Freethought & Rationalism Archive

David Bowden · 03-30-2002, 12:29 PM

While skimming McDowell's Evidence that Demands to be Comprehensively Rebutted today, I came across the following in the OT reliability chapter, and it sure piqued my interest:

"John Elder in his Prophets, Idols, and Diggers" reveals:
"'...For centuries there was a tomb at Shechem reverenced as the tomb of Joseph. A few years ago the tomb was opened. It was found to contain a body mummified according to the Egyptian custom, and in the tomb, among other things, was a sword of the kind worn by Egyptian officials.'"

So, I have three questions:

1.) Was such a tomb actually excavated?

2.) Was an Egyptian-mummified body found in it?

3.) Is there any other indication (dating, other artifacts or factors) that we surely are or surely aren't dealing with the specific person claimed by these conservative apologists?

Obviously I'm biased against McDowell and don't trust any citation he gives to be objective; what I'm hoping for is either a rebuttal of Elder's assertions, or confirmation of what can be confirmed.

Amazon.com has a listing for "Elder, John: Prophets, idols and diggers: scientific proof of Bible history" but there's no rating or review given, and nothing indicating whether he's a solid researcher or not.

Thanks,
Wanderer

[edited to clarify thread title; Matthew (but not Luke) seems to think that Joseph the husband of Mary was also the son of a man named Jacob.]

[ March 30, 2002: Message edited by: wide-eyed wanderer ]</p>

Toto · 03-30-2002, 04:27 PM

I started to do a web search, and found that Shechem is now known as Nablus. The tomb in question was the center of warfare between Israel and the Arabs in 2001, described in <a href="http://www.religioustolerance.org/rt_israel.htm" target="_blank">this page from Religious Tolerance</a>. There had been a yeshiva on the spot of a Kabbalist sect led by Rabbi Isaac Ginzburg, a fringe extemist (highly partisan account <a href="http://www.hoffman-info.com/palestine42.html" target="_blank">here.</a>)

I did find a reference to the Egyptian sword, with a cite to John Elder's book. But I also found this from the <a href="http://http::www.jpost.com/Editions/2000/11/23/Features/Features.16135.html" target="_blank">Jerusalem post</a> (I don't know that the link works - I read the Google cache):

Quote:

"The prophet Joseph was never in Palestine. He lived in Egypt; he was buried in Egypt. Everyone knows that," says Abu Talal Nasar, a gray-haired, gaptoothed Palestinian officer stationed outside Joseph's Tomb.

Nasar, who grew up in Nablus, insists that the site never interested Jews until about 1976, and that transforming it into a Jewish shrine was strictly a military maneuver.

"The Israelis thought that to keep [Nablus] calm they should make a base here, so they claimed it, and after that they gave it a religious dimension by allowing settlers to call it a Jewish shrine," says Nasar, adding, "but in fact, it was a security pretext."

When clashes began between Israelis and Palestinians on September 29, the tomb became a flash point. In an attempt to calm matters, Prime Minister Ehud Barak ordered the army to withdraw, which it did quietly in the night, taking along a carefully wrapped Torah scroll. As word of the retreat spread through Nablus, jubilant residents overran a line of Palestinian police and triumphantly destroyed the shrine.

Palestinian Authority Chairman Yasser Arafat later apologized for the desecration of the site, and ordered it repaired. But the PA has no intention of voluntarily returning the site to Israeli control, and continues to claim it as an Islamic, and not Jewish, shrine.

The site has a long history. The New Testament notes that Jesus visited the northern Samaritan city of Sikar, near a parcel of land that Jacob gave to his son Joseph, presumably in Nablus.

But there is a parallel, contradictory tradition claiming that Joseph is buried with the patriarchs in Hebron, to the south. Both traditions date back 2,000 years.

What is clear is that, starting in the fourth century when an early Christian visitor mentions the tomb of Joseph in Nablus in his writings, pilgrims of all three major religions visited the shrine. A famed Jewish traveler, Binyamin of Tudela, made note of it in the 12th century, and the Moslem pilgrim Ali al-Kharet mentions it in a manuscript from 1133.

The domed building in Nablus that houses the sarcophagus is believed to have been built by Samaritans in the 1500s. No one knows the age of the stone coffin.

Most Moslems believe that Joseph is buried 80 km. to the south, in Hebron, with the biblical patriarchs. If the bones of Joseph were once in Nablus as the Bible indicates, Moslems say, he was moved to Hebron hundreds of years ago.

So who do the Moslems believe is buried here? Not the biblical Joseph, they say, but Sheikh Yusuf Dukat, a locally venerated Moslem who tended the site and was buried there. Dukat lived about 150 years ago.

"We know, we are very sure that this is a Moslem shrine and Yusuf Dukat is buried here," says Nasar, giving a visitor a tour of the room with the sarcophagus. He points to a niche in the wall facing Mecca, called the "mihrab," and notes the orientation of the coffin, on a diagonal, facing south.

"The Moslems bury facing north-south, and the Jews facing east-west," he declares. El-Abed intervenes; no, he says, it's the reverse. Jews north-south. Moslems east-west. They discuss it for a while.

"Anyway, we're not sure, but the grave is new; the stones were cut by a machine," says the Palestinian officer finally.

* * *

There is no archaeological evidence that the Joseph mentioned in the Bible, if he existed, is buried in Joseph's Tomb. No one has dug there. No one has done any field research at all on the site. In the 10th century, an Arab scholar named Muqadesi reported that he opened the tomb and found the partially decayed remains of two people.

Modern scholars have shown very little historical interest in the spot. There are two brief references to Joseph's Tomb in the Encyclopaedia Judaica. There is no entry for Joseph's Tomb in the Encyclopaedia for Archaeology in the Near East, published in 1997. The same is true for a Catholic encyclopedia and several comparable Moslem sources.

Until Jewish settlers moved to the Nablus area in 1975, few people took notice of Joseph's Tomb. And for many academics, the shrine is just not worth the trouble.

"Look, not all Jews believe in this place," says an Israeli government employee. "From a scientific standpoint, there is no information. But the state has to allow people to have the option to believe in it, and to defend it." (The Washington Post)

David Bowden · 03-31-2002, 07:17 AM

Thanks, Toto - fascinating article. The theopolitics of that area just boggles the mind, doesn't it? This especially:

"The Israelis thought that to keep [Nablus] calm they should make a base here, so they claimed it, and after that they gave it a religious dimension by allowing settlers to call it a Jewish shrine," says Nasar, adding, "but in fact, it was a security pretext."

I'll continue to check it out, but it seems apparent to me that Elder's summation is biased in favor of simplistic confirmation of his conservative beliefs, and that McDowell is, as usual, quoting a friendly source in support of his position, without hinting at the real complexity of the issue.

-Wanderer

bob_the_god · 03-31-2002, 07:23 AM

That tomb does not nessecerily have to be Josephs, (although admittedly iam trying to remember the story from a play of it i did in Infant School), Egypt and Israel are not seperate worlds and it is likely that the customs would have caught on, Egypt must have been a massive influence on this rather backward place, like radiation. In Persia the royalty were sometimes mummified in the Egyption fashion, and let us remember we have thousands of years of history for this tomb to be from!

David Bowden · 03-31-2002, 08:43 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by bob_the_god:
<strong>In Persia the royalty were sometimes mummified in the Egyption fashion, and let us remember we have thousands of years of history for this tomb to be from!</strong>

These are two issues I'm also curious about: has the tomb/mummy been dated with any certainty, and why should anybody conclude that it's not just some anonymous rich guy who wanted to be buried in the highest fashion of the day?

From the article Toto included: "There is no archaeological evidence that the Joseph mentioned in the Bible, if he existed, is buried in Joseph's Tomb. No one has dug there. No one has done any field research at all on the site. In the 10th century, an Arab scholar named Muqadesi reported that he opened the tomb and found the partially decayed remains of two people."

What amazes me is these apologists' willingness to prematurely clamp down on anything that smells like confirmation of their sacred legends.

-Wanderer

Toto · 03-31-2002, 08:36 PM

I found this opinion on John Elder <a href="http://www.infidels.org/~ltaylor/bible-notes/luke-two.html" target="_blank">from Larry Taylor's page in the II Libary:</a>

Quote:

John Elder.Prophets, Idols and Diggers: Scientific Proof of Bible History. New York: Bobbs-Merrill, 1960. Pp. 159-60.

This author has a major flaw as a source; he does not give footnotes, or otherwise document his assertions.
...
for the use of scholarship, Elder's book is useless.

From <a href="http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/richard_carrier/quirinius.html" target="_blank">Richard Carrier</a>: "Elder's credibility is certainly in question," as he demolishes Elder's arguments on another point.

Edited to add: you can buy this book used for $5 from <a href="http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/B00005XQZ2/internetinfidelsA" target="_blank">Amazon</a>

[ March 31, 2002: Message edited by: Toto ]</p>

03-30-2002, 12:29 PM	#1
David Bowden Senior Member Join Date: Feb 2002 Location: Everywhere I go. Yes, even there. Posts: 607	tomb of Genesis' Joseph son of Jacob? While skimming McDowell's Evidence that Demands to be Comprehensively Rebutted today, I came across the following in the OT reliability chapter, and it sure piqued my interest: "John Elder in his Prophets, Idols, and Diggers" reveals: "'...For centuries there was a tomb at Shechem reverenced as the tomb of Joseph. A few years ago the tomb was opened. It was found to contain a body mummified according to the Egyptian custom, and in the tomb, among other things, was a sword of the kind worn by Egyptian officials.'" So, I have three questions: 1.) Was such a tomb actually excavated? 2.) Was an Egyptian-mummified body found in it? 3.) Is there any other indication (dating, other artifacts or factors) that we surely are or surely aren't dealing with the specific person claimed by these conservative apologists? Obviously I'm biased against McDowell and don't trust any citation he gives to be objective; what I'm hoping for is either a rebuttal of Elder's assertions, or confirmation of what can be confirmed. Amazon.com has a listing for "Elder, John: Prophets, idols and diggers: scientific proof of Bible history" but there's no rating or review given, and nothing indicating whether he's a solid researcher or not. Thanks, Wanderer [edited to clarify thread title; Matthew (but not Luke) seems to think that Joseph the husband of Mary was also the son of a man named Jacob.] [ March 30, 2002: Message edited by: wide-eyed wanderer ]</p>

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

03-31-2002, 07:17 AM	#3
David Bowden Senior Member Join Date: Feb 2002 Location: Everywhere I go. Yes, even there. Posts: 607	Thanks, Toto - fascinating article. The theopolitics of that area just boggles the mind, doesn't it? This especially: "The Israelis thought that to keep [Nablus] calm they should make a base here, so they claimed it, and after that they gave it a religious dimension by allowing settlers to call it a Jewish shrine," says Nasar, adding, "but in fact, it was a security pretext." I'll continue to check it out, but it seems apparent to me that Elder's summation is biased in favor of simplistic confirmation of his conservative beliefs, and that McDowell is, as usual, quoting a friendly source in support of his position, without hinting at the real complexity of the issue. -Wanderer

03-31-2002, 07:23 AM	#4
bob_the_god Junior Member Join Date: Mar 2002 Location: London, England Posts: 10	That tomb does not nessecerily have to be Josephs, (although admittedly iam trying to remember the story from a play of it i did in Infant School), Egypt and Israel are not seperate worlds and it is likely that the customs would have caught on, Egypt must have been a massive influence on this rather backward place, like radiation. In Persia the royalty were sometimes mummified in the Egyption fashion, and let us remember we have thousands of years of history for this tomb to be from!

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.