I haven’t read the rest of the back-and-forth, but this part -
is contradicted by hard evidence. I am unaware of any archaeological finds of crucifed people whose bodies were discarded, whereas we have at least one example of a crucifixion victim being given standard Jewish burial of the time. So there is no evidence of its unlikelihood, and pretty conclusive evidence that it did happen.
Regards,
Shodan
There’s a similar thread going on in GQ, and here’s what I said there:
But here’s the problem. There is no evidence whatsoever that Mary Magdalene was married to Jesus. None. A couple of wild hypothesis and a popular fiction book is it. So assuming that the second Mary is Jesus’s wife is a HUGE stretch.
Nor does the evidence from the tomb say that the Matthew is the brother of that Yeshua, or that the Jospeh is the father or any relation at all. It does give the name of Jesus son of Joseph, and a Judah son of Jesus, but the tomb does not in any way indicate that the Joseph in the tomb is the father referred to or that THAT Jesus is the father of the Judah thus interred. Sure, we can guess a familial relationship as they are all in the same tomb. Nor is Matthew one of the known names of a brother of Jesus, in fact, Jesus’s brothers are named “James and Joses and Judas and Simon” and thus, it is very unlikely there was another brother named Matthew.
So, the computation is bogus. He blithely makes the assumption there is an unknown Brother named Matthew, and the Jesus was married to Mary. So,when he throws those bogus assumptions into the math, of course the numbers look good. Now, he does eliminate Matthew in a later compuation (“not “explicatively” mentioned in the Gospels” ) , but still there is no reason to assume the “other Mary” is Mary Magdalene. Nor is there anything, anywhere, even in myth for a Judah son of Jesus.
So really, the only evidence is that it’s a Jesus son of Joseph- related in some way to a Mary.
Nor is there a body for the Jesus there. So, even if it was a tomb, it could be an empty tomb. Perhaps the empty tomb of Jesus was preserved and his relatives buried nearby. Unlikely, sure.
From your own link:
In point of fact, the Yehochanan find respresents the ONLY crucifixion victim whose remains have ever been found. Of the hundreds of thousands of people who were cricified in the ancient world. We’ve only ever found ONE body. That’s because the bodies were virtually always destroyed either by being left on the cross for carrion birds and dogs, or by being thrown into shallow pits with other criminals and covered with lime. The Yehochanan find is testament to the RARITY of a victim being turned over for burial, not it’s “likelihood.” It is, in fact, the only known case where it ever happened.
Denying proper burial to crucifixion victims was part of the punishment, especially when it was done to Jewish insurgents. Allowing a body to be properly buried was tantamount to an admission that the victim was innocent – an admission that Pilate could NOT have made without insulting his own Emperor (remember, if you believe he Gospels, then Pilate ostensibly crucified Jesus for claiming to be the King of the Jews – a direct challenge to authority of Caesar in Judea – Pilate could not be lenient with that kind of sedition, especially with an Emperor as capricious and vindictive as Tiberius).
Your link only supports what I said, it doesn’t contradict me.
Please provide a link to the hard archaeological evidence for this. Since you allege that standard burial was so rare, you should be able to cite at least a dozen lime-covered pits filled with skeletons with nails stuck in the bones that have been excavated. Let’s see them.
Regards,
Shodan
You don’t read too well, do you. Like I said, the example you linked represents the ONLY crucifixion victim who has ever been recovered. No other crucified skeletons have ever been found, period. We know how the remains were disposed of only from contemporary writers who wrote about it. Asking for archaeological evidence that bodies were NOT entombed makes no sense. The evidence is the contemporary written record and the almost total absence of crucifixion victims being found in tombs (or anywhere else) despite the thousands of people we know were crucified.
We would not expect to find them in lime pits because lime is a corrosive. It dissolves human remains. That was the whole point of dumping bodies in lime pits. It was a way to dispose of large numbers of rotting bodies very quickly.
The bodies that weren’t dumped in pits (which was probably most of them) were left on the cross and were eaten by carrion birds, by dogs and by other scavangers.
The fact that the remains of only one crucifixion victim have ever been found IS the archaeological evidence which confirms what writers of the time told us (like Josephus, who said that the bodies of crucified Jews were “cast away without burial” by the Romans).
If you would like to argue a new theory that crucifixion victims were customarily entombed, then what is YOUR evidence. The almost total lack of recovered remains is exactly what would be predicted if bodies were left unburied or dissolved in lime pits. If you believe something else happened to those bodies, then where are they? The remains of crucifixion victims would only be found if they were NOT “cast away without burial” or dissolved in lime pits. Your demands make no sense.
So, no hard evidence for your assertion; just an attempt to shift the burden of proof.
Color me surprised.
Regards,
Shodan
It doesn’t appear that you understand much of what I’ve been saying. I’ll try and speak more slowly for you. I’m saying that the bodies of crucifixion victims were not preserved or buried. The bodies were eaten by animals or dissolved in lime. We know this from writers like Josephus, Pliny the Elder and Tacitus. What kind of physical evidence would you expect to see to confirm that bodies were not preserved? Your demand is total gibberish. The only evidence which would be predicted by the claims of those writers would be a lack of discovered remains and that’s exactly what we have.
You are the one who would like to suggest that the writers of the time were liars and that the bodies really were buried. Fine. Where are they? This is not a reversal of the burden on my part, because you are the one making the assertion contrary to historical and archaeological evidence.
Note that eaten by scavengers or coated in lime would still leave bones. Lime only hides the smell and dissolves some flesh, as many murderers have found to their dismay.
http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,850546-2,00.html
Dr. Snyder attacks several fallacies about murder: that it will out; that a murderer always returns to the scene of his crime; that quicklime will liquidate a body (quicklime tends to preserve it); that surprise or fear may be fixed on a victim’s face (death relaxes the muscles);
http://links.jstor.org/sici?sici=1547-6154(193201%2F02)3%3A1<59%3ACQB>2.0.CO%3B2-0
http://www.crimelibrary.com/terrorists_spies/assassins/mckinley/9.html
The remains were to have been covered with quicklime but research indicated that lime would not erode the body sufficiently.
Thus Shodan asking for "Please provide a link to the hard archaeological evidence for this. Since you allege that standard burial was so rare, you should be able to cite at least a dozen lime-covered pits filled with skeletons with nails stuck in the bones that have been excavated. Let’s see them.
" is a reasonable question. If the bodies were thrown into an open pit and covered with lime, we’d find the skeletons quite intact. In fact, the quicklime would keep the scavangers off.
Obviously the scavengers and lime pits did not leave any bones because there aren’t any. Thousands of people were crucified, the remains of only one victim have ever been found. Writers of the time said that most of the bodies were left for scavengers. You guys would like to assert that all the writers of the time were lying and the bodies were really secretly entombed or buried. Where are they then? Your objections are ludicrous.
What possible evidence in this case could be compelling?
True faith is unshakable, it borders on psychosis.
I just watched all of the Last Tomb of Christ. I have to say it was way more convincing than I planned for it to be. It hit hard from lots of pieces of evidence and there was some real science thrown in with DNA relationship matching and verification of some of the odder things with scriptural sources.
The main problem would be if they cherry-picked everything they used and there is a lot of inconsistent evidence in reality.
I watched it last night also, and they did a better job of arguing their case than I thought they could. I’m still not convinced, however. There are too many assumptions that must be satisfied for their hypothesis to be correct, and a lot more science needs to be done to narrow down the possibilities.
I wish the program and research would have been designed, guided, and written by scholars rather than by “papparazzi.”
They did, however, bring to light a number of questions that still must be explored. It may serve as a catalyst for more research in this area.
Saw it last night…looked pretty convincing to me. Of course, there might be a reason why main stream experts in the field are mainly unconvinced…but looking at the probability study they did on the show, that was pretty convincing. Along with the DNA testing of the missing ossuary (tieing it back to the main cache)…well, I’d like to see why the experts are so skeptical to be honest.
-XT
I think that goes to show the power of drama and video. By dramatizing key portions, one can make the case sound more compelling than it actually is. After all, drama has a way of tugging at emotions in a way that journal papers can’t.
In fact, this is one of the objections that scholars have raised to this whole issue. The merits of this case should be presented primarily in the scholarly arena, rather than through movie making.
I started a new thread to discuss the broadcast here.
The dramatic renactments meant nothing to me, but the Discovery and History Channels have made a cottage industry of pseudo-documentaries which dramatize all kinds of Bible stories as if they were historical events. I thought it was ironic that more than one person complained about the dramatic reenactments during the film, but then immediately after the Koppel segment, a show called “Noah’s ark: The True Story” came on and opened up with an actor in a Noah costume swinging a hammer on a fake boat.
Sure…as DtC says, its standard fare on those channels, especially with religious or supernatural type shows. What was compelling about this show, to me, was the logical reasoning they were using, as well as the science they at least tried to do. I’m sure that the evidence they presented was skewed…simply because it seemed so compelling, and yet most of the experts in the field are far from compelled by it seemingly.
I would be interested to look at the other side and see why the experts are so skeptical however if anyone has a good cite on it.
-XT
They made scads of assumptions for those calculations. Most of which are based entirely on suppositions. Here’s what I posed earlier "But here’s the problem. There is no evidence whatsoever that Mary Magdalene was married to Jesus. None. A couple of wild hypothesis and a popular fiction book is it. So assuming that the second Mary is Jesus’s wife is a HUGE stretch.
Nor does the evidence from the tomb say that the Matthew is the brother of that Yeshua, or that the Jospeh is the father or any relation at all. It does give the name of Jesus son of Joseph, and a Judah son of Jesus, but the tomb does not in any way indicate that the Joseph in the tomb is the father referred to or that THAT Jesus is the father of the Judah thus interred. Sure, we can guess a familial relationship as they are all in the same tomb. Nor is Matthew one of the known names of a brother of Jesus, in fact, Jesus’s brothers are named “James and Joses and Judas and Simon” and thus, it is very unlikely there was another brother named Matthew.
So, the computation is bogus. He blithely makes the assumption there is an unknown Brother named Matthew, and the Jesus was married to Mary. So,when he throws those bogus assumptions into the math, of course the numbers look good. Now, he does eliminate Matthew in a later compuation (“not “explicatively” mentioned in the Gospels” ) , but still there is no reason to assume the “other Mary” is Mary Magdalene. Nor is there anything, anywhere, even in myth for a Judah son of Jesus.
So really, the only evidence is that it’s a Jesus son of Joseph- related in some way to a Mary."
The DNA testing was completely meaningless. All it showed was that the DNA found in the ossuary labled “Mary” (which they blithely assume is Mary Magdalane, without a shred of evidence) was NOT related to the DNA from the ossuary labeled “Jesus son of Joseph” NOT related. And even that’s weak as the sample was poor. They then go on to state that anyone in the tomb who is not related by blood is likelrelated by marriage- which is a reasonable assumption. But then they blithely assume that thereby that Mary was Married to that Jesus. And, that assumption is completely bogus. :rolleyes: (She could have been married to any other male in the tomb or perhaps even another male who was not buried in that tomb).
For some reason they did not show a test amoung all the ossuarys to see if anyone was related to anyone. This is very disturbing. Knowing how that Film-maker works, I have no doubt he did order those tests. The fact he did not show the results on film can only be they do not support his theory.
They actually made none of the assmptions that you’re spitting about. they only said those possibilities could not be ruled out.