If anyone remembers last year, James Cameron, the documentarist of "The Lost Tomb of Jesus", claimed to have discovered Jesus' tomb - with Jesus still in it. There were rather disturbing implications from this, not the least of them being the dissolution of Christianity, were these claims substantiated by fact.
However, such claims were in fact unsubstantiated:
"Amos Kloner, the first archaeologist to examine the site, said the idea fails to hold up by archaeological standards but makes for profitable television. Kloner said that of 900 burial caves found within four kilometers (two and a half miles) of Jerusalem's Old City and from the same era, the name Jesus or Yeshua was found 71 times, and that "Jesus son of Joseph" had also been found."
Apparently the names "Mary", "Joseph", and "Jesus" were some of the most common names in the period. I also find it likely Jewish leaders would attempt to fabricate such a site if they could not produce the body of Christ.
I think Cameron knew this all along, and his documentary (released prior to the publication of the squashing) was merely a clever way to make money for himself. For exploiting such a clever opportunity he should be commended. For blaspheming he is probably damned.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
4 comments:
a more believable approach would be to demonstrate that Jesus didn't exist-contemporary historians are largely silent about him, which, given his biblical reputation, is surprising.
Jesus is written about by both Roman and Christian authors, including Tacitus, Pliny and Josephus, as well as early Christian authors like Clement of Rome, Polycarp and Ignatius. I don't think there is a credible basis to doubt his existence. Even the Talmud includes a reference to his crucifixion. Christianity is solidly rooted in fact, in time and history, despite the abuses of time and misguided followers.
Tacitus references him explicitly in his "Annals of Imperial Rome", albeit anecdotally and disparagingly.
It's not surprising at all that Roman historians largely ignored Christ. After all, he was a renegade Jew who was crucified under the administration of Pilate in a backward, wayward, and rebellious province.
Take away the eyewitness accounts of miracles, and what do you have? A carpenter preaching some degenerate cult, summarily executed. Of far more importance was the Jewish rebellion of the 70s.
Josephus can't be considered a true contemporary because he was born three years after Jesus ostensibly died, and the testimony of historians born decades later with a clear bias is suspect.
Regardless, it's not academically unsound to posit Jesus' existence; he just may not have been the version depicted by the gospels.
Post a Comment