The Discovery Channel is about to release The Lost Tomb of Jesus, and WCG/AC alumnus James Tabor is apparently one of those lined up behind the venture. There are hoots of derision from fundamentalists, keen to discredit the idea that Jesus' unresurrected remains linger here below. Typical are these comments by Paul McCain, a prominent Missouri Synod pastor with a gift for sneering disdain of anything or anyone that might challenge his confessional views.
So, you've heard that James Cameron, the movie maker, has announced that he has discovered the smoking gun evidence that once and for all debunks Christianity. Wow. Imagine that. Cameron, whose better movie making days are now a memory, announces, just in time for Easter, that he has discovered proof positive that "sinks" Christianity. And when I use the term "better movie making days" I am of course using that phrase very loosely. Titanic would have been better titled A Celebration of Fornication on the High Seas. The whole ship sinking and people freezing and drowning was simply a way to keep those with higher levels of testosterone on the hook while they suffered through the tedium of not even a very well done sob-story. The movie was nothing but exploitive trash, just like this story. (Source)
In contrast, Tabor pleads:
I do indeed think that this tomb with its six inscribed ossuaries might arguably be connected to the Jesus of Nazareth, despite all the hype and heat and at the risk of being derided by some. In my view we should give the evidence a fair hearing... What has surprised me the past two days is the willingness of many in our fields (archaeology, biblical studies, history) to comment to the press in a negative and dismissive way before viewing the film or reading the book.
I admire Dr Tabor, even though I'm completely unconvinced by his 2006 book The Jesus Dynasty. Despite that, I'm looking forward to his forthcoming book on Paul very much. I trust him a great deal more than the assorted apologists from Dallas Theological Seminary and their deluded kinfolk who, like McCain, can't seem to prise their minds open a single centimetre to consider new ideas.
Passing judgement before seeing the program would be churlish (or McCainish), and unlike most readers of this blog, it'll be a while before I get a chance as the Australian version of Discovery Channel hasn't bothered to schedule it yet. I suspect though that I'll be reluctantly siding with McCain, even if for different reasons. There's probably more chance of discovering Sherlock Holmes' violin under a London bedsit than the scrapings from Jesus' body in a stone box.
A generation ago there were academics and lunatics in equal measure running around and making amazing claims for the shroud of Turin. Some of them - if you bothered to follow their arguments - sounded reasonably convincing. Will the Talpiot tomb be the "shroud issue" of this decade? Maybe. As L. Michael White of the University of Texas sagely observes: "This is not archeologically sound, this is fanfare."
A good place to get a positive view of the upcoming movie is James Tabor's blog. The PR hype is elsewhere. Meantime I'll stand quietly over here with my new pal "Pastor" McCain and try not to pick up something contagious.
47 comments:
I've written a comprehensive rebuttal to the films claims. Please read it and decide for youself whether this film's claims are true or just hype.
You can read it at extremetheology.com
Gavin, love your topic titles...
Waiting to see is the best policy and no matter what, it will be eternally contestable because of the implications of such a reality. Scientists will find it an interesting challenge. Liberals will find it possible. Fundamentalists will find it appaling and a Satanic ploy to confuse and devour souls and archaeologists will simply find it.
I enjoyed James Tabor book even though one could see his personal fascinations and "Jerusalem syndrome" in the text at times. I'd probably be the same way. I don't agree that the reason Mark has no positive ending or resurrection accouut (It ends for real in Mark 16:8 with the rest added to cover this fact) is because the traditions of place and sightings had not yet developed. The Mark Angel clearly says the first meeting of the risen Jesus will be in Galilee and to bring Peter. This does not happen in Mark,but does nicely in John 21, which I think might just be the missing ending of Mark. The Gospel of John ends nicely in John 20. Long fascinating story of church politics I guess.
Chris;
I notice on your site a critique of "Purpose driven" by Warren. I didn't see a contact link there, so I figure you will get this here. There is a book out there that is a great expose' on it, called "Deceived on Purpose". If you haven't read it, it is a must read.
Your website and info looks great. I'll be spending some time there for sure.
Bill Hohmann
Sabbatarian heretic
The "National Enquirer" with a headline that says "Princess Diana Still Alive !...hiding out in Minot, South Dakota and working at "In & Out Burger" " would have more credibility than this dribble by Discovery/Cameron/Tabor.
Yet people buy the "National Enquirer" and it is a profitable enterprise.
This is an obvious pandering to a society that demands an ever increasing over-the-top "thrill factor" or "conspiracy theory"
Perhaps Cameron should have called this "documentary" ... Titanic II- Sunk- Upside Down & Underwater.
Lussenheide
From a source close to the story.
"For those of you who are aware of the latest controversy about the supposed
Jesus family tomb outside Jerusalem (to be covered in a Discovery Channel
special next week, I believe), another astounding piece of evidence has just
about sealed the debate.
Apparently a scrap of parchment was found within the family tomb, included
among the ancient remains of family possessions. The note is signed Mary
M., and the text is: "I don't care if you ARE the Son of God, you still
need to put the potty hole lid down when you finish peeing!"
I'd really like to see the documentary before making any in depth comments. My mind is open on this topic. Of course practicing Christians are going to launch pre-emptive strikes before the public has had a chance to view the material, because basically if the documentary is accurate, they're going to need to radically reconfigure their belief systems. That is assuming they wish continued credibility.
I can only assume that Dr. Tabor is familiar with the research and findings. He did spend some time on James' ossuary in "The Jesus Dynasty" I hope he's the objective researcher many of us would like him to be, and not clouded by any biases. I know he has been very careful not to reveal his own religous preferences, which if known could provide a point of attack for his critics.
I've said many times that regardless as to whether one is Christian, Jew, or agnostic, if during our lifetimes a familiar figure happens to split the Mount of Olives while descending to planet earth, pretty much everyone familiar with the legends is going to know who the mystery being is.
Until that happens, nobody can be 100% sure, no matter how bombastically they proclaim their beliefs.
BB
We all suffer from the fact that this kind of discovery/inquiry is commercialized. As we approach the Easter season, we have another piece of a "DaVinci Code" puzzle to consider. The "Jesus Refutation" industry will be active as long as there is a demand in the marketplace. But the other side of the coin is that we will also have productions like Mel Gibson's in the future. The "Jesus Affirmation" industry. But through the veil of profit making, there may be something for us.
For me the salient issue is whether or not they can incontrovertibly identify Jesus'
remains. If they have found his bones, it alters the mechanism of the resurrection as formulated in orthodox Christianity. Instead of a bodily resurrection, we may have a spiritual resurrection. Up to this point, the latter has been considered heresy.
-- Neo
For some serious scholarly debunking of this textbook case of Doing Biblical Archaeology Badly, see the weblog of Ben Witherington, who saw an advance showing of the "documentary" and has examined the companion book. There are plenty of enlightening and substantive comments at Witherington's weblog too.
http://benwitherington.blogspot.com/2007/02/jesus-tomb-titanic-talpiot-tomb-theory.html
http://benwitherington.blogspot.com/2007/02/problems-multiple-for-jesus-tomb-theory.html
http://benwitherington.blogspot.com/2007/03/smoking-gun-tenth-talpiot-ossuary_9874.html
In brief, this Talpiot hypothesis is rubbish. Even if Jesus did rise from the dead as His disciples said, there's not a shred of evidence that Jesus is the "Hanun/Yeshua bar Yehoseph" who was buried in this tomb, or that Mariamenou-Mara was Mary Magdalene.
By the way, Rev. McCain seems to have summed up "Titanic" pretty accurately. What a lame script. VERY impressive ship sinking, to be sure, but when the movie got to cliche stock Hollywood chase scene through the flooding Titanic, I burst out laughing in the movie theater. My laughter ruined what Cameron obviously, oh-so-earnestly meant to be a tense, suspense-filled moment, but I couldn't help myself, the movie was just so very, very rotten as a work of art. I thought the tawdry fornication in the back seat of the car was pretty hilarious too. Cameron should stick to alien larvae exploding out of people's chests and leave serious cinema to the experts.
Come on folks. The Jewish authority posted a guard on the tomb because Jesus said he would be raised from the dead in 3 days (Matt. 27:63-64).
Guards? Heck folks, there would have been thousands of people at the site of the tomb to witness this happening.
For sure the disciples would have been there to see if it came to pass. The priests and the Romans too, more than likely.
Face it, you would have been there, as would I. There would have been a regular circus going on at the tomb with people camped out all around it.
But, that didn't happen, did it? That's because the other didn't happen either. The whole story is bogus.
More than likely, Jesus of Galilee was really Judas of Galilee the founder of the Zealots in 6 AD. His doctrines were identical to Jesus' and there was a crucifixion, Judas' sons, James and Simon. Hmmm. the same names as Jesus' brothers. What a coincidence . . .
Given the fact that this alleged person named Jesus Christ (translation: Annointed Savior - it's a title not a name!) most likely is a fictional character, I would have to say the chances of finding his "real" tomb are pretty remote.
Although I just read they found King Arthur's burial plot, so one can never say for sure ...
Now that L. McCulluough and C. Kilouh were seen looking at land in Dallas to buy for a new headquarters and college for the United Church, their members in Texas will likely be excited to have the United HQ in their state.
Passing judgment on a program denying that Jesus Christ rose from the dead before you've seen it would be McCainish?
Yes, it would.
But, go ahead. Be a faithful Christian.
"If Christ has not been raised, your faith is in vain."
That's not McCainish, that's Paulish, and God-ish and just plain truth-ish.
"More than likely, Jesus of Galilee was really Judas of Galilee the founder of the Zealots in 6 AD."
Yeah, sure, Jesus and Judas both start with a J and end with an S, so they must be different versions of the same name.
"His doctrines were identical to Jesus'"
How do you know that? Next to nothing is known about the doctrines of Judas of Galilee, assuming he even had any doctrines.
"and there was a crucifixion,"
The prescribed punishment for leaders of violent uprisings against Roman authority. Is every poor sap or fanatic who got himself crucified the Historical Jesus?
"Judas' sons, James and Simon. Hmmm. the same names as Jesus' brothers. What a coincidence . . ."
Exactly. Coincidence, nothing more. The names Simon, Jesus, Judas, and James were the most popular male names for Jews in the first century A.D. Your need far better evidence than a flimsy onomastic argument that proves nothing.
But if you're right that Jesus was really a Zealot named Judas circa 6 A.D., why do the primary sources all plainly say that the founder of Christianity was a Jewish man who was crucified almost 30 years after the floruit of Judas of Galilee? And why do they say his name was Jesus instead of Judas? And why does Josephus describe the martyrdom of St. James "the brother of Jesus the so-called Christ" in 62 A.D. if St. James' brother was really crucified about 50 years earlier? That's quite a gap in the chronology.
"Heck folks, there would have been thousands of people at the site of the tomb to witness this happening."
Are you sure? The disciples themselves didn't understand or want to believe that He would be killed -- it didn't fit their understanding of the Messiah. If the people didn't expect Him to rise from the dead, assuming they even knew what "rise from the dead" meant, why would they hang out at the tomb? The crucifixion would have been proof for most of them that Jesus wasn't who they thought He was (and He wasn't who they thought He was), so it only makes sense that only a few women would come to visit the tomb.
"Given the fact that this alleged person named Jesus Christ"
Whose existence is better attested than almost any other person in the first century A.D. . . .
"(translation: Anointed Savior - it's a title not a name!)"
Incorrect. Jesus is a name, Christ is a title. Or are the hundreds of other Jesuses mentioned in ancient historical and archaeological texts and inscriptions all fictitious too?
"most likely is a fictional character,"
Sorry, the probability of His being fictional is so remote as to render such a belief to be a form of Flat Earthism.
"Although I just read they found King Arthur's burial plot, so one can never say for sure ..."
This only demonstrates your lack of familiarity with the relevant historical sources. Arthur first appears in a passing reference or allusion in the Gododdin, a poem composed circa 600 A.D., about 100 years or more after Arthur is said to have lived. He is next mentioned by Nennius circa 800 A.D., about 300 years after the fact. But Jesus is mentioned in writings that date to within 20 years of the time He is reported to have lived, and is attested both by the Jewish historian Josephus and the Roman historians Suetonius and Tacitus, all of them non-Christians who wrote about 70 years after the crucifixion. The historical evidence for Jesus' existence is solid, but for Arthur's existence is tenuous.
On NZ talkback radio of a couple of days ago, one caller asked if it would be possible to compare DNA samples from the Shroud of Turin and the Loony Tomb.Fat chance?
Jared makes the point that Jesus historicity is amply attested to by scholars of his time.And,of course, the Bible states Christ was resurrected.He didn't need an ossuary,nor will they ever find one,even if it did exist.His tomb was empty on that Sunday morning.Only the bindings remained.
Moses burial place has not been found and never will be.
The Roman Catholic church say they have the relics of Peter...here is another topic for discussion.The resources of this church are vast and they believe they have the real McCoy.Who knows?
Now that it is Lent let us give up conspiracy theory for its duration.
jorgheinz
Really, if this family tomb at Talpiot really was the final resting place of Jesus' remains, how did Christianity ever manage to get off the ground in the first place? It's not like that tomb was concealed or disguised in any way. The first time the disciples claimed Jesus was raised from the dead, someone (like Jesus' relatives, or maybe even his son Jude) only had to pipe up and draw attention to the ossuary of Yeshua (or is it Hanun?) bar Yehoseph, and the disciples would have clammed up pretty quick.
Now that L. McCulluough and C. Kilouh were seen looking at land in Dallas to buy for a new headquarters and college for the United Church, their members in Texas will likely be excited to have the United HQ in their state.
"Jared makes the point that Jesus historicity is amply attested to by scholars of his time".
Sorry, guys, it just isn't true. Jesus is not attested to by ANY historical record of his time. It's as if he didn't exist - or wasn't important.
The only contemporaneous records of Jesus's existence are books written by anonymous authors, known as the New Testament, with a religion to sell. If you don't accept the self-contradictory writings of these anonymous authors as truth, then you have no evidence at all.
The only historical records are long after Christ's alleged life, written about Christians, not Christ himself. You could look it up.
Skeptic:
Would you do me a favor? Go to http://p069.ezboard.com/
bworldwidechurchofgodalumniforum Click on "Step Outside", then click on the thread "With All the Aggravation", opened by Big Red.
Red is degreed in the field of history, and has posted an opinion which directly contrasts to your post above. Keeping in mind that I am an agnostic, I'd be interested in hearing your opinion of, or rebuttal to, what BR has posted.
BB
Byker Bob,
I have read the article you mentioned. Without spending any time on research, I can offer the following reactions.
First, Big Red acknowledges the Josephus evidence "may be tainted". So much for Josephus.
Second, the Pliny quote was written 90 years after the fact - certainly not contemporaneous. Big Red indicates the more stronger (sic) of the two Pliny quotes is
"that they may be in the habit of meeting together on a certain fixed day before it was light, when they sanf (sic) in alternate verses to Christ, as to a god ..."
If this is the "more stronger" reference to Christ, I'd hate to see the "less stronger"! This is not a reference to Christ at all, it is a reference to Christians. All it states is that people were worshipping Christ around the year 112 AD. We already know that! This doesn't prove that Christ really existed, it just proves that the Christian religion existing!
Need I add that people were also worshipping Jupiter, Mithra, Diana, and dozens if not hundreds of other gods in the year 112 AD? This, of course, does not prove that any of these gods had actually lived at one time.
Third, the quote from Tacitus, also written 90 years after the fact - again certainly not contemporaneous.
"Nero fastened the guilt and inflicted the most exquisite tortures on a class hated for their abominations, call Christians by the populace. Christus, from whom the name had its origin, suffered the extreme penalty during the reign of Tiberius at hte hands of one of our procurators, Pontius Pilate..."
The authenticity of this quote from Tacitus is under serious debate among historians. Some say it was simply lifted from christian sources, other historians feel it is legit. It may or may not be authentic.
Fourth, Hadrian.
"Because the Jews in Rome casued (sic) continuous distrubances (sic)at hte (sic) instigation of Chrestus, he expelled them from the city."
This quote refers to a "Chrestus", a common name at the time. Chrestus was instigated distubances in the city of Rome - clearly the aplogists are stretching to try to claim this is a refernce to Jesus Christ.
I'll stop here, as the references get increasingly weaker from this point on. To imply that these quotes constitute strong evidence is ridiculous. Only one quote, the Tacitus quote, claims Christ existed. And this was written 90 years after Christ's alleged life.
That would be like reading about the life of Abraham Lincoln, and no historians in the 1800's even make mention of him. Only "believers" in his cult write of him. Then, finally, in the year 1950, ONE historian makes a brief reference to Lincoln. Would this convince you that there really was an Abraham Lincoln?
The same is true of Christ. Out of all this, we end up with ONE possibly-valid historical reference written 90 years after his life. For such an important person, it seems that historians had nothing at all to say about Jesus Christ for the first 90 years after his death. Then, a couple of passing references is about it - no importance is placed on him whatsoever. This is hardly a strong historical endorsement.
What a nice breath of fresh air.
It's very easy to find a Bible Jesus. But truly, "Where in the World is Jesus" would be a game with very few clues.
As early a convert turned Apostle (seems these types always go from foe of Jesus to Apostle in about ten minutes), as Paul was, you'd think he's mention something now and again in his writings about the life of Jesus. Nuttin. Jesus for Paul was Cosmic. Only decades after Paul dies do we have the Gospels and they can't seem to agree on his birth circumstances, short life experiences and the "eyewitness" accounts of his death and resurrection stories.
It's always been a shame that the world was visited by a God that never bothered to write anything down himself. You'd think the God that wrote the Big Ten with his own finger could have inscribed the New Covenant the same way so at least we'd have an original. It's all written by others about him and we know how accurate perceptions can be. And all the big meaning and theology of Jesus is written by a man that never met him or quotes him.
Look at all the one true churches the writing of HWA spawned. What you see between Dave Pack, Gerald Flurry, UCG and LCG is no different than what happened when any dominant personality dies with a message. It's Peter, James, John, Paul and Simon Magus all over again! (The message does not have to be true or accurate by the way).
If the books that became the God Breathed accounts of events can't agree, what chance at anything meaningful would a meager three or four secular accounts have? If we can admit that Josephus, who knew the history of Jerusalem in detail during the time of Jesus, never mentions him along with enormous detail of things we don't care about, what does that say...volumes! What does it say if we can agree that Josephus's comments about Jesus are redacted (re-wording of what an author wrote), what does that say about someone's need for more Jesus affirmations by secular sources? You don't invent them if you don't desperately need them.
It's also interesting to me that just a few days after the Jesus Family Tomb story becomes public and invites more scrutiny from scientists, archaeologists and theologians, we have "comprehensive rebuttals" already completed.
The story is not over yet and the jury is not yet in. I guarantee that if science finds it to be fake, out of time, wishful thinking or just plain stupid, they will have to admit it. But if credible, and I have no personal opinion yet myself, all the "little me's" of fundamentalism who need it all to be just so, will freak out and go to war against what is.
Like it or not, fundamentalists need liberals and an occasional poke with an electric prod to keep their furvor alive. They can't defend the indefensible and believe the unbelievable unless it is challenged and it feels so good to just know they are right no matter what you endeavor to show them.
Think of all the good science in history that suffered at the hands of the Church for being correct after all. The Church loves science as long as it does not impinge on long held beliefs. In my experience, it is the Church that has always yielded to science, even if it takes hundreds of years to "apologize" for being stupid, and not good science to the Church. So we'll see
"Sorry, guys, it just isn't true. Jesus is not attested to by ANY historical record of his time."
Well, except for the Epistles of St. Paul and the four Gospels, which were written from 20 to 40 years after he lived.
"It's as if he didn't exist - or wasn't important."
As for non-Christian sources from the first century A.D. or early second century A.D. that mention Jesus, it's true that all we have are passing references in Josephus, Suetonius, and Tacitus, and it's obvious that Josephus was at least partly interpolated by Christians, but there is no valid reason for doubting the authenticity of Tacitus, especially since it contains no scent of Christian confession and agrees with the accounts in the New Testament that derived from eyewitnesses. The "Chrestus" of Suetonius is confused, but still meshes with the historical evidence of the New Testament, Josephus, and Tacitus.
"The only contemporaneous records of Jesus's existence are books written by anonymous authors, known as the New Testament, with a religion to sell. If you don't accept the self-contradictory writings of these anonymous authors as truth, then you have no evidence at all."
Of course it's easy to casually dismiss the writings of Christians from the first century A.D., but it's remarkably bad scholarship to do so. There's a reason, after all, that the idea Jesus never existed has absolutely no scholarly respectability. I rather think that it must take a deliberate act of will to shut one's eyes to the heap of primary source, nearly contemporary evidence for the existence of Jesus. And it's a level of skepticism that no one would ever reasonably take when dealing with any other personage of ancient history.
No, if you want to doubt or deny the existence of Jesus, what you have to do is, whatever contradictions may or may not exist in the New Testament's testimony about Jesus, come up with some reasonable explanation of why the New Testament authors had so much to say about someone who allegedly never existed. Good luck with that.
"you'd think he'd mention something now and again in his writings about the life of Jesus. Nuttin. Jesus for Paul was Cosmic."
St. Paul had plenty to say about the life of Jesus, and what he said agrees perfectly with the essentials of what the Gospels say about him -- that he was a Jew, a descendant of David of the tribe of Judah, that he was crucified under Pontius Pilate and rose from the dead on the third day, that he was seen by the disciples several times after the resurrection.
"Only decades after Paul dies do we have the Gospels and they can't seem to agree on his birth circumstances, short life experiences and the 'eyewitness' accounts of his death and resurrection stories."
St. Paul was martyred from 64 to 67 A.D., the same period of time that the Synoptics were written. A few of the Gospels could date from before 64 A.D., a few from a little after -- maybe a decade or two. In any case, we're not dealing with a great chronological gap. Whatever contradictions may or may not be in the New Testament testimony about Jesus, the testimony is abundant and can only safely be interpreted to mean that Jesus really existed, whether or not the early Christians correctly passed on in all particulars what He said and did.
"Think of all the good science in history that suffered at the hands of the Church for being correct after all."
I can't think of any, although I know of some bad science (Galileo's) that suffered unjustly at the Church's hands. Galileo turned out to be wrong on most points, but sort of right on one point.
By the way, I keep seeing all these "liberal" Catholic scholars like Bruno Forte denouncing this Talpiot idea as laughable nonsense. Forte a fundamentalist?
Speculative infotainment on finding the bones of Jesus in an ossuary on the Discovery Channel?
What's next? Discovering the tomb of Lieutenant Commander Data and Seven of Nine? Stay tuned.
Over at extremetheology.com, "Newspaper Hack" posted this comment, which we should all take to heart:
I don't care about the theology of the mess, am not a big fan of religion and, frankly, all the hullabaloo of the "discovery" bores me.
But I heard this from a professor of theology, and believe it to be true: if this find was really all it's cracked up to be, it would have been thoroughly researched and put through the paces in academic journals and peer-reviewed.
Instead, the announcement was made in a press conference.
That should tell you, believer or not, all you need to know about the validity of these claims.
"St. Paul had plenty to say about the life of Jesus,"
Your idea of "plenty" and mine are different.
"what he said agrees perfectly with the essentials of what the Gospels say about him -- that he was a Jew, a descendant of David of the tribe of Judah,"
Which of course shows that Paul knew nothing special about the physical birth of Jesus or all the miraculous events in his life, birth and death, when it would have been to a huge advantage to him to speak up about it in his writings. Each Gospel corrects the problems created by the previous one depending on what order one accepts.
Also, Paul does not agree with the Gospels as the Gospels had not been written yet, of course. The Gospels would agree with Paul but I doubt the Gospel community of believers cared much about what Paul thought. The Gospels reflect nothing of the theology of a cosmic Christ found in Paul who preceeded them. That's why the authors reached back into the OT in Midrashic fashion to come up with a story of Jesus that they did not know much about in fact. All of Matthews ideas of how Jesus was born was misappropriated out of the OT history and statements and not based in any facts Matthew really knew. It's why Matthew's statements about Jesus seem so amazingly prophetic. Matthew formula was:
Find an OT story that can be mined for meaning of Jesus.
Take the story out of context and make it point to Jesus, even if it doesn't and couldn't.
Make it mean what it never meant.
Not count on the other guy who writes his birth story not reading your story, so we end up with contradictory stories which can't both be true.
As a Bible literalist screams.."yes they are, yes they are" often until they believe it.
Add to this the fact that Matthew and Luke copy massives amounts of Mark and you have to wonder about the inspiration factor. The rule for Matthew and Luke was copy and duplicate most, add a bit from some other source, make up a bit, throw out a lot, and there you go... scripture!
The thread of science that lead through open minded,not conformist, non church doctrine fearing scientists through history
on any topic sensitive to the Church's need for the text to be literally true, has led us off the planet learning wonderful things. Had the Catholic or any other controling religious institution had the final say, we'd still all be herding sheep, paying tithes to priests and fearing the consequences of free thought.
Ah, here's another "fundamentalist," Jerome Murphy-O'Connor, OP, who thinks the Jesus Tomb hubbub is garbage:
http://www.catholicnews.com/data/stories/cns/0701131.htm
"That should tell you, believer or not, all you need to know about the validity of these claims. "
Time will tell. We live in an age of information and the freedom for more than just the chosen few to examine it. The Dead Sea Scrolls managed to be be controlled by the select few for decades and it was politics and career building, not so much examining the implications for the memes accepted by the public and to which they pay mental, emotional and finanacial allegience. Libraries also exist to withhold information from the public depending on who controls the keys.
Would to God Galileo had called a press conference :) Ok, they'd have killed him.
Time will tell.
"Which of course shows that Paul knew nothing special about the physical birth of Jesus or all the miraculous events in his life, birth and death, when it would have been to a huge advantage to him to speak up about it in his writings."
That's an argumentum ex silentio fallacy. His silence doesn't prove ignorance of those things, but can readily be explained by the fact that he had no need to mention them in those letters, which were pastoral in nature and not attempts to write an account of Jesus' life and teachings.
In any case, St. Paul obviously speaks of Jesus as a person who really existed, not a mere myth or an allegory. If there never was such a person, how did St. Paul succeed in duping everyone into believing Jesus existed? (I know you aren't arguing that, Dennis, but "the skeptic" is, and while I disagree with your other points, I'm going to try to stick to the question of Jesus' existence.)
"Time will tell."
Dennis, can't you tell a snake oil salesman when you see one?
I need at least three more fundamentalist websites to prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that there is nothing to this scary historic fake, farce, forgery. Just a few more and I will be proof websited into submission.
I don't care if it's true or not. It's certainly interesting. But the threat to faith is far more obvious than the enjoyment of discovery without mental conditions or expectations as to results.
It's just too early to make sweeping statements about it's truth or fallacy and to attack it because of how the information comes to the public is weak. It's a topic of massive interest and deserves massive coverage. Besides, if it's a farce, or bad science or bad archaeology, it will come out sooner, not later as when kept close to only the chests of a few. I looked at the book but decided to save the $28.00 bucks and read about elsewhere. Besides, peer review fell for Piltdown man and it took 50 years to uncover the lie that a couple guys wanted to build their careers on. A Piltdown news conference would have exposed it sooner and of course, the whole thing was unnecessary as there was ample information yet to be and now discovered to make the point about human origins. I would say as well that disproving man's Garden of Eden origins was equally as raucous as this. Probably more.
An interesting aspect of history is that, depending on a person's assumptions and methodology, it is almost as subject to interpretation as the Bible itself.
Way back when, I had considered HWA to be somewhat of an authority on history simply because he seemed to know about such characters as Simon Magus, and would occasionally quote Velikovsky and Hislop. I later learned that he was totally wrong about Simon Magus, and that Velikovsky and Hislop had been largely discredited. At AC, I actually knew one of the chief researchers who helped produce the alleged history of the COG movement. At that point in time, I had no idea that this "research" was based on massive doses of proof texting, an academic fraud.
On these COG related sites, forums, and blogs, I believe that I am capable of recognizing those who really know what they are talking about regarding history. They seem to know what sources are primary, what sources are tertiary, and can readily quote verifiable and respected historians from the early Christian era, and actually trace the development of a belief. They can often take characters mentioned in the NT, and track them in later secular or church records. Let's face it, as groups, the Jews were the custodians of the pre-Christian era, and the Catholics performed the same function for the post-Christian era. There were also some historians amongst the nations surrounding Israel, or those who had captured Israel during both eras.
Even if one knows how to identify those who are knowledgeable and credible amongst us, and to distinguish them from those who are repeating cliches or simply blowing smoke, there are still numerous conflicts. This produces just enough of a grey area to keep an agnostic agnostic. A person could read the well researched writings of Jared Olar, and begin to contemplate turning himself in to his local diocese. But, then he could read Dr. James Tabor, and feel compelled to go off to synagogue.
Where does that leave us? Are believers simply those who choose one theory or ideology, and then put on their blinders? I resigned myself to the fact that I probably won't get the answers I seek in this lifetime. Upon death, depending on what that is or means, I'll either learn the truth or not. Until then, I find myself frequently asking, "What can I know?", and its corollary, "What can I not know?" I'm just not one who can totally embrace any single ideology without being conflicted.
BB
""Time will tell."
Dennis, can't you tell a snake oil salesman when you see one? "
Evidently not. I was, as were you, part of WCG for a time and you have moved into another "ism" which you should know well will also attract the comment "Jared, can't you recognize a snake oil salesman when you see one." I have chosen to tread water for a time. Time will always tell.
"His doctrines were identical to Jesus'"
Jared Olar said....
How do you know that? Next to nothing is known about the doctrines of Judas of Galilee, assuming he even had any doctrines.
According to Josephus:
"But of the fourth sect of Jewish philosophy, Judas the Galilean was the author. These men agree in all other things with the Pharisaic notions; but they have an inviolable attachment to liberty, and say that God is to be their only Ruler and Lord. They also do not value dying any kinds of death, nor indeed do they heed the deaths of their relations and friends, nor can any such fear make them call any man lord. And since this immovable resolution of theirs is well known to a great many, I shall speak no further about that matter; nor am I afraid that any thing I have said of them should be disbelieved, but rather fear, that what I have said is beneath the resolution they show when they undergo pain. And it was in Gessius Florus's time that the nation began to grow mad with this distemper, who was our procurator, and who occasioned the Jews to go wild with it by the abuse of his authority, and to make them revolt from the Romans. And these are the sects of Jewish philosophy."
[The things above: Christians agreed with the Pharisees about the resurrection (Acts 23:6), "liberty" (Rom. 8:21; John 8:36), "God is their only ruler" (Matt. 4:10), "do not value dying" (Matt. 10:28), "do not heed death of relations" (Matt. 8:22).
Flavius Josephus - Antiquities, Book 18, Chapter 1 part 6.
"Upon death, depending on what that is or means, I'll either learn the truth or not. Until then, I find myself frequently asking, "What can I know?", and its corollary, "What can I not know?" I'm just not one who can totally embrace any single ideology without being conflicted."
I like you Bob! Nice posting and all of what you said is how it is. I have on illusions about my perspective. I don't have a need to believe and have lost my fear of not believing what I simply now find to be unbelievable at face value. While there may be deep, gnostic and allegorical meanings in the Bible, there are also rancourous politics and a people inventing a history for themselves that is less than provable. The NT bases many literal beliefs and deep theology on the mythology of Adam and Eve. I can't accept that at this time. It seem manipulative to an end that favors others and not the believer.
I don't wish to be pulled along by the nose with stories that are not true. When I was a child, I learned real lessons from fairy tales. The lessons and archetypes were real even if the means were not.
When I was a kid, and Presbyterian, the answer to the questions was always "it's an earthly story with a heavenly meaning." It meant the story was not true, but the meaning was. Perhaps or perhaps not depending on the story told, the motive for telling and the audience at which it is aimed.
The meaning behind the story in Acts by Luke about Peter who 'kills' two lying church members is a Peter bash by Luke and Paul who scorn him for doing the same thing to Jesus. We have lost the nuance of church political writings in our time.
Intercalating Peter's story between accounts of Judas betrayals in John was not missed by John's community of believers. Peter was not qualified to lead and John, (I think the disciple who Jesus loved but could be wrong) was.
When three times Peter is mentioned in John, John associates him with Judas and for denying Jesus three times, followed by being forgiven three times and John is shut out, it is politics of the church speaking.
Anyway, I stray. good and practically true post.
Jared,
I will admit that the position that Jesus Christ is a fictional character is a minority position. But I don't agree that it's in the same category as believing in a flat earth. In my mind, it's not the majority position, but it is possible.
I will also admit that there may have been an actual person, possibly even named "Jesus Christ", after whom the myth was patterned. But it's plain that this person did not live the life described in the four gospels.
I realize you're a true believer and I'm not going to convince you. But I do feel compelled to respond to some of your points.
The epistles of Paul (at least the early ones which are believed to really have been written by Paul) were written prior to the four gospels. Paul clearly has not read nor heard about the gospel stories because he speaks solely of a spiritual "Christ" and never of a flesh-and-blood person. In fact, if you read the NT in the order it was written, you'd be shocked at how the four gospels take a whole different direction from the earlier writings, those of Paul.
The anonymous gospel writers are not reporting news but are writing to persuade. They say so themselves. It is clear they combed the OT for any scripture that could possibly be interpreted to be a prophesy of Christ, then wrote their Christ character to fulfill these prophecies. In some cases it's laughable. They were clearly working off the Septuagint, and sometimes they would write their character to fulfill what appeared, in the Septuagint, to say one thing, but in the older Hebrew it really says something different. Hence their perceived need to write Jesus as born of a virgin, as one expample.
Jared, I am not casually dissmissing the writings of Christians from the first century AD. I have done a great deal of study of both sides of the issue since leaving WCG, and it became very clear to me who was twisting facts and logic.
Others have addressed many of the points in your post, and frankly this subject could fill volumes, so I'll stop here. Suffice it to say that I am thoroughly convinced that the bible was written by men not god. Regarding Jesus Christ, I think it probably that he never existed, but it is possible that a real person did exist who was at the root of the myth.
Betty Bible said...
"Now that L. McCulluough and C. Kilouh were seen looking at land in Dallas to buy for a new headquarters and college for the United Church, their members in Texas will likely be excited to have the United HQ in their state."
...And the link/reference/picture/whatever is located where? Who saw them? You?
"Evidently not. I was, as were you, part of WCG for a time and you have moved into another 'ism' which you should know well will also attract the comment 'Jared, can't you recognize a snake oil salesman when you see one.'"
You can't seriously compare upstart johnny-come-lately wheel inventers and publicity hounds to the heaps of serious scholarship produced under the aegis of my other "ism." Sorry, the folks pushing this Jesus Tomb speculation are doing research of a nature and quality comparable to Armstrongist research. They're even peddling it through the mass media and sensationalising it. About the only thing that's missing are the SCREAMING ALL CAPS and underlined words and exclamation points.
"I don't care if it's true or not."
You should. The human mind is meant to grasp and adhere to truth. It's a bad thing when it doesn't.
"It's certainly interesting."
No doubt about that.
"But the threat to faith is far more obvious than the enjoyment of discovery without mental conditions or expectations as to results."
If it's enjoyment of discovery you're after, this Jesus Tomb stunt is going to leave you dissatisfied. About the only thing we'll discover from this is that you can make a case for almost any proposition as long as you disregard or suppress evidence that contradicts the proposition. But we already knew that.
"Besides, if it's a farce, or bad science or bad archaeology, it will come out sooner, not later as when kept close to only the chests of a few."
That's the thing -- it's already come out, before the show even aired. Jacobovici knew the 10th ossuary wasn't missing and had no inscription, but he still said it could be the James Ossuary. The statistical argument has been shredded and the DNA argument has been debunked. It's snake oil.
"The things above: Christians agreed with the Pharisees about the resurrection (Acts 23:6), 'liberty' (Rom. 8:21; John 8:36), 'God is their only ruler' (Matt. 4:10), 'do not value dying' (Matt. 10:28), 'do not heed death of relations' (Matt. 8:22)."
Well, that's not very many specifics about the Zealot creed, and it tells us what the Zealots of 70 A.D. believed, while leaving unanswered the question of what Judas of Galilee believed. In any case, how do we reconcile, "Love your enemies, turn the other cheek," etc., with the Zealot doctrine of "Hate your enemies, slaughter the pagans, turn their cheeks into raw hamburger"?
"But I don't agree that it's in the same category as believing in a flat earth. In my mind, it's not the majority position, but it is possible."
Well, it's possible the earth is flat, but it's foolish to argue in favor of a flat earth.
"I will also admit that there may have been an actual person, possibly even named 'Jesus Christ', after whom the myth was patterned."
That's very generous of you. :-D
"I realize you're a true believer and I'm not going to convince you."
And I realise you're a true unbeliever and I'm not going to convince you either.
"The epistles of Paul (at least the early ones which are believed to really have been written by Paul) were written prior to the four gospels."
Depends on when the Gospels and epistles of Paul were written. Unfortunately they don't have dates on them, so all we can do is hypothesise (guess, using reason preferably).
"Paul clearly has not read nor heard about the gospel stories because he speaks solely of a spiritual "Christ" and never of a flesh-and-blood person."
Incorrect. As I already pointed out, he talks about someone who was born of a woman, who was a Jewish man, a member of the tribe of David, who was crucified under Pontius Pilate, who taught things to His disciples. Those are things that flesh-and-blood persons do, not merely "spiritual" entities. St. Paul refers to Jesus' body and blood several times. To St. Paul, Jesus was a real person, someone with flesh and blood and a mind, someone who was born and who died like the rest of us.
"In fact, if you read the NT in the order it was written, you'd be shocked at how the four gospels take a whole different direction from the earlier writings, those of Paul."
But a lot of others don't find this conflict that you do.
"The anonymous gospel writers are not reporting news but are writing to persuade. They say so themselves."
Ah, but the author of St. Luke's Gospel also says he carefully inquired into the matters of which he wrote, and the author of St. John's Gospel insists repeatedly that he was an eyewitness. They obviously weren't just "reporting news," but it's a false dichotomy to oppose "writing to persuade" to "faithfully recording what one has seen and heard, to best of one's ability." It's possible to do both.
You got the last word on me, Jared. Congrats.
To Andy Nonymous:
Thou desirest chapter and verse? O thou of little faith! Thou will learn: When Betty Bible speaks, the people will harken!
Andy (and Gavin), remember my words:
Now that L. McCulluough and C. Kilouh were seen looking at land in Dallas to buy for a new headquarters and college for the United Church, their members in Texas will likely be excited to have the United HQ in their state.
Thanks for the tip-off Betty, but any repeat posting of this item here will now count as spam and be deleted. If you have some new info then that's different.
Can I suggest that your item would be a bit more credible if you at least spelled the names - Kilough and McCullough - correctly.
Gavin,
Apparently you question my credibility. I won't leave any more comments on the matter, since the future will show who the credible one really was. Will it be me, you or Andy?
On the Discovery Channel is also Myth Busters.
Could we have an episode of Myth Busters where Jesus' Ossuary is dropped from a 50 foot crane and see if it survives?
Or some variation of Myth Busters.
Betty Babble, it is not only a shame for a woman to yap away in church, it is also a shame for a woman to gossip away on blogs.
Scientific American's weblog weighs in on this trainwreck of biblical archaeology:
http://blog.sciam.com/index.php?title=says_scholar_whose_work_was_used_in_the_&more=1&c=1&tb=1&pb=1
"You can't seriously compare upstart johnny-come-lately wheel inventers and publicity hounds to the heaps of serious scholarship produced under the aegis of my other "ism." Sorry, the folks pushing this Jesus Tomb speculation are doing research of a nature and quality comparable to Armstrongist research." Jared
I was referring to your personal comment on my not being able to recognize a snake oil salesman. I picked up a copy of of The Jesus Family Tomb to see if it was worth the 30 bucks and didn't find it so interesting. If the James Ossuary is fake then this "amazing discovery" is going to have a tough go. Of course I care if it is true or not actually. In the long term, it matters not what I personally think as these things tend to play themselves out. I just find it interesting that those who just can't have be so w, within days, jump into all kinds of defensive and just knowing it's not true modes.
I guess I will always be fascinated how you can rant on "Armstrongists" and all it's one man, scandal ridden, pastoral abuse, history twisting, nothing as it appears to be history and defend, as a "Papist" all the same traits over millenia and not just decades. I don't judge it, I just find it fascinating. Snake oil comes in different sizes and bigger does not mean more correct anymore than smaller remnant types would be more correct. Each to their own is fine.
Humans were meant to find truth, but at the moment I can totally identify with the pathos Herod seems to have felt when he uttered "what is truth?"
I guess it just seems like going from WCG to RCC is like going from ordering small fries to a large. Just more grease and salt.
Well, I guess I just like my religions to be as big and nasty as possible. Nobody can rival the Catholic Church when it comes to scandal and sin and abuse, though everyone is always trying to. There's just no need to look for all those small-scale, fake-imitation scandals and offenses of pipsqueak upstart sects when the Catholic Church has already got scandal patented and trademarked. I like my sin to have a real, bona fide historical pedigree, not a fake one tracing back to Tea Tephi or to the children of Jesus and Mary Magdalene.
P.S. You meant Pilate, of course.
Post a Comment