Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Minimalist · 05-29-2011, 03:37 PM

Patience, Toto....more is coming from the duo of Jacobovici and Tabor.

http://zwingliusredivivus.wordpress....he-jesus-tomb/

Toto · 06-23-2011, 01:09 PM

Simcha Jacobovici responds tit for tat.

There is some detailed discussion of nails and crucifixion here, but there is the dubious premise that Caiaphas was "known to history" for the crucifixion of Jesus, when he is only known to Christian myth for the crucifixion of Jesus.

Jacobovici also performs some deft, "teasing" historical extraction from the gospels.

Quote:

Nonetheless, I do believe that we can tease the historical truth out of the text. For example, the hand washing attributed by Matthew to Pilate is clearly a Jewish hand washing custom. It’s not a Roman custom. It is described in Deuteronomy 21:6 where it is performed by someone in a position of power who feels that a man has wrongly died in his jurisdiction, and that he had no way of preventing the death. It is a ritual that a Jewish High Priest might have symbolically resorted to, not a Roman governor. And yet, in the Gospel of Matthew (27:24), this singularly Jewish ritual is transferred to the Roman thug Pontius Pilate. This slight of hand resulted in millennia of anti-Semitism and millions of Jewish dead. But if we restore the hand washing ceremony to its proper historical context, we realize that it was Caiaphas, not Pilate, who washed his hands of Jesus’ blood!

Brilliant! The same source that records mythical Magi worshiping Jesus, a mythical slaughter of the innocents, a mythical zombie uprising, may be assumed to be historical when it mines the Septuagint for a Jewish ritual for Pilate to perform!

Jacobovici then goes on to accept as historical a Syriac noncanonical gospel and the gospel of John, to argue that the high priest was a secret supporter of Jesus.

This is, all in all, an interesting exercise in spinning conclusions out of gossamer bits of fluff.

The replies to this should be interesting.

JonA · 06-23-2011, 05:34 PM

Iron wasn't free; nails were iron.

Which is why finding them in the remains of temporary 'structures' (which is what a cross would have been) is very unlikely.

The nail found in the ankle bone had wood residue on it; that doesn't mean it was in the wood and the bone at the same time, but it does increase the probability of such being the case. The nail was, supposedly, left in the bone because it had become bent and irremovable/useless.

These nails appear similarly damaged; so they may have just been junk. Anyone who has walked a railroad track collecting the bent and loosed out spikes knows that, even in a day and age of readily-available iron, trinkets like these things can be attractive to some folk.

Why think these nails are anything other than this? Why think they are anything other than nails?

Jon

Solo · 06-23-2011, 08:49 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JonA

These nails appear similarly damaged; so they may have just been junk.
Jon

So, to net it out, they could not support Jesus' body weight, he fell off the cross and crawled off from this useless discussion.

Jiri

Toto · 06-26-2011, 05:23 PM

Tom Verenna quotes Mark Goodacre in reply to Simcha Jacobovici

Toto · 07-12-2011, 10:43 AM

Joe Zias: Nails in Jewish Tombs: Three Minutes with L.Y. Rahmani Discussing Simcha’s 3-Year Research

Quote:

Originally Posted by Joe Zias

The two small nails in question which were removed by me from the lab of Professor N. Haas following his tragic accident in the 1970’s and later transferred to the Tel Aviv University, Department of Physical Anthropology are most probably nails which were used to seal Jewish ossuaries. In the film, Jacobovici makes a point that the soft limestone adhering to one of the short nails proves that the nails came from a tomb whereby the answer is much simpler: the nails did come from a tomb context, that of sealing the lid of an ossuary and the fact that they were bent at a 90 degree angle would have made their removal difficult. Whosoever opened the sealed ossuary simply lifted the soft limestone lid thus leaving a remnant of the limestone adhering to the metal, beneath the head. Furthermore, the length of the two nails (6-7 cms) appearing in the film is too short to have supported a victim on a cross or a tree.

Lastly, the film which is part of a series entitled Mysteries of the Bible is a misnomer in that the only mystery in the series is why after their alleged three years of research on two nails, they couldn’t have taken 20-30 minutes to read one of the basic, fundamental, and most widely quoted works on Jewish burial practices. On the other hand, had they done so, they wouldn’t have had the film ready for Easter.

Minimalist · 07-12-2011, 01:40 PM

Joe Z. does have a way of cutting to the heart of the matter, doesn't he?

bootsie · 07-12-2011, 05:58 PM

I have been reading through the forum with a slight sense of bemusement.

There are a number of flaws with the "Jesus nails" theory. Here are just a couple.

1) The authors assume that Jesus actually existed - despite no historical evidence.

2) The authors assume that Jesus was crucified. Both Luke (in Acts) and Paul (in Galatians) claimed that he was hanged from a tree.

The interesting point about this last comment is that many scholars believe that Luke wrote Acts before he wrote the gospel, which of course was copied from Mark. So why did Luke change his story?

In the end, the "nails" have as much credibility as the shroud of Turin - none at all.

andrewcriddle · 07-13-2011, 12:07 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by bootsie

2) The authors assume that Jesus was crucified. Both Luke (in Acts) and Paul (in Galatians) claimed that he was hanged from a tree.

The interesting point about this last comment is that many scholars believe that Luke wrote Acts before he wrote the gospel, which of course was copied from Mark. So why did Luke change his story?

In the end, the "nails" have as much credibility as the shroud of Turin - none at all.

Galatians and Acts both refer to Jesus being hung on a tree and to Jesus being crucified. (For Jesus being crucified see Acts 2:36 and 4:10 and Galatians 3:1 and 6:12 and 6:14) They would appear to be different ways of referring to the same thing.

Andrew Criddle

Minimalist · 07-13-2011, 04:58 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by bootsie

I have been reading through the forum with a slight sense of bemusement.

There are a number of flaws with the "Jesus nails" theory. Here are just a couple.

1) The authors assume that Jesus actually existed - despite no historical evidence.

2) The authors assume that Jesus was crucified. Both Luke (in Acts) and Paul (in Galatians) claimed that he was hanged from a tree.

The interesting point about this last comment is that many scholars believe that Luke wrote Acts before he wrote the gospel, which of course was copied from Mark. So why did Luke change his story?

In the end, the "nails" have as much credibility as the shroud of Turin - none at all.

It's actually even a little worse than that.

http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/0806.htm

This is a link to the gospel in question. It begins:

Quote:

We find what follows in the book of Joseph the high priest, who lived in the time of Christ. Some say that he is Caiaphas.

Oh, no! The dreaded "some say" makes a 5th-6th century appearance. I thought FOX News had invented that particular bit of bullshit. In any case, Jacobovici accepts the attribution to Joseph a high priest as factual and further the "some say" routine as it being Caiaphas. This absurdity he then twists into a story in which Caiaphas regrets his role in the crucifiction and becomes a devoted follower...

Recall that there were plenty of stories of how Pilate also came to regret his involvement and gospel writers somehow were privy to the pillow talk between Pilate and his wife, too.

Anyway, this "gospel" is the basis for Jacobovici deciding that these nails were the ones used to nail up the godboy. It's meshugganah to borrow the phrase.

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

05-29-2011, 03:37 PM	#21
Minimalist Veteran Member Join Date: May 2007 Location: Arizona Posts: 1,808	Patience, Toto....more is coming from the duo of Jacobovici and Tabor. http://zwingliusredivivus.wordpress....he-jesus-tomb/

06-23-2011, 05:34 PM	#23
JonA Regular Member Join Date: May 2011 Location: Minnesota! Posts: 386	Iron wasn't free; nails were iron. Which is why finding them in the remains of temporary 'structures' (which is what a cross would have been) is very unlikely. The nail found in the ankle bone had wood residue on it; that doesn't mean it was in the wood and the bone at the same time, but it does increase the probability of such being the case. The nail was, supposedly, left in the bone because it had become bent and irremovable/useless. These nails appear similarly damaged; so they may have just been junk. Anyone who has walked a railroad track collecting the bent and loosed out spikes knows that, even in a day and age of readily-available iron, trinkets like these things can be attractive to some folk. Why think these nails are anything other than this? Why think they are anything other than nails? Jon

06-26-2011, 05:23 PM	#25
Toto Contributor Join Date: Jun 2000 Location: Los Angeles area Posts: 40,549	Tom Verenna quotes Mark Goodacre in reply to Simcha Jacobovici

07-12-2011, 01:40 PM	#27
Minimalist Veteran Member Join Date: May 2007 Location: Arizona Posts: 1,808	Joe Z. does have a way of cutting to the heart of the matter, doesn't he?

07-12-2011, 05:58 PM	#28
bootsie Junior Member Join Date: Jul 2011 Location: Bunbury, Western Australia Posts: 33	I have been reading through the forum with a slight sense of bemusement. There are a number of flaws with the "Jesus nails" theory. Here are just a couple. 1) The authors assume that Jesus actually existed - despite no historical evidence. 2) The authors assume that Jesus was crucified. Both Luke (in Acts) and Paul (in Galatians) claimed that he was hanged from a tree. The interesting point about this last comment is that many scholars believe that Luke wrote Acts before he wrote the gospel, which of course was copied from Mark. So why did Luke change his story? In the end, the "nails" have as much credibility as the shroud of Turin - none at all.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.