Most Helpful Customer Reviews
|
|
2 of 4 people found the following review helpful:
1.0 out of 5 stars
Total Rubbish, 2 May 2007
Revised and updated 13th July 2007
Critics of the book 'The Jesus Family Tomb' actually make a number of very salient and provable points:
1. That the authors have not been honest with their readers.
2. That the authors began with a conclusion and then worked backwards to try and find the 'evidence' that fits.
3. That the authors ignored a wealth of evidence disproving their argument.
4. That the only people being taken in by this load of rubbish are those who believe the book for no other reason than that it is what they want to hear, and by those who have no knowledge nor experience in any of the fields under discussion and choose to put their faith in people who are profiting financially from this book, rather than those eminently qualified and experienced in these fields, and who are on record as having decried the book as fiction.
It is one of the most unstintingly shoddy books masquerading under the subject of science that has been published for a long time. Critics the world over have included many of the worlds experts freely acknowledged as masters in their fields, with decades of experience under their belts.
It is a sound dictum that things must not be studied in isolation and out of context. Mistakes have been made in the past by following the 'isolated and out of context' method and these fields have therefore learned from their mistakes. This means that everything with regards the Talpiot tomb must be looked at in light of everything else, and very much within the context of the 1st century AD.
Very surprised to read that Mary and her children moving to Jerusalem about AD30 (that's AD30, not 30 AD) is a fact. Evidence please? That's evidence, not supposition if you don't mind. The only text that might conceivably support that contention is the NT, but those same documents also contain information that flies in the face of many of the other suppositions of the reviewer. Now come come, you mustn't be selective with the evidence unless you have hard categorical fact (sorry to repeat myself but that's 'fact' not supposition/guesswork) to support that argument.
"There's actually no evidence in Jewish sources, such as the Old Testament or the Mishna and Talmud, that a place called "Nazareth" even existed in or before the first century. I'm not disputing the evidence per the NT, that there was indeed a place called Nazareth. But to the best of my knowledge, there's no mention of Nazareth at all in any ancient writings outside the New Testament. So the place existed, but nobody knew about it. Therefore there was no reason to call Jesus "of Nazareth." Either in life or on an ossuary. He was called "Jesus the Branch" (of David) in Hebrew/Aramaic. "
The above quote is total and complete rubbish and again are the words of someone who has a drum to beat, but has little knowledge of ancient history nor archaeology. This is the danger of amateurs getting hold of a little knowledge but not knowing what it means. First Century AD documents are few and far between, and the dearth of documents relating to the lives of ordinary day to day individuals is even fewer. Let's take an example: How many pay 'dockets' were issued to Roman soldiers during the First Century? Thousands upon thousands. How many have survived? Not sure of the exact figure but very, very few. Getting the picture? The absence of documentation therefore is frustrating, but means very little. It is actually possible to prove by the use of archaeological analysis that Nazareth was occupied as far back as the Fourth Century BC, and even Roman remains from the First Century AD have been found at Nazareth (According to all the known facts and technologies, the remains are Roman.) Additionally there are Jewish documents referring to Jewish people of the priestly caste making their homes in Nazareth after the destruction of the Temple in AD70. So, the place existed but nobody knew about it? Give me a break. Even children can display a better sense of reasoning that that. E.g. Here's a little book that might be worth a read, provided you can force yourself to read something that doesn`t fit in with youir preconceptions:
"Archaeology, The Rabbis, & Early Christianity" by Eric M. Meyers & James F. Strange.
With regards Point 4, and the reference to Mary and Martha, again please learn to get some facts right and please stop being so selective with the use of evidence. Firstly, Mary and Martha are recorded in those exact same documents as being from Bethany, some miles in the other direction from Jerusalem. Secondly, those same documents also show that they already had a family tomb there. Thirdly, a family tomb was discovered some time ago in Bethany from the First Century AD which contained ossuaries of people named Mary, Martha, and Lazarus/Eliazar.
"The critics of this find are also less than perfectly qualified for the task- they are either Israeli archeologists with no real knowledge of the New Testament and other Christian sources, or Christian scholars with no thorough knowledge of Hebrew, Judaism and Jewish Law."
The above quote, again completely wrong. It's rather strange. Mention particle physics, or open heart surgery, or some such subject, everyone would listen respectfully acknowledging the other persons expertise. Mention history or archaeology and suddenly 'everyone's' an expert despite the fact that 'expert' knowledge amounts to nothing more than the equivalent of reading a book on first aid and then claiming to be qualified enough to perform open-heart surgery. It is extremely arrogant. I wouldn't tell a lawyer how to do his job. I wouldn't respect a lawyer telling me how to study and analyse biomolecular science, DNA, archaeology, and the study of ancient history, especially if it was quite clear he didn't know what he was talking about.
"I would have thought of a tomb just like the tomb we're discussing. It fits perfectly with what I'd have expected Jesus' family tomb to be."
And there you have it, the preconceived idea in black and white. Seeing what you want to see. It would be like running a DNA sample hoping to find a particular result, doing a seven point analysis, and then shouting `Eureka! It's exactly what I expected to find!' Yes, it happens. However a 14 point analysis of the same sample, more detailed and careful, reveals a rather different picture than the one expected. And yes, that happens too.
People would be far better off learning to read and study `around' a subject rather than simply concentrating, to the exclusion of all else, on their bias'.
Additionally Mr Bernstein appears to be following me around from Amazon.com. I know he has a book to promote as well as the above authors, but this is getting ridiculous.
|
|
|
1 of 3 people found the following review helpful:
4.0 out of 5 stars
Good case-incomplete pleading. , 11 Jul 2007
Critics of this book about Jesus Family Tomb, as to it's observations and conclusions, make essentially the following arguments:
1. That the Jesus family would be buried in Nazareth, not Talpiot;
2. That the Jesus family couldn't have afforded a tomb like the Talpiot tomb;
3. That the "Jesus son of Joseph" ossuary is not inscribed "Yeshua" (Jesus) at all;
4. That the "Mariamne" ossuary didn't contain the remains of Mary Magdalene, but of two other women.
I believe the first three of these allegations against the book's premise don't carry much water. The fourth argument actually supports the conclusion that this is the real thing. My comments on these points:
1. Talpiot is the right place for Jesus' family tomb- Per Luke, 2:3-4, the family's LEGAL residence was Bethlehem, not Nazareth. The fact that Joseph and the pregnant Mary could not take the census in Nazareth but had to take it in Bethlehem indicates that Bethlehem was their DOMICILIUM under Roman Law. That basically means that they had no intention to reside in Nazareth permanently. Therefore it would have made little sense for them to have a family tomb in Nazareth, that they wouldn't be able to frequently visit at a later stage in their lives. They would have wanted a family tomb close to Bethlehem and Jerusalem, easily accessible also to future generations of the family. The fact is indeed that Mary and her children moved to Jerusalem around 30 AD.
The traditional name of Jesus in Hebrew, as reflected also in the Talmud, is "Yeshua Hanotzri." This appellation stemms from "Netzer" (Shoot or Branch). It alludes clearly to Isaiah 11:1, indicating the Royal birth of Jesus, to substantiate his claim for Jewish messianship. Not to indicate the place he comes from.
There's actually no evidence in Jewish sources, such as the Old Testament or the Mishna and Talmud, that a place called "Nazareth" even existed in or before the first century. I'm not disputing the evidence per the NT, that there was indeed a place called Nazareth. But to the best of my knowledge, there's no mention of Nazareth at all in any ancient writings outside the New Testament. So the place existed, but nobody knew about it. Therefore there was no reason to call Jesus "of Nazareth." Either in life or on an ossuary. He was called "Jesus the Branch" (of David) in Hebrew/Aramaic.
The line of argumentation detracting this discovery around the supposed Nazareth origin of Jesus' family may therefore be based on a very shaky foundation.
2. Talpiot is located about 2.5 miles North of Bethlehem. Jesus' family, of Davidic descent according to the New Testament, could have held the burial cave there even before it moved to Nazareth. Davidic birth was absolutely the most exalted in Judaism, always. The suggestion that any person of Davidic descent could be of the lowest social echelon, that couldn't fund or get funding for a burial cave, doesn't make much sense, if any. There's substantial evidence to the contrary, e.g. 1. Jesus had some very wealthy active supporters like Joseph of Arimatea and Nicodemus (known as Nakdimon ben Gorion in post biblical Jewish sources-one of the richest Jews in Judea); 2. Josephus A.J.,XX, 9:1. Note the prominence of James brother of Jesus.
3. The inscription on the Jesus ossuary does say "Yeshua bar Yehosef" ("Jesus son of Joseph")to my eye. All letters but one are quite clearly there. The only letter which is somewhat more difficult to discern at first blush is the second letter- "Shin". That's because it's written in a somewhat irregular form (in a regular Shin there are three teeth in the fork, pointing upwards. Here there are two teeth, pointing sideways to the right.) But that particular irregularity appears also on other ossuaries- notably numbers 9 (this one has two "Shin"- one with three teeth pointing to the right, and one with TWO teeth pointing to the right. Exactly like the subject inscription) and 121 in the Rahmani catalogue, which both feature also a "Yeshua." All this is NOT difficult for a Hebrew speaking person to identify.
4. The net is now abuzz with the following argument against the important significance of the find:
"The inscription, Pfann said, is made up of two names inscribed by two different hands: the first, "Mariame,'' was inscribed in a formal Greek script, and later, when the bones of another woman were added to the box, another scribe using a different cursive script added the words "kai Mara,'' meaning "and Mara.'' Mara is a different form of the name Martha.
According to Pfann's reading, the ossuary did not house the bones of "Mary the teacher,'' but rather of two women, "Mary and Martha.'"
Here's my answer to that:
If the Mariamne ossuary indeed housed the bones of Mary and Martha, these are two sisters of NT fame. One of them could have been married to "Jesus son of Joseph." -Whether or not she was Mary Magdalene (Maybe the Mary who ointed Jesus feet and then dried them with her hair- very intimate scene.) The other sister would than also automatically belong in the family. It still fits. Actually it increases the statistical odds that this is the real thing quite substantially.
This is a very intriguing possibility indeed, fitting perfectly with John 12:3. Some posters on an internet group where I participate actually suggested once that similar anointing was part of pre-wedding ritual of a Davidic King, per certain passages in the Song of Songs. Reminds me of the reaction to this find of a BBC reporter in 1996- It seems like all balls in the national lottery coming together.
My take on the names inscribed on the ossuaries is somewhat different than this book's: I believe the Mariamne-Phillip connection is somewhat speculative, but it's possible. I have no knowledge of Greek, so I can only discuss the two propositions, Assuming that the ossuary does say "Mary and Martha", here's what I think the names are:
1."Jesus son of Joseph;"
2. "Marya" (Name of Jesus' mother);
3. "Yose" (contraction of Joseph. Name of Jesus' 'father' and precise nickname of his fourth brother);
4. "Mary and Martha" -they must have been sisters because Jewish law didn't allow burial together of two unrelated women;
5. "Matya" - Name of Jesus' first cousin, son of his father's brother Alphaeus/Clophas. As James Tabor suggests in a different context, Matya could also well have been Jesus' half brother, considering a certain specific rule of the Torah (Deuteronomy 25:5-10.);
6. "Judah son of Jesus."
Therefore out of seven names inscribed on these ossuaries three names undoubtedly relate to Jesus' immediate family, and three other names relate to the same with a somewhat lower probability.
The seventh name is "Judah bar Yeshua"- must have been the son of Jesus and one of the siters Mary or Martha. More probably Mary.
BOTTOM LINE- Ask yourself inversely a hypothetical question- If the Talpiot tomb hadn't yet been found, how would Jesus' family tomb have looked , which ossuaries would it have contained, to when would it have been dated and where would it have been located. Even if, like me, you're not formally educated specifically in any field related to this subject, anyone with general education and common sense who's curious enough could educate himself to form a perfectly valid opinion. The critics of this find are also less than perfectly qualified for the task- they are either Israeli archeologists with no real knowledge of the New Testament and other Christian sources, or Christian scholars with no thorough knowledge of Hebrew, Judaism and Jewish Law.
I would have thought of a tomb just like the tomb we're discussing. It fits perfectly with what I'd have expected Jesus' family tomb to be. Right place, right period, right names. There is also some important evidence supporting the same expectation- having to do with symbology- that this book addresses obliquely only in the conclusion.
|
|
|
|
With an Amazon.co.uk Gift Certificate, you can get them what they want (even if you don't know what that is). 
Amazon Home