again failed to be noted is the Thallus being referenced here may not be the Roman historian Thallus, due to the fact no other writer references any such statement on his part. If it is the genuine Thallus, his statement hardly means anything other than a reaction to hearing the Christian story and remarking upon it, most likely referring to the solar eclipse of 29 AD. Further still, Thallus is probably not the reliable source of history Christians might hope for in an extra-Biblical source. According to Theophilus, Bishop of Antioch, in his Ad Autolycum 3.29:
Julius Africanus was a Christian chronographer of the late second century. In a comment on the darkness that fell upon the land during the crucifixion (Mark 15:33), Africanus states that "Thallus, in the third book of his histories, explains away this darkness as an eclipse of the sun." Africanus stated his objection to the report arguing that an eclipse of the sun cannot occur during the full moon, as was the case when Jesus died at Passover time. The force of the reference to Thallus is that the circumstances of Jesus' death were known and discussed in the Imperial City as early as the middle of the first century.
Thallus makes mention of Belus, the King of the Assyrians, and Cronus the Titan; and says that Belus, with the Titans, made war against Zeus and his compeers, who are called gods. He says, moreover, that Gygus was smitten, and fled to Tartessus. At that time Gygus ruled over that country, which was then called Acte, but is now named Attica. And whence the other countries and cities derived their names, we think it unnecessary to recount, especially to you who are acquainted with history.
Thus it seems Thallus was just a fount of knowledge where mythological gods were concerned and his apparent mention of Christianity is hence understandable as a result.
Cornelius Tacitus
Cornelius Tacitus, who was born about A.D. 52-54 is rated as the greatest of Roman historians. In a writing of the reign of Nero (A.D. 54-68) he states Consequently, to get rid of the report, Nero fastened the guilt and inflicted the most exquisite tortures on a class hated for their abominations, called Christians by the populace. Christus, (Jesus), from whom the name had its origin, suffered the extreme penalty during the reign of Tiberius at the hands of one of our procurators, Pontius Pilatus.
Now the author is not only failing to cite context, but actually CHANGES the passage to fit better. Tacitus did NOT write "Jesus", which is an Anglicanized version of "yeshua", itself a derivation of Joshua. Tacitus wrote "Chrestus" and, variously, "Christus". That is a title, not a name. The author would willingly deceive the casual reader into believing Tacitus penned a clear reference to the man, Jesus. Further still, scholarly debate continues on this passage, with most believing Tacitus' sources were Christians themselves relating their own history.
Babylonian Talmud
The Babylonian Talmud is an in-depth commentary on Jewish Law which was recorded in Babylon over a six-hundred-year period, from 100 B.C. to 499 A.D. From the Babylonian Talmud, Sanhedrin Text 43a., we learn that Jewish involvement in the trial was explained as a proper undertaking against a heretic. "It has been taught (in a Baraitha): On the eve of Passover they hanged Yeshu, the Nazarene. And an announcer went out, in front of him, for forty days (saying): 'Yeshu, the Nazarene, is going to be stoned, because he practised sorcery and enticed and led Israel astray. Anyone who knows anything in his favour, let him come and plead in his behalf.' But, not having found anything in his favour, they hanged him on the eve of Passover.
Textual criticism aside, the obvious disparities between this passage and the Biblical narrative should have been enough to preclude its inclusion. It seems added by the author as an after-thought or perhaps to have been slipped in to add weight to the list of references. Either way, it has ZERO to do with the Jesus Christ mentioned in the Bible.
Mara Bar-Serapion
Mara Bar-Serapion, who was a Syrian philosopher, wrote the following paragraph in this letter to his son from prison sometime after
70 A.D.
“What advantage did the Athenians gain from putting Socrates to death? Famine and plague came upon them as a judgment for their crime. What advantage did the men of Samos gain from burning Pythagoras? In a moment their land was covered with sand. What advantage did the Jews gain from their executing their wise king? It was just after that their kingdom was abolished. God justly avenged these three wise men: The Athenians died of hunger; the Samians were overwhelmed by the sea; the Jews, ruined and driven from their land, live in complete dispersion. But Socrates did not die for good; he lived on in the statue of Plato. Pythagoras did not die for good; he lived on in the statute of Hera. nor did the wise king die for good; he lived on in the teaching which he had given.”
The grasping at straws is evident now. An entire critical essay has been written on this passage and does a far more eloquent job of striking it down than I could in this space. Here is an excerpt:
We can't even be sure that Bar-Serapion was referring to Jesus. He didn't identify the "wise king" by name, as he did in the case of both Socrates and Pythagoras, so one merely speculates when he says that this is a first-century secular reference to Jesus. How does one make that determination? Messianic pretenders in Judea were a dime a dozen during the era of foreign domination. Josephus referred to some of them, and even the New Testament mentioned two of them in Gamaliel's speech to the Jewish council ( Acts 5:35-36). In Bandits, Prophets, and Messiahs: Popular Movements at the Time of Jesus (Harper & Row, 1985), authors Richard Horsley and John Hanson tell of several Messianic prophets of this period besides Theudas and Judas of Galilee, whom Gamaliel mentioned in his speech. Some of these Messiahs were even named Jesus, and most of them came to ignominious ends at the hands ofeither the Romans or their own countrymen. How, then, do Bruce and other apologists who cite Mara Bar-Serapion's reference to a "wise king" who was executed by the Jews know for a fact that this was an allusion to Jesus of Nazareth and not to some other Messianic prophet of those times?
Lucan of Samosata
In 170 A.D., Lucan of Samosata, a Greek satirist, wrote a very informative statement in one of his letters regarding how and why the early Christians worshiped the way they did:
“The Christians, you know; worship a man to this day, the distinguished personage who introduced their novel rites, and was crucified on that account...You see, these misguided creatures start with the general conviction that they are immortal for all time, which explains the contempt of death and voluntary self-devotion which are so common among them; and then it was impressed on them by their original lawgiver that they are all brothers, from the moment that they are converted, and deny the gods of Greece, and worship the crucified sage, and live after his laws. All this they take quite on faith, with the result that they despise all worldly goods alike, regarding them merely as common property.”
It's difficult to understand what is being hoped to be shown by this. Nearly 200 years after the fact, it's small wonder Christians would be mentioned, even in this mocking manner. It certainly doesn't confirm anything other than Christians existing in 170 AD, which is not surprising to anyone.
Eusebius
The Fourth-century church historian Eusebius declares that the body of James, the brother of Jesus, was buried alone, near the temple mount and that his tomb was visited in the early centuries, making very unlikely that the Talipot tomb was Jesus' "family tomb".
The James ossuary has only been briefly mentioned as possibly having came from the Jesus tomb. The patinas of the ossuaries match, indicating some likelihood. Considering Eusebius is not a primary source for what happened 2 centuries before him, his description of where James is buried remains unverified.
2 comments:
I really delighted to find this website on bing, just what I was searching for : D too bookmarked . vps hosting | unmetered vps |
Pienso que es la idea excelente.
sexsmove hard porno
Post a Comment