Missing the Cemetery for the Tombs
Days since I have been accused of slander: 2.
Days since the Talpiot Tomb could be considered meaningful to early Christianity: 4018.
The way one considers the evidence (read: name cluster) of the Talpiot Tomb is the source of dispute. For some, evidence counts for the re-working (I won't say disproving) of the Jesus narrative. For others, the Jesus narrative itself is distanced from this tomb because of some of its factors.
First, let me consider Prof. Tabor's blog from today.
1. Prof. Tabor quotes a friend of his, David, who highlights the rarity of name clusters. This, of course, is the point of debate. David uses his own family as an example of rare name clusters. This, of course, is a red-herring as the probability of the names he cites are far rarer than the Jesus tomb clusters. (I am sure that Aaron son of Ellard, Brother of Tim, Brother of Paul is pretty rare. Maybe the only one in Canada. But this doesn't show the probability of the Jesus Tomb name cluster.) Prof. Tabor also uses his own family as name cluster--again making the same error as his friend David. Name clusters are fascinating and worth comparing. But one cannot move between 20th c. names and 1st c. names to make the point.
2. Prof. Tabor says that the statistician did not use "Mariamenou [he] Mara" as being Mary Magdalene. This is correct. However, Andrey Feuerverger says that he assumed that "`Marianemou e Mara' is a singularly highly appropriate appellation for Mary Magdalene." That a name is highly appropriate is not the same as saying it is the person. It does, however, skew probability, making the name "more probable" to be connected with Jesus of Nazareth because of what we know about their relationship. The assumption that this was appropriate for Mary Magdalene had connections with the Acts of Philip, which is not an historical document, and which Randy Ingermanson points out actually makes Mary Magdalene and Mary of Bethany the same person. Strange to apply this assumption to the probability, then. What makes it even stranger still is that Richard Bauckham has suggested this isn't even the same name as in the Acts of Philip. The probability therefore *increases* for connecting a Mary with a Jesus son of Joseph (still a question worth considering). Now that that's cleared up...
3. Prof. Tabor uses the familial inscription on the James ossuary to bolster the case. But this is misleading. First, it has not been demonstrated, as Prof Tabor points out, that the James Ossuary has not been demonstrated to have been found in the Talpiot tomb. Second, part of the reason the James ossuary is of importance is the inscription "James son of Joseph brother of Jesus." It is extremely rare to have inscriptions of "brother" on ossuaries unless the brother is exceedingly famous, which, of course, Jesus of Nazareth came to be. This evidence does not, however, add to the name cluster in the tomb for it being Jesus of Nazareth, partially b/c the Jude ossuary does not have this inscription (being Jesus' brother). We have a Jude ossuary found in the same tomb as a Jesus son of Joseph ossuary. (Important: One wonders why James, who was better known in the 1st c. early church would have the inscription "brother of Jesus" while Jude, who was not as well known and would have needed the added information for identity, would not. One could argue that by being buried in the same tomb that the connection would be made for its discoverers, but then one suspects that the James ossuary would not have been found in the Jesus tomb [why the added info if he's in Jesus of Nazareth's tomb?], or that his ossuary was at least moved there. But if it was moved there and the Jesus of Nazareth tomb was well known enough to be found years later, then the rise of early Christianity, especially in Jerusalem and its Jewish roots, makes no sense.)
Second, Randy Ingermanson also points out that the discovery the Judah son of Jesus actually points against it being Jesus of Nazareth for reasons I've talked about on this blog before. Why would no historical sources record such a son? There are no historical, theological, or personal reasons this would have happened, that I can think of, at least. Indeed, such a son would have been pivotal in a Jesus movement after his death. This fact does not count as evidence for it being Jesus of Nazareth. It is, at best, a fact to be interpreted after one decides it is Jesus of Nazareth.
Days since the Talpiot Tomb could be considered meaningful to early Christianity: 4018.
The way one considers the evidence (read: name cluster) of the Talpiot Tomb is the source of dispute. For some, evidence counts for the re-working (I won't say disproving) of the Jesus narrative. For others, the Jesus narrative itself is distanced from this tomb because of some of its factors.
First, let me consider Prof. Tabor's blog from today.
1. Prof. Tabor quotes a friend of his, David, who highlights the rarity of name clusters. This, of course, is the point of debate. David uses his own family as an example of rare name clusters. This, of course, is a red-herring as the probability of the names he cites are far rarer than the Jesus tomb clusters. (I am sure that Aaron son of Ellard, Brother of Tim, Brother of Paul is pretty rare. Maybe the only one in Canada. But this doesn't show the probability of the Jesus Tomb name cluster.) Prof. Tabor also uses his own family as name cluster--again making the same error as his friend David. Name clusters are fascinating and worth comparing. But one cannot move between 20th c. names and 1st c. names to make the point.
2. Prof. Tabor says that the statistician did not use "Mariamenou [he] Mara" as being Mary Magdalene. This is correct. However, Andrey Feuerverger says that he assumed that "`Marianemou e Mara' is a singularly highly appropriate appellation for Mary Magdalene." That a name is highly appropriate is not the same as saying it is the person. It does, however, skew probability, making the name "more probable" to be connected with Jesus of Nazareth because of what we know about their relationship. The assumption that this was appropriate for Mary Magdalene had connections with the Acts of Philip, which is not an historical document, and which Randy Ingermanson points out actually makes Mary Magdalene and Mary of Bethany the same person. Strange to apply this assumption to the probability, then. What makes it even stranger still is that Richard Bauckham has suggested this isn't even the same name as in the Acts of Philip. The probability therefore *increases* for connecting a Mary with a Jesus son of Joseph (still a question worth considering). Now that that's cleared up...
3. Prof. Tabor uses the familial inscription on the James ossuary to bolster the case. But this is misleading. First, it has not been demonstrated, as Prof Tabor points out, that the James Ossuary has not been demonstrated to have been found in the Talpiot tomb. Second, part of the reason the James ossuary is of importance is the inscription "James son of Joseph brother of Jesus." It is extremely rare to have inscriptions of "brother" on ossuaries unless the brother is exceedingly famous, which, of course, Jesus of Nazareth came to be. This evidence does not, however, add to the name cluster in the tomb for it being Jesus of Nazareth, partially b/c the Jude ossuary does not have this inscription (being Jesus' brother). We have a Jude ossuary found in the same tomb as a Jesus son of Joseph ossuary. (Important: One wonders why James, who was better known in the 1st c. early church would have the inscription "brother of Jesus" while Jude, who was not as well known and would have needed the added information for identity, would not. One could argue that by being buried in the same tomb that the connection would be made for its discoverers, but then one suspects that the James ossuary would not have been found in the Jesus tomb [why the added info if he's in Jesus of Nazareth's tomb?], or that his ossuary was at least moved there. But if it was moved there and the Jesus of Nazareth tomb was well known enough to be found years later, then the rise of early Christianity, especially in Jerusalem and its Jewish roots, makes no sense.)
Second, Randy Ingermanson also points out that the discovery the Judah son of Jesus actually points against it being Jesus of Nazareth for reasons I've talked about on this blog before. Why would no historical sources record such a son? There are no historical, theological, or personal reasons this would have happened, that I can think of, at least. Indeed, such a son would have been pivotal in a Jesus movement after his death. This fact does not count as evidence for it being Jesus of Nazareth. It is, at best, a fact to be interpreted after one decides it is Jesus of Nazareth.
Labels: Jesus Tomb
posted by Aaron Perry at
8:56 AM
3 Comments:
Hey AP,
RE: Why would no historical sources record such a son?
IF you read the Dead Sea Scrolls, you'll notice the obsessive effort to avoid any literal names. They were enemies of the Roman invaders and the Roman installed priesthood and leadership and they were secretive in the effort to avoid torture and death. Perhaps history does record a son, but people expecting a literal document are barking up the wrong tree. It's important to notice that the Essene/Nazarenes and their ancestors used symbolism and symbology to seal (encode) important knowledge from Greco-Roman (gog and magog) invaders.
Notice that Ya(e?)shua/Joshua (the true common names) do not contain the ending s, as in Jesus and Judas. Consequently, the name Yahuda/Judah was also probably interpolated (transliterated) as Judas, making the stories of Judas and the recent Gospel of Judas discovery much more interesting than before.
You forget the New Testament was authorized by Rome. The recent "gospel" of Judas shines a completely different light on this whole discussion. We have already seen that the books excluded from the New Testament and violently opposed by Rome provide many stunning insights, like containing the actual name and status of "Mary" the "Master" (teacher) found in this tomb. Where did the name Mary Magdalene come from? It certainly wasn't from locals to ancient Israel/Judea! How many more archeological discoveries are necessary before Christians open their eyes to the truth that they have long been deceived (blinded) by Rome's strong lies and strong delusions?
Read More ...
Here is Wisdom !!
hi seven star hand,
i actually have read most of the dead sea scrolls...in the OT. the qumran sect was separate for many reasons, holiness being more important than fear in their separateness. not sure why not having literal names is important to you here.
re: Judah and Judas. red-herring and obviously so. why would i assume, as no one else has done and as is not in the document itself, that the pseudopygraphical work, The Gospel of Judas, is actually of a son when all signs point to the disciple? (and if the point is so easily made by you, why would this have been a sly cover-up? methinks it wouldn't have been--and it wasn't.) (Your use of Hebrew only serves to give an impression of insight that is pretty easily seen through.)
re: authorizing of NT by Rome. the scrolls buried in the sand (literally) simply are not ones that ROme, in her wisdom, would have destroyed. books that intermingled Jewish Chrisianity with foreign religions were the ones that would keep a physical king in place if a spiritual kingdom was all one could expect. a resurrected messiah, which the opposed documents do not include, is much more threatening to Rome. i have no idea what you're talking about re: mary magdalene not from israel or judea. magdala is about 10 miles from nazareth. seems easy enough to see where the name comes from. Rome wasn't the point of forming a canon, Dan Brow..., i mean seven star hand. those who formed the canon holding to the it before Constantine was won over, and suffered for it.
I won't get in this fight, but I will hold your coat AP. :o)
John
Post a Comment
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
<< Home