Ancient HistoryRoy Kay -- Monday, May 17, 2004 -- 11:23:46 PM
I don't know how many people are interested in this. By "Ancient", I mean BEFORE (or only edging up to) the history of the Classical Period of Greece, Rome, Parthia, Guptas and Han.
This is for comment, speculation, "what ifs" - whatever you find engaging.This thread is tagged: history
(All users will see what tags exist for a thread. Please tag carefully!)
Oh please. From the Gospel of John:
Now there was leaning on Jesus' bosom one of his disciples, whom Jesus loved.
Simon Peter therefore beckoned to him, that he should ask who it should be of whom he spake.
He then lying on Jesus' breast saith unto him, Lord, who is it?
This was Jesus's child? I've always heard this person identified as John himself.
The problem with that as proof of anything is Matthew and Jesus weren't related, either, which shoots down "tombs normally contain either blood relations or spouses."
It's obvious that they are coming at this looking only for facts that fit with their preconceived notions. Even if she had to be married to someone, why not Matthew or one of the other men?
I mean, although I don't know all the other archaelogical and scientific techniques that go into this, I do know the text (Bible). And if saying John refers to a "lad sleeping on Jesus's lap" is typical of their loosey-goosey approach, then I question their work.
1. The person in the verse is awake because Peter asks him a question.
2. Peter does this rather than ask Jesus directly. Would he have said to Jesus's youthful--so small as to sleep on his father's lap--son "Ask your pop who's the fink?" Why would he not act Jesus directly rather than presumably waking the kid?
3. Jacobovici cannot be referring to another source because he states it's the Last Supper and the Gospel of John.
Yes, even if we have to manipulate their names a bit. The Miriam-Maria-Mary explanation is garbled (I think the reporter is likely responsible for that), and:
Bovon's explanation is as clear as mud.
I wonder whether they've compared the DNA of the two "parents" to the "child." If so, why does the story not describe the results? If they haven't, why not?
Oh and this:
Yes, "controversy surrounds" the James box, but last I heard it was determined to be a fake. Odd that the Discovery piece fails to mention that, but instead uses the James ossuary as evidence to support the contention this is all real.
I read the transcript of their appearance on Larry King, and they were really working the statistical angle, how the odds of those names all appearing together were so unlikely. Unfortunately since the two guys debating them were theologians they didn't have much to rebut that, but the obvious problem they didn't address is some names had to occur in a tomb with 10 people buried there: the movie makers are assigning meaning to these names. It's similar to the poker hand fallacy: a royal flush is highly improbable, but so is every other specific set of cards you draw. Yet you have to draw something.
In this instance we have a tomb that actually contains 10 ossuaries. They have chosen to focus on five (or six, if you count the "son") as meaningful. One name is Jesus (I presume it's really Joshua), which in the Larry King interview is said to have been given to about one in 11 males at the time, so in a tomb of 10 people, it would not be that rare. Now look at the other names: Mary (twice), Matthew, Joseph, and Judah. However, there is no reason for Matthew to mean anything because the Matthew of the Bible has no reason for being buried with Jesus; they've included it only to make the improbability more favorable to them. Judah, also, is nonbiblical since Jesus doesn't have a son in the Bible, much less one named that. So the "son" could have any name and thus doesn't affect the probability either.
The second Mary is also referred to by a non-biblical name, and the researchers offer an incoherent explanation as to why (See post 449.)
Jesus is said on his inscription to be the son of Joseph, so that makes the presence of Joseph in the tomb redundant as far as probability: that this Jesus had a father named Joseph is more significant than that he is buried with some unknown Joseph, so that the former fact subsumes the latter. All you need to calculate the probability is what are the odds that someone named Jesus in this period and place would be the son of someone named Joseph, then multiply that probability by the likelihood that such a person if buried in a tomb with nine other people would be buried with a woman named Mary. Or two Marys, if you prefer, although I think one has to assume that Jesus had a relationship with Mary Magdalene to make the second Mary meaningful and one also must accept the reasoning about why this Mary's "surname" is different than that Mary's.
My guess is such a probability would still be low, but not the millions to one they would like to claim. I also think the names are probably faked...yet it's worth pointing out that if these people were actually trying to be scientific rather than leaping to their preferred conclusions, they'd be more honest about the ascertainable facts.
Their DNA evidence claims are even worse. It's like they just want to shout the phrase "DNA evidence" without saying anything about what the DNA evidence actually shows.
This exchange, I think, was telling as far as their "selectivity":
From Publishers Weekly re Tabor's book: "Tabor concludes that the most historically plausible claim is that Jesus' father was neither God nor Joseph, but another man, possibly a Roman soldier named Pantera."
So, if the Joseph in the tomb doesn't have the same DNA as the Jesus in the tomb, Tabor has a ready explanation for that, too. Either way, it's good!
OK getting just a smidge desperate here, I'm looking for a general overview of Hawaiian chants, how they were used and passed down, what they covered as far as information, I know they were used to trace royal genealogy, spell out taboos and religious rules, and even found an obscure artlicle about their use for astronomy, but I just need some kind of general article that I can cite in a paper. I have access to all kinds of awesome libraries but am flailing around on the search.
cross posted in librarians.
There was a big ol' article about that in Rolling Stone. People have gone mad and spent all their money and died, trying to find that treasure. It's weird.
I can't speak for cavemen, but I think Ms Minogue's butt is more along the lines of something we modern males fully appreciate.