Jesus' Tomb?

Originally posted by vistesd
Are the two mutually exclusive? If Pope Benedict, for example, becomes a “media darling” (by virtue of being Pope), does that suddenly negate his scholarly credentials? How about Stephen Hawking?

What does “respected in the field” (BdN’s phrase) mean? What is the “field?” In various disciplines, there are often schools of thought such that, if one is ...[text shortened]... In arguments for ordination of women, it may be a brick in the wall, but it is hardly the wall.

Lots of good questions. No easy answers.

What does “respected in the field” ... mean?

You raise a good question as to what the "field" is. And certainly what is legitimate enterprise is hotly contested in some fields -- most notably philosophy where many philosophers have made careers out of trying to define what philosophy is in the first place. However, let's not over-complicate things needlessly. The field of NT exegesis and Early Church history is fairly well defined. Even if not everyone will agree on the methods, the end-goal is fairly uncontroversial -- to determine, from the evidence, what most probably happened in the period.

But the question of what makes a person respected in the field is harder. Would it simply be someone whose views are adopted by the majority? Or a scholar whose core views are widely accepted, even if other individual academics have differing views on the details? Perhaps there are scholars who are respected by their peers in the sense of providing something of value, even if most of their theories are not held up to be viable.

But can a scholar be respected if his/her methods violate basic norms of scholarly integrity and method particular to that field?

Closer to home: Is John D. Crossan a respected scholar in his field? Is E.P. Sanders? Burton Mack? Luke Timothy Johnson? John D. Robinson? Geza Vermes? Jacob Neusner?

I don't know too much about all the exegetes mentioned here. From what I've read, John Robinson certainly seems to be well-respected. For Crossan (as with Funk, Hicks and others) the key criticism is that his philosophical presuppositions are unwarranted; in effect they assume what he sets out to prove.

Are the two mutually exclusive? If Pope Benedict, for example, becomes a “media darling” (by virtue of being Pope), does that suddenly negate his scholarly credentials? How about Stephen Hawking?

For starters, one must be suspicious of the extent to which the media can exaggerate the influence of an academic -- as might very well be the case with Hawking. And, in its own way, the media can also influence reputed universities to consider certain academics for posts.

(Btw, I don't think Benedict is in any danger of being a "media darling" -- and certainly not as a scholar)

How should the Gospel writers be viewed? As reliable historian/biographers? As respected scholars in that field? As objective journalists? As theologians?

As disciples of Jesus who recorded his life story as they knew it for future generations. While they've certainly dramatised and edited some portions of those story, there is no need to throw the baby out with the bathwater. They're biographers of Jesus in a manner similar to Plato as a biographer of Socrates. They don't claim to be scholars; and calling them journalists is anachronistic (not that I think most journalists are "objective" even today). To some extent they're theologians (John more than others, possibly) -- but their primary goal is the presentation of the life of Jesus.

BTW, I didn’t think that Pagel’s notion ... that early Christianity was a multifaceted affair was any longer controversial. It isn’t with respect to Judaism.

It has never been controversial that early Christianity was a multi-faceted affair. What is controversial is Pagel's notions about the affair.

With regard to the issue, I have no particular axe to grind—except that I don’t think the questions ought to be dismissed out-of-hand based on religious doctrine.

I couldn't agree more. But, if one is to be fair, one musn't replace Christian religious doctrine with other ones (albeit ones masquerading as modernist and/or humanist). For instance, is it any less "religious" to assume a priori that miracles are impossible and therefore that the Evangelists created the miracle accounts? Is it any less "religious" to assume a priori that the Early Church did not have an idea of Jesus as God and therefore all direct quotes of Jesus's divinity attribted to Jesus must be inauthentic?

That's all those on the orthodox side of the field are asking for -- objectivity in approach (whatever their personal beliefs are).

With regard to seeking textual support for women being in positions of authority (and not just “household authority” ) in the early church, and even held positions that today might be called “ecclesiastical,” some of that can be found within the canonical texts.

Sure. But is textual support the only kind of historical evidence there is?

Originally posted by wedgehead2
its not meant to be serious you know, its a STORY.

Too many people take the Da Vinci Code seriously. Too often I encounter people who make claims which are taken more or less from this fictional book.

Originally posted by lucifershammer
Lots of good questions. No easy answers.

[b]What does “respected in the field” ... mean?

You raise a good question as to what the "field" is. And certainly what is legitimate enterprise is hotly contested in some fields -- most notably philosophy where many philosophers have made careers out of trying to define what philosophy is in the fir ...[text shortened]... re. But is textual support the only kind of historical evidence there is?[/b]

Lightning storm knocked things out at home, and I'm just posting quick from the local library (whicch I don't use a lot, because it's about 20 miles away).

Re: norms of scholarly integrity, et., I think sometimes your comments about majority, etc. can be applied there too. Interestingly, Crossan accuses ssome of his opponents of assuming what they set out to prove--or, more accurately, simply conducting their research in such a way that does not challenge scripture or tradition. Crossan claimed, in his book on the early church, that none of his opponents were able to challenge his methodology. (I've already inidcated my personal critique of Crossan.)

Re: your comments about "'less religious.'" On the one hand, don't we all make at least provisional a priori assumptions to being an inquiry? On the other, I think one can be quite religious (without the quotattion makrs), without assuming miracles, etc.

Re: textual evidence--it certainly isn't the only kind of evidence; but the question becomes where and how we decide what texts represent history, and which don't. How much do we look through our religious philosophical lenses to decide?

Sorry, for this quick & garbled reply, but I've got to go... Take care.

So did anybody watch it? I thought they made a fairly strong case. Details of the evidence presented is at http://dsc.discovery.com/convergence/tomb/explore/explore.html

(click "Enter the Tomb" and go to Supporting Evidence).

Originally posted by no1marauder
So did anybody watch it? I thought they made a fairly strong case.

Which is why it's on the Discovery Channel rather than in an archaeology journal.

Originally posted by lucifershammer
Which is why it's on the Discovery Channel rather than in an archaeology journal.

Elitist snobbery aside, why don't you actually bother to look at the arguments and evidence presented?

EDIT: Amos Kloner wrote an article discussing the findings in an Israeli archaeology journal in 1996. In fact, his article is available at the site given (it's in DownloadDocuments).

Originally posted by no1marauder
Elitist snobbery aside, why don't you actually bother to look at the arguments and evidence presented?

EDIT: Amos Kloner wrote an article discussing the findings in an Israeli archaeology journal in 1996. In fact, his article is available at the site given (it's in DownloadDocuments).

Yep, and Kloner thought the Cameron-Jacobovic theory was utter rubbish:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/6397373.stm

As do probably just about every archaeologist/specialist historian not on the show.

Since the programme hasn't actually aired in the UK, I can't comment in detail on the "arguments" and "evidence" presented. From what I've gleaned off the web, what they've essentially found is a tomb outside Jerusalem with a Joseph, a Joshua s/o Joseph, a Judas s/o Joshua, a Matthew (who may or may not be related), a Mary (ditto) and a "Mariamne e Mara" (who isn't related to Joshua on his mother's side). Then there's some stuff in 3rd-4th century Gnostic gospels about a Mary with a prominent role among Jesus's disciples. And that's about it.

The most obvious thing that scholars like Kloner point out is that these are just the most common names of the period and it's hardly surprising that they should appear in a tombsite. Then there are big holes like why a poor family from Nazareth would be buried in a rich man's tomb in Jerusalem; the whole jump from Mariamne to Mary Magdalene based on the 3rd/4th century 'Gospel of Philip'; the assumption that Mariamne is Joshua's wife because they don't share the same mitochondrial DNA (she could be his aunt or step-sister, for instance) etc.

What might've been really interesting is a cross-table of everyone based on mitochondrial DNA (and why not use chromosomal DNA?) Was Mariamne Judas's mother? Was Mary Joshua's? What positive evidence is there that Mariamne was Joshua's wife?

It's not rocket science to figure out the lacunae. Then again, having seen a Cameron-Jacobovic collaboration on the Exodus last night, I have to admit it's probably going to be entertaining fare.

Originally posted by lucifershammer
To some extent they're theologians (John more than others, possibly) -- but their primary goal is the presentation of the life of Jesus.

But was it their goal to present the life of Jesus as they would like it to be or in a historical manner? For example accounts of his birth in Bethlehem are clearly made up in order to fit with prophesy. To what extent is the rest of it similarly pure invention?

Originally posted by vistesd
Lightning storm knocked things out at home, and I'm just posting quick from the local library (whicch I don't use a lot, because it's about 20 miles away).

Re: norms of scholarly integrity, et., I think sometimes your comments about majority, etc. can be applied there too. Interestingly, Crossan accuses ssome of his opponents of assuming what they set o ...[text shortened]... o decide?

Sorry, for this quick & garbled reply, but I've got to go... Take care.

Re: "respected in the field" and scholarly integrity

I haven't read enough of Crossan in particular to respond; my response was more of a general take on the Jesus Seminar crowd. By presupposing a positivist and materialist philosophy, they are assuming the thesis that they subsequently "prove" about the divinity of Jesus and His claims thereof.

I don't see why a researcher must necessarily challenge scripture or tradition if she feels the evidence does not warrant it.


Re: "less religious"

You hit the nail on the head at least partially by calling them "provisional a priori assumptions". One must be prepared to treat the evidence on its own terms, not twist it to fit some preconceived agenda or philosophy.


Re: textual evidence

Once again, there's no need to over-complicate things needlessly. It's pretty clear while reading one of Aesop's fables or Jesus's parables that the author isn't intending to represent historical episodes in those stories.

This reminds me of something William Farmer (U. Dallas) said:

The Church canonized only four Gospels; however, Robert Funk, the leader of the Jesus Seminar, wants to add the Gospel of Thomas and the Sayings Gospel Q to our canon. This poses the question: Why did the Church canonize four Gospels and no more? The answer is that Matthew, Mark, Luke and John are the only Gospels that tell the story of "the flesh and blood martyrdom of the Son of God."

Originally posted by twhitehead
But was it their goal to present the life of Jesus as they would like it to be or in a historical manner? For example accounts of his birth in Bethlehem are clearly made up in order to fit with prophesy. To what extent is the rest of it similarly pure invention?

Why do you say that accounts of his birth in Bethlehem are "clearly made up in order to fit with prophesy"? Why wouldn't it simply be the case that the Gospel writer simply looked over the OT to find "proof texts" or prophecies that fit the events?

Originally posted by lucifershammer
Why do you say that accounts of his birth in Bethlehem are "clearly made up in order to fit with prophesy"? Why wouldn't it simply be the case that the Gospel writer simply looked over the OT to find "proof texts" or prophecies that fit the events?

it would be a fine business to sell the real holly family, Joseph, Mary, Jesus, Maria Magdalena, & his son 😀

Originally posted by lucifershammer
Yep, and Kloner thought the Cameron-Jacobovic theory was utter rubbish:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/6397373.stm

As do probably just about every archaeologist/specialist historian [b]not on the show.

Since the programme hasn't actually aired in the UK, I can't comment in detail on the "arguments" and "evidence" presented. ...[text shortened]... t night, I have to admit it's probably going to be entertaining fare.[/b]

According to your link Kloner said: "I don't accept the news that it was used by Jesus or his family," he told the BBC News website.

That's hardly saying that the theory was "utter rubbish".

The Mariamne name is supposedly quite rare, but it was used as the name of Mary Magadalene in certain Gnostic gospels. Quite a coincidence.

There's plenty more: There is no Joseph in the tomb - there is a Jesus, son of Joseph though (is that who you're calling "Joshua"?). The names are somewhat common true enough, but it seems somewhat fortuitious that a Joseph, Mary, Jesus son of Joseph, Josa (supposedly a rare form of Joseph but used in Mark as a brother of Jesus) son of Joseph are all mentioned in a single tomb. The Mariamne conclusion is a bit of a stretch, but not totally outrageous (they tried to get chromosomal DNA according to the program but could only extract mitochondrial according to the scientist on the show).

I'm sure it will be shown on the bbc and then perhaps you can actually discuss what was presented rather than dismissing it out of hand.

Originally posted by lucifershammer
I don't know about that. Falsifying your data is a serious offence for an academic:

http://www.cwnews.com/news/viewstory.cfm?recnum=43736

She may have once been respected for her work on the Nag Hammadi texts. Perhaps that will be her positive legacy to the field. However, it is one thing for a Dawkins to leave the domain of biology and enter in ...[text shortened]... e the charge is proven, the miscreant is dismissed from the guild and not re-admitted.[/quote]

A response-post to the CWN article:

“Professor Pagels is on sabbatical leave till September 2007. She is, however, being made aware of the above critique of her research -- in case she has not seen it yet. Even if valid totally or partially, Mankowski's critique, at places, does not reach the level of civility expected from an expert in any field. Its tone is that of an angry person getting back at someone who has long been a thorn in the side. I am doing my own research on the issue. (Professor Emeritus of Religious Studies)”

I’m curious to see the rebuttal, if any. This should be interesting....

Originally posted by lucifershammer
Re: "respected in the field" and scholarly integrity

I haven't read enough of Crossan in particular to respond; my response was more of a general take on the Jesus Seminar crowd. By presupposing a positivist and materialist philosophy, they are assuming the thesis that they subsequently "prove" about the divinity of Jesus and His claims thereof.

at tell the story of "the flesh and blood martyrdom of the Son of God."[/quote]

I don't see why a researcher must necessarily challenge scripture or tradition if she feels the evidence does not warrant it.

But isn’t that part of the reason for mounting the challenge?

Let’s consider miracles (since I’ve been thinking about that part of your response for a couple of days... 🙁 ). Without going to the dictionary, there would seem to be three ways in which people tend to use the word “miracle”:

(1) An unusual or seemingly improbable event. For example, “I thought I was a goner; I can’t believe that tree was there to break my fall. It’s a miracle!”

(2) An unexplained (and/or unexplainable) occurrence, such as a remission of cancer for which doctors have no medical explanation (and I’m not dismissing psycho-somatic effects, placebo effects, etc.).

(3) A putative event that actually contradicts what is known about the natural order—e.g., Jesus’ walking on water.

Now, I don’t think the assumption that such an event is not historical is—from a modern point of view—strictly a priori. I cannot walk on water; I don’t know anyone who can/has walked on water; I don’t know anyone—or ever heard of anyone—who knows anyone who has/can walk on water; digging back in my head to my high-school physics, it seems that there are some things that would definitely put walking on water into category (3) of miracles. How “a priori” is my assumption, in reading that story, that something other than historical reporting is going on with the text? (Whether or not I choose to believe that a God could pull off such a miracle; I am not compelled to believe that this God does....)

Further, what weight of evidence would be needed for a truly impartial historian—today—to accept that such a miracle did, indeed, occur? And when was the first real attempt to “de-mythologize” the scriptures? David Friedrich Strauss in the 19th century? It seems to me that it has only been in relatively recent history—vis-à-vis Christianity—that scholars have been willing to start with the “alternative assumption” (of not assuming miracles, divine testimony, etc.), to see where that leads.

I once heard of a mythologist who read the gospels, and exclaimed: “This isn’t myth. I know myth, and this doesn’t fit the general patterns—it must be history!”

I can imagine a historian: “This isn’t history. I know history, and this doesn’t fit the general patterns—it must be myth!”

Both parties, it seems to me, are leaping to rather narrow alternative conclusions. I think both are interwoven—along with artful religious symbolism, allegory, metaphor, etc.

Nevertheless, I think it would be an absolute error for a historian, qua historian, to assume, say, the divinity of Jesus as part of a study of the historical Jesus. Many of these guys (including some of the Jesus Seminar folks who happen to be religious Christians) insist on separating the “Jesus of history” from “the Christ of faith” when undertaking their work as historians. For someone who holds to a fairly “high Christology,” that is neither difficult nor heretical...

[NOTE: An interesting read is the dialogue between Marcus Borg and Timothy Wright; I forget the name of the book. They are both Anglicans (Wright is a priest); they absolutely disagree; and they remain close friends.]

_________________________________

BTW, I don’t think the jury’s out on the Gospel of Thomas (or Q, for that matter--non-Q scholars are in the minority; so it's not just Funk) and I think that’s a complex subject.... (After all, it was you who corrected me on the idea of a “closed canon”...) It sounds to me as if Farmer is grinding a Christiological/soteriological axe, not a historical one...

EDIT: I know that Q is not an actual document--unless some version is someday found...

Originally posted by vistesd
[b]I don't see why a researcher must necessarily challenge scripture or tradition if she feels the evidence does not warrant it.

But isn’t that part of the reason for mounting the challenge?

Let’s consider miracles (since I’ve been thinking about that part of your response for a couple of days... 🙁 ). Without going to the dictionary, there would ...[text shortened]... ...

EDIT: I know that Q is not an actual document--unless some version is someday found...[/b]

So what if that is Christ's grave, it's not a big deal to a Gnostic.