I am getting tired of people writing books that force me to read them, heh. 1st off was all the stuff about the bone box of Jesus' brother (which was debunked) then it was Dan Brown's The Da Vinci Code (fiction!...but really good fiction, heh heh) and now I get to read this book:
And this book goes beyond putting theories into fiction, it flat out claims it found the bones of Jesus...and his family, and his son, etc... (most of you will know that "the bones of Jesus" Christian philosophy story is one of my favorites that I tell to challenge people to deal with their theology when it comes to the resurrection and ascension of Jesus....thanks to the man who told it to me the first time Jerry Walls)
Now, I will not make any comments of it yet (and probably will not put them here anyway....but I know that the world will read this book (mostly because James Cameron did the documentary for the discovery channel on it...want more about that you can go to the hype machine here:
But, I will post a little response from a man I respect a great deal (N.T. [Tom] Wright) when he was asked about such and claim in 1996:
Dr Wright said: "These were very common names at the time and it would beOh and does it not see a little weird that if Jesus had a son, that the early church would have known and covered that little tid bit later on...you know the SON of the one they accept to be GOD....and the guys on The Today Show this morning even said that it was all found in the 1980's but everyone dismissed it and it was only after they found statisticians that told them that having all those very common names back then in one place is the only evidence they can base their claim on... not a very strong on if you ask me.
like someone in 2000 years time claiming to have found the tomb of the royal
family because it contained the names Charles, son of Philip, Andrew and
Diana.
& another article:
Dr Wright said it was "laughable" that anyone could have tended the body of
Jesus without it becoming public knowledge.
He said early Christians had been adamant that Christ's body was
resurrected,
and this was the reason the religion had survived.
"This is no more than an interesting coincidence."
Anyway.... I suppose i will read the book (or have Tiffany read it and then tell me what it said, heh) and then i will watch the documentary on the Discovery channel and be able to at the very least talk to others about it... but I might be able to tell the bones of Jesus story a few more times, ha ha ha... thanks for reading the blog.... KUTPs!!!
(added Feb 27th 12:30 am)...a good friend Russel Smith has a good critique of the whole story on his blog post here.)
Vblog!
4 comments:
DG -- thanks for the link and the added info on the NT Wright commentary. What I find so interesting is that within a day or two from the press conference, almost a full refutation has been worked up among various exegetes and thinkers all over the web. Likely, this will become a non-issue entirely.
Oops...sorry, that was me with the deleted comment.
Discovery Channel's web site has two original articles that should lay the whole thing to rest - first is a catalog of first century ossuaries; second is the original excavation report.
http://dsc.discovery.com/convergence/tomb/explore/media/tomb_evidence.pdf
I haven't looked at much of what others are saying, but the critiques are generally weak. NT Wright is great, of course, but his argument work only if one shares his perspective on the issue. Otherwise, it just adds more fuel to the conspiracy.
So here are a couple of significant factors:
1) the names are common, and I think that both the ossuary catalog and Kloner's article touch on those issues. A Jewish guy named Yehudah? That's like an Scottish guy names Scott, a French guy named Francois, you get the point.
2) the reading of the name is "Jesus" (Yeshua) is highly questionable. Kloner reconstructs the name on the basis of another ossuary that identifies a Yeshua as the father of Yehuda, but there is no empirical evidence that the ossuaries are related in any way.
3) the whole bit about the cross being etched into the stone in front of Jesus' name...it's barely a cross, and can be easily explained as scratches, or erasures, cracks or...
So yeah, another great example of why archaeology, whether it's used for or against christianity, is more art than science. And, a fantastic reminder that a little knowledge (emphasis on the little) is more dangerous than ignorance.
(and before you remind me...I only took about ten minutes to look at this...so...yeah...)
Thanks john.... i let everyone else know, heh. Thanks again! and yes... I could eat in 10 mins. not sure about you though, heh.
Post a Comment