Documentary Claims Jesus Was Married

[LovelyPigeon]

I remember reading it several years ago. Don't recall the book or magazine off the top of my head.

I read several years ago in a book that Jesus was not resurrected but his body was stolen and hidden in a plot to create a cult religion.

My reading recall can't make it any more of a fact than your's of the "true cross" being burned.

I've also read that remnants of the "true cross" are claimed to be enshrined in various churches across Europe. Could science determine if those remnants have the same male DNA in common from each fragment of wood and/or with the DNA found in the ossuary marked "Jesus"?

 

[Nova]

Who is "they" that traced the original mtDNA back to Africa? Tell us, and also if the conclusion was that the 1st female human was black.

There was globe-wide DNA project a few years ago. I believe that is what Narla is referring to.

I doubt the authors claimed "Eve" was "black." IIRC, one of their conclusions was that our concept of race is based on statistically insignificant genetic differences, less than the difference between any two typical individuals. The study prompted a call to remove "race" as a biological category (while allowing that social constructions of race may be very, very influential).

 

[Maral]

This article is a couple of years old, but these numbers surprise me.

Most Americans Take Bible Stories Literally

An ABC News poll released Sunday found that 61 percent of Americans believe the account of creation in the Bible's book of Genesis is "literally true" rather than a story meant as a "lesson."
Sixty percent believe in the story of Noah's ark and a global flood, while 64 percent agree that Moses parted the Red Sea to save fleeing Jews from their Egyptian captors.

The levels of belief in the stories, however, differed among Christians.
The poll found that 75 percent of Protestants believed in the story of creation, 79 percent in the Red Sea account and 73 percent in Noah and the ark.
Among evangelical Protestants, those figures were 87 percent, 91 percent and 87 percent, respectively. Among Catholics, they were 51 percent, 50 percent and 44 percent.

 

[Nova]

Staying away from modern sources, I will answer your inquiry by pointing to the evidence of ancient sources. For instance, most Palestinian Jewish communities had synagogues (even a little community like Nazareth where the common people like Jesus were invited to read from the Old Testament-- Luke 4:16-17). Each synagogue had a "Chazzan" (a teacher) who was charged with instructing young Jews in studying the Law. In the gospels Jesus at numerous times cites Old Testament scriptures that his listeners are familiar with -- even long passages. In fact, his critics even quoted scripture back to him at times and this prompted Jesus to say at various times, "Have you not read...." ( example, Matthew 19:4). Notice their response (Matthew 19:7). Another passage in at the end of the Gospel of John 7:41-53 is also an interesting commentary of the literacy of the common people. Pharisee leaders had to rebuke some of their own people for believing in some of Jesus' claims and works. Pharisee leaders had to appeal to the scriptures to support their own views (verses 42 and 52). In the latter verse, they even chided their Jewish audience by saying, "search [the scriptures] and look..." One more example is also telling-- In John 8: 1-11, Jesus saves an adulterous woman from a mob of zealots who want to stone her. They cite the Old Testament as a reason for doing this (verse 5). Jesus disarms them by writing an unknown message in the dirt that they read, understood, and then left (verses 8 and 9)...

But Jewish sources of the era also support widespread literacy. Josephus, a Pharisaic Jew, tells us in his autobiography, The Life of Josephus, 2, that he was "very proficient in learning," and began his own formal studies at age fourteen. In another Josephus work, Against Apion, 2, 26, he tells Gentile readers that Jewish parents were admonished to "bring those children up in learning, and to exercise them in the laws, and make them acquainted with the acts of their predecessors, in order to their imitation of them, and that they might be nourished up in the laws from their infancy, and might neither transgress them, nor have any pretence for their ignorance of them." In other words, if they were to keep the law, they had to know what the laws were-- only literacy can accomplish that.

Furthermore, the great Jewish sages of this era, such as Hillel, also admonished young Jews to study the law so that they could keep it. His maxim, "He who has acquired for himself the words of the Torah [Law] has acquired life in the coming world" (Mishnah, Aboth, 11,7), was directed at all Jews, not just community leaders.

Finally...widespread use of signage and inscriptions in antiquity. Do you remember that Jesus' cross inscription was in three languages for all to read (including Jews-- John 19:19-22). In addition, archeologists have uncovered many "signs" from this period of antiquity written in Aramaic-- the language of the Jews of Jesus' day. For instance, a few years ago...a sign in Jerusalem in Aramaic that read, "To the place of the trumpeting." This sign was once in the Temple complex and told where Temple trumpeters were to blow their horns. Other Aramaic signage has also been found in Jerusalem, Caesarea, and Herodium. The audience for these signs were Palestinian Jews. Also what are we to make of coinage, gravestones, and "bone boxes" also labeled in Aramaic? All of this implies a widespread literacy among the ancient Jews.

Several points, LP:

1. I don't think anyone disputes that the Jews traditionally held education in great respect. The emphasis on Mosaic law pretty much ensures that. But having respect for education and having the means to achieve mass literacy are two different matters.

2. Literacy isn't required to know Torah, despite what your source claims. As we know, the Torah was ENTIRELY oral for centuries. Telling Jews to "study the law" does not necessarily mean they were to read the law from a page.

3. The existence of coins, signs and marked graves doesn't tell us very much. Of course, these were labeled for reference in the case of disputes (i.e., so that a person couldn't claim a "quarter" was really a 38 cents coin, or if he did, a literate person could contradict him). But even today, illiterate people learn the difference between a penny and a nickel. The existence of these bits of words doesn't prove mass literacy.

4. Using NT sources to prove 1st century literacy is also problematic (unless one is a Fundamentalist). The gospels were written by the literate; it isn't surprising they emphasize events where literacy is demonstrated.

5. In the old days, I heard Catholics quote quite long passages from the Latin mass, even though they had no idea what the words meant. Hearing words chanted at frequent religious rituals tends to burn them into the brain. Even today, many, many people can quote long sections of popular songs, but few have ever seen those lyrics written down.

6. If your source were to refer to writings from a European monastery of the 7th century C.E., he would get a similar impression of mass literacy. But we know for a fact that the vast majority of people (even including the royalty) could not read. While the so-called "Dark Ages" weren't actually dark, but were the occasion of much scholarship, that learning was still the province of a few in religious enclaves. Historical note: theater, which had been banned in most areas during the late Roman period, was revived in the Middle Ages because it provided a good way to teach the Bible to the illiterate masses. (As I've said above, reading Plato and Aristotle gives one a distorted view of 5th century B.C.E. literacy, because those teachers wrote for the small community of literate, free males.)

Nobody is claiming that 1st century Jews were a bunch of hopeless barbarians. But as I've said before, widespread literacy is an expensive undertaking, because (a) hand-copied books are slow to make, and (b) people consume great resources in the many years it takes to learn to read.

I'm not doubting that Jesus was educated (if the remarks attributed to him are at all reliable), nor that he attracted a number of educated followers. I'm just doubting that any society can be fairly call "mostly literate" or "possessive of widespread literacy" in the centuries before technical innovations allowed books to be made cheaply and workers to support non-producing children for the long period required to achieve literacy.

 

[Nova]

To put it another (shorter) way:

Taking any pre-industrial (and therefore agricultural) society...

Let's assume the upper class can read. (This isn't always true, but it may have been true of the 1st century Jews.) That's still just a fraction of the population.

So let's assume the middle class are literate. (Dubious because middle class people are probably occupied with learning a craft, engaging in trade, etc. They may know a few words important to their profession (such those used to mark merchandise during shipping), but probably don't have enough need to read well. No Barnes & Noble at the mall anyway.) Even if this is true, we are still talking about a small fraction of a pre-industrial revolution population.

There's simply no way the vast majority of poor, agricultural workers are literate. Survival of an agricultural family depends on getting the children into the fields as young as possible; schooling is simply too expensive. (There are exceptions, such as slave children schooled to become scribes, but these are very few. Yes, farm kids in 20th century American went to school at least until their early teens, but these were already farms that made use of industrialization to produce a bigger yield per worker.)

Even today, literacy lags behind among the children of agricultural workers, despite compulsory education. Extrapolate to a society in which 90% or more of the people are farm laborers.

 

[accordn2me]

There was globe-wide DNA project a few years ago. I believe that is what Narla is referring to.

I doubt the authors claimed "Eve" was "black." IIRC, one of their conclusions was that our concept of race is based on statistically insignificant genetic differences, less than the difference between any two typical individuals. The study prompted a call to remove "race" as a biological category (while allowing that social constructions of race may be very, very influential).

I remember something about this. I can't fathom how it was done. Who did they take DNA from? Why would they want to remove "race" as a biological category? I remember in a serial killer case the police said they could tell from DNA that the killer was African-American. There must be some difference for them to know that.

Are all people from Africa black?

 

[Cypros]

I doubt the authors claimed "Eve" was "black." IIRC, one of their conclusions was that our concept of race is based on statistically insignificant genetic differences, less than the difference between any two typical individuals. The study prompted a call to remove "race" as a biological category (while allowing that social constructions of race may be very, very influential).

Although there is no way to prove it, Mitochondrial Eve was most likely black. Living in Africa, as all of our ancestors once did, natural selection would favor high pigmentation to protect from sunburn (which can kill you) and skin cancer. As human populations migrated northward, pigmentation was one of the biological changes that occured through adaptation to a colder environment with less sun exposure. In this case, lighter pigmentation would be favored due to its ability to better absorb UV radiation and sufficient amounts of Vitamin D. Those with darker pimentation would be at a disadvantage as they would not have sufficient levels of vitamin D and thus a tendency toward debilitating rickets.

Last summer I had my mtDNA tested and matched to the evolutionary map of the humans who descended from Mitochondrial Eve. I match with a group known as U5, the first to migrate into Europe (Scandinavia) about 50,000 years ago! Apparently they liked it there because my maternal line is traced back to Denmark!!!

 

[Nova]

I remember something about this. I can't fathom how it was done. Who did they take DNA from? Why would they want to remove "race" as a biological category? I remember in a serial killer case the police said they could tell from DNA that the killer was African-American. There must be some difference for them to know that.

Are all people from Africa black?

They took DNA from people all over the world and then analyzed the data to project backwards to where the people's ancestors came from.

Those who call for removing "race" as a biological category want to do so for reasons of accuracy (what we call "race" just isn't that big a deal in biological terms), and probably for political reasons, too, because calling "race" a scientific "fact" fuels those who want to treat different races differently.

In the case of African-Americans, you are talking about a different subset than all Negroid peoples on the planet. African-Americans share a relatively recent ancestry compared to any racial group as a world-wide whole.

It's not that there are no differences -- average skin color, say, but only when averaged as there are "whites" who have darker skin than many "blacks" -- just that the differences are too small to accurately create scientific categories of people.

This isn't to say that race isn't HUGELY significant in social terms. But the definitions of who is what vary widely from society to society. Traditionally in the U.S., "one drop" of African-American blood made you "black," regardless of appearance. (This isn't very logical, is it? Why is Barrack Obama "black" rather than "white"? Social convention only, which is why some scientists want to remove these categories from the realm of biology.)

As for the announcement you heard re DNA showing a black perp, what does that mean? Looks "black"? Half-black? Or like many of us, has some African ancestors but appears white? I'm not saying DNA shouldn't be used for forensics, but you can see the problem with broad statements.

Are all Africans black? I assume you mean historically, because obviously there are white South Africans, etc., nowadays.

IIRC, there is some controversy about ancient North Africans. Some experts believe they were more closely related to black, sub-Saharan Africans. Others claim the ancient Egyptians, etc., were more closely related to the "brown" people of the Middle East. Maybe Cypros can tell us what the current record shows.

But maybe not. As I said, there's a trend toward considering these questions irrelevant.

 

[Maral]

Last summer I had my mtDNA tested and matched to the evolutionary map of the humans who descended from Mitochondrial Eve. I match with a group known as U5, the first to migrate into Europe (Scandinavia) about 50,000 years ago! Apparently they liked it there because my maternal line is traced back to Denmark!!!

How interesting, Cypros!

 

[narlacat]

Who is "they" that traced the original mtDNA back to Africa? Tell us, and also if the conclusion was that the 1st female human was black.

Answer-We don't know why daughters weren't named. The special circumstance about Cain & Abel is that the OT lists them as the first murderer and first murder victim.

According to creation as described in the OT, God either had to create other humans who then married with the children of Adam & Eve, or Adam & Eve also had daughters who married the sons of Adam & Eve.

Remember that Genesis says Eve was actually made from Adam when God took out a rib and created Eve from that rib. Eve technically would have been a daughter of Adam.

The DNA heritage of Adam, though, continued through Noah, and after Noah, all the other inhabitants of the earth--at least as the story is told in the OT.

What, you don't know who 'they' are

I wasn't sure, thats why I asked the question.......and thanks for the answer Cypros.

He apparently had more sons also that weren't named- not just daughters.

 

[narlacat]

No, it wasn't my arguement.

Ok, sorry- must be getting you mixed up with someone else.

I remember someone talking about DNA in the incest thread some time back, I thought it was you- it could have been DK but I'm thinking it was a girl...maybe Ariel7- in any case I apologise, I thought it was you.

 

[accordn2me]

They took DNA from people all over the world and then analyzed the data to project backwards to where the people's ancestors came from.

Those who call for removing "race" as a biological category want to do so for reasons of accuracy (what we call "race" just isn't that big a deal in biological terms), and probably for political reasons, too, because calling "race" a scientific "fact" fuels those who want to treat different races differently.

In the case of African-Americans, you are talking about a different subset than all Negroid peoples on the planet. African-Americans share a relatively recent ancestry compared to any racial group as a world-wide whole.

It's not that there are no differences -- average skin color, say, but only when averaged as there are "whites" who have darker skin than many "blacks" -- just that the differences are too small to accurately create scientific categories of people.

This isn't to say that race isn't HUGELY significant in social terms. But the definitions of who is what vary widely from society to society. Traditionally in the U.S., "one drop" of African-American blood made you "black," regardless of appearance. (This isn't very logical, is it? Why is Barrack Obama "black" rather than "white"? Social convention only, which is why some scientists want to remove these categories from the realm of biology.)

As for the announcement you heard re DNA showing a black perp, what does that mean? Looks "black"? Half-black? Or like many of us, has some African ancestors but appears white? I'm not saying DNA shouldn't be used for forensics, but you can see the problem with broad statements.

...

Now that you pointed it out I see it. :waitasec: I think. Police made the announcement as part of his profile because most serial killers are white. They were appealing to the public to see if anyone may recognize someone that fit their profile. I guess their implied statement was, "don't look for a white guy." I can see that would be a problem if their guy was a very light-skined African-American with other "caucasian characteristics" (sorry I don't know the politically correct way to state that). Now I'm wondering how much they can tell with DNA. Would they know I'm caucasian, female...what else could they tell...eye-color?

 

[Dark Knight]

To be fair, Saladin did eventually return a relic of the True Cross after he stole, I mean, captured it. :crazy: He tried to be fair, generally, and was the one who signed the peace accord that Richard the Lionhearted proposed. So I give him some credit. The relic has been lost to history I am sure.

 

[Dark Knight]

Ok, sorry- must be getting you mixed up with someone else.

I remember someone talking about DNA in the incest thread some time back, I thought it was you- it could have been DK but I'm thinking it was a girl...maybe Ariel7- in any case I apologise, I thought it was you.

I don't recall making any DNA arguments. :slap: You are usually mixed up, aren't you?

 

[Nova]

Ok, sorry- must be getting you mixed up with someone else.

I remember someone talking about DNA in the incest thread some time back, I thought it was you- it could have been DK but I'm thinking it was a girl...maybe Ariel7- in any case I apologise, I thought it was you.

Ariel7 knows this argument well. She explained it at length in the old Evolution threads we had.

I thought it was DK who spoke of genetic reasons why incest was okay among the first generations after Adam and Eve. But if he doesn't remember doing so, then of course I'm mistaken.

 

[Nova]

Now that you pointed it out I see it. :waitasec: I think. Police made the announcement as part of his profile because most serial killers are white. They were appealing to the public to see if anyone may recognize someone that fit their profile. I guess their implied statement was, "don't look for a white guy." I can see that would be a problem if their guy was a very light-skined African-American with other "caucasian characteristics" (sorry I don't know the politically correct way to state that). Now I'm wondering how much they can tell with DNA. Would they know I'm caucasian, female...what else could they tell...eye-color?

I honestly don't know, accord. And I'm not sure what marker they referred to when they specified "African-American." Maybe there's a "dark skin" marker and they had found that. (Not at all my field, as you can tell. LOL.)

 

[Dark Knight]

Ariel7 knows this argument well. She explained it at length in the old Evolution threads we had.

I thought it was DK who spoke of genetic reasons why incest was okay among the first generations after Adam and Eve. But if he doesn't remember doing so, then of course I'm mistaken.

Ariel is extremely well versed in this.

I did speak of the purity of the genetics not causing birth defects for offspring of siblings like you might have now. That was the extent of my commentary, iirc.

 

[Nova]

Ariel is extremely well versed in this.

I did speak of the purity of the genetics not causing birth defects for offspring of siblings like you might have now. That was the extent of my commentary, iirc.

I assumed that was what Narla meant. She and I both probably remembered more than you wrote. Wait a few weeks and it'll be "That textbook Dark Knight wrote on the history of ancient DNA"!

 

[Dark Knight]

I assumed that was what Narla meant. She and I both probably remembered more than you wrote. Wait a few weeks and it'll be "That textbook Dark Knight wrote on the history of ancient DNA"!

LOL!!!!!!!!

 

[accordn2me]

I honestly don't know, accord. And I'm not sure what marker they referred to when they specified "African-American." Maybe there's a "dark skin" marker and they had found that. (Not at all my field, as you can tell. LOL.)

Nova, I'm impressed with how much everyone on this thread knows...thinks they know, even. LOL! I have learned so much. Enlightening is a good word.

Now that I'm racking my brain about the DNA, I'm thinking that maybe they found a hair that clued them in on the African-American part. I know they can tell the difference between Asian, Caucasian, and Negroid hair. I don't know how many categories of hair they have. Given those 3, I would guess Jesus would fall into the caucasian category.