Jesus 'Tomb' Controversy Reopened

[Maladict]

Fascinating stuff caldrail, I've never heard of that story. How far back does it date?

[caldrail]

I don't know, but the tradition is very old and may well date from those times. I would actually like to see some research on this, because if there's any truth to it, it really does put a great deal in perspective.

[Gladius Hispaniensis]

We do know however that crucified people usually didn't get very expansive funerals.

IIRC crucified people were even denied proper burials, let alone expensive ones. This is actually an old chestnut. It has actually been pointed out in the past by people like Haim Cohn, etc. Crucifixion was meted out for sedition or armed rebellion and as such the victim was denied burial as a part of his punishment. That coupled with the absolute horror with which Jews regarded the handling of bodies "hanging on a tree" makes the likelihood that the tomb belongs to a crucified Jesus rather improbable.

[Klingan]

I don't know, but the tradition is very old and may well date from those times. I would actually like to see some research on this, because if there's any truth to it, it really does put a great deal in perspective.

 

Very very interesting. I've never heard that before either.

 

We do know however that crucified people usually didn't get very expansive funerals.

IIRC crucified people were even denied proper burials, let alone expensive ones. This is actually an old chestnut. It has actually been pointed out in the past by people like Haim Cohn, etc. Crucifixion was meted out for sedition or armed rebellion and as such the victim was denied burial as a part of his punishment. That coupled with the absolute horror with which Jews regarded the handling of bodies "hanging on a tree" makes the likelihood that the tomb belongs to a crucified Jesus rather improbable.

 

Exactly my point! Thanks for the elaboration

[M. Porcius Cato]

That coupled with the absolute horror with which Jews regarded the handling of bodies "hanging on a tree" makes the likelihood that the tomb belongs to a crucified Jesus rather improbable.

 

Sure. But how improbable compared to there being a family of "Jesus, son of Joseph"/"Mary"/"Mary Magdalene"? It's like finding a tomb of John/Paul/George/Ringo, and saying it's just a coincidence that they have the names of the Beatles. It's possibly a coincidence but not statistically likely.

[Gladius Hispaniensis]

That coupled with the absolute horror with which Jews regarded the handling of bodies "hanging on a tree" makes the likelihood that the tomb belongs to a crucified Jesus rather improbable.

 

Sure. But how improbable compared to there being a family of "Jesus, son of Joseph"/"Mary"/"Mary Magdalene"? It's like finding a tomb of John/Paul/George/Ringo, and saying it's just a coincidence that they have the names of the Beatles. It's possibly a coincidence but not statistically likely.

Does it really say Mary Magdalene though? As for Jesus,Joseph and Mary, I thought they were fairly commonplace back then.

[M. Porcius Cato]

Does it really say Mary Magdalene though? As for Jesus,Joseph and Mary, I thought they were fairly commonplace back then.

 

Good question. Mary Magdalene is the "Ringo" in the four names mentioned--Magdalene is a totally uncommon name, as weird to them as Ringo to us. But, yes, it's in the tomb, supposedly connected with "Jesus, son of Joseph" and another "Mary". Even if you don't believe that this is the tomb of Jesus, you have to acknowledge that this is a REALLY huge coincidence. The probability of these names occurring together purely by chance is infinitesimal.

[caldrail]

We do know however that crucified people usually didn't get very expansive funerals.

IIRC crucified people were even denied proper burials, let alone expensive ones. This is actually an old chestnut. It has actually been pointed out in the past by people like Haim Cohn, etc. Crucifixion was meted out for sedition or armed rebellion and as such the victim was denied burial as a part of his punishment. That coupled with the absolute horror with which Jews regarded the handling of bodies "hanging on a tree" makes the likelihood that the tomb belongs to a crucified Jesus rather improbable.

His disciples weren't arrested or punished either. If something as serious as sedition was suspected, you'd think a roman governor would want the lot dragged in to account for their behaviour. Clearly, if the crucifixion took place, Jesus was targeted deliberately and the reasons for his trial might have been merely an excuse.

[Maladict]

Good question. Mary Magdalene is the "Ringo" in the four names mentioned--Magdalene is a totally uncommon name, as weird to them as Ringo to us. But, yes, it's in the tomb, supposedly connected with "Jesus, son of Joseph" and another "Mary".

 

I thought the identification of the 'Magdalene' tomb was the one singled out for criticism by most scholars.

[M. Demetrius]

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.

 

Legends? Legends are just that, aren't they? Beowulf, Hiawatha, Odysseus, all legendary heroes, but not all their deeds are necessarily factual, are they? You've made your theory about Christianity known. And you are entitled to believe that or anything else you want to believe. We're all free to do so. Jesus' death is as well recorded as many if not most other contemporary deaths in Judea. If the Bible is viewed only as a historical record, and all the prophecies are left out, it's still consistent in that report. If the prophecies are included, it's a pretty interesting statistical picture.

 

Gosh, what a long list of theories, sir. How do you suppose the body of Jesus would have gotten all the way to India, when the Bible clearly states it was laid in a tomb that belonged to Joseph of Aramathea, a member of the Sanhedrin? The earliest discovered manuscripts of the Gospel of Mark are supposed to be only about 30 years younger than the original. That's a pretty close copy for an ancient document. Closer than De Bello Gallico by a couple of centuries. The Dead Sea scrolls should have laid to rest the theories about the Hebrew portion of the Bible being a distant cousin of the original writings, I'd think. The whole 27 foot long scroll of the Book of Isaiah's being essentially letter perfect to the modern Hebrew is reasonable enough. But that's another argument. I digress.

 

Most of those other issues are actually addressed in the Bible, but I'm supposing you're ruling that out as a historical document, right? I don't find any teaching in the Bible that parallels Bhuddism, except for generalities like "you reap what you sow", common in many cultures, for example, and obvious to most of us anyway. Still, Paul was "in the desert" for seven years, according to the Book of Acts, after which he began his preaching career, but his teachings don't seem to be out of keeping with what Jesus taught, afaik. He went primarily to the Gentiles, Peter went primarily to the Jews. Could you point out an example or two of Paul's teachings that differ from Jesus'?

 

Not that it makes much sense to argue the Bible with you, and that's not my intention. I just wonder why if I were to say, "Einstein said [factoid], Julius Caesar reported [factoid], the Bhagivad Gita teaches, [factoid], Immanuel Kant wrote [factoid], Nietschke said [factoid]" people (most of whom have never read these) smile, nod and say, "Yeah, that's right", but if I say, "The Bible says [factoid]" these same people will chorus "Well, that's your interpretation. Besides, that book has been changed so many times through translation that it doesn't say what it originally did." Interesting, but fruitless as a conversation.

 

Many of the records in Jerusalem were reportedly destroyed when the city was taken over by the Sicarii zealots, then sacked and partly burned by the Romans in 70AD. I would not particularly expect that somewhere in a fireproof vault existed a list of all the crucifixions performed in and around Jerusalem. Josephus gives a general account of Jesus' crucifixion. Is his report, added to the Biblical insufficient evidence?

 

I wonder if I were to make bold and broad assertions concerning Tacitus' life, or Caesar's, or Ptolemy's or whoever else ancient, if it would go unchallenged on a history board? I think not, but I could be wrong. Just out of curiosity, was Paul's beheading in Rome recorded? Church tradition says so, but I don't presently have any other sources. IIRC, that was sometime in the 70s, and most likely anybody in trouble from Judea at that time would not be well received in Rome, for obvious political reasons. War in Judea, change of emperors, need to make an example, etc.

[Klingan]

That coupled with the absolute horror with which Jews regarded the handling of bodies "hanging on a tree" makes the likelihood that the tomb belongs to a crucified Jesus rather improbable.

 

Sure. But how improbable compared to there being a family of "Jesus, son of Joseph"/"Mary"/"Mary Magdalene"? It's like finding a tomb of John/Paul/George/Ringo, and saying it's just a coincidence that they have the names of the Beatles. It's possibly a coincidence but not statistically likely.

 

 

What's the statistical chance of finding the one tomb of Jesus? I would like to see those numbers compared to the name-numbers. I serious doubt the chance is much larger.

[Gladius Hispaniensis]

His disciples weren't arrested or punished either. If something as serious as sedition was suspected, you'd think a roman governor would want the lot dragged in to account for their behaviour. Clearly, if the crucifixion took place, Jesus was targeted deliberately and the reasons for his trial might have been merely an excuse.

Good point. I didn't consider that. But the Gospels do make it clear that Jesus' disciples "forsook him and fled" at the Mount of Olives. I would think that they were considered small fry compared with Jesus himself and Pilate might have earmarked them for future prosecution once the Messiah was dealt with. History and legend bear witness that his immediate following were eventually hunted down and executed. For some reason that's still not clear to me, the authorities seem to have wanted to get rid of Jesus before the advent of the Passover feast, hence the urgency for the crucifixion. The disciples could always have been dealt with later.

One other possibility is that the Romans and their cronies probably expected the Jesus' Messianic movement to fizzle out after his execution. They probably were not expecting a belief in a resurrected Messiah to come back to haunt them. When it did there seems to be no doubt that they made short work of the so called Jerusalem Church.

How I wish more contemporary documents would have survived that could have probably shed more light on the matter.

[M. Porcius Cato]

What's the statistical chance of finding the one tomb of Jesus? I would like to see those numbers compared to the name-numbers. I serious doubt the chance is much larger.

 

There is no such thing as the "statistical chance of finding the one tomb of Jesus". The probability of a single event is either 1 or 0. In contrast, the probability of finding a tomb belonging to somebody named Jesus can be calculated (from the incidence rate of the name). As can the probability of finding a tomb belonging to somebody named Mary, Joseph, etc. From these, it is possible to calculate the probability of finding these names together simply by chance. Thus, you're asking for a comparison that is statistically meaningless.

[Viggen]

Well, if Jesus is written on the tomb then it is a fake

 

It should be not so difficult to get a statistical number, just figure out what was the available "name pool" at the time at this specific area and time, and you should get a fairly accurate number...

 

...i believe Jesus, Mary and Joseph were very common at the time?

 

cheers

viggen

[M. Porcius Cato]

...i believe Jesus, Mary and Joseph were very common at the time?

 

Absolutely right, but the Greek name for Magdalene was very uncommon (she's the "Ringo" in the John/Paul/George Beatles analogy that I drew earlier).

 

But that's not even the biggest issue. The much more important issue, statistically speaking, is that the conjunction of names reportedly found in the tomb (although this has been since disputed) matched exactly the relations reported in the Gospels. Of course, this could be a coincidence. But, statistically, such a coincidence is very improbable. For this to occur by chance, it would be like the situation where I draw four cards from one well-shuffled deck and you draw the exact same four cards in the same order from another well-shuffled deck. That's not very likely to happen by chance. Thus, if I predicted that you would draw the same four cards in the same order that I did, and then you did, it would be reasonable for you to think there was something other than chance at work (like a trick). That's the basic reasoning here--it's not likely a coincidence that these four names bear exactly the same relation as the ones reported in the Gospels, thus it's reasonable to think they might be the same people reported in the Gospels.

 

I don't think the problem here is with the rationale, but with the evidence. The fact is that the whole case rests on the four names being found in the right relation to one another, yet (if i understand the report correctly) by the time archaeologists had a chance to study the tomb, everything had been moved and rearranged, making it impossible to tell whether the Jesus remains were really connected to the Magdalene and Mary remains at all. If they were, then the original reasoning stands; if not, not; and no one really knows.