Tomb of Jesus Discovered?
Tomb of Jesus Discovered?
A bit better report, before the Titanic director got involved with it:
Link
Hm, some articles say bones were found and genetic tests were done -- I have a lot of questions, however:
1) First, tell me everything the bones can tell us -- when did these people die? What are their respective ages? What were their genetic relationships? (Can this be dulpliaced by other labs in anonymous, double-blind tests?) What was their health like? What did they eat? What sort of work did they do? How well-off were they? What illnesses did they have? How many children did the women have? Do their remains tell what they died of?
2) Go over the archaeology of the site carefully and sort out what it can tell us -- when were these people buried? What funerary context was used? How long was the tomb used and by who? Was it ever re-used or looted? What can the ossuaries, themselves, tell us? What do paleographers make of any writing in the tomb? (This is a way to double-check the dates.) Are there any decorations or art or grave goods? How were the tomb and the ossuaries made? Do they all belong to that tomb?
3) The history of Jesus' family and the earliest leadership of Christianity is a difficult and shadowy subject that few scholars have worked on because it is full of single-source accounts with pious motives and legendary-sounding narratives (i.e. the great-nephews of Jesus being personally interviewed by the emperor. ) If the information from this area of study doesn't match the tomb then it shouldn't be canted to fit.
As a general caution, it's much easier to track and identify famous people in the past. If someone claimed to find the mummy of Alexander the Great we have several sources to check about how and where he was buried -- and even portraits to check his likeness against. There was no standard ID in Antiquity, no office of vital statistics -- so someone who was not frequently mentioned in writing or art (the only mass media of the day) has less and less chance of being unmistakably identified by archaeologists. Jesus was not famous in his lifetime: the earliest reports we have of him say little about his life and were by a man who never met him (Paul). Jesus didn't know a lot of literate people, and no one tried to make portrait of him until long after he was gone, and we don't know who his blood kin are now (besides, we'd need a nice stable isolated population) ... no one could possibly prove anything more than a date and a constelation of relationships, names (very common ones!), and ages. There's no way to be certain -- and I can't think of a single source (Pagan, Christian, Heretical , or Orthodox) over 400 years that claims Jesus had any children by anyone: that fact speaks against this discovery. (The fact that it's being used to sell stuff doesn't help, either...)
What do you think?
-Kushana
Edited by Prim to condense long URL, 8:58 PST 26 Feb 2007
Link
Hm, some articles say bones were found and genetic tests were done -- I have a lot of questions, however:
1) First, tell me everything the bones can tell us -- when did these people die? What are their respective ages? What were their genetic relationships? (Can this be dulpliaced by other labs in anonymous, double-blind tests?) What was their health like? What did they eat? What sort of work did they do? How well-off were they? What illnesses did they have? How many children did the women have? Do their remains tell what they died of?
2) Go over the archaeology of the site carefully and sort out what it can tell us -- when were these people buried? What funerary context was used? How long was the tomb used and by who? Was it ever re-used or looted? What can the ossuaries, themselves, tell us? What do paleographers make of any writing in the tomb? (This is a way to double-check the dates.) Are there any decorations or art or grave goods? How were the tomb and the ossuaries made? Do they all belong to that tomb?
3) The history of Jesus' family and the earliest leadership of Christianity is a difficult and shadowy subject that few scholars have worked on because it is full of single-source accounts with pious motives and legendary-sounding narratives (i.e. the great-nephews of Jesus being personally interviewed by the emperor. ) If the information from this area of study doesn't match the tomb then it shouldn't be canted to fit.
As a general caution, it's much easier to track and identify famous people in the past. If someone claimed to find the mummy of Alexander the Great we have several sources to check about how and where he was buried -- and even portraits to check his likeness against. There was no standard ID in Antiquity, no office of vital statistics -- so someone who was not frequently mentioned in writing or art (the only mass media of the day) has less and less chance of being unmistakably identified by archaeologists. Jesus was not famous in his lifetime: the earliest reports we have of him say little about his life and were by a man who never met him (Paul). Jesus didn't know a lot of literate people, and no one tried to make portrait of him until long after he was gone, and we don't know who his blood kin are now (besides, we'd need a nice stable isolated population) ... no one could possibly prove anything more than a date and a constelation of relationships, names (very common ones!), and ages. There's no way to be certain -- and I can't think of a single source (Pagan, Christian, Heretical , or Orthodox) over 400 years that claims Jesus had any children by anyone: that fact speaks against this discovery. (The fact that it's being used to sell stuff doesn't help, either...)
What do you think?
-Kushana
Edited by Prim to condense long URL, 8:58 PST 26 Feb 2007
- Impenitent
- Throw me a rope.
- Posts: 7261
- Joined: Fri Dec 02, 2005 12:13 am
- Location: Deep in Oz
I think that the DNA evidence may indeed indicate that Jesus son of Joseph had a child named Judah by a woman named Mary, and that other blood kin named Maria, Joseph and Matthew were all entombed with them, but it cannot possibly prove that this particular Jesus son of Joseph was THE Jesus son of Joseph, even if all the dates work.
The final connection is speculative.
The final connection is speculative.
- Voronwë the Faithful
- At the intersection of here and now
- Posts: 46171
- Joined: Mon Nov 21, 2005 1:41 am
- Contact:
Thanks for sharing that, Kushana. At the very least, it is interesting; though needless to say I am more then a little skeptical.
"Spirits in the shape of hawks and eagles flew ever to and from his halls; and their eyes could see to the depths of the seas, and pierce the hidden caverns beneath the world."
I thought there wasn't even an agreement on what the Hebrew name of Jesus was in the first place? At least I came upon a heated debate on the subject by people who sounded informed, so I assumed there was a legitimate question.
If there was anything that depressed him more than his own cynicism, it was that quite often it still wasn't as cynical as real life.
Terry Pratchett, Guards! Guards!
Terry Pratchett, Guards! Guards!
- Primula Baggins
- Living in hope
- Posts: 40005
- Joined: Mon Nov 21, 2005 1:43 am
- Location: Sailing the luminiferous aether
- Contact:
(Done, Ax.)
I tend to feel grumpy about things like this—"finds" that are really unlikely ever to provide convincing evidence of anything, but are trotted out anyway for the sensational press coverage (and partly, I suspect, for the amusement value of riling people).
I can't really imagine what kind of physical evidence from so long ago could cause someone to abandon their faith or, for that matter, would convince someone who does not believe to begin doing so. I don't think conclusive evidence either way is even possible.
I tend to feel grumpy about things like this—"finds" that are really unlikely ever to provide convincing evidence of anything, but are trotted out anyway for the sensational press coverage (and partly, I suspect, for the amusement value of riling people).
I can't really imagine what kind of physical evidence from so long ago could cause someone to abandon their faith or, for that matter, would convince someone who does not believe to begin doing so. I don't think conclusive evidence either way is even possible.
“There, peeping among the cloud-wrack above a dark tor high up in the mountains, Sam saw a white star twinkle for a while. The beauty of it smote his heart, as he looked up out of the forsaken land, and hope returned to him. For like a shaft, clear and cold, the thought pierced him that in the end the Shadow was only a small and passing thing: there was light and high beauty for ever beyond its reach.”
― J.R.R. Tolkien, The Return of the King
― J.R.R. Tolkien, The Return of the King
By the same token Prim, I approve of people being given the evidence and the chance to form their own opinions. I would be a lot less happy if I felt that these "discoveries" were hidden, suppressed or brushed under the carpet simply because they contradict an ancient text, or challenge the accepted truth.
The Vinyamars on Stage! This time at Bag End
- axordil
- Pleasantly Twisted
- Posts: 8999
- Joined: Tue Apr 18, 2006 7:35 pm
- Location: Black Creek Bottoms
- Contact:
Griff--
Got one, but IBM kinda likes me using theirs instead at work.
All--
There's a fine line in this field in particular between publicizing a potential find and turning it into spectacle, which tends to get in the way of any actual science (and perhaps actual faith). Where that line is in this particular case I don't know, but I'm pretty sure that Cameron's presence crossed it.
Got one, but IBM kinda likes me using theirs instead at work.
All--
There's a fine line in this field in particular between publicizing a potential find and turning it into spectacle, which tends to get in the way of any actual science (and perhaps actual faith). Where that line is in this particular case I don't know, but I'm pretty sure that Cameron's presence crossed it.
axordil wrote:There's a fine line in this field in particular between publicizing a potential find and turning it into spectacle, which tends to get in the way of any actual science (and perhaps actual faith). Where that line is in this particular case I don't know, but I'm pretty sure that Cameron's presence crossed it.
Quite.
Otherwise, what Prim said.
And what would we do without Kushana?
"Frodo undertook his quest out of love - to save the world he knew from disaster at his own expense, if he could ... "
Letter no. 246, The Collected Letters of J.R.R. Tolkien
Avatar by goldlighticons on Live Journal
Letter no. 246, The Collected Letters of J.R.R. Tolkien
Avatar by goldlighticons on Live Journal
- Primula Baggins
- Living in hope
- Posts: 40005
- Joined: Mon Nov 21, 2005 1:43 am
- Location: Sailing the luminiferous aether
- Contact:
I wasn't suggesting that the discovery, or any discovery, should be suppressed. I would never say such a thing. Especially if it's a discovery that genuinely challenges an accepted truth. Those need to be studied, not buried.Alatar wrote:By the same token Prim, I approve of people being given the evidence and the chance to form their own opinions. I would be a lot less happy if I felt that these "discoveries" were hidden, suppressed or brushed under the carpet simply because they contradict an ancient text, or challenge the accepted truth.
But as Ax points out, there's a difference between getting the information out in a scholarly way so it can be assessed, discussed, and studied by experts, and making a big splash in the media so you can sell something. The latter can definitely get in the way of the former.
The splash in the media in this case was probably inevitable, but certainly Cameron and the Discovery Channel are eager to help however they can.
Edit: I agree, Di—we are very lucky to have Kushana's perspective on things like this!
“There, peeping among the cloud-wrack above a dark tor high up in the mountains, Sam saw a white star twinkle for a while. The beauty of it smote his heart, as he looked up out of the forsaken land, and hope returned to him. For like a shaft, clear and cold, the thought pierced him that in the end the Shadow was only a small and passing thing: there was light and high beauty for ever beyond its reach.”
― J.R.R. Tolkien, The Return of the King
― J.R.R. Tolkien, The Return of the King
- Primula Baggins
- Living in hope
- Posts: 40005
- Joined: Mon Nov 21, 2005 1:43 am
- Location: Sailing the luminiferous aether
- Contact:
The find was actually made in 1980, Frelga. But now there is a big special coming up on the Discovery Channel next week. It was produced by James Cameron (Titanic). From what I've read, the only reason a fuss is being made right now is to publicize the documentary. They don't claim to have any new information.
I've read that it's very unlikely, even impossible, that a family from Nazareth would be buried in Jerusalem, because it took much more than 24 hours to get from Nazareth to Jerusalem, and Jewish custom is to bury the dead within that period of time. Also, the family would not have been able to care for the tomb.
It isn't even necessarily true that the grouping of ossuaries was a family; it could have been a mostly unrelated group of people from the same neighborhood.
I've read that it's very unlikely, even impossible, that a family from Nazareth would be buried in Jerusalem, because it took much more than 24 hours to get from Nazareth to Jerusalem, and Jewish custom is to bury the dead within that period of time. Also, the family would not have been able to care for the tomb.
It isn't even necessarily true that the grouping of ossuaries was a family; it could have been a mostly unrelated group of people from the same neighborhood.
“There, peeping among the cloud-wrack above a dark tor high up in the mountains, Sam saw a white star twinkle for a while. The beauty of it smote his heart, as he looked up out of the forsaken land, and hope returned to him. For like a shaft, clear and cold, the thought pierced him that in the end the Shadow was only a small and passing thing: there was light and high beauty for ever beyond its reach.”
― J.R.R. Tolkien, The Return of the King
― J.R.R. Tolkien, The Return of the King
Wasn't there even an action-adventure movie made already years ago with this discovery as its basis? I saw the advertisements for the documentary and thought I was having deja vu. But it's not a new discovery (per Prim), right? It's the old discovery repackaged?
Like that find of the ossuary box with the name of James and Jesus on it, nu - in what neighborhood of Judea would you not find people named after Jacob, Miriam and Joshua?
2000 years from now, someone is going to discover a cemetery plot with a a Joseph Smith buried in it and we'll be off and running again.
Jn
p.s. I love it when Kushana stops by!
Like that find of the ossuary box with the name of James and Jesus on it, nu - in what neighborhood of Judea would you not find people named after Jacob, Miriam and Joshua?
2000 years from now, someone is going to discover a cemetery plot with a a Joseph Smith buried in it and we'll be off and running again.
Jn
p.s. I love it when Kushana stops by!
A fool's paradise is a wise man's hell.
I agree with Axordil.
That's all an education is (well, mixed with some writing, a lot of irritable feedback (at least in my case), and a few photos of ancient manuscripts accompanied by German-schooled professors who barked, "Kushana, read and translate the next line, please! Parse the verb, first!") but Pagels taught herself Coptic -- my own Coptic (and Classical Greek) professors taught themselves their languages ... so it really just comes down to reading, with a bit of sifting for kooks.
(Although I still have a hobby of reading kooks when I can. )
Yours,
Kushana
P.S. Griffon64 -- cute cat!
Reading, lots of reading.Pearly Di wrote:And what would we do without Kushana?
That's all an education is (well, mixed with some writing, a lot of irritable feedback (at least in my case), and a few photos of ancient manuscripts accompanied by German-schooled professors who barked, "Kushana, read and translate the next line, please! Parse the verb, first!") but Pagels taught herself Coptic -- my own Coptic (and Classical Greek) professors taught themselves their languages ... so it really just comes down to reading, with a bit of sifting for kooks.
(Although I still have a hobby of reading kooks when I can. )
Yours,
Kushana
P.S. Griffon64 -- cute cat!
Not really, it's a nice Hebrew Bible name, "Joshua", and a very common one at the time (and since). Many names had some wobble when written in Hebrew vs Aramaic or Greek, and many names had diminutive nicknames with some spelling variation ... and there wasn't any standard spelling in any language at the time. In texts by or about Christianity (or its founder) "Jesus" is usually accompanied by "Christ" or "Lord" or some mark (like a line over the top of the name in Coptic) that means its a divine name. The ossuaries of important people usually have their titles ... and even the leader of a short-lived rebellion against the Romans (which had messianic overtones) was known by a special title, along with his very common given name, Simeon. (I don't think we've found his ossuary... leading a rebellion against the Romans wasn't a good way to get one. Dead, yes -- proper funerary rites for the next year, less likely.)Frelga wrote:I thought there wasn't even an agreement on what the Hebrew name of Jesus was in the first place?
From the Roman point of view, Jesus was a leading a political revolution. (Read Josephus to get a sense of why they thought that...)
I have seen some Islamic folk and some fringe-Christian groups (i.e. Aramaic New Testament kooks... and some Dead Sea Scroll kooks) and various conspiracy theorist-types argue that this or that form of the name Jesus is central to some arguement of theirs about their religion.
Yours,
Kushana