Documentary Claims Jesus Was Married

[Nova]

Correct. While the Gnostic gospels were written 200-400 years after Christ.

(ETA: the change my faulty dates, thanks to Dark Knight's correction below. Also want to add that we have fragments of (still copies of) many gospels from 200 C.E. or so. Although we don't have complete copies until much later, nobody is claiming the gospels were written in the Middle Ages.)

The Gospel of Thomas is dated conservatively to about 90 C.E., roughly the same time as the most generous dates accorded Luke.

The Gospel of Mary Magdalene is dated to about 125 C.E., roughly concurrent with John.

But our earliest copy of any of the synoptic gospels dates only to the 7th century, 600 years after the events and all without the use of xerox machines.

All gospels and ancient copies were produced by advocates for one sect or another, not by historians in our sense of the term.


http://www.religioustolerance.org/chr_ntb1.htm#thomas

This quote from the article summed everything up well:

Stephen Pfann, a biblical scholar at the University of the Holy Land in Jerusalem: "I don't think that Christians are going to buy into this," Pfann said. "But skeptics, in general, would like to see something that pokes holes into the story that so many people hold dear."

Yes, but that is mere tautology, for "poking holes" is what skeptics do.

Without them, we would still believe in witches and leprechauns.

 

[Dark Knight]

The Gospel of Thomas is dated conservatively to about 90 B.C.E., roughly the same time as the most generous dates accorded Luke.

The Gospel of Mary Magdalene is dated to about 125 B.C.E., roughly concurrent with John.

But our earliest copy of any of the synoptic gospels dates only to the 7th century, 600 years after the events and all without the use of xerox machines.

All gospels and ancient copies were produced by advocates for one sect or another, not by historians in our sense of the term.


http://www.religioustolerance.org/chr_ntb1.htm#thomas




Yes, but that is mere tautology, for "poking holes" is what skeptics do.

Without them, we would still believe in witches and leprechauns.

It isn't possible for the gnostic gospels to be written before Christ, lol! Well, maybe it is, but unlikely. :crazy:

Nice comparison to belief in Christ to leprechauns.

And the supernatural aspect of the Word of God transcends the rules of other mere earthly writings.

I find it insteresting that no one questions Josephus, who documented things around that same time. Only he gets to be accurate, eh?

 

[ember]

The Gospel of Thomas is dated conservatively to about 90 B.C.E., roughly the same time as the most generous dates accorded Luke.

The Gospel of Mary Magdalene is dated to about 125 B.C.E., roughly concurrent with John.

But our earliest copy of any of the synoptic gospels dates only to the 7th century, 600 years after the events and all without the use of xerox machines.

All gospels and ancient copies were produced by advocates for one sect or another, not by historians in our sense of the term.


http://www.religioustolerance.org/chr_ntb1.htm#thomas




Yes, but that is mere tautology, for "poking holes" is what skeptics do.

Without them, we would still believe in witches and leprechauns.

You don't believe in witches???!!!



Seriously though...I don't know what to think about this doc.
I don't understand what they could possibly have to compare it to....
I just try to keep an open mind....anything is possible and none of us were actually there sooooo....who knows!


...sorry...butting out now...

 

[LovelyPigeon]

I find it insteresting that no one questions Josephus, who documented things around that same time.

Do you know exactly what Josephus documented about Jesus of Nazareth?

 

[Cypros]

Here is an excellent exampe of Jacobovic's use of pseudoscience to attempt to prove his claim:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/17328478/site/newsweek/page/3/

The filmmaker rests his case on four main points. First, he says, recent Biblical scholarship argues that Mary Magdalene's real name was Mariamene, a common first-century derivative of Miriam. Second, DNA tests show that microscopic human remains scraped from the Jesus box and the Mariamene box are not related, at least not matrilineally, leaving open the possibility that the two humans whose bones were once in those boxes were married.

They scraped human remains from the box? What th H*** does that mean? Ossuaries are secondary burials. The body is left out in the elements to decompose and then the defleshed bones are stacked inside a small stone box -- the size of a standard kitchen trash can -- and the box placed in a tomb. In the case of the Jesus ossuary, all of the bones were reburied after their discovery in 1980. Only the boxes remained in storage in the museum. So, where did the human remains come from? How did Jacobovic identifiy "microscopic human remains" to be "scraped from" a box that only once contained defleshed bones? Not to mention his conclusion that the lack of a DNA match means that the two individuals must have been married??? :waitasec:

Third, the patina on the Talpiot ossuaries—that is, the mineral crust accumulated over centuries—matches that of the James box. This "discovery," if provable, is complicated but critical to Jacobovici's argument: the match means, he says, that the James ossuary originally lay in the Talpiot cave, thus answering questions about the James box's provenance. ...
The technique Jacobovici uses to "prove" the match between the James ossuary and the Talpiot tomb is a technology he calls "patina fingerprinting," which he and his coauthor Charles Pellegrino (a scientist who helped Cameron write "Ghosts of the Titanic") essentially invented for the purposes of this project. By comparing the mineral content of shards from the Talpiot ossuaries with shards from James, and by looking at them under an electron microscope with the help of a CSI specialist, Jacobovici and Pellegrino say they have a match.

Really, I have to LOL. :laugh: So, Jacobovic develops his own analytical method which he applies ONLY to the items in question. ?!?!?!? Is there any evidence that patina found on limestone artifacts inside limestone caves has a chemical fingerprint that can be distinctly provenienced? First he has to conduct analysis on a large number of patinas from artifacts in limestone caves to see if each context produces a patina with a unique chemical fingerprint. Without that kind of broad study to produce data against which his specimens can be compared, his results mean absolutely nothing.


Also, the involvement of this "scientist", Pellegrino, jsut adds to the suspect nature of this "documentary"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles_Pellegrino

 

[Nova]

It isn't possible for the gnostic gospels to be written before Christ, lol! Well, maybe it is, but unlikely. :crazy:

Nice comparison to belief in Christ to leprechauns.

And the supernatural aspect of the Word of God transcends the rules of other mere earthly writings.

I find it insteresting that no one questions Josephus, who documented things around that same time. Only he gets to be accurate, eh?

Thanks for the correction on my dates. That's what I get for trying to be p.c. I never get B.C. and A.D. confused. LOL.

As for comparison of beliefs, that's what happens when people start claiming "historical evidence" of events from the life of Jesus. Because from a historical or scientific point of view, as others have pointed out, there is no more evidence of the miraculous events attributed to Jesus than there is of leprechauns. Not my fault. That's just the state of the historical record.

As for supernatural aspects, that's all well and good, but again, not the province of history.

It isn't true that no one questions Josephus. Here again we are dealing with copies and there is considerable argument that the "Josephus" references to Jesus are additions made to later copies.

Speaking of which, many scholars have noted the tendency of copyists in the Middle Ages to add to their copies passages which they believed to be true, even if those passages did not appear in the original.

 

[Nova]

Do you know exactly what Josephus documented about Jesus of Nazareth?

http://www.carm.org/evidence/Josephus_Jesus.htm


LP, I'm not sure whether you wanted this info, or merely wanted to know what everyone knows.

 

[Nova]

You don't believe in witches???!!!



Seriously though...I don't know what to think about this doc.
I don't understand what they could possibly have to compare it to....
I just try to keep an open mind....anything is possible and none of us were actually there sooooo....who knows!


...sorry...butting out now...

No need to butt out, ember.

I don't understand the "DNA proof" either. Nor would I be greatly troubled if they could, somehow, prove they had the remains of Jesus' body.

The physical resurrection never mattered much to me. It was the spiritual resurrection that had meaning.

 

[Cypros]

I find it insteresting that no one questions Josephus, who documented things around that same time. Only he gets to be accurate, eh?

Oh No! Josephus is not accepted as accurate. He was writing for the Romans and was extremely biased toward the Roman perspective on things. He could not have the Romans look bad and so presented them in a good light. Josephus provides some very valusble information about the peoples, places, and general events of the time, but he is biased like any other author. He has an agenda just like the author's of the biblical books have their agenda.

 

[Nova]

The Canonical Gospels were written anywhere from 30-60 years after Christ's death. They all agree in their essential portrayal of Christ.

Yes, they agree in what you and I would call the "essentials."

But this isn't surprising in works that were chosen to comprise a canon centuries later. As we know, works thought to be "essentially" consistent were included, others were excluded.

More importantly, I think, if you asked four random Americans to write the story of Rudolf-the-Red-Nosed-Reindeer and Santa Clause, you would get four accounts that "agree in their essential portrayal" of the principals.

This doesn't prove historical accuracy, but merely the ubiquity of the tale.

(Note to Dark Knight: Before you start, I am not suggesting Rudolf and Jesus are of equal significance. I am only pointing out the problem of using "agreement" as evidence for historical accuracy.)

 

[fundiva]

Hardly insurmountable. There are no complete census record so what are they basing their calculations on?

Go to the Middle East and make a census of names in families. You will find that virtually every family has a Mohammed, plus some variation of Mohammed (Ahmed, Mahmoud, Hamed, Hamoudi, etc), and Ali. Female names seem to be a bit less repetitive, but virtually every family has a Fatima ad most have a Miriam.. There are also regional favorites. In Jordan, for example, Ismael, Haroun, Musa, Yusef, Ibrahim and Abdullah are especially popular. It is not like in the U.S. where individualism is so important. It is as if there is a limited list of names to choose from -- names of historical and religious figures that are important to the family's (tribe's) ancestry and cultural heritage. It was like this in the ancient times. So much confusion in the bible is due to common names. Just look at what happened to Mary Magdelene! She was labeled a *advertiser censored* because the Church father's decided to lump her in with the other Marys. And what about the Disciples? Again the later Church assigned different names to several because too many of them had the same names and caused confusion.

For one thing, you just said there was no census, now you're telling me to look at a census. Make up your mind please. Are you a mathematician? Do you know how to write an equation to determine these kinds of issues? I think not. Until you can show me you have figures that prove otherwise, I think I will go with the proven. The mathmeticians are much smarter than I am when it comes to determining the odds and I'm sure they checked the history of names in the region.

 

[Nova]

I've got to run for a bit, but I want to say this much (IMHO, of course):

The truth of Jesus' divinity lies most of all in His teachings. These are dependent on neither His supposed celibacy nor the resurrection of His body after death.

I am as skeptical as anyone about the claims of this new doc. But even if it were proved that Jesus married and had children, even if it could be shown that He wasn't crucified after all, Christianity in some form would survive (and not just with those who denied the proof).

 

[Nova]

For one thing, you just said there was no census, now you're telling me to look at a census. Make up your mind please. Are you a mathematician? Do you know how to write an equation to determine these kinds of issues? I think not. Until you can show me you have figures that prove otherwise, I think I will go with the proven. The mathmeticians are much smarter than I am when it comes to determining the odds and I'm sure they checked the history of names in the region.

fundiva, Cypros said the census was incomplete, not that no census was taken. The point is we know these were common names, but to develop mathematical formulae, one would have to have precise numbers (i.e., a COMPLETE census) to begin with.

Moreover, Cypros is an anthropologist; her area of expertise is the Middle East. She is perhaps the only true expert on these subjects that we will ever see here at WS.

And, yes, she can do the math (though I don't believe that is the primary thrust of her work).

 

[Cypros]

For one thing, you just said there was no census, now you're telling me to look at a census. Make up your mind please. Are you a mathematician? Do you know how to write an equation to determine these kinds of issues? I think not. Until you can show me you have figures that prove otherwise, I think I will go with the proven. The mathmeticians are much smarter than I am when it comes to determining the odds and I'm sure they checked the history of names in the region.

Read carefully. I said that there is no complete census from Jesus' time. And then I said that you can go to the Middle East (today) and make a census. Two very different things.

No I am not a mathematician, but I am quite familiar with the archaeological and historical record of the region and time period in question. How can one devise without the data to base it on?

Of course you will believe what you want to believe. That is what religion is all about!

 

[fundiva]

fundiva, Cypros said the census was incomplete, not that no census was taken. The point is we know these were common names, but to develop mathematical formulae, one would have to have precise numbers (i.e., a COMPLETE census) to begin with.

Moreover, Cypros is an anthropologist; her area of expertise is the Middle East. She is perhaps the only true expert on these subjects that we will ever see here at WS.

And, yes, she can do the math (though I don't believe that is the primary thrust of her work).

Then she should have no problem disproving the mathematicans theory with fact and not as a general statement.

 

[Dark Knight]

Read carefully. I said that there is no census from Jesus' time. And then I said that you can go to the Middle East and make a census. Two very different things.

No I am not a mathematician, but I am quite familiar with the archaeological and historical record of the region and time period in question. How can one devise without the data to base it on?

Of course you will believe what you want to believe. That is what religion is all about!

Scripture says that Caeser at the time of Christ's birth called for a census of the whole (known) world. Does anyone have any record of that? Just curious, is all.

 

[Cypros]

Then she should have no problem disproving the mathematicans theory with fact and not as a general statement.

As I said... How can you create an equation to determine the statistical probability of three or four names appearing in the same family in Judea during the first century CE, if you do not have the data listing the names of members of each household in the region at that time? (or even a good representative sample) Sure, you can surmise that it is likely or unlikely depending on how common you THINK the names may be, but the method is scientifically unsound.

DK, there is no preserved record of the census, nor any other census as far as I know. I'm sure that census records were kept, but they would have been on parchment most likely which does not preserve well except under special conditions.

 

[Nova]

Then she should have no problem disproving the mathematicans theory with fact and not as a general statement.

Obviously, Cypros does not have (at least not yet) a complete copy of the work we are discussing. But what she is saying is precisely how scientific (mathematical or otherwise) contentions are disproved: she is questioning the premise with which the mathematician began.

 

[LovelyPigeon]

LP, I'm not sure whether you wanted this info, or merely wanted to know what everyone knows.

Thanks, Nova. I knew the info already, but was curious as to whether others did.

When I was first told that Josephus documented a historical Jesus I looked for myself to see what he had written, and also discovered the controversy.

 

[Nova]

Thanks, Nova. I knew the info already, but was curious as to whether others did.

When I was first told that Josephus documented a historical Jesus I looked for myself to see what he had written, and also discovered the controversy.

I'm no expert, but the wording is highly suspect, IMO. Josephus doesn't just confirm Jesus' life and work, but announces the resurrection in language suspiciously similar to that of the NT. (This is not to say I don't believe Jesus existed; I just strongly doubt Josephus would have written of Jesus in that fashion.)