storytime

"Caves have long been associated with John. In the bible..."

Well, that settles it for sure. Because if it ain't in the KJV, then it ain't so. :banghead: And I can't seem to find anything in the NT relating John the Baptist to being a cave dweller. I've always pictured him as more of a survivalist in the wilderness or a desert wanderer.

hefdaddy42

I'm not sure why anyone would think that we can find archaeological evidence for Jesus, or for any other 1st-century Jewish peasant. Or why it would matter.

ripley

Well, clearly it would be nice to have proof that the founding figure of the world's largest religion actually... existed.

hefdaddy42

I realize that, but I can't imagine that the kind of "proof" being discussed here would possibly exist, or why anyone would expect it to. Jesus was a Jewish peasant, whose impact during his lifetime was minimal. What evidence would you expect to find, from him or from any other individual peasant from ancient times?

ripley

Very little, of course. Which is why this thread is packed with thinly-veiled mockery. Archeology + Jesus != Archeology about Jesus.

Someone should've included a facepalm to describe the book. Since nobody has done so yet, I'll fulfill that obligation:

hefdaddy42

Good call.

Steven Carr

Nobody disputes that we have a tomb with the names of Jesus and Mary.

But they were such common names that they don't count as evidence.

Mark was the most common male name in the Roman Empire and Luke was the second most common.

So if a Mark and a Luke are mentioned in the New Testament, those must be our Gospel authors.

Stands to reason.

Steven Carr

Such a minimal impact that the Gospels say the Jewish leader had to get rid of him or else the Romans might have invaded Jerusalem.

And Herod was so keen to see this Jewish peasant whose impact during his lifetime was minimal......

hefdaddy42

I think the point was that the Jewish leaders turned Jesus over so that his impact would remain minimal. And I don't think the stories of Jesus going to Herod are historical, in any event.

But, to each his own.

Richard

So Steven are you referring to the Talpiot tomb, or the James Ossuary, same as or different from Talpiot No. 10? There is indeed a whole lot of controversy about this, even to the point of bogus or forgery of the ossuary reading. The very conservative Witherington points that out, but then he would have a bone to pick, as well as Darrell Bock, Craig Evans, and Gary Habermas. But regardless of these conservatives, and Jodi Magness of the same university where Bart Ehrman is???, there does seem to be good reason against its being genuine, like patina problems, and faulty DNA testing while unreliable anyway "brother of Jesus" portion added later. All of this as well as your points.
And on top of that it's unprovenanced.

Or are you referring to a different tomb?