Primus Pilus Posted January 18, 2008 Report Share Posted January 18, 2008 When the Discovery Channel aired a TV documentary last year raising the possibility that archeologists had found the family tomb of Jesus Christ in the hills behind Jerusalem, it caused a huge backlash among Christians. The claim, after all, challenged one of the cornerstones of Christian faith Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Klingan Posted January 20, 2008 Report Share Posted January 20, 2008 Jacobovici took the story further, using statistics Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
M. Demetrius Posted January 20, 2008 Report Share Posted January 20, 2008 I wonder what the statistical chance of finding Jesus tomb is, speaking about statistics.... Â Zero. It was reported to have been destroyed during the Muslim occupation sometime around the end of the First Millennium. I no longer have the reference work that cited the date and names. These same kinds of defacements of tombs and ancient monuments are happening today, too. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Klingan Posted January 21, 2008 Report Share Posted January 21, 2008 I wonder what the statistical chance of finding Jesus tomb is, speaking about statistics.... Â Zero. It was reported to have been destroyed during the Muslim occupation sometime around the end of the First Millennium. I no longer have the reference work that cited the date and names. These same kinds of defacements of tombs and ancient monuments are happening today, too. Â Reported destroyed or not is beside the point. To find one specific tomb from around 1 BC is however not. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
M. Demetrius Posted January 21, 2008 Report Share Posted January 21, 2008 Reported destroyed or not is beside the point. To find one specific tomb from around 1 BC is however not. Is however not? I don't guess I understand what your question is, then. The Israelis of today know where many of the patriarchs' tombs are, as they've handed down the information since it was new. Some of the Israeli ancient's tombs have been lost, that is, nobody knows where they are, some have been defaced and removed, some have crumbled and probably been built over by something else. Â To go into the tomb areas in Israel and locate a specific tomb from what's existing today without the continuous history would essentially be impossible, I think. They didn't put big tomb markers on most of them, maybe for a king or something, but not for the other people. Â Jesus' tomb would have been from the 30s AD, though, not 1 BC. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
M. Demetrius Posted January 21, 2008 Report Share Posted January 21, 2008 Reported destroyed or not is beside the point. To find one specific tomb from around 1 BC is however not. Is however not? I don't guess I understand what your question is, then. The Israelis of today know where many of the patriarchs' tombs are, as they've handed down the information since it was new. Some of the Israeli ancient's tombs have been lost, that is, nobody knows where they are, some have been defaced and removed, some have crumbled and probably been built over by something else. Â To go into the tomb areas in Israel and locate a specific tomb from what's existing today without the continuous history would essentially be impossible, I think. They didn't put big tomb markers on most of them, maybe for a king or something, but not for the other people. Â Jesus' tomb would have been from the 30s AD, though, not 1 BC. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
M. Porcius Cato Posted January 21, 2008 Report Share Posted January 21, 2008 I wonder what the statistical chance of finding Jesus tomb is, speaking about statistics.... Â The original stats were computed from the base probability of somebody being named Jesus, Joseph, Mary, Mary Magdalene, etc., and the probability of those common names (except Mary Magdalene, which was Greek) being combined by chance so that they formed just the relationships found in the tomb and in the Gospels. The resulting figure was astonishingly low, indicating that it was very unlikely that these four names just happened to be found together and to match the relations in the Gospels. Â The problem is that the key step in the calculation depends on the four names being found together, but in fact (and this wasn't revealed initially) the connection among the names couldn't be validated by any archaeological evidence due to mishandling of the tomb materials. Â We have a thread on this somewhere else. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Klingan Posted January 21, 2008 Report Share Posted January 21, 2008 M. Demetrius I well aware of the fact that Jesus died in the 30s AD not 1 BC, thank you very much. It was meant as a general approximation beacuse we do not know how old the tomb that we are "looking for" is. As you stated yourself, still some tombs are known to whom they originally belonged, they're very very old. Jesus clan tomb could be potentially hundreds of years older. Or possibly he never were even laid in a tomb even as they claim in the bible? We have no idea. We do know however that crucified people usually didn't get very expansive funerals. Â Second: My point was that out of the population (of whom they all in the end died), to find one tomb is far worse then finding a needle in a haystack. Maybe we could stumble on it, but finding it by searching? Essentially impossible. Until I have rock hard solid evidence in my own hand I stand unimpressed. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ingsoc Posted January 21, 2008 Report Share Posted January 21, 2008 I agree with Klingan it's unlikely to find a tomb of someone who was at his time unimportand figure, second I tend to suspect about most of the finding concerning the "celebrities" of the Bible, in many cases they turn to be fake. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
M. Porcius Cato Posted January 21, 2008 Report Share Posted January 21, 2008 Until I have rock hard solid evidence in my own hand I stand unimpressed. Â By that standard, nothing in ancient history will ever impress you. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Klingan Posted January 21, 2008 Report Share Posted January 21, 2008 Until I have rock hard solid evidence in my own hand I stand unimpressed. Â By that standard, nothing in ancient history will ever impress you. Â Well I wouldn't consider the tomb of Jesus the norm. Normally historians don't draw this kind of conclusions. If they find a grave with the inscription "Here lies (I can't remember the Latin term right now) A. Flavius Niger" I'll buy it any day. Â But how many fakes do you think there would be for Jesus? How much fame would anyone who found the real grave get? How tempting would it be to make the results look a little better? How much would the bones of Jesus be worth? How much would the Churches pay to destroy them if they still exist? Â I would demand a lot before believing that any specific tomb was found. I would demand one hell of a a lot more for Jesus, Mohamed, Buddha, Abraham or any other religious leader. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gaius Octavius Posted January 21, 2008 Report Share Posted January 21, 2008 Assume that the chances are two in a billion. If you find one, how do you know that it is the right one? Let's not forget the standard deviation (or whatever deviation). There might be three, dare I say four tombs that fit the parameters used. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ingsoc Posted January 21, 2008 Report Share Posted January 21, 2008 Assume that the chances are two in a billion. If you find one, how do you know that it is the right one? Let's not forget the standard deviation (or whatever deviation). There might be three, dare I say four tombs that fit the parameters used. Â What help to narrow it down is the historical evidence, for example if you know of an historical figure call David and know that his father name Joseph and that he live during the 1st century in Jerusalem, etc., than it's likely that if you find a grave in Jerusalem from the 1st century who bear the name David son of Joseph you could associate the grave with the historical figure in great confidence. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Maladict Posted January 21, 2008 Report Share Posted January 21, 2008 Until I have rock hard solid evidence in my own hand I stand unimpressed. Â By that standard, nothing in ancient history will ever impress you. Â That's a bit harsh. If someone comes out and says "I've found the tomb of Jesus", they'd better have some hard facts or utterly convincing hypotheses to back that up. If they don't, you'd be right in being unimpressed by the statement. It's not so much the inadequate evidence, that's what ancient history is all about, but rather the nature of the claims made that is the problem here. For me, at least. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
caldrail Posted January 21, 2008 Report Share Posted January 21, 2008 (edited) The question is already answered technically. There's a tomb in northern India that has been 'the last resting place of Jesus' for some considerable time. The local legends state that Jesus travelled to India as a young man (well, he does disappear for a while, and the other legends have him travelling to Britain... Your choice I guess until anyone has any real proof). Now this story has him adopting an version of buddhism which he preaches in Judaea on his return. In a way, it makes sense, because his message in Judaea isn't necessarily the one the bible relates, since the bible is an evolution of a censored version of stories written decades after his death. Paul was preaching as a career after Jesus's death (they never met), and took two years out before travelling to Rome to get his religious concepts together. What I believe Paul did was take bits of Jesus's preachings, which might well have been odd to mediterranean ears, and rebranded them in a more acceptable style, with added spice from other older existing religions, and basically created a faith that went on to greater things. Now the crucifixion isn't proven so I understand (don't quote me on that, I don't know the arguements for and against), and the story in India is that he returned having failed to convert his countrymen. He settled down, had children, and was buried in this particular tomb. Edited January 21, 2008 by caldrail Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.