Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 79 (8965 total)
32 online now:
frako, GDR, PaulK (3 members, 29 visitors)
Newest Member: javier martinez
Post Volume: Total: 873,225 Year: 4,973/23,288 Month: 94/1,784 Week: 192/353 Day: 1/32 Hour: 0/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Science proves that the tomb of Jesus (Christ ?)and James the Just have been found.
LamarkNewAge
Member
Posts: 1660
Joined: 12-22-2015
Member Rating: 1.7


Message 1 of 114 (797195)
01-13-2017 4:29 PM


James Tabor has a good site but his great articles delete after they go beyond the bottom of his page 10. This jewel of an article is about to vanish. "Ben Witherington on the James Ossuary and the Talpiot “Jesus” Tomb" from May of 2015.

In the (soon to vanish)article,Tabor makes the point that the leading fundamentalist scholar Ben Witherington has clearly stated that the James Ossuary indeed is actually the ossuary of the James of Acts 15. Yes James and his coffin have been discovered! (I'll get to the disagreement later)

quote:

Ben Witherington1 has a new blog post titled “Once More with Feeling: Did the James Ossuary come out of the Talpiot Tomb?” in response to Sunday’s NYTimes story on the recently concluded chemical tests carried out on the controversial “James son of Joseph, brother of Jesus” ossuary and several dozen other randomly selected 1st century Jerusalem ossuaries, including those in the Talpiot “Jesus son of Joseph” tomb
....
Ben is a friend, he even grew up in Charlotte ....For Ben there can be no tomb holding the bones of Jesus–much less his family–since he was taken bodily (bones and all) to heaven 40 days after the resurrection of his physical body–leaving behind his empty tomb.
....
We do agree on one thing–the authenticity of the inscription of the James ossuary and its very likely connection, not just to “any Jesus” of the 1st century, but to Jesus of Nazareth, see my post here [ https://jamestabor.com/...james-ossuary-and-the-talpiot-tomb ]. In fact, with co-author Hershel Shanks, editor of Biblical Archaeology Review, Ben “wrote the book” on the James ossuary, namely The Brother of Jesus: The Dramatic Story & Meaning of the First Archaeological Link to Jesus & His Family back in 2003, shortly after the public debut of the ossuary. It remains, in my view, the “gold standard” among the many subsequent books that have come out.

The line of demarcation is whether it belongs to the Talpiot Tomb which has a Jesus and Mary and Joseph present as well. Witherington says it does not belong there.

That sets up the presentation of the scientific evidence. But first Tabor responds to Witherington's blog post.

quote:

Witherington begins by questioning whether Dr. Aryeh Shimron, whose expertise is in ancient “plaster,” is qualified to do the kinds of chemical and soil analysis these tests involve. Dr. Shimron’s broad qualifications and distinguished career in the field of geo-archaeology is well known in his field so there is no need for further comment.2 He then laments that Ammon Rosenfeld, who worked with Shimron for the Geological Survey of Israel is no longer with us, since he would be able to comment on Shimron’s latest work. Dr. Rosenfeld, whom I knew well, died tragically in a car accident last July. What Witherington apparently does not know or recall is that Rosenfeld firmly believed that the James ossuary came from the Talpiot tomb simply based on patina tests. He was the lead author of a paper “The Connection of the James Ossuary to the Talpiot Tomb,” available on-line here. [http://bibleinterp.com/PDFs/JOTalpiot3.pdf]


The scientific evidence on the patina is an older issue. It was part of a courtroom drama in Israel which ended favorably for those arguing that the inscription was indeed authentically about 2000 years old.

The newer issue is the soil analysis and the test done which reveal the chemical composition.

quote:

The Earthquake and East Talpiot. Dr. Shimron first got his idea for these chemical ossuary tests in 2008 at the Princeton sponsored “Jerusalem Symposium on the Talpiot Jesus tomb” organized by James Charlesworth. The papers from this conference are now published in a marvelous 585 page volume, James H. Charlesworth, ed., The Tomb of Jesus and His Family? (Eerdmans, 2013), that explores the Talpiot “Jesus” tomb and related issues from all viewpoints.

I happened to be sitting next to Shimron as Shimon Gibson was presenting his paper, pointing out that the blocking stone of the Talpiot tomb had apparently been missing long before 1980 when the tomb was discovered by the building blast–so the tomb was left open for an extended time and had filled up with soil–covering even the tops of the ossuaries in the inner tomb. Shimron immediately had the idea that deeply scraped samples, below the surface patina, from the bottom and inside of the Talpiot tomb ossuaries, would provide a chemical signature based on the soil absorbed by the porous limestone over the centuries, that could then be used for comparison with other ossuaries–including that of James–to possibly determine provenance. It was a hypothesis at this stage, but one that could be tested.

Shimron thought that the patina comparisons of the James ossuary and those in the Talpiot tomb were important but not wholly definitive–even though they had already pointed in the direction of a connection between the James and Jesus ossuaries. These tests were done by Pellegrino in 2007 (published in the Charlesworth volume) and supplemented with further testing and analysis in 2014 by the late Amnon Rosenfeld (with Krumbein, Pelligrino, Feldman) in an article titled “The Connection of the James Ossuary to the Talpiot Tomb,” that I cited above.

Shimron was particularly intrigued the the question of how and when the Talpiot tomb had had its blocking stone dislodged, and filled with soil. I suggested that he take a look at British and PEF aerial photographs of the East Talpiot area when it was bare without any buildings and see if he could learn anything. He followed up on that and discovered clear evidence of tectonic slides specifically at the Armon Hanatziv ridge, where the Jesus tomb is located. He presented his thesis at the Bar Ilan University conference “New Studies on Jerusalem,” arguing that the phenomenon was related to the 363 C.E. earthquake that devastated Jerusalem and the wider region. His presentation was well received and the resulting paper, co-written with Moshe Shirav, “The Armon Hanatziv Tectonic Slide and Some Archaeological Implications,” is now published and is available for download here. I find it quite persuasive and I know Ben will want to carefully read it.


This 363 earthquake is actually a quake that stopped Julian the Apostate from rebuilding the Temple of Jerusalem for the Jews. He allowed Jews to return to Jerusalem and he sent in workers to conduct an underground survey as past of the rebuilding project. An explosion from the earthquake scared off the surveyors and they never got around to the project as Julian died soon after. Jews were expelled after Julian died. The gentile Christian members of the imperial church saw the earthquake as something God sent to stifle his enemies (the Jews). It actually could be part of what might be something of a modern earthquake of evidence (for those with ears to hear this blacked-out story) that Tabor keeps bringing us. Maybe those evil Jews weren't hated by God. Catholics and Protestants might be forced to reappraise their historical attribution of natural disasters to God and his "hatred of Jews" perhaps?

Here is the link to the scientific study
https://www.researchgate.net/..._Archaeological_Implications

Tabor continues to quote Witherington

quote:

The Talpiot Tomb Soil Fill in East Talpiot. Ben is mistaken about the soil of East Talpiot being the same as soil through the Jerusalem area. He wrote me an e-mail immediately this past Sunday morning after reading the NYTimes piece:

[Witherington said]
["]There is no such thing as a chemical fingerprint as is suggested in the report. There might well be many ossuaries from many places around Jerusalem that ended up in caves which would test out with a similar chemical residue. Why? Because the type of seepage and residue is the same in multiple places in Jerusalem. It’s not specific to the Talpiot tomb! Jerusalem limestone is Jerusalem limestone, and the ground seepage is bound to be similar in numerous places.["]

[back to Tabor's words]
Frankly I found these dogmatic assertions rather amazing. One has to wonder, how Prof. Witherington, a New Testament scholar, would know such things, and would assert his views over those of Dr. Shimron, who has done field-work on this for the past seven years and has professional qualifications.

What Shimron determined is that the soil that had filled the Talpiot “Jesus” tomb was a one-time event in the past. It was not built up over the years with silt and water laid layers of soil, bit by bit. He could determine that from the ossuaries as well as the walls of the tomb itself. The result is that “time stopped,” because of this soil burial. Two things resulted: 1. The buried ossuaries absorbed trace amounts of the chemistry of the soil and muck; 2. Only one kind of material could enter the ossuaries and that was the material in which the ossuaries were buried. These two left items left their unique chemical signature on the Talpiot and James ossuaries.

When it comes to the issue that all soil in Jerusalem is the same, the fact is that Witherington is just plain wrong. East Talpiot is different than the other regions of Jerusalem. Rendzina soil is characteristic of east Jerusalem, not the rest of Jerusalem, but it is the way in which deeply penetrated the limestone ossuaries that allowed Shimron to test for any possible chemical signature. For example, one of the ossuaries scraped was taken from Talpiot Tomb B--just 60 meters from the Jesus tomb. It is the only one Amos Kloner took out in 1981 and it is in the Israel Antiquities Authority collection4 Even given the same kind of soil on the same ancient estate–as determined by Joseph Gat the original excavator–Shimron found no characteristic chemical pattern that would link it with the Jesus tomb ossuaries nearby.

Shimon Gibson is surely right that there are other soil filled tombs in the Jerusalem area. I know of two myself, in the Hinnom Valley, just adjacent to our “Tomb of the Shroud,” discovered in 2000.5 Ossuaries from this area were in fact sampled, including from the Shroud Tomb, and there is no chemical match. Also these tombs were filled by silt and build-up over time, not in one major event. Also the soil is distinctively different.


Now to the evidence

quote:

Shimon Gibson is my colleague here at the University of North Carolina at Charlotte, I have excavated with him for 15 years (Suba and Mt Zion), and I consider him to be among the most knowledgeable people on the planet when it comes to the history and archaeology of Jerusalem. In addition, he was present at the original Jesus tomb excavation in 1980 and produced the official map of the tomb. Shimon and I disagree on Talpiot and the Jesus family tomb identification rather sharply, but our interchanges are professional and respectful. He does not accuse me of “leaping” to my conclusions based on flimsy evidence nor do I think him “dense” for not sharing my views. He openly recommends my publications and papers and encourages a wide debate and discussion. Shimon is an honest and open minded person and he does change his views, often, based on new evidence. I feel the same about Chris Rollston and Mark Goodacre, who also disagree with me and me with them, but our ASOR sponsored forum a few years ago was to me a model of proper academic exchange–see the papers, pro and con, archived at Bible & Interpretation. [ http://bibleinterp.com/articles/2013/tab378024.shtml ]

Chemical Fingerprints. Prof. Witherington tells us that “there is no such thing as a chemical fingerprint,” referring to Dr. Shimron’s work. Again, I have no idea how he would know such a thing as a New Testament scholar reacting to a NYTimes story he just read on Sunday. Even Dr. Shimron did not know his results before the tests were done. Ben seems to think one tests for a few stray elements–he mentions phosphorus, chrome and nickel–when it fact as 33 elements are precisely measured. Only with the Talpiot tomb A ossuaries and that of James brother of Jesus did these signatures correspond in a significant way.

I want to also stress that the samples were collected by the Israel Antiquities Authority, not by Dr. Shimron or Simcha Jacobovici, and the tests were lab tests carried out at some of the top scientific facilities in Israel. Dr. Shimron was the one who had the idea and developed the hypothesis–but like all scientific work, everything then has to be tested.

Weathering and Pitting. Professor Witherington points out that the main visible way in which the James ossuary differs from the other ossuaries from the Talpiot Jesus tomb is its weathered and pitted exterior. He is certainly correct. That’s not an issue with respect to the work that Shimron did. Shimron went beneath the patina, about 2 mm into the ossuary itself to see what had been absorbed over 2,000 years by the limestone. The surface simply doesn’t matter to this test. Having said this, it didn’t matter to Rosenfeld and Krumbein either. What weathering does do is make sense of the 11th ossuary theory i.e., that it was closer to the opening. The Talpiot Jesus tomb had a “porch” or antichamber entrance, before one entered the main tomb complex. It was entirely blown away by the 1980 construction blast. With the missing blocking stone it might well be the case that the James ossuary was near the entrance–placed in the tomb last–having previously been in the Kidron/Hinnom valley area. It explains why somebody could have stolen it in the mid-70s and sold it to Oded Golan. The reason is simple, the James ossuary was near the opening. So not only does it not contradict Shimron’s work, it makes sense of the 11th ossuary theory.

Not Enough Samples. Oded Golan, the owner of the James ossuary is quote in the NYTimes story saying the test sample was much too narrow–and suggesting that one would need to check at least 200-300 tombs to draw the conclusions Shimron has reached. Witherington, in contrast, mercifully reduces the number he thinks would be required:

["]You would have to do tests on say a 50 ossuaries from various places around Jerusalem and compare them to the ones in the Talpiot tomb before you could come to any sort of scientific conclusions of the sort that are made in this report.["] (e-mail, April 5, 2015)

In his blog post he echoes the same objection. Again, how Ben would know this I have no idea. Most of us are familiar with “random” sampling, as used in any number of ways in scientific tests. I immediately thought of the analysis of the Qumran cemetery, with up to 1100 graves, done by Joe Zias and others, based on the few dozen that have been “randomly” opened. In this case Shimron carried out tests on approximately 100 samples, three taken from each ossuary, taken from 15 tombs. He did not do only one test on an ossuary. He did not select the ossuaries, the IAA did that. And they were distributed throughout Jerusalem, but included all nine of the Talpiot Jesus tomb ossuaries (the 10th is missing) plus the James ossuary that Oded Golan was kind enough to make available. The results, according to Dr. Shimron, are definitive. I know him to be a very cautious man and he has, along the way, he has always raised sharp scientific questions on issues related to the Jesus tomb. He is willing to say publicly, putting his career on the line, “The evidence could not be stronger than what we have,” linking the James ossuary to the Talpiot tomb.”


Later on, another test is mentioned, this one being on statistics.

quote:

Conclusion. This is a story that has been over 10 years in the making, with many complex strands (Talpiot tomb A and B; epigraphy, prosopography, statistics, DNA, and chemical tests) and its controversial nature will not simply disappear. If it were the tomb of any other 1st century Jew we would likely not even have an argument, but since millions believe that Jesus was raised from the dead in his physical body, which was then taken to heaven, theological issues come to play as well. And faith. Simcha was asked in the NBC interview above whether it took “faith” for him to be absolutely persuaded, particularly with this new evidence adding the James ossuary to the mix, that this was the tomb of Jesus and his family. His reply was interesting: Faith only comes into it if you want to believe that it is not.”

Several academics have already begun to suggest how the addition of the James ossuary to the names found in the Talpiot Jesus tomb would affect the probability statistics. You can read a preliminary analysis, “The James Ossuary at Talpiot,” by Kilty and Elliot on-line at Bibleinterp.com here. [ http://bibleinterp.com/articles/2011/05/kilell358029.shtml ] I encourage everyone to take a look at this article as it considers a wide range of related issues, beyond the new statistical calculations. They are convinced one goes from 48% to 92% probability–that this tomb can be identified with that of Jesus of Nazareth. We also now have the reworked calculations of statistician Jerry Lutgen, see here. [ http://bibleinterp.com/opeds/2015/04/lut398012.shtml ]


Then his conclusion

quote:

The final irony in all this is that folks like Ben Witherington face a real dilemma here. Ben absolutely accepts the high likelihood of the James ossuary–take alone–to Jesus of Nazareth–not just to “any Jesus” of the time. Statistician Camil Fuchs did some impressive work on this question that you can read in the Witherington/Shanks book, James the Brother of Jesus. But if you add this authentic James ossuary to a Talpiot Jesus tomb–the tomb further authenticates the James ossuary and gives it a provenance, while the James ossuary solidifies the identification of the “Jesus son of Joseph” of the tomb with the brother of Jesus. One supports the other, and normally that would be good news, but because of theological assumptions about Jesus’ physical body being taken to heaven–it just can’t be. It is like a man accused of murder, whose wife believes him to be innocent. The man has a rock solid alibi but he fears to tell his wife–or the court. At the time of the murder he was in bed with her best friend.

My own sense of things, having done historical work on both Jesus and James now over my 35 year career, is that to find them together in life and in death is an incredibly moving thing.
https://jamestabor.com/...ossuary-and-the-talpiot-jesus-tomb


two more links in aticle.
https://jamestabor.com/...iscovery-of-the-talpiot-jonah-tomb

http://www.biblicalarchaeology.org/...jewish-hair-ever-found

I'm not a scientists but it is amazing that we seem to have stunning cumulative evidence


Replies to this message:
 Message 3 by Phat, posted 01-14-2017 2:32 PM LamarkNewAge has responded
 Message 4 by frako, posted 01-14-2017 7:10 PM LamarkNewAge has not yet responded
 Message 6 by Modulous, posted 01-15-2017 10:42 AM LamarkNewAge has not yet responded
 Message 8 by Phat, posted 01-15-2017 11:50 AM LamarkNewAge has not yet responded
 Message 24 by caffeine, posted 01-16-2017 1:46 PM LamarkNewAge has not yet responded
 Message 46 by Theodoric, posted 02-01-2017 8:54 PM LamarkNewAge has not yet responded

  
LamarkNewAge
Member
Posts: 1660
Joined: 12-22-2015
Member Rating: 1.7


Message 28 of 114 (797403)
01-19-2017 3:11 PM
Reply to: Message 3 by Phat
01-14-2017 2:32 PM


Phat and his issues.
quote:

Im not sure I believe any of this. What possible use is this article? If Jesus was buried with his family, that shoots a hole in all of the Bible stories...which could possibly be the motive of the study. Whats your personal opinion, LNA?

I see lots of contradictions in the Gospels comments on the tomb of Jesus. (plus what Paul said in 1 Cor 15).

I think there could easily be confusion about a spiritual resurrection (if it happened) and a bodily resurrection.

James Tabor (a Christian) think Paul taught a spiritual resurrection. He has debated fundamentalists on this issue.

Bart Ehrman (an agnostic) feels that the faith of Christians came from a mass-mystical type of experience and thinks the tomb stories came later.

John Dominic Crossan says that finding Jesus' body wouldn't threaten his Christian faith. He already felt the resurrection wasn't bodily.

Ironically, I just popped the Talopit tomb issue on a group of 12 blacks (I happened to be around) debating what race Jesus was (in Manhattan). They were debating what race Jesus was (after ironically one asked a question about "how many people read Behold a Pale Horse", by William Cooper, and 8 responded "yes". Ironic considering my posts here about the book) among other things. I got dragged into the conversation but all I said anything about was the issue of his DNA being found. The rub was that they all seemed to not sound threatened. I was amazed. I watched in silence as they talked about errors in the Bible and how they still believe in God.

Very ironic (that wasn't the only ironic event yesterday).

Remember that the Jewish Christians had quite a degree of separation with the dominant "church" of 100 AD. By the 2nd century, Jewish Christians were hated heretics by the Catholics. There seems to have been much diminished contact between James and his community.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 3 by Phat, posted 01-14-2017 2:32 PM Phat has acknowledged this reply

  
LamarkNewAge
Member
Posts: 1660
Joined: 12-22-2015
Member Rating: 1.7


Message 36 of 114 (797444)
01-20-2017 3:29 PM
Reply to: Message 33 by Phat
01-20-2017 12:27 PM


Re: Conclusion
quote:

This so called evidence is far from conclusive. My beliefs, in contrast, have been talked about by billions of people for hundreds of years. If this evidence turned out to be valid, few people would give it so much as a nod.

But what were people talking about back then.

There were 2 (very different) Gospels called the "Gospel of the Hebrews" in early times.

The first one is one scholars call the "Gospel of the Ebionites" to avoid confusion

quote:

The Gospel of the Ebionites is the conventional name given by scholars[n 1] to an apocryphal gospel extant only as seven brief quotations in a heresiology known as the Panarion, by Epiphanius of Salamis;[n 2] he misidentified it as the "Hebrew" gospel, believing it to be a truncated and modified version of the Gospel of Matthew.[1] The quotations were embedded in a polemic to point out inconsistencies in the beliefs and practices of a Jewish Christian sect known as the Ebionites relative to Nicene orthodoxy.[n 3]

The surviving fragments derive from a gospel harmony of the Synoptic Gospels, composed in Greek with various expansions and abridgments reflecting the theology of the writer. Distinctive features include the absence of the virgin birth and of the genealogy of Jesus; an Adoptionist Christology,[n 4] in which Jesus is chosen to be God's Son at the time of his Baptism; the abolition of the Jewish sacrifices by Jesus; and an advocacy of vegetarianism.[n 5] It is believed to have been composed some time during the middle of the 2nd century[2] in or around the region east of the Jordan River.[n 6] Although the gospel was said to be used by "Ebionites" during the time of the early church,[n 7] the identity of the group or groups that used it remains a matter of conjecture.[n 8]

The Gospel of the Ebionites is one of several Jewish–Christian gospels, along with the Gospel of the Hebrews and the Gospel of the Nazarenes; all survive only as fragments in quotations of the early Church Fathers. Due to their fragmentary state, the relationships, if any, between the Jewish–Christian gospels and a hypothetical original Hebrew Gospel are uncertain and have been a subject of intensive scholarly investigation.[n 9] The Ebionite gospel has been recognized as distinct from the others,[n 10] and it has been identified more closely with the lost Gospel of the Twelve.[n 11] It shows no dependence on the Gospel of John and is similar in nature to the harmonized gospel sayings based on the Synoptic Gospels used by Justin Martyr, although a relationship between them, if any, is uncertain.[3] There is a similarity between the gospel and a source document contained within the Clementine Recognitions (1.27–71), conventionally referred to by scholars as the Ascents of James, with respect to the command to abolish the Jewish sacrifices.[n 12]


The article quotes all the fragments and explains that they are a harmony of Matthew, Mark, and Luke. Harmonies of those 3 were popular before 150 AD.

But notice the divergent views.

here is text on the Wikipedia article for 'ebionites"
"Ebionites (Greek: Ἐβιωναῖοι Ebionaioi, derived from Hebrew אביונים ebyonim, ebionim, meaning "the poor" or "poor ones"), is a patristic term referring to a Jewish Christian movement that existed during the early centuries of the Christian Era.[1] They regarded Jesus of Nazareth as the Messiah while rejecting his divinity[2] and insisted on the necessity of following Jewish law and rites.[3] They used only one of the Jewish–Christian gospels, revered James the brother of Jesus (James the Just), and rejected Paul the Apostle as an apostate from the Law.[4] Their name suggests that they placed a special value on voluntary poverty"

Here is an early 2nd century Gospel called Gospel of the Hebrews by scholars and ancients alike.

quote:

The Gospel of the Hebrews (Greek: τὸ καθ' Ἑβραίους εὐαγγέλιον, or Gospel according to the Hebrews, was a syncretic Jewish–Christian gospel, the text of which is lost; only fragments of it survive as brief quotations by the early Church Fathers and in apocryphal writings. The fragments contain traditions of Jesus' pre-existence, incarnation, baptism, and probable temptation, along with some of his sayings.[2] Distinctive features include a Christology characterized by the belief that the Holy Spirit is Jesus' Divine Mother and a first resurrection appearance to James, the brother of Jesus, showing a high regard for James as the leader of the Jewish Christian church in Jerusalem.[3] It was probably composed in Greek in the first decades of the 2nd century, and is believed to have been used by Greek-speaking Jewish Christians in Egypt during that century.[4]

It is the only Jewish–Christian gospel which the Church Fathers referred to by name, believing there was only one Hebrew Gospel, perhaps in different versions.[5] Passages from the gospel were quoted or summarized by three Alexandrian Fathers – Clement, Origen and Didymus the Blind; it was also quoted by Jerome, either directly or through the commentaries of Origen.[6][7] The gospel was used as a supplement to the canonical gospels to provide source material for their commentaries based on scripture.[8] Eusebius included it in his list of disputed writings known as the Antilegomena, noting that it was used by "Hebrews" within the Church; it fell out of use when the New Testament canon was codified at the end of the 4th century.[9] There is ancient citation evidence from historians who have stated that the original Gospel of the Hebrews did not have the virgin birth narrative which was interpolated between the 2nd and 4th centuries by Greek pre Catholic priests.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gospel_of_the_Hebrews


They quote the texts available. Here is one line

quote:

2. And it came to pass when the Lord was come up out of the water, the whole fount of the Holy Spirit descended upon him and rested on him and said to him: My Son, in all the prophets was I waiting for thee that thou shouldest come and I might rest in thee. For thou art my rest; thou art my first-begotten Son that reignest for ever. (Jerome, Commentary on Isaiah 4)
....
Jump up ^ Vielhauer & Strecker 1991, pp. 174–6; p. 174 – "This is also the objective of the pre-existent Redeemer who, according to the Jewish–Christian–gnostic Kerygmata Petrou, after endless change in form becomes the incarnate in Jesus: 'From the beginning of the world he runs through the ages, changing his form at the same time as his name, until in his time, anointed of God's mercy for his toil, he shall find his rest forever.' (ps.Clem. Hom. 3.20.2) To the circle of such gnostic speculations belongs the Christology of the baptism pericope of the GH."

Kerygmata Petri was quoted a lot in the 2nd centry. It has reincarnation concepts. Clement of Alexandria like the text.

Just Martyr said this

quote:

For if you have fallen in with some who are called Christians, but who do not admit this [truth] and venture to blaspheme the God of Abraham, and the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob; who say there is no resurrection of the dead, and that their souls, when they die, are taken to heaven; do not imagine that they are Christians…But I and others, who are right-minded Christians on all points, are assured that there will be a resurrection of the dead, and a thousand years in Jerusalem, which will then be built, adorned, and enlarged, [as] the prophets Ezekiel and Isaiah and others declare.[2]

Christians with different views in 150 AD

http://appleeye.org/...the-premillennialism-of-justin-martyr [/quote]

https://www.google.com/?gws_rd=ssl#q=justin+martyr+trypho...


This message is a reply to:
 Message 33 by Phat, posted 01-20-2017 12:27 PM Phat has not yet responded

  
LamarkNewAge
Member
Posts: 1660
Joined: 12-22-2015
Member Rating: 1.7


Message 44 of 114 (798291)
02-01-2017 3:43 PM


While we are discussig a "literal definition" of "delusion" vs "subjective evidence"
It is complicated when one looks at certain issues.
Here is the agnostic scholar Bart Ehrman talking about his 2015 book.

quote:

Yeah, you know, before I wrote this book and did the research on it, I was convinced, as many people are, that Jesus was given a decent burial, and on the third day the women when to the tomb, found it empty, and that started the belief in the resurrection. Apart from the fact that I don't think Jesus was given a decent burial, that he was probably thrown into a common grave of some kind, apart from that, I was struck in doing my research that the New Testament never indicates that people came to believe in the resurrection because of the empty tomb.

And this was a striking find because it's just commonly said that that's what led to the resurrection belief. But if you think about it for a second, it makes sense that the empty tomb wouldn't make anybody believe. If you put somebody in a tomb, and three days later you go back, and the body's not in the tomb, your first thought is not oh, he's been exalted to heaven and made the son of God. Your first thought is somebody stole the body, or somebody moved the body, or hey, I'm at the wrong tomb. You don't think he's been exalted to heaven.

And in the New Testament it's striking that in the Gospels the empty tomb leads to confusion, but it doesn't lead to belief. What leads to belief is that some of the followers of Jesus have visions of him afterwards.

GROSS: OK, and then you question those visions. What are your questions about the visions?

EHRMAN: We know a lot about visions from modern research. It turns out that about one out of eight people among us has had some kind of visionary experience in which we've seen something that wasn't really there and were convinced that in fact it was there. That's a vision. Now the way I write my book is that I leave open the question of what caused these visions of the disciples.

http://www.npr.org/templates/transcript/transcript.php?st...


His comments remind me of Origen of Alexandria and his response to the pagan philosopher Celsus (who used arguments from a Jew against Christianity, who scholars always refer to as "Celsus' Jew", in addition to arguments of his own pagan opinion).

The issue was raised (by Celsus but I forget if he was offering his own views or the view of his Jew) about hallucinations and he made issue of the fact that there were supposedly startled women who had the hallucinations. Origin remarked that the visions were in the daytime, where there were less likely to be false visions.

https://www.google.com/?gws_rd=ssl#q=celsus+jew+origen+ha...

http://equip.sbts.edu/...f-jesus-yesterday-today-and-forever

The issue gets interesting if you consider the issue of the Gospel of Peter and how it might relate to the Koran's view of Jesus.

https://www.google.com/?gws_rd=ssl#q=gospel+peter+koran+e...

Ehrman doesn't mention the Islamic issue though.

quote:

You write that the first 20 years after the death of Jesus is particularly significant in perceiving Christ as God. What happens during those first 20 years after his death?

EHRMAN: Those 20 years are both really important and really mysterious because we don't have any Christian writings from the period. The earliest Christian author we have is the apostle Paul, whose letters were written mainly in the 50s of the Common Era. So if Jesus died around the year 30, and Paul's first letter is around 50, and that's our earliest writing, that means that have a 20-year gap where we have no writings at all by any Christian. And so it's a complicated period to study.

What I argue in my book is that in the New Testament, including the letters of Paul and in the Book of Acts, for example, there are occasional passages that scholars have identified as what they call pre-literary traditions. What that means is that the authors are quoting materials that had been in circulation prior to the time of their writing, and so they're pre-literary, and they're traditions because they've been floating around for a while.


He just talks about the stages of how Jesus became divine. The earliest, he says, came from the visions after the resurrection.

The next earliest was the adoptionist Christology which had the divinity come just after the baptism. Like where Luke had God day "This day have I begotten you" right after the baptism in the Jordan river.

Then the Virgin birth came after that chronologically.

Ehrman doesn't mention the various gnostic views (or Islam), but there were some views that had a radical disjunction of Jesus with his body. He seems to have escaped the death on the cross via his spirit, which might have left his body, according to some interpretations of some gnostic gospels.

There are lots of possibilities really.

Paul said flesh and blood cannot inheret the kingdom.


  
LamarkNewAge
Member
Posts: 1660
Joined: 12-22-2015
Member Rating: 1.7


Message 47 of 114 (800824)
02-28-2017 3:23 PM


More on visions and the rising from the dead issue among scholars.
Here we see that the late Marcus Borg accepts the visions as something that are historical.

quote:

Marcus Borg, Liberal Scholar on Historical Jesus, Dies at 72 - The ...

https://www.nytimes.com/...l-christian-scholar-dies-at-72.ht...
Jan 26, 2015 - Marcus J. Borg, a scholar who popularized a liberal intellectual approach ... Professor Borg became, in essence, a leading evangelist of what is ...
Missing: cnn


quote:

The following "facts" about Jesus would be affirmed by most history scholars, Borg said:
• Jesus was born sometime just before 4 B.C. He grew up in Nazareth, a small village in Galilee, as part of the peasant class. Jesus' father was a carpenter and he became one, too, meaning that they had likely lost their agricultural land at some point.
• Jesus was raised Jewish and he remained deeply Jewish all of his life. His intention was not to create a new religion. Rather, he saw himself as doing something within Judaism.
• He left Nazareth as an adult, met the prophet John and was baptized by John. During his baptism, Jesus likely experienced some sort of divine vision.
• Shortly afterwards, Jesus began his public preaching with the message that the world could be transformed into a "Kingdom of God."
• He became a noted healer, teacher and prophet. More healing stories are told about Jesus than about any other figure in the Jewish tradition.
• He was executed by Roman imperial authority.
• His followers experienced him after his death. It is clear that they had visions of Jesus as they had known him during his historical life. Only after his death did they declare Jesus to be "Lord" or "the Son of God."
http://www.livescience.com/3482-jesus-man.html


Then James Tabor (the fundamentalist turned liberal Christian)who Pat questions the motives of)

https://jamestabor.com/...n-view-of-resurrection-of-the-dead

https://jamestabor.com/...nd-why-it-makes-all-the-difference


  
LamarkNewAge
Member
Posts: 1660
Joined: 12-22-2015
Member Rating: 1.7


Message 48 of 114 (802349)
03-15-2017 3:41 PM


Is Mary Magdalene called “Mariamene Mara” (compelling evidence)
This is from part of Tabor's "There’s Something About Mary . . . Magdalene (Part 2)" article from a year ago (there were 4 parts under the same title, and this was part of his second Jan 10 2016 article). I find it to be interesting to say the least. He has endnotes referencing the academic sources. Understand that this is a fairly recent discovery on Tabor's part. He just never quits and his indefatigable efforts keep on bearing fruit and adding to the total sum of human knowledge. I have trouble deciding what of his online works to paste here. I want to keep the pastes to a minimum. I often wonder if new areas of science have been created in order to test this provocative Tomb theory in a falsifiable fashion.

This is not a scientific angle here (either through older DNA, Patina, etc. or newer issues like chemical composition of narrow Jerusalem soil areas), but the whole database search issue was really enlightening for me to read.

quote:

As many of my readers know the name Mariamene Mara is inscribed on one of the ossuaries or bone boxes in the Talpiot “Jesus” tomb. This ossuary, as well as the one inscribed “Judah son of Jesus,” is elaborately ornamented and the inscriptions are elegant and more formal in appearance than the graffiti like name tags that many ossuaries exhibit. The inscription Mariamene Mara is even more fascinating with regard to the mistaken assertion that the names in the Jesus tomb are exceptionally common. Clearly it is some form of the common name Mary or Mariam/Mariame in Hebrew—but what about its strange ending? And what is the significance of Mara?

Of the six inscriptions from the tomb this is the only one in Greek. In contrast to the ossuaries of Jesus, Maria, and Yoseh, which are plain, this woman was buried in a beautifully decorated ossuary. The venerable expert, Levi Rahmani had first deciphered her inscription in his Catalogue of Jewish Ossuaries published in 1994. For most of us Rahmani has become the “Bible” for the study of ossuaries and their inscriptions. His keen eye and uncanny ability to decipher some of the most obscure inscriptions is legendary.

Rahmani read the inscription as Mariamene Mara. No one questioned his judgment for thirteen years—until the publicity about the Talpiot “Jesus tomb” hit the headlines. Suddenly everyone was scrambling, it seemed, to come up with arguments against those that Simcha Jacobovici had put forth for the first time in his 2007 Discovery Channel documentary, “The Lost Tomb of Jesus.” There he had suggested, based on Rahmani’s reading, which no one had disputed at the time, that Mariamene was a unique form of the name Mary that was used by Jesus’ first followers when referring to Mary Magdalene.

Several scholars have subsequently suggested that Rahmani misread the Greek, and that it should read Mariame kai Mara—Mary and Martha, referring to two individuals, perhaps even two sisters buried together in this one ossuary.[viii] Since Mariame (without the final stem ending “n”) is the most common form of the name Mary in Greek, any argument about uniqueness would thus evaporate. The Mary in the tomb might have been any Mary of the time and she would be impossible to identify further. And her sister Martha would be equally unknown.[ix]

I find this new reading unconvincing and remain impressed with Rahmani’s original transcription. The inscription itself appears to be from a single hand, written in a smooth flowing style, with a decorative flourish around both names—pointing to a single individual who died and was placed in this inscribed ossuary. According to Rahmani, Mariamene is a diminutive or endearing variant of the common name Mariame or Mary.[x] Mariamene—spelled with the letter “n” or nu in Greek, is quite rare—only one other example is found on an ossuary.[xi] There are no other examples from this period—or as I have now discovered, in the entirely of Greek literature down through the late Middle Ages.

A couple of years ago I ran an exhaustive computer search of the Thesaurus Linguae Graecae, a comprehensive digital database of Greek literature from Homer through 1453 CE. To my surprise I only found two ancient works that use Mariamn—with this rare “n” stem ending and both texts specifically referred to Mary Magdalene!

The first text is a quotation from Hippolytus, a third century Christian writer who records that James, the brother of Jesus, passed on secret teachings of Jesus to “Mariamene,” i.e., Mary Magdalene.[xii] There it was, in plain Greek—this unusual spelling of the name Miriame or Mary—precisely like the spelling on the ossuary. How could this be, since the ossuary was from the 1st century and Hippolytus was writing at least 150 hundred years later? According to tradition Hippolytus was a disciple of Irenaeus, who was a disciple of Polycarp, who was a disciple of the apostle John—who of course knew both Mary Magdalene and Jesus. Perhaps it is this link of oral teaching, through three generations, that somehow had preserved this special name for Mary Magdalene. Its diminutive ending makes it a term of endearment—like calling someone named James “Jimmy,” or an Elizabeth “Betty.”

The second text that had uses the name Mariamene was a rare 4th century CE Greek manuscript of the Acts of Philip, dated to the 3rd or 4th century CE. Throughout the text Mary Magdalene is called Mariamene—again the precise form of the name found on the Talpiot tomb ossuary.

Some critics have argued that one has to jump to the third or fourth century to find a parallel to a 1st century name on an ossuary in order to try and argue it belongs to Mary Magdalene. Quite the opposite is the case. What the ossuary preserves is a rare endearing form of the common name Mariame. What should surprise us is that it shows up, out of the blue, in Hippolytus and the Acts of Philip—two centuries later, when referring to Mary Magdalene. They could not know anything about the ossuary or these inscriptions—so where did they get this tradition of the rare form of the name? That this rare form appears in these later sources strengthens rather than diminishes the argument here. If Mariamene is a late form of the name, only found in these 3rd and 4th century texts, as some have asserted—what is it doing on the Talpiot tomb ossuary?

It strains any credibility to imagine that Rahmani, who was unaware of any association whatsoever between his transcription of this ossuary inscription and identifications with Mary Magdalene in these later texts, would have mistakenly and accidently come up with this exceedingly rare form of the common name Mary. It seems clear to us that Rahmani’s keen eye and years of experience have unwittingly provided us with one of the most important correlations between the names in this tomb and those we might expect, hypothetically, to be included in a Jesus family tomb—a name uniquely appropriate for Mary Magdalene. Does it make any sense to think a misreading of the name in this inscription would end up producing two hits for Mary Magdalene? The force and implications of this evidence is so strong that a few scholars have even suggested that the text in Hippolytus somehow got corrupted. Again, it strains all credulity to maintain that mistakes, misreadings, and scribal areas would just happen to produce a match for an ossuary inscription in a 1st century Jerusalem tomb. What are the chances?

https://jamestabor.com/...ething-about-mary-magdalene-part-2


On another issue, I think this link, below, might supplement the double burial issues (and be relevant for the resurrection). I meant to include it at the end of the last post. The resurrection issues are important to get straight, because many will otherwise think that this type of research somehow is an attack on the Christian faith. Not only is it NOT anything of the sort, but actually Tabor's research (and specifically as it relates to the Tomb) seems to back up "Christianity" as it originally was.

https://jamestabor.com/...-easter-morning-the-mystery-solved

James Tabor has to be the most important scholar in the field of early Christianity IMO.


Replies to this message:
 Message 49 by Theodoric, posted 03-15-2017 5:49 PM LamarkNewAge has responded
 Message 52 by caffeine, posted 03-16-2017 2:30 PM LamarkNewAge has responded

  
LamarkNewAge
Member
Posts: 1660
Joined: 12-22-2015
Member Rating: 1.7


Message 50 of 114 (802373)
03-15-2017 8:06 PM
Reply to: Message 49 by Theodoric
03-15-2017 5:49 PM


Re: Is Mary Magdalene called “Mariamene Mara” (compelling evidence)
The link isn't working. Was the criticism about Talpiot alone or other academic works?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 49 by Theodoric, posted 03-15-2017 5:49 PM Theodoric has not yet responded

  
LamarkNewAge
Member
Posts: 1660
Joined: 12-22-2015
Member Rating: 1.7


Message 51 of 114 (802437)
03-16-2017 12:38 PM
Reply to: Message 49 by Theodoric
03-15-2017 5:49 PM


Some views of Tabor are.
1) That Paul not only knew of the virgin birth, but invented it (most scholars say he did not know of it)
https://jamestabor.com/did-paul-invent-the-virgin-birth/

2) That parts of the Gospel of Peter (which I incorrectly said earlier had the Christological view of Islam in it, actually I think it was the Coptic Apocalypse of Peter but I'm not sure and that isn't the issue here) date to the 50s CE.

https://jamestabor.com/...ending-of-the-lost-gospel-of-peter

Here is a relevant quote by a (outstanding)conservative evangelical scholar on the issue.

quote:

Jesus and Gospel
Graham Stanton
p.88

Even the Jesus Seminar accepts as authentic only five of the Logia of Thomas which are not found in the canonical four. And, for the complete gospels, are any earlier than the canonical four? Surely J. D. Crossan is exercising a vivid historical imagination when he claims that an early version of the Gospel of Peter was written in the fifties, perhaps in Sepphoris.


Here is Tabor responding to a good question, from a late friend and fellow scholar, on the issue of how Jesus could have only resurrected spiritually yet the Gospels say his body rose.

https://jamestabor.com/...-and-developed-a-newold-hypothesis

another link
https://jamestabor.com/the-first-and-second-burials-of-jesus

3) That The Dead Sea Scroll community believed in a resurrection. (which he was something of a trailblazer on since he published the very text in 1992 that started to turn the tide) (he and Marty Abbeg were attacked for publishing it FIRST in a popular publication then a journal slightly later in 1992)

link escapes me.

4) That Jesus thought himself the Messiah. (he bases his view on new Dead Sea Scroll Discoveries and 2 leading scholars published trailblazing work at the same time a while back)

quote:

In my post on “That Other King of the Jews,” I stressed my own conviction that Jesus of Nazareth thought of himself as much more than a teacher, prophet, or healer, but rather that he understood himself to be nothing less than the “one to come,” the Davidic Messiah or King of Israel. For most Christians such a messianic claim by Jesus is self-evident since it lies at the heart of all of our Gospel accounts, which are, as Mark puts things: “The good news of Jesus Christ the Son of God.”

In contrast, many of my academic colleagues in the field of Christian origins would argue that the identification of Jesus as the Jewish Messiah was one put on Jesus by his followers after his death, as part of their recovery of faith following the unanticipated shock of his crucifixion, not something he claimed himself. According to this understanding the scene in Mark where Jesus is confessed as Christ or Messiah by Peter is projected back into the life of Jesus, implying that he both anticipated his death and understood himself in the role of a “suffering Messiah”:

....
The vast majority of critical historians dealing with Christian Origins have taken the former position, put so succinctly by Rudolf Bultmann over a generation ago: the scene of Peter’s confession is an Easter story projected backward into Jesus’ lifetime (Bultmann, Theology of the New Testament, I: 26). That Jesus himself ever claimed to be the Messiah is considered unlikely,

https://jamestabor.com/...nd-predict-his-suffering-and-death


5) That Jesus was likely the son of a Panthera (he came at this based on the evidence plus he has done work on the issue like none other)

See Mary link in post 48.

https://jamestabor.com/...ng-the-original-followers-of-jesus

https://jamestabor.com/an-unnamed-father-of-jesus/

https://jamestabor.com/joseph-gone-missing/

https://jamestabor.com/the-jesus-son-of-panthera-traditions/

quote:

The “Jesus son of Panthera” Traditions

Archaeology / January 27, 2016

Predictably one of the more controversial topics in my book The Jesus Dynasty is my discussion in chapter 3 titled “An Unnamed Father of Jesus?” in which I treat the “Jesus son of Pantera/Pantira” traditions. The topic has generated more than one sensational headline as well as lots of disdainful treatment, particularly from evangelical Christian readers and reviewers. As my colleague Prof. Ben Witherington dismissively phrased it in his four-part 28 page single-spaced Blog review of my book, “Tabor trots out for us the shop-worn tale of Mary being impregnated by a Roman soldier named Pantera” (Witherington on Tabor’s Jesus Dynasty)


He has scholars like Richard Bauckham agreeing with parts of his theory. See my Mary link in post 48 too see non-hostile see first century Rabbanical sources that are relevant. Hegesippius is also very important.

6) He recently found the evidence too strong to ignore relative to Jesus being married to Mary. He didn't hold that view when he wrote Jesus Dynasty in 2006


This message is a reply to:
 Message 49 by Theodoric, posted 03-15-2017 5:49 PM Theodoric has not yet responded

  
LamarkNewAge
Member
Posts: 1660
Joined: 12-22-2015
Member Rating: 1.7


Message 53 of 114 (802473)
03-16-2017 5:57 PM
Reply to: Message 52 by caffeine
03-16-2017 2:30 PM


Re: Is Mary Magdalene called “Mariamene Mara” (compelling evidence)
Well, I didn't mention anything but the Talpiot tomb issue (plus bare links that helped people read his reasons for understanding that the early Jesus community didn't have a bodily ressurection). Then I showed evidence that centered around the identification of the Mary tomb with the female that witnesses the risen Jesus according to the Gospels AND THAT did use a Tabor paste. Tbeodoric and Jar said he was a crank who can't back anything up. So I simply let people become aware of some of his disputed stances and offered mostly bare links in an effort to help people understand Tabor's difficulties in the endlessly complex researches he has undertaken. Alot of the things he works on are standalone issues and people think that shooting down one defeats every other issue he takes on. I need people to understand that Tabor and other scholars get their ideas rejected on a case by case basis, and actually the best of them fail to "seal the deal " with their colleagues more often than not WHEN MAKING PROPOSALS. There is a tentative nature to this whole scholarly enterprise and it can get rough when there is usually no hard science available to come to the rescue. Tabor is trying hard though and he will put his theories to any available scientific test. I wonder if the chemical composition test was a brand new spinoff that has no antecedent in scientific history. Regardless of the novelty, Tabor's theory passed the scientific test and infact the Jesus son of Joseph, Brother of James tomb does indeed come from The Talpiot Tomb.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 52 by caffeine, posted 03-16-2017 2:30 PM caffeine has not yet responded

  
LamarkNewAge
Member
Posts: 1660
Joined: 12-22-2015
Member Rating: 1.7


Message 54 of 114 (803717)
04-03-2017 11:01 PM


Origen of Alexandria on the defensive against the pagan Celsus.
I love this evangelical conservative scholar Stanton. I think the issues that the third century scholar and apologist Origen covers ( in his pre 250 BCE defense against the 2nd century pagan critic Celsus ) are relevant today.

quote:

Jesus and Gospel
Graham Stanton
Pages 151 to 152

Celsus' Jew advances vigorously the theory that the followers of Jesus 'saw' their recently crucified leader in a dream or hallucination. Origen's response is not very persuasive: 'Celsus's idea of a vision in the daytime is not convincing when the people were in no way mentally disturbed and were not suffering from delirium or melancholy. Because Celsus foresaw this objection he said that the woman was hysterical : but there is no evidence of this in the scriptural account ' (11.60).

This discussion reminds us of the ultimate futility of trying to seek proof one way or the other. 'Vision' or 'hallucination', how can one decide? Surely the matter can be settled only on the basis of wider considerations, which are theological rather than historical or psychological.

....

Origen knows full well that proof of the historicity of an incident in the gospels is difficult and in some cases impossible (1.42). He knows that he cannot sidestep allegations that the text of the gospels has been tampered with (11.27) and that the resurrection narratives contain discrepancies (v.55-6). He repudiates 'mere irrational faith', and insists that readers of the gospels need an open mind and considerable study. 'If I may say so', he writes, 'readers need to enter into the mind of the writers to find out with what spiritual meaning each event was recorded.' Is this the way faith and reason should be held together in discussion of the resurrection narratives? Is there still a place for discerning 'spiritual meaning' by Origen's own method of allegorical interpretation? If so, what criteria will guard against 'irrational faith'?



  
LamarkNewAge
Member
Posts: 1660
Joined: 12-22-2015
Member Rating: 1.7


Message 59 of 114 (823899)
11-19-2017 12:21 AM
Reply to: Message 49 by Theodoric
03-15-2017 5:49 PM


Re Richard Carrier: Mary Magdalene called “Mariamene Mara” (just read link)
I missed this amazingly untrue article from Richard Carrier (it wasn't loading on my friend's computer back when I was in New York)

There are LATE 2nd century (or early third) orthodox Christian's who use the word "Miriamene" when describing early Gnostic texts (from 150 or earlier) that discuss James the Just and a Mary (spelled Miriamene!), plus other texts that actually spell Mary Magdalene as such.

Carrier takes issue with the reading in the tomb.

quote:

It’s even more discrediting that Tabor still stands by the “Jesus Tomb Wingnut Team” interpretation of an inscription in the other Talpiot tomb as “Mariamene” (as supposedly a variant of Mariamne, supposedly a distinctive spelling of Mary Magdalene), when it is unmistakably Mariamê kai Mara, “Miriam and Mara,” one very common Jewish name, the other unconnected to Jesus. An earlier epigrapher confused a single letter as nu (N) which is actually kappa [K], the one being an upside down version of the other (a common mistake even for an expert to make who might be getting tired trudging through hundreds of inscriptions). This is so glaringly obvious there can be no reasonable dispute in the matter. Yet he keeps on claiming it says Mariamene. Lately he has been willing to allow that it “might” say Mariame kai Mara…after I pointed this out. But why didn’t he notice it before? The many statistical analyses run for the names in the tomb are also horribly fallacious (the conjunction of names there given the actual population in the tomb is simply not improbable enough to ensure this tomb has any connection with Jesus), but he can’t be expected to understand that (he’s not a mathematician and hasn’t studied statistics or statistical logic). But surely he can read Greek properly. He seems more inclined to stick to the guns of a bizarre theory than actually admit it’s too bizarre to be credible. That was not the “lost tomb of Jesus” ; and neither is this “new” find connected to Christianity.

The lesson to learn here is never to trust the media, much less the rumor mill, when claims of an amazing new find like this crop up. Wait for the evidence to actually be presented, for many independent experts to actually analyze it. Then see what survives. Usually, nothing.

https://www.richardcarrier.info/archives/425


Where to begin.

1:

First of all the the supposed inscription "kai" is not obvious because that so-called "a" isn't what an "a" looks like in standard written Greek (kai makes up like 10%-12%+ of all Greek words in the New Testament, literally in every sentence, so anybody can check a Greek text and be assured to see the word in just about every sentence. Notice that it is not "kai" if written Greek is the standard.

2:

Inscriptional Greek isn't the same thing as written Greek, the letters are written differently (and though there is some debate, the difference is monumental).

3:

Let me quote Carrier with his reference to Rahmani

"An earlier epigrapher confused a single letter as nu (N) which is actually kappa [K], the one being an upside down version of the other (a common mistake even for an expert to make who might be getting tired trudging through hundreds of inscriptions). This is so glaringly obvious there can be no reasonable dispute in the matter."

There wasn't anything like this account by Carrier (though Rahmani DID EVENTUALLY - a fair ways later - changed his mind and concludes that his earlier reading was perhaps wrong). There was a slow progression. Rahmani told James Charlesworth (after the explosive publication of Tabor and Simch's Talpiot Tomb issue) that he stood by his conclusion that it was Miriamenou (roughly means "of Miriamene"), NO DIFFERENT THAN he presented in his book (the book Rahmani made his reading and translation was BEFORE the controversy). Rahmani sent an email to Tabor, responding, "of course I still stand by my reading" (or a quote very much like that).

The issue is whether it is an N or a K (plus other inscriptional letter disputes).

Here is a scholar who stands with the reading of Miriamene as the basic name (before the genitive inflection alters the spelling a bit)

www.google.com

Leah Di Segni

Tell me if this individual isn't qualified.

Here is Richard Bauckham on the issue.

This leading scholar supports the N reading

quote:

The alleged ‘Jesus family tomb’

Richard Bauckham

Richard Bauckham is Professor of New Testament Studies and Bishop Wardlaw Professor, St Andrews University, Scotland. He has a Ph.D. from Cambridge University. Published works include Jude, 2 Peter, Word Biblical Commentary, volume 50 (Word: 1983), God Crucified: Monotheism and Christology in the New Testament (Paternoster, 1998), James: Wisdom of James, Disciple of Jesus the Sage (Routledge, 1999), Gospel Women: Studies of the Named Women in the Gospels (Eerdmans, 2002), and Bible and Mission: Christian Witness in a Postmodern World (Baker, 2003).

Editor's note: This article is Dr. Bauckham's March 1, 2007 guest posting at Chris Tilling's blog Chrisendom. Visit the blog for updates.


Now Bauckham's words

quote:

As I understand it (I have not yet seen the film itself) the Discovery Channel programme “The Lost Tomb of Jesus” claims that a tomb discovered in the Talpiot area of Jerusalem in 1980, containing ten ossuaries, is the tomb of Jesus’ family and contains some of the remains of Jesus himself. If my memory serves me correctly the same claim was made in a British television programme, fronted by Joan Bakewell, just a few years ago. However the Discovery Channel programme claims to have new evidence and arguments.

The basic arguments concerning the names on the ossuaries seem to be two (1) The names, including ‘Jesus son of Joseph,’ ‘Judah son of Jesus,’ Yose, Mary and Matthew, are the names of key figures in the New Testament Gospels. Some statistical arguments are alleged to show that the odds are hugely in favour of the view that the names on the ossuaries in fact refer to the figures known from the New Testament. (2) The form of the name Mary (in Greek) is the distinctive Mariamenou. This, it is claimed, is the same form of the name as Mariamne, which is the name of the sister of the apostle Philip in the fourth-century Acts of Philip, presumed to be Mary Magdalene.

I wish to stress at the start that the issues raised by this proposal are complex and difficult. My first reactions to what I was told about it by journalists were too little considered and I had not then had time to track down all the relevant evidence and study it carefully. So I made some mistakes. (I recommend that no one pronounce on this matter without having the relevant pages of Rahmani’s catalogue of ossuaries actually in front of them. My initial lack of access to them misled led me at some points, even though I was told quite carefully what they contain. They can now be seen on the Discovery Channel website.) I am fairly confident of what I’m now saying here, but ossuaries and onomastics are technical fields, and I’m open to corrections from the experts. I’ve no doubt that refinements of the argument will result from further discussion of the issues.

I shall divide my discussion into the matter of the names on these ossuaries in general, and a longer consideration of the name alleged to be Mary Magdalene, since this requires quite careful and detailed consideration. (I have refrained from using Hebrew and Greek script, and have tried to make the argument intelligible to people who know no Greek. Unfortunately at the moment I don’t have a functioning transliteration font: hence the overly simply transliteration of the names that I’ve had to use.)

The names in general

The six persons named in the ossuary inscriptions (Rahmani 701-706) are:
(1) Mariamenou-Mara (the first name is a unique form of the name Mariam, Mary, and will be discussed separately below).
(2) Yehuda bar Yeshua (Judah son of Jesus)
(3) Matia (Matthew)
(4) Yeshua bar Yehosef (Jesus son of Joseph)
(5) Yose (a common abbreviated form of Yehosef)
(6) Maria (a form of Mariam, Mary)
All the inscriptions are in Aramaic except the first, which is Greek.

the inscriptions are in Aramaic except the first, which is Greek.

We should note that the surviving six names are only six of many more who were buried in this family tomb. There may have been as many as 35. The six people whose names we have could have belonged to as many as four different generations. This is a large family tomb, which would certainly have been used for quite some time by the same family. We should not imagine a small family group. Some members of the family of Jesus we know lived in Jerusalem for only three decades (from the death of Jesus to the execution of his brother James in 62). None of our other evidence would suggest that there were so many of them as to require a tomb of this size.

Only three of the six named persons correspond to the names of known members of the family of Jesus: Jesus son of Joseph, Maria (Jesus’ mother or his aunt, the wife of Clopas), Yose (Jesus’ brother was known by this abbreviated form of the name Joseph: Mark 6:3). In a family tomb only members of the family (members by birth or, mostly in the case of women, marriage) would be interred. The fact that one of Jesus’ close disciples was named Matthew has no significance at all for identifying the person in the ossuary labelled Matthew. We shall discuss Mariamenou-Mara below, but it cannot be stressed sufficiently that there is no evidence at all for the conjecture that Jesus married Mary Magdalene (and note that an extra-marital affair, which some postulate, though again without evidence, would not qualify Mary Magdalene to be in the tomb of Jesus’ family). Similarly, there is no evidence at all that Jesus had any children. (If he really had a son named Judah, would he not be mentioned somewhere in the ancient literary evidence? He would have been a useful figure for a Gnostic wishing to claim esoteric teaching of Jesus handed down from someone close to him, but he goes unmentioned in the Gnostic Gospels that do make such claims for other figures and unmentioned also in the church fathers who relay information about Gnostic claims.)

All of the names on these ossuaries were extremely common names among Jews in Palestine at this period. We have a great deal evidence about this (the data is collected in the enormously useful reference book: Tal Ilan, Lexicon of Jewish Names in Late Antiquity, part 1 [Mohr-Siebeck, 2002], and also analysed in chapter 4 of my recent book Jesus and the Eyewitnesses [Eerdmans, 2006]). We have a data base of about 3000 named persons (2625 men, 328 women, excluding fictional characters). Of the 2625 men, the name Joseph (including Yose, the abbreviated form) was borne by 218 or 8.3%. (It is the second most popular Jewish male name, after Simon/Simeon.) The name Judah was borne by 164 or 6.2%. The name Jesus was borne by 99 or 3.4%. The name Matthew (in several forms) was borne by 62 or 2.4 %. Of the 328 named women (women’s names were much less often recorded than men’s), a staggering 70 or 21.4% were called Mary (Mariam, Maria, Mariame, Mariamme). (My figures differ very slightly from Ilan’s because I differ from a few of her judgments for technical reasons, but the difference is insignificant for present purposes.)

I am not a mathematician and do not know how to get from these figures to calculations of odds. I must leave the assessment of Feuerverger’s case to others. But it seems to me incredible.

The name Mariamenou-Mara

The Hebrew name Mariam was very popular among Palestinian Jews at this period, though hardly used at all in the diaspora. It was usually rendered in Greek in one of two forms: Maria and Mariamme (or Mariame). It could, of course, be simply written as Mariam in Greek characters (and this is the practice of the Septuagint, the Greek Old Testament, when referring to Mariam the sister of Moses, called Miriam in English Bibles). But we know only four cases in which this was done with reference to a living person of the early Jewish period. (One of these is Luke 10:39-42, referring to Mary the sister of Martha, though there is a variant reading Maria).

Much more popular were the forms Maria (the form used everywhere in the New Testament, except Luke 10:39-40, for all the various Maries it refers to) and Mariamme/Mariame (used, for example, by Josephus). Both give the name a more Greek form than the simple transliteration Mariam. Palestinian Jewish women who themselves used a Greek form of their name as well as a Semitic form (a common practice) would be likely to have used Maria or Mariamme. This accounts for the fact that the Greek form Maria is often found on ossuaries transliterated back into Hebrew characters as Mariah. (Odd as this practice might seem, there are examples for other names too.) This is what has happened in the case of the woman called Maria (in Hebrew characters) on one of the ossuaries we are studying.

It is worth noting that this Greek form of the name Miriam has nothing to do with the Latin name Maria, which also existed. The coincidence is just a coincidence. It was, however, a coincidence that Jews living in a Latin-speaking environment could have exploited, just as Jews in Palestine exploited the coincidental near-identity of the Hebrew name Simeon and the Greek name Simon. The woman called Maria in Romans 16:6, a member of the Christian community in Rome, may have been a Jew called Mariam in Hebrew (an emigrant from Palestine), or a Gentile with the Latin name Maria, or a Jew living in Rome who had the name Maria precisely because it could be understood as both Hebrew and Latin.

In the Gospels Mary Magdalene’s name is always given in the Greek form Maria, which is the New Testament’s standard practice for rendering Mariam into Greek, except for Luke 10:39-42. As we have noted it is standard Greek form of Mariam. However, from probably the mid-second century onwards we find some references to Mary Magdalene (often identified with Mary of Bethany and/or other Gospel Maries) that use the alternative standard Greek form Mariamme (or Mariame). These references are all either in Gnostic works (using ‘Gnostic’ fairly loosely) or in writers referring to Gnostic usage.

We find the form Mariamme in Celsus, the second-century pagan critic of Christianity, who lists Christian sectarian groups, including some who follow Mary (apo Mariammes). These may well be the group who used the Gospel of Mary (late 2nd century?), a Greek fragment of which calls Mary Magdalene Mariamme. This form of her name also appears in the Coptic (a translation from Greek) of the Gnostic Work the Sophia of Jesus Christ (CG III,4). The usage may have been more widespread in Gnostic literature, but the fact that we have most Gnostic works only in Coptic makes it hard to tell.)

This tradition of using the form Mariamme for Mary Magdalene must have been an alternative tradition of rendering her name in Greek. It most likely goes back to a usage within the orbit of Jewish Palestine (since the name Mary in any form was very rare in the diaspora and Gentile Christians would not be familiar with the name Mariamme ordinarily). But so does the usage of Maria in the New Testament Gospels, at least one of which is at least a century earlier than any evidence we have for giving her the name Mariamme. It would be hazardous to suppose that Mariamme was the Greek form of her name use by Mary Magdalene herself or the earliest disciples of Jesus.

This tradition of using the form Mariamme for Mary Magdalene must have been an alternative tradition of rendering her name in Greek. It most likely goes back to a usage within the orbit of Jewish Palestine (since the name Mary in any form was very rare in the diaspora and Gentile Christians would not be familiar with the name Mariamme ordinarily). But so does the usage of Maria in the New Testament Gospels, at least one of which is at least a century earlier than any evidence we have for giving her the name Mariamme. It would be hazardous to suppose that Mariamme was the Greek form of her name use by Mary Magdalene herself or the earliest disciples of Jesus.

The Gnostic use of Mariamme is also reported by Hioppolytus in his Refutation of All Heresies (written between 228 and 233). He says that the Naassenes claimed to have a secret teaching that James the brother of Jesus had transmitted to Mary (5.7.1; 10.9.3). What is especially significant is that the manuscript evidence is divided between two forms of the name: Mariamme and Mariamne (note the ‘n’!). It is probably impossible to tell which Hippolytus himself wrote. However, it is easy to see that, in a milieu where the name Mariamme was not otherwise known, the usage could slip from Mariamme to Mariamne.

These variant readings in Hippolytus are the first known occurrences of the form Mariamne (which the Discovery Channel programme claims is the same name as that on one of the ossuaries). Since it occurs in Hippolytus as a variant of Mariamme, and since the latter is well attested in Jewish usage back to the first century CE, it seems clear that the form Mariamne is not really an independent version of the name Mariam (independent of Mariamme, that is). But a late deformation of the form Mariamme, a deformation made by Greek speakers not familiar with the name. This must also then explain the usage in the apocryphal Acts of Philip (late 4th or early 5th century), where Mariamne is consistently and frequently used for the sister of the apostle Philip, apparently identified with both Mary Magdalene and Mary of Bethany.

We can now turn to the inscription on the ossuary, which has, in Greek: MARIAMENOUMARA. The two words Mariamenou and Mara are written consecutively with no space between. This makes it rather unlikely that two women are named here. But Rahmani takes a small stroke between the last letter of Mariamenou and the first of Mara to be a Greek letter eta (long e). He takes this to be the relative pronoun he (eta with a rough breathing), reading: ‘Mariamnenou who [is also called] Mara.’ (Note that this is different, it seems, from what the Discovery Channel do when they read the eta with a smooth breathing, meaning ‘or’.) There are parallels (I gather from Rahmani) to this abbreviated way of indicating two names for the same person.

The form of the name on the ossuary in question is Mariamenou. This is a Greek genitive case, used to indicate that the ossuary belongs to Mary (it means 'Mary's' or 'belonging to Mary'). The nominative would be Mariamenon. Mariamenon is a diminutive form, used as a form of endearment. The neuter gender is normal in diminutives used for women. But the name Mariamenon is found only here in all our evidence for ancient Jewish names. It is, of course, a specifically Greek formation, not used in Hebrew or Aramaic.

This diminutive, Mariamenon, would seem to have been formed from the name Mariamene, a name which is attested twice elsewhere (in the Babatha archive and in the Jewish catacombs at Beth She’arim). Mariamene is an unusual Greek form of Mariam, presumably invented because it has a rather elegant hellenized form. When I first looked at this issue I was rather persuaded that the form Mariamne was a contracted form of Mariamene (which I think is what the Discovery Channel film claims), but I then found that the second and third century evidence (reviewed above) makes it much more plausible that the form Mariamne is a late deformation of Mariamme that occurred only in a context outside Palestine where the name was not known. So the Discovery Channel film’s claim that the name on the ossuary is the same as the name known to have been used for Mary Magdalene in the Acts of Philip is mistaken.

But we must also consider the rest of this inscription. The Discovery Channel film proposes to read Mara as the Aramaic word ‘the master’ (as in Maranatha). But, since we know that Mara was used as an abbreviated form of Martha, in this context of names on an ossuary it is much more plausible to read it as a name. This woman had two names: Mariamenon and Mara. It could be that the latter in this case was used as an abbreviation of Mariamenou, or it could be that the woman was known by Mariamenon, treated as a Greek name, and the Aramaic name Mara, conforming to the common practice of being known by two names, Greek and Semitic.

If the woman, for whatever reason, is given two different names on the ossuary, it is very unlikely that she would also have been known as Mariamene, even though this is the form of which Mariamenon is the diminutive. One other point can be made about Mariamenon. As a term of endearment it would be likely to have originated in the context of her family. But in that case, we probably need to envisage a family which used Greek as an ordinary language within the family. This does not mean it did not also use Aramaic, which would probably be the case if the names on the other ossuaries are those of family members closely related to Mariamenon. The family could have been bilingual even within its own orbit. Alternatively, the ossuaries in Aramaic could come from a branch of a big family or a generation of the family different from that of Mariamenon, such that their linguistic practice would be different. In any case, it is unlikely that the close family of Jesus would have spoken Greek within the family, and so it is unlikely that Mariamenon belonged to that close family circle.

The conclusion is that the name Mariamenon is unique, the diminutive of the very rare Mariamene. Neither is related to the form Maramne, except in the sense that all derive ultimately from the name Mariam. There is no reason at all to connect the woman in this ossuary with Mary Magdalene, and in fact the name usage is decisively against such a connexion.

http://www.leaderu.com/jesus/alleged_tomb.html


Update

quote:

Update: Addenda and Corrigenda on Marian Names

(1) To understand why and how Hebrew names acquired Greek forms, it helps to know that Greek nouns never end in consonants other than n, r and s. So ‘Mariam’ in Greek looks barbaric (hence Josephus, e.g., never uses it). Maria and Mariamme are obvious ways of adapting the name to a more Greek-looking form.

(2) I made a mistake about the NT’s use of Mariam and Maria (that’s the danger of doing this sort of work in a hurry). The NT in fact uses both quite often. It’s virtually impossible to be sure of the figures because for most occurrences of one there are variant readings giving the other. For the same reason it is difficult to discern any rationale for the choice of one rather than the other.

But a couple of points are interesting. First, it is clear that Luke calls the mother of Jesus Mariam throughout chapters 1-2. This suits very well the ‘Hebraic’ atmosphere that Luke is evoking in those chapters. Second, in the UBS text Mary Magdalene is always Maria except in Matt 27:61; John 20:16, 18. The former, if correct, is just anomalous. But in John 20:16 it is Jesus who addresses Mary as ‘Mariam,’ to which she replies ‘Rabbouni’. For Jesus to use her Hebrew name here is obviously appropriate, and that usage in then continued in v 18 (whereas in vv 1, 11 she is Maria). Incidentally, my mistake about NT usage in my original post makes no difference to the rest of my argument there.

(3) I should have mentioned the inscriptions on the ossuary that Rahmani numbers 108. Across the lid of the ossuary, the name Mariame is written twice (in Greek), while on the underside of the lid is written (in Greek) first Mariamnou (but the last letter is not certain), then, under it, Mariame. Rahmani takes Mariamnou to the genitive of Mariamne, and so finds an early instance of this form of the name. However, the correct genitive would, of course, be Mariamnes. It seems easier to suppose that the nominative would be Mariamnon, which would be another instance of the diminutive that appears as Mariamenon on ossuary 701 (the alleged Mary Magdalene ossuary). Rahmani himself takes Mariamenon on that ossuary to be a diminutive of Mariamene.

Mariamnon would be a contracted form.

(4) Apparently some manuscripts of the Acts of Philip (sometimes?) have Mariamme rather than Mariamne. Bovon makes this point, but I have not found it in the apparatus of his edition. If accurate, it strengthens my case.


This is not some "wingnut" issue to see the actual tomb name as Miriamene.

The "K" carrier think is so obvious escaped the leading experts even after much consideration.

And even if it is a "K",we still have the fact that the word for AND - "kai" - is not there on the tomb for certain (unless one wants to assume that the "A" is written extremely different in inscriptions when compared to paper/papyrus texts)

Carrier misled his readers.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 49 by Theodoric, posted 03-15-2017 5:49 PM Theodoric has not yet responded

  
LamarkNewAge
Member
Posts: 1660
Joined: 12-22-2015
Member Rating: 1.7


Message 67 of 114 (823942)
11-19-2017 10:14 PM
Reply to: Message 60 by Phat
11-19-2017 3:04 AM


"Mariamne is the name of Mary Magdalene...that’s the missing piece, that’s the Ringo"
Phat said:

quote:

I must say, however, that I don't follow your deductive reasoning as easily as you yourself do, and I suspect that nobody else does either. It is a strange way to learn about things

Theodoric offered a link that ridiculed the Mary Magdalene Talpiot Tomb identification and it was based around a different reading of the Greek lapidary inscription letters, on the tomb, which would not only would show a much more common form of "Mary" (as opposed to the super duper rare "Mariamne" form), but it would also not be a match for the certain Mary-form used by a limited number of 2nd century Gnostics.

During the press conference to the documentary, James Cameron said:

quote:

according to certain Christian texts, of the early Christian texts such as the Acts of Phillip and the Gospel of Mary Magdalene, Mariamne is the name of Mary Magdalene. So that’s the missing piece, that’s the Ringo, and that’s what set this whole investigation in motion


What if we didn't know that Ringo's real name was Richard Starkey?

Richard Starkey is Mary Magdalene.

Mariamne is the equivalent to Ringo.

The Acts of Phillip, Gospel of Mary Magdalene , and Hippolytus texts have variants (of the same texts) that say Mariamme in one and then Mariamne on the other.

I found it interesting that Richard Bauckham stated that he felt Mariamme in these texts would very likely have been an OLD 1st century use that was maintained in later texts. (However, he felt that the Mariamne form would have simply been a post 200 AD textual corruption, plus he had a few grammatical issues for the 1st century Talpiot Tomb that were relevant and would have caused spelling for the Talpiot Mary/Mariamene to be somewhat different from the later Miriamne).

He was admitting that the Gnostic texts - ALONE! (alone, unless one wants to say that the Orthodox Hippolytus using the "Miriamne" spelling to refer to early Gnostic beliefs count as his own rendering as opposed to a reference to the Gnostic spelling in their texts) - would have preserved the actual nickname of Mary Magdalene that the immediate 1st century Jewish Christians used.

Understand his conclusion.

This (sort of) conservative-ish scholar feels that the Gnostics (and not the Orthodox/Catholic/Protestant theological line!) of the 2nd century had a form of the name for Mary Magdalene that the Apostles themselves (or perhaps some related folk slightly later in the 1st century) could very well have been using the actual nick name she was known by.

He felt that the specific original (Greek using) 1st century Jewish Christian nick name was Mariamme (not Mariamene, which he considered a late corruption) but he still credits the Gnostics for having the older name than the typical Greco-Roman Orthodox Christian form of the name.

That should speak volumes to those who claim to want to follow Jesus Christ (the folks that call themselves "Christians" today) and what he actually taught.

quote:

In the Gospels Mary Magdalene’s name is always given in the Greek form Maria, which is the New Testament’s standard practice for rendering Mariam into Greek, except for Luke 10:39-42. As we have noted it is standard Greek form of Mariam. However, from probably the mid-second century onwards we find some references to Mary Magdalene (often identified with Mary of Bethany and/or other Gospel Maries) that use the alternative standard Greek form Mariamme (or Mariame). These references are all either in Gnostic works (using ‘Gnostic’ fairly loosely) or in writers referring to Gnostic usage.

We find the form Mariamme in Celsus, the second-century pagan critic of Christianity, who lists Christian sectarian groups, including some who follow Mary (apo Mariammes). These may well be the group who used the Gospel of Mary (late 2nd century?), a Greek fragment of which calls Mary Magdalene Mariamme. This form of her name also appears in the Coptic (a translation from Greek) of the Gnostic Work the Sophia of Jesus Christ (CG III,4). The usage may have been more widespread in Gnostic literature, but the fact that we have most Gnostic works only in Coptic makes it hard to tell.)

This tradition of using the form Mariamme for Mary Magdalene must have been an alternative tradition of rendering her name in Greek. It most likely goes back to a usage within the orbit of Jewish Palestine (since the name Mary in any form was very rare in the diaspora and Gentile Christians would not be familiar with the name Mariamme ordinarily). But so does the usage of Maria in the New Testament Gospels, at least one of which is at least a century earlier than any evidence we have for giving her the name Mariamme. It would be hazardous to suppose that Mariamme was the Greek form of her name use by Mary Magdalene herself or the earliest disciples of Jesus.

The Gnostic use of Mariamme is also reported by Hioppolytus in his Refutation of All Heresies (written between 228 and 233). He says that the Naassenes claimed to have a secret teaching that James the brother of Jesus had transmitted to Mary (5.7.1; 10.9.3). What is especially significant is that the manuscript evidence is divided between two forms of the name: Mariamme and Mariamne (note the ‘n’!). It is probably impossible to tell which Hippolytus himself wrote. However, it is easy to see that, in a milieu where the name Mariamme was not otherwise known, the usage could slip from Mariamme to Mariamne.

These variant readings in Hippolytus are the first known occurrences of the form Mariamne (which the Discovery Channel programme claims is the same name as that on one of the ossuaries). Since it occurs in Hippolytus as a variant of Mariamme, and since the latter is well attested in Jewish usage back to the first century CE, it seems clear that the form Mariamne is not really an independent version of the name Mariam (independent of Mariamme, that is). But a late deformation of the form Mariamme, a deformation made by Greek speakers not familiar with the name. This must also then explain the usage in the apocryphal Acts of Philip (late 4th or early 5th century), where Mariamne is consistently and frequently used for the sister of the apostle Philip, apparently identified with both Mary Magdalene and Mary of Bethany.


Even if Mariamne in ONLY a late corruption of Mariamme, the Miriamme form being an early Jewish Christian (1st century!) form, it IS evidence that the "Gnostics" diverged from a more "pure" form of true "Christianity" (with the connection to the actual Jesus community) than what all of today's Christians valued as "Apostolic" (the Greco-Roman "Orthodox" folk from Clement of Rome to Augustine).

And I think Mariamne would have been the 1st century spelling for Mary Magdalene and the Mariamme form was the slight corruption (it would have been corrupted by those who didn't think the Mariamne was the correct spelling, and the GREEK Miriamme would have been seen as much closer to the actual standard Miriam Hebrew form).

I find this to be remarkable REGARDLESS OF WHICH EACT FORM WAS THE ORIGINAL.

Edited by LamarkNewAge, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 60 by Phat, posted 11-19-2017 3:04 AM Phat has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 68 by Phat, posted 11-20-2017 2:36 AM LamarkNewAge has responded

  
LamarkNewAge
Member
Posts: 1660
Joined: 12-22-2015
Member Rating: 1.7


Message 70 of 114 (823994)
11-20-2017 11:54 PM
Reply to: Message 68 by Phat
11-20-2017 2:36 AM


Evidence that Apostolic tradition that Catholics and Protestants accept is FALSE.
quote:

but what do your quoted sources know that other sources missed? What is it that makes you trust these sources? Seems to me to be a lot of googling of information with little evidence of authenticity. Or perhaps you see or know something that I missed....

I have read journals from the Dallas Theological Seminary and lots of fundamentalist apologetics.

Let me give you an example of how I don't agree with the suggestions of my sources.

Notice how Tabor suggested that the tradition that Polycarp (Bishop of Smyrna) was a disciple of the Apostle John (a lie made up by the king of liars: Irenaeus) could explain Hippolytus knowing the naickname of Mary Magdelene.

Irenaeus was a disciple of Polycarp.

He communicated with Hippolytus for sure.

quote:

The first text is a quotation from Hippolytus, a third century Christian writer who records that James, the brother of Jesus, passed on secret teachings of Jesus to “Mariamene,” i.e., Mary Magdalene.[xii] There it was, in plain Greek—this unusual spelling of the name Miriame or Mary—precisely like the spelling on the ossuary. How could this be, since the ossuary was from the 1st century and Hippolytus was writing at least 150 hundred years later? According to tradition Hippolytus was a disciple of Irenaeus, who was a disciple of Polycarp, who was a disciple of the apostle John—who of course knew both Mary Magdalene and Jesus. Perhaps it is this link of oral teaching, through three generations, that somehow had preserved this special name for Mary Magdalene. Its diminutive ending makes it a term of endearment—like calling someone named James “Jimmy,” or an Elizabeth “Betty.”

The fact that Tabor could even mention this without any sort of description of what a liar Irenaeus was is disturbing.

I don't always agree with the way my sources present their arguments.

He is how I know it is a lie that Polycarp was a disciple of John the Apostle (and it is important because this lie allows people to claim that Papias must have known the Apostle also as the liar Irenaeus also claimed).

Here is a journal that showed the vitally important scholarly debate over the use of Matthew by the "Apostolic Fathers". (I have it on my zip drive and I typed it over a decade ago)

(the issue of Polycarp and John came up)

The introduction is this:

quote:

The Second Century
A Journal of Early Christian Studies
WINTER 1992

Volume 9 Number 4
p.193
Preface
William R. Farmer

…Bellinzoni, a student of Helmut Koester at Harvard University…is presently engaged in editing the English translation of Edouard Massaux’s Influence de l’Evangile de saint Matthieu. Sur la literature chretienne avant saint Irenee, 1950. Reprinted with additional bibliographical entries, and with a new “Preface” by Frans Neirynck, Massaux’s work re-emerged in 1986 to present a critical challenge to Koester’s 1957 Synoptische Uberlieferung bei den apostolischen Vatern. Bellinzoni’s English edition of Massaux’s work is based on the original French text reprinted in 1986, but also includes the updated bibliographical material and the new “Preface” by Neirynck from the second printing. More important, however, the English edition includes certain “Addenda” prepared by Bellinzoni himself, in addition to his own “Preface to the English Translation.” Both the new “Preface” by Neirynck and Bellinzoni’s “Preface to the English Translation,” juxtapose the work of Koester to that of Massaux. This sets the terms for a forthcoming critical debate that overshadows all contemporary discussion of the topic, “The Gospel of Matthew in the Second Century.”
….
….
p.194

The English edition of Massaux’s work, The Influence of the Gospel of Saint Matthew on Christian Literature Before Saint Irenaeus, is being published by Mercer University Press in three separate volumes. The first volume, containing Bellinzoni’s “Preface” and three of his “Addenda” did not appear until 1991.

….
Bellinzoni’s “Addenda seem to present prima facie evidence to support Massaux against Koester. In my opinion, it is a sign of Bellinzoni’s scholarly objectivity that he would voluntarily bring forth these “Addenda” when we realize that he believed that his teacher’s work, … “supersedes” that of Massaux precisely in the case of the writers most centrally concerned in the debate, i.e., the Apostolic Fathers, including 1 Clement, Barnabas, and Ignatius. Bellinzoni’s “Addenda” clearly appear to work against this conclusion, and that must be borne in mind as we shape the agenda for future discussion.

Bellinzoni’s “Addenda” summarize the findings of Koester, Wolf-Dietrich Kohler, and Biblia Patristica regarding the use of Matthew by 1 Clement, Barnabas, and Ignatius. (See Added Note below). The results underscore Professor Ulrich Luz’s judgment set forth in Das Evangelium nach Matthaus, 1985, pp. 75-76, that the relevant evidence supports conclusions that are nearer to those of Massaux than to those of Koester. Frans Neirynck, in his new “Preface” to Massaux, 1986, cites the relevant passage from Luz as well as texts from Wolf-Dietrich Kohler (a student of Luz) and Klaus Wengst, both of whom reach conclusions nearer to those of Massaux than Koester. …
….
p.195

Added Note
See Wolf-Dietrich Kohler, Die Rezeption des Mattausevangeliums in der Zeit vor Irenaus, WUNT 2/24 (Tubingen: Mohr-Siebeck, 1987), and Biblia Patristica: Index des Citations et Allusions bibliques dans la literature patristique, des origines a Clement d’Alexandrie etTertullien, Vol. I (Paris, 1975) 223-93. Bellinzoni’s “Addenda” are found on pp. 58, 83-84, and 121-122 of The Influence of the Gospel of Saint Matthew on Christian Literature Before Saint Irenaeus, Book I, The First Ecclesiastical Writers, by Edouard Massaux, translated by Norman J. Beval and Susan Hecht, edited with an introduction and addenda by Arthus J. Bellinzoni (Louvain: Peeters and Macon: Mercer University Press, 1990). Based on the data reported in these addenda, my summary observations are three in number: (1) Against Koester’s conclusion that “I Clement never refers to a written Gospel, Kohler and Biblia Patristica agree in finding several possible allusions and three possible citations of Matthew”, but Massaux’s use of “demonstrate” for the degree of proof rendered by his three passages in support of literary dependence is stronger than the [p.196] findings of Kohler and Biblia Patristica will support. (2) In relation to Koester’s conclusion, “that Barnabas used the Gospel of Matthew simply cannot be proved,” Kohler and Biblia Patristica agree in finding several possible illusions and as many as three quite possible citations of Matthew by Barnabas. Their findings agree with Massaux that there is evidence for literary dependence at certain points, one of which turns on The Source question. (3) In relation to Koester’s conclusion that “There is no positive citation of Matthew (by Ignatius), Kohler’s and Biblia Patristica’s findings agree in showing that there is “probable” evidence of citation. Other writings treated by Koester, including 2 Clement and Polycarp, are treated by Massaux in Vol. II of the English edition, which is due to appear in July, 1992. The Didache, another book treated by Koester, is treated by Massaux in Vol. III of the English edition. This is to appear in September, 1992.
….

….
p.195

It is within the context of this on-going critical discussion that Bellinzoni’s paper ad the responces by Everding, Nardoni, and Farkasfalvy take on a certain relevance, more apparent today perhaps than at the time of the Symposium itself. The issues have been given a certain prominence by subsequent public announcements made to the media by representatives of the “Jesus Seminar” and the “Claremont ’Q’ Project,” Professors Robert Funk and James Robinson, respectively. On the one hand, if Koester’s conclusions are more probably correct, the whole critical movement of Walter Bauer, James Robinson, Helmut Koester, the “Jesus Seminar,” and the “Claremont ’Q’ Project” is lent significant credibility. On the other hand, if Massaux’s conclusions are more probably correct, this influential movement is correspondingly denied a significant measure of credibility, and a very different picture of Christian origins begins to take shape.

A careful reading of this set of papers will set to underscore the somewhat chaotic and frustrating state of much of contemporary critical work on the Gospel of Matthew and its influence on the shaping of early Christianity… …on-going scholarly research and its publication by responsible peer-reviewed journals and university-related presses, is a sine qua non for all responsible parties interested in the advance of this scholarly discussion.


Now I will quote just a sliver of Bellinzoni's very long article from the same journal issue.

quote:

p.197
The Gospel of Matthew in the Second Century
Arthur J. Bellinzoni
….
Koester observed that for the period before the third century “we have no manuscript evidence at all, and text types can be identified, only by that evidence that comes from those who [p.198] used Gospels,” such as the Apostolic Fathers and early Christian apologists [1]. Koester further indicated that “a text not protected by canonical status, but used in liturgy, apologetics, polemics, homiletics, and instruction of catechumens is most likely to be copied frequently and is thus subject to frequent modifications and alterations.” [2] He also noted:

All of that evidence…points to the fact that the text of the Synoptic Gospels was very unstable during the
first and second centuries. …With respect to Matthew and Luke, there is no guarantee that the archetypes
of the manuscript tradition are identical with the original text of each Gospel. The harmonizations of
these two Gospels demonstrates that their text was not sacrosanct and that alterations could be expected,
even if they were not always as radical as in the case of Marcion’s revision of Luke, the Secret Gospel’s
revision of Mark, and Justin’s construction of a harmony.
New Testament textual critics have been deluded by the hypothesis that the archetypes of the textual
tradition which were fixed ca. 200 CE-how many archetypes for each gospel?-are (almost) identical
with the autographs. This cannot be confirmed by any external evidence. On the contrary, whatever
evidence there is indicates that not only minor, but also substantial revisions of the original texts have
occurred during the first hundred years of the transmission. [3]
….
[1] Subsequently published as Helmut Koester, “The Text of the Synoptic Gospels in the Second Century,” in Gospel Traditions in the Second Century, ed. William L. Peterson (Notre Dame: University of Notre Dame Press, 1989). 19
[2] Ibid., p.2.
[3] Ibid., p.28.

….
p.201
1 Clement was probably written in Rome sometime between 90-100. Koester dates it in 96-97. [7]
….
[7] Helmut Koester, Introduction to the New Testament, Volume II, History and Literature of Early Christianity (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1982) 288.
….
p.201
Massaux identifies direct influence of Matthew on 1 Clement in six passages…
p.202
….
Koester argues that only two sayings of Jesus are found in 1 Clement (1 Clem. 13:1-2; 46:7-8)…
….
Koester finds no literary relationship between this passage and Mt. 5:7, for the passage in 1 Clem. 13:2 is shorter and more precise than the synoptic parallels and seems earlier, like a first step in the development of the saying. He suggests that 1 Clem. 13:2 can be traced back to a stage in the tradition that lies behind our synoptic gospels. Koester also argues that the saying in 1 Clem. 46:8 shows no knowledge of the form found in the synoptic gospels, but rather reproduces a variant of the text that shows a special relationship with what he calls “the Q-form” of this logion, handed down in Mt. 18:6-7 and Lk. 17:1-2.
The result of Koester’s investigation is to conclude that 1 Clement never refers to a written gospel. Even if he did use one, it never functioned for [p.203] him with the authority of scripture. The only authority that 1 Clement recognized apart from the Old Testament is “What the Lord said.”
….
p.202
…Kohler (pp.60-66) adopts a position close to that of Massaux. With respect to 1 Clement, Kohler identifies as passages that are probably dependent on Matthew: 1 Clem. 16.17; 24.5; and 46.8.
……………
p.204
Didache
Based on what he assumes is Didache’s use of the “Two Ways” tradition in The Epistle of Barnabas, Massaux argues that the Didache should be dated sometime after 150. In his Synoptische Uberlieferung, Koester seems to agree on a relatively later dating for the Didache, although in his Introduction he located the writing in Syria sometime toward the end of the first century.
….
[LamarkNewAge note Synoptische Uberlieferung is a 1957 work by Koester Introduction is 1982]

p.205
Koester’s conclusions with respect to the Didache are quite different. He acknowledges that Did. 1:3ff contains sayings that go back to Matthew and Luke, but they are not the result of a direct use of the written gospels but come rather from ready-made sayings collections. …It appears that the compiler of the Didache knew a written gospel, but he apparently did not use it himself. …Koester continues by arguing that the Didache establishes the existence of the synoptic gospels, but certainly not their value as authoritative sources of what the Lord said and what his community was ordered to do. …Koester argues that the Didache establishes that written gospels came into use in the first half of the second century, but certainly as sources among many others without special authority to be used for the production of collections of sayings of the Lord.
….
p.206
Ignatius of Antioch
The letters of Ignatius, bishop of Antioch in Syria, were written sometime between 110-117 (the last years of Trajan’s reign)…
p.207
Koester’s analysis of many of these same texts yields quite different results. According to him, there is no citation drawn positively from the synoptic gospels. The similarity between Smyrn 1:1 and Mt. 3:13ff. Is, in his judgment, probably best accounted for not on the basis of a familiarity with the text of Matthew, but rather because the seemingly Matthean turn of the phrase in the context of Jesus’ baptism (“in order that all righteousness might be fulfilled by him”) may be the result of an Antiochian rather than a peculiarly Matthean “revision.”
….

….
Polycarp of Smyrna
Polycarp, bishop of Smyrna at the time of Ignatius’s martyrdom (110-117), has left behind a document (not very well preserved) known as his Letter to the Philippians. Paul N. Harrison has shown that this letter is [p.208] actually based on two different writings addressed to the church in Philippi. The earlier of these writings, consisting of chapter 13 and possibly chapter 14, was a short covering note sent by the bishop of Smyrna to accompany the letters of Ignatius that the Philippian church had requested. This letter was written shortly after Ignatius’ visit, perhaps within two weeks, sometime between 110 and 117. This letter reflects no knowledge of Ignatius’s martyrdom in Rome, but speaks only to the question of forwarding the letters. Phil. 1-12 reflects a totally different situation, and in Phil. 9:1 Ignatius is called a blessed martyr whose memory and example, now passed into history, can now be recalled. This document must have been written toward the end of Hadrian’s reign, 117-138, or “several decades later” than the first letter. [LamarkNewAge note: quote is from Koester’s Introduction]
….
p.209
In his Introduction, Koester once again addresses the question of Polycarp’s use of the gospels. There he notes that “it not only knows and uses 1 Clement, but also corrects the quotations of sayings of Jesus in 1 Clem. 13:2 according to the text that had been established by the Gospels of Matthew and Luke (Phil. 2:3); a knowledge of the text of those gospels is also shown elsewhere (Phil. 7:2).
The question of the use of Matthew (and Luke) in Polycarp’s Letter to the Philippians is simplified by Harrison’s thesis. It is not in the earlier letter (110-117) but in the later letter (135 or later) that we find clear use of Matthew, Luke, and 1 Clement. The results, therefore, conform to our picture of the other early Apostolic Fathers, i.e. they reflect no use of our canonical gospels. In addition, the issue raised by Massaux with respect to the absence of citations from the Gospel of John in Polycarp’s letter is addressed by Harrison’s thesis as well. Clearly Polycarp of Smyrna is not the author of this later writing.

[ LamarkNewAge note: Polycarp was traditionally described as a disciple of the apostle John]
….
The Epistle of Barnabas
….
Massaux dates Barnabas at the same time as 1 Clement, i.e. at the end of the first century. …in his Introduction Koester dates Barnabas about 100. The truth of the matter is that we know nothing about the author of Barnabas, its place of writing, or its time of composition.
….
[ LamarkNewAge note: Shepherd of Hermas was reported to have been written in Rome around 150 according to Canon Muratori and both scholars say the synoptic aren’t quoted or in influence. 2 Clement isn’t dated earlier than 120]
….
p.215
The conclusions of Koester are radically different. The citations in the Apostolic Fathers that appear to parallel texts in the Gospel of Matthew are, for Koester, not dependent upon Matthew, but are rather explained in almost all instances by the history of a tradition which runs from the pre-synoptic tradition parallel to the tradition in the written gospels. The Gospel of Matthew and the Apostolic Fathers are, therefore, parallel traditions, both of which reflect use of pre-synoptic church tradition, whether written or oral or both. …The source of this tradition is rather the community, which handed on and made use of the synoptic-like tradition based on its practical needs, and which placed its own stamp on the material already extant and then transformed and added to it.
Actually, for Koester, the Gospel of Matthew stands right in the middle of this process, neither at the beginning, nor at the end as a last step. …instances in which gospels may have been used, the gospels seem to have been drawn upon and used along with other (oral and/or written) traditions. Rather the Apostolic Fathers stand in the middle of the living history of the tradition. …The Apostolic Fathers borrowed of necessity from the syn- [p.216] optic material, the same sources (whether written or oral) from which the synoptic gospels themselves drew. In fact, the Apostolic Fathers seem to be members of that same community of faith which found its outcome in the synoptic gospels. In other words, for Koester, we cannot conclude that in the Apostolic Fathers we have later forms of synoptic sayings of Jesus.
After comparing the conclusions of Massaux and Koester, we are forced to acknowledge that the results of this investigation are obviously inconclusive. The two authors present radically different interpretations of the data. For Massaux, the Apostolic Fathers are using the Gospel of Matthew, although often with considerable freedom, perhaps from memory without the text of Matthew before them much of the time. Yet, for Massaux, it is clearly Matthew upon which the Apostolic Fathers are usually dependent, or sometimes even upon a post-Matthean written source. ….
Although the conclusions of Massaux and Koester are very different, there is an important point of agreement between them. Both agree that the Apostolic Fathers do not cite the Gospel of Matthew in such a way as to indicate that it was regarded by them as “scripture.” The Apostolic Fathers are clearly not slavishly dependent upon a written gospel tradition. If they knew Matthew at all, they were either very independent in their use of Matthew (Massaux), or they were still inclined to cite more often from the living tradition of the Christian community (Koester).


Notice that there is no quotation of John by Polycarp.

Here is a fundamentalist apologetic work attempting to make a big deal out of what a great quoter of the New Testament Polycarp was ( I admit that he quoted ALMOST everything that came to be know as the New Testament).

(This is the entirety of the extant works attributed to Polycarp, even the parts that most scholars notice were added later, taking note that fundamentalists deny that the writings came from any other hand but Polycarp's himself)

https://books.google.com/books?id=hlhNAwAAQBAJ&pg=PA56&dq...

quote:

Polycarp, writing to the Philippian church (c. 115 A.D. ?), weaves an almost continuous string of clear quotations and allusions to New Testament writings. His heavy use of Scripture is reminiscent of Clement of Rome; however, Clement used mostly the Old Testament while Polycarp usually used the New. There are perhaps fifty clear quotations taken from Matthew, Luke, Acts, Romans, 1 and 2 Corinthians, Galatians, Ephesians, Philippians, Colossians, 1 and 2 Thessalonians, 1 and 2 Timothy, 1 and 2 Peter, and 1 John, and many allusions including to Mark, Hebrews, James, and 2 and 3 John. (The only NT writer not included is Jude! But remember that the above refers to only one letter - if Polycarp wrote other letters he may well have quoted Jude.)

Phat.

You asked me this:

quote:

what do your quoted sources know that other sources missed? What is it that makes you trust these sources?

I have no choice but to go to the actual documents available.

I read the arguments from the scholars (of all stripes) and the Greco-Roman fundamentalist "Christian" apologists (from 108 A.D. or 117 A.D. like Polycarp and from the 20/21 century A.D. )

The evidence is that the European Orthodox version of Christianity have pushed lies about connections to the Apostles.

The Gospel of John is a forgery and Irenaeus lied about his teacher Polycarp being associated with the Apostle John. Polycarp knew no Gospel of John and nobody has a "Gospel of John" until after 140-150 A.D.

Irenaeus was one of the liars who added the name "John" to the Gospel that Justin Martyr first quoted.

Edited by LamarkNewAge, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 68 by Phat, posted 11-20-2017 2:36 AM Phat has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 76 by Phat, posted 11-22-2017 1:09 PM LamarkNewAge has not yet responded

  
LamarkNewAge
Member
Posts: 1660
Joined: 12-22-2015
Member Rating: 1.7


Message 73 of 114 (824049)
11-21-2017 9:55 PM
Reply to: Message 71 by Coyote
11-21-2017 12:22 AM


Re: Science proves?
quote:

The IP starts out, "Science proves that..."
What follows is pages of religious belief and closely related matters, with no appreciable relationship to science.

This is particularly true as science does not "prove" anything, but comes up with verifiable explanations for given sets of facts. Belief, scriptures, and the like have nothing to do with science.


I actually think that science can decisively prove that the "James son of Joseph, brother of Jesus" ossuary belongs to the same tomb where we have a "Jesus son of Joseph" ossuary and a "Judah son of Jesus" ossuary.

The chemical composition in the soil was a scientific test, and it had a hypothesis.

I think the problem is that people generally don't respect a field that they aren't an expert in.

Too few people understand the science (and to compound the problem, this might be something of a new scientific field, but I'm not sure).

Dr. Michael Savage (a radio host and scientist) gave advice to people who specialize in a field. He said that they shouldn't talk about it to people (in conversation) because it is human nature for somebody, who doesn't understand something (like another person's profession), to make fun of what it is that they do.

These scientific tests just won't get the respect they deserve by the general public (for sure) AND even the professional field's in the humanities and sciences. Perhaps the only thing that will change this factor is the (unlikely) possibility that these chemical test get used more often and more widespread in its (worldwide?) use.

It becomes a real challenge when it is a requirement to get people to wake up and take notice.

ADDITIONAL SCIENTIFIC TESTS.

Patina:

quote:

VERDICT: NOT GUILTY

Two Remaining Defendants Cleared of Forgery Charges After 5-year Trial

Hershel Shanks • 03/14/2012

July 2012 update: In the July/August 2012 issue of Biblical Archaeology Review, Hershel Shanks presents the authoritative post-trial analysis of the James Ossuary in the article “‘Brother of Jesus’ Inscription is Authentic.” Read it in the BAS Library.

For more on the James Ossuary trial, visit the Bible History Daily James Ossuary Forgery Trial Resources Guide.

After a trial of more than five years with 138 witnesses, more than 400 exhibits and a trial transcript of 12,000 pages, Judge Aharon Farkash of the Jerusalem District Court has cleared the defendants of all forgery charges. His opinion in the case, handed down on March 14, is 474 pages long.

....

Let’s consider the evidence regarding the three objects with inscriptions that have received the most attention.

The first is the ossuary inscribed “James, the son of Joseph, the brother of Jesus.” All agree that the ossuary itself is authentic and ancient. The question is whether the inscription is forged—or more specifically whether the phrase “brother of Jesus” was added in recent times to an ancient inscription “James, son of Joseph.”

The first stop in any investigation of this question would be at the door of paleographaers, scholars who can date and authenticate inscriptions of particular periods based on the style and stance of the letters. In this case, the inscription has been authenticated by two of the greatest world authorities on the paleography of this period, as referred to previously, Andre Lemaire of the Sorbonne and Ada Yardeni of Hebrew University.

What is even more significant is that no paleographer of any repute has even suggested that this inscription might be a forgery. There is no other side paleographically.

Scientifically, however, there is. Professor Yuval Goren of Tel Aviv University found what he called “James Bond” covering the inscription in order to hide evidence of forgery. The James Bond was, he said, a mixture of ground-up limestone and hot water that formed a fake patina. But it turned out there was no way to make the mixture Goren hypothesized stick to the surface of the ossuary without the addition of an acid, traces of which would be found—and it wasn’t there. This so-call James Bond could be removed with a toothpick; it was hardly “bonded.” Goren even admitted that his “James Bond” could be the result of cleaning the ossuary (something dealers customarily do to make inscriptions stand out).

More important, after treatment, original ancient patina could be seen in several letters of the inscription, including one of the letters of the word “Jesus.” Before the trial, Goren had denied that there was any ancient patina in the inscription. When he was presented on cross-examination with new pictures taken by one of the defendant’s experts, Professor Goren became flummoxed and asked for a recess to allow him time to examine the box itself, rather than the pictures. He returned the next day and admitted in court that there was indeed original ancient patina in some of the letters. However, he sought to explain this, suggesting that the forger had incorporated ancient scratches with naturally formed patina as strokes of the forged letters of the inscription. (If anyone believes that, I have a bridge I’d like to sell them—very cheaply.)

Actually, this original ancient patina had been observed much earlier by Orna Cohen, one of the members of the Israel Antiquities Authority committee that examined the ossuary before the trial, but no one paid any attention to this; the IAA knew where it wanted to go.

There are other, simpler reasons why I believe that the inscription is not a forgery. Oded Golan has owned the ossuary since the late 1970s; he proved this with old photographs authenticated by an ex-FBI agent as using paper no longer used at a later date. And Golan never tried to sell the ossuary or publicize the inscription. He claims, quite believably, that he didn’t even know the New Testament mentions James as the brother of Jesus, or as he put it, “I never realized God could have a brother.” Even more understandably, he had no idea Ya’acov (on the ossuary and Jacob to any Israeli) was translated as James in English New Testaments.

The prosecution claims it found forgers’ tools in Golan’s apartment. Golan claims they were used in restoring antiquities from his collection, not for making forgeries. None of these tools, however, could be used to engrave the inscription on this ossuary. Even if he is a forger, that doesn’t mean everything in his vast collection is a forgery.

https://www.biblicalarchaeology.org/...cs/verdict-not-guilty


DNA

The DNA of the "Jesus, son of Jospeh" has actually been preserved and tested.

Same for the Mariam(enou?).

However.

There is a really sad and sucky issue here.

A God awful thing happened to the DNA inside most of the other ossuaries.

(there is unfortunately only limited opportunity to do DNA tests, on the bone fragments stuck to the ossuary interior chamber, because the vast majority of the ossuaries were scrubbed/cleaned so they could be put on display)

The "Jude, son of Jesus" DNA cannot be tested because it is no long in the ossuary.

That is awful.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 71 by Coyote, posted 11-21-2017 12:22 AM Coyote has not yet responded

  
LamarkNewAge
Member
Posts: 1660
Joined: 12-22-2015
Member Rating: 1.7


Message 74 of 114 (824051)
11-21-2017 10:01 PM
Reply to: Message 71 by Coyote
11-21-2017 12:22 AM


Re: Science proves? Here is the caption text from the article.
quote:

The inscription reading “James, son of Joseph, brother of Jesus” on the James Ossuary is the most well-known piece of the case. Paleographic analyses and the existence of ancient patina suggest that the inscription is authentic

This is a shorter post for everybody to respond to.

UNDERSTAND.

Patina tests are indeed part of the scientific fields.

(the paleographic analysis is a textual study and not considered science)


This message is a reply to:
 Message 71 by Coyote, posted 11-21-2017 12:22 AM Coyote has not yet responded

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2020