EMAIL ONE,
I was reading your, "Analysis of Andrey Feuerverger's Article on The
Jesus Family Tomb,"
I assume you mean this article:
DELETED TO MAINTAIN ANONYMITY
and frankly all you do is dismiss the names as
not possible for J-esus
Frankly, you are entirely incorrect. I have not dismissed these names as not possible for Jesus. Everybody agrees that the names are similar to the names of people in the family of Jesus. Everybody agrees on this. That means that I agree on it too. This is one fact that is NOT controversial.
The real question is how PROBABLE it is that this tomb belongs to Jesus, since everybody agrees that it is POSSIBLE.
but you don't address the possibility that
the tomb is that of Yeshua bar Yoseph as a Jewish (in the Torah
strict sense and culture) leader of the Jews,
Once again, you are entirely incorrect. I did a Bayesian calculation that analyzed the two hypotheses:
1) The man in the tomb is Jesus of Nazareth
2) The man in the tomb is not Jesus of Nazareth
I showed that hypothesis 2 is about 50 times more likely than hypothesis 1. How is it possible that you missed that?
that Oxford scholar
James Parkes and Hebrew Univ. Prof Joseph Klausner and others have
indicated the actual man was.
At last we agree on something. As a matter of fact, I think that everybody agrees that Jesus of Nazareth was Jewish. Again, the term "everybody" includes me. (Yes, there are a few extremists who insist Jesus of Nazareth never existed, but their arguments are exceptionally strained. In mainstream academia, everybody grants that Jesus existed and was Jewish.)
That man as a Ribi (an authorized
leader/judge) should/would/could have been married, had a son, his
wife and mother, son, brothers, buried in his tomb,
Once again we agree on this point. Did you miss the part in my article that said that it's possible that Mary Magdalene was married to Jesus? I completely agree that Jesus could have been married and if we knew nothing about him, the logical assumption would be that he was married, since most Jewish men of the time were. The only problem is that we have no evidence that he actually was married, and there is no good reason for evidence like that to have been "covered up" in the first century or two after his death, since the earliest Jesus community was entirely Jewish and there would have been no reason for a "coverup."
his tomb not
lavish but appropriate for a Jewish leader, and the name Mariamnou
found in the Acts of Phillip.
Now you are going far beyond the evidence. The Acts of Phillip is a late source, much later than the New Testament and Josephus, which are the primary sources for our understanding of first-century Judaism and Christianity. The Acts of Phillip is probably also substantially later than the Mishnah, which is a terrific source for our understanding of second century Judaism and is quite helpful in understanding first-century Judaism as well.
There is real extant literature that
describes Jewish life of the 1st century that
correlates/corroborates what the real Jewish man would be like but
it does not fit the Christian/Roman myth as popular as it still
seems to sell.
Not sure what you mean by "real extant literature". We have many sources, including the New Testament, Josephus, the Dead Sea Scrolls, various pseudopigrapha, etc. The dating on some of these is unclear, but they all belong to the first-century era. We have plenty of archaeological data too. And there are a large number of books on the historical Jesus written in the last 25 years or so that sift all the sources in immense detail and come to a wide variety of conclusions that (as everybody knows) differ from the traditional church description of Jesus. But all of that should be assumed as known coming into this discussion.
Do you have something else in mind?
So the hard evidence is a tomb with names, some
exact in Aramaic, some at least close to extant documentation, that
fit Jewish culture not Christian since Christian culture didn't
exist for years after the death of the people in the tomb.
Once again, we agree completely. We have the tomb and we have names. If you knew anything about me and my books, you would know that I have long argued that so-called "early Christianity" was almost indistinguishable from Judaism, with the main exception that the so-called "early Christians" believed Jesus was the messiah. I don't use the term "early Christians" myself, since the term "Jesus community" seems to fit them much better.
One errs
to mix Jewish culture with Christian culture of the period since it
didn't exist.
Again, we agree completely here. If you knew anything about me, you would know that.
Hence trying to prove the historical J-esus is doomed
to failure.
I have no idea what you mean by the phrase "prove the historical Jesus." There is no doubt that a man named Yeshua the son of Yoseph was active in the early part of the first century. It really makes no difference whether you give the Aramaic form, the Greek form, or the English form of his name. We're talking about the same person. He certainly existed. What do you have in mind by this phrase "prove the historical Jesus?" What is it that you think I'm trying to "prove?" The purpose of my article was to analyze mathematically a mathematical claim by Andrey Feuerverger. I argued that his probability calculation was fatally flawed because his assumptions were incorrect. I think virtually the entire academic community agrees with me on that.
The ossuary said in Aramaic Yeshua not
English/Roman/Greek J-esus.
Yes, everybody agrees with this. What is your point here?
The problem for the Jesus tomb hypothesis is that the math simply doesn't give odds of 600 to 1 that this is the tomb of Jesus of Nazareth. The odds are more like 50 to 1 against this hypothesis.
EMAIL TWO,
Thanks for replying to my contact.
I really would like to be friendly so if I am not tell me.
Your initial email sounded fairly brusque. Just letting you know.
Sorry about that. Need to work on it.
Perhaps I wasn't clear. The ossuaries are in Aramaic consistent with the time they are dated
to of a Jewish man and family.
I think we agree on this point.
They are completely inconsistent with the churches and much of
today's Rabbinic opinion of the teaching of a Jewish Ribi named
Yehoshua. The error is in equating the two. Torah Judaism and
Christianity.
I am not particularly interested in either the church opinion or the rabbinic opinion. I am very much interested in what modern historians and archaeologists think about the ossuary. As a matter of fact, they have been quite receptive to my various articles on the ossuary, because most historians, theologians, and archaeologists don't know much math.
Really don't mean to be offensive here but they have a bias to protect their jobs, pulpits, empires. If your numbers are low they keep their jobs. If the likelihood is that his bones are found, there is no floating to the stars there is no g-dman. Remember Christianity survives on the subjective, not the objective. When the world finds out that Ribi Yehoshua taught nothing but Torah, then Christianity vanishes - no more Pope, preacher, theologian, history of Christianity as an option for the world to come.
If the experts claim that a Perushi Ribi created a new religion,
Christianity, that displaces Torah Judaism, it is the experts that
must prove this.
I hope you're aware that nobody believes this. The consensus opinion is that Jesus of Nazareth lived and died as an observant Jew.
Nobody believes that J-esus floated up to the stars, turned water to wine, made five fishes into a grand buffet? What do you mean?
Does an observant Jew do away with the Torah? Is J-esus not the poster boy for saying the "Old Testament," is not longer valid and replaced by the NT?
Torah Judaism abides by Torah as a Ribi would
teach. Christianity teaches what is contrary to Torah.
According to the Encyclopedia Judaica, "Semikhah," 14.1140-47 a Ribi
of this time would have had ordination by the patriarch Gamliel and
the Beit Din HaGadol.
In my view, this is probably an overly literal reading of the Mishnah and Talmud. I don't believe that ordination was practiced before the year 70 CE. The Jewish revolt caused a massive dislocation in Judaism. The real leaders -- the Sadducees -- died out, leaving the survivors (mostly Pharisees) to pick up the pieces. They did, led by Rabban Yohanan ben Zakkai, and rabbinic Judaism was founded sometime in the 70s or 80s at Yavneh.
Gamliel did in fact rule, which was the
prerogative and responsibility of the Nasi that the Netzarim (Shimon
Kepha and Yochanan) should be left alone and not condemned when they
were brought before it ÓÚ·¯ (Acts 5). How does the head of the
Jewish people Gamliel of the time confirm that this sect was not to
be condemned? If they were abiding by Christian doctrine then he
would have condemned them because the Torah is clear that idolaters
are to be condemned. But the history is that the followers of this
man were keeping Torah and Christianity didn't come along in a
recognizable form until 135CE with the expulsion of all the Jews
from Jerusalem.
I think we're on the same page here. There was no "early Christianity" in Judea. There was a Jesus movement that thought of itself as loyal and observant Jews. They had no idea that they would later be thought to have founded a new religion.
If there was no "early Christianity," as you say which is historically accurate, why call it "J-esus movement?" Ribi Yehoshua was unique not for a movement but that he is the only possible candidate for Mashiach. The Hebrew prophets and Mattityahu indicate this.
So there is a distinct difference between Yeshua bar Yoseph and J-esus.
I have no idea what you mean by this. The man we call "Jesus of Nazareth" and the man we call "Yeshua bar Yoseph" are the same person. He was an observant Jew. He was not the founder of a new religion. Sounds like we're on the same page. The language we use to name him is completely irrelevant to the discussion. Any scholar would use these names interchangeably.
Not any scholar would. Etymology of words can be very important. I am sure you have heard the etymology of J-zeus, but even if that is disregarded, the man's name definitely makes a difference in Torah Judaism, The name means help, salvation, victory - Kleins Comprehensive Etymological Dictionary of the Hebrew Language, 1987, p265, Carta Jerusalem. In the Tanakh the word is almost exclusively used in a NATIONAL sense for a military victory. The point being that Ribi Yehoshua was representative for some kind of a victory for those in the brit with Israel. To lose his name's meaning or to change it to probably Z-eus according to the Greek or Roman language is a certain misrepresentation. J-esus stands for a personal salvation apart from Israel and accordingly is not Jewish and not Torah.
You wrote:
Once again we agree on this point. Did you miss the part in my
article that said that it's possible that Mary Magdalene was married
to Jesus? I completely agree that Jesus could have been married and
if we knew nothing about him, the logical assumption would be that
he was married, since most Jewish men of the time were. The only
problem is that we have no evidence that he actually was married,
and there is no good reason for evidence like that to have been
"covered up" in the first century or two after his death, since the
earliest Jesus community was entirely Jewish and there would have
been no reason for a "coverup."
As you said correctly, the logical assumption would be that he was
married and that is because it was not only that Jewish men married
but that as a Ribi he would almost been required to. So in logic
one must prove what is contrary to the norm. The absence of the
statement that he was married is not contradictory according to
logic. So the implications that he was married are what stands
until extant evidence is found to the contrary.
No, there is simply no evidence that Jesus of Nazareth was married. There would have been no theological reason for the Jesus community to obscure his marital status. So if he were married and had any descendants, we should expect them to be mentioned in the historical record along with his brothers, his sisters, his mother, and his father. There would simply be no reason at all to hide these.
So you simply disregard this?
"According to
Vespasian [69-79 C.E.], Domitian [81-96 C.E.] and Trajan [98-117
C.E.] hunted down all Jews of Davidic descent and executed them in
order to extirpate the royal line on which the Jews had set their
hopes" (Emil Schürer, The History Of The Jewish People In The Age Of
Christ," I:528).
Any son of Ribi Yehoshua would be at risk. So they may have hidden that he was married. But again you are saying he had no wife, which was the norm. Logic requires proof to contradict the norm. The absence of historical evidence that he was married does not prove the he wasn't married. One must assume the norm unless there is proof against it, otherwise it is argumentum ad ignorantiam!
The question is what happened between 30CE and 325CE
By the third or fourth century, when the early church developed theological reasons to believe that Jesus was never married, it would have been impossible to destroy any evidence that he had been married, if there were evidence. The reason is that the New Testament documents were translated into numerous languages in the second century, and they propagated all over the place. Once translated, those documents are copied and recopied and no later authorities can track down all the copies in all the languages.
The early Jesus community was dominated by the brother of Jesus, James. When James died, another brother, Judah, had some prominence, and also a cousin, Shimon. If Jesus had any descendants, they would have now been adults and would have risen to positions of leadership and we would have heard of them. But we hear nothing, and this silence is absolutely deafening.
The question is what happened from 30CE to 335CE and more so from 135CE to 325CE. The silence is not so deaf that we are logically allowed to assume he had none when Jewish halakha requires a man to have a wife, son, and daughter and especially if he is a leader of his people.
The bones would
only confirm more solidly if the Yhudah bar Yeshua ossuary DNA was
a combination of any of the female bones with that of Yeshua bar
Yoseph, hence a son of Yeshua by one of the females, also logical.
First you have to establish that the Yeshua of the ossuary is likely to be Jesus of Nazareth. The math shows that this has a low probability. It is not impossible, but it's unlikely.
Your math may be very good. I was pretty good at math and I am sure there are many others that can do the math. The question is are your assumptions consistent with 1st century Torah Judaism. The names on the ossuaries are all found in extant sources and the practice must be consistent with 1st century Judaism. Yours doesn't include all the names based upon mathematical logic - or relying on either Christian scholars and historians - or even Jewish ones. In the former case they make their livelihood based on following Christian doctrine and "proving" it and in the later case Jews that have an axe to grind and they also have a vested interest in denying that Ribi Yehoshua might have been the Mashiach.
Cover-up is not strong enough.
Since the Roman Empire/Christianity for various reasons killed Jews
for keeping Torah, such as doing conversions, see Feldmen, Louis H.
"Jew and Gentile in the Ancient World. Princeton, NJ: Princeton
U.P., 1993," for circumcision, for teaching Torah then how is it
that they also wouldn't destroy written evidence of Ribi Yehoshua
being married. It is documented they destroyed the genealogical
records of the Davidic lineage to prevent any more rebellions
including messianic expectations.
See any standard reference on the history of the New Testament documents. They were rapidly translated into other languages in the second century, and those documents went to places beyond the control of the Roman Catholic church of the 4th century and later. The Roman church simply had no power to destroy documents in areas controlled by the eastern church.
I'd recommend you look at some of the standard books on the transmission of the NT, such as those by Bruce Metzger:
THE NEW TESTAMENT
THE TEXT OF THE NEW TESTAMENT
There is a huge gap between the second century and the fourth century. The Roman church really only took power in the fourth century.
The NT as it is called is simply unreliable. Anything redacted to the degree that even Christians acknowledge is not reliable.
The Interpreter's Dictionary of the Bible, acknowledges:
"A study of 150 Greek MSS of the Gospel of Luke has revealed more than 30,000 different readings… It is safe to say that there is not one sentence in the NT in which the MS tradition is wholly uniform… But there are many thousands which have a definite effect upon the meaning of the text. It is true that not one of these variant readings affects the substance of Christian dogma" ("Text, NT," 2nd edition (Abingdon, 1962).
and
"It is equally true that many of them do have theological significance and were introduced into the text intentionally… Many thousands of the variants which are found in the MSS of the NT were put there deliberately. They are not merely the result of error or careless handling of the text. Many were created for theological or dogmatic reasons—even though they may not affect the substance of Christian dogma. [Thanks for reminding us that Christians made Christian redactions compatible with Christian dogma; ybd]). It is because the books of the NT are religious books, sacred books, canonical books, that they were changed to conform to what the copyist believed to be the true reading. His interest was not in the 'original reading' but in the 'true reading'"
On the other hand there is evidence that the Netzarim, the students of Ribi Yehoshua, had a Hebrew Matityahu. This is the only written tradition they evidently thought was worth using.
Eusebius writes:
"Thus they shared in the impiety of the former class, especially in that they were equally zealous to insist on the literal observance of [Torâh & Halâkhâh]. They thought that the letters of the Apostle [Paul] ought to be wholly rejected and called him an apostate from [Torâh & Halâkhâh]. They used only the Gospel called according to the Hebrews and made little account of the rest.
Eusebius EH, III, xxvii 1-6
"According to
Vespasian [69-79 C.E.], Domitian [81-96 C.E.] and Trajan [98-117
C.E.] hunted down all Jews of Davidic descent and executed them in
order to extirpate the royal line on which the Jews had set their
hopes" (Emil Schürer, The History Of The Jewish People In The Age Of
Christ," I:528).
They may have done so, or they may have merely thought they did so, but they couldn't destroy the knowledge of a family of Jesus. Two grandsons of a brother of Jesus were hunted down and brought before Caesar in the 90s. They showed him the calluses on their hands and told him that they were simple farmers, with no plans to become kings.
Ribi Yehoshua was the King.
It was heirs to the throne of which his son would have been the most vulnerable. Hope the brothers grandsons got away.
"It was not without reasonŠ" (Salo Baron, "A Social and Religious
History of the Jews," II:121). "The authorities searched out the
Jewish families descended from the house of David in order to
destroy them and thus eradicate the last remnant of the nation's
hope of restoration of the Davidic kingdom" ("Israel,"
9:238).
So a cover-up is not the question. There has been throughout the
churches history destruction of conflicting documents. What is
emerging is what they couldn't completely destroy.
It is plausible that the Roman church made attempts to destroy documents. But the eastern church had no similar theological reason to destroy documents.
And when was that split? Past the destruction.
You wrote,
Now you are going far beyond the evidence. The Acts of Phillip is a
late source, much later than the New Testament and Josephus, which
are the primary sources for our understanding of first-century
Judaism and Christianity. The Acts of Phillip is probably also
substantially later than the Mishnah, which is a terrific source for
our understanding of second century Judaism and is quite helpful in
understanding first-century Judaism as well.
The NT and Josephus are by no means the primary sources of Judaism.
No, I didn't say that. I said they are the primary sources for our understanding of first-century Judaism. What other historical sources do we have that date from the first century?
No, you said,
The Acts of Phillip is a late source, much later than the New Testament and Josephus, which are the primary sources for our understanding of first-century Judaism and Christianity.
See the Interpreter's Dictionary of the Bible for the value of the NT for first-century anything but especially not Judaism. Josephus is a source of first-century Judaism, skewed toward his Roman conquerors.
If that is a premise of yours it is terribly flawed. As a Jew I
have very, very little need to know much of it. That assumption is
why Christianity assumes itself into Judaism. Many Christians that
learn about Judaism of the 1st century rightly reject Christianity.
As a Jew I have very, very little need to know much of it.
No, of course you don't, but if you are going to dabble in first century history, then you can't possibly form a valid opinion without reading the sources that were actually written in the first century. Those would be Josephus, the New Testament, and some of the pseudopegrapha. The Mishnah can be useful, but it dates to a century and a half later, and that's just not good enough. And the Mishnah is not all that useful for historical data.
Dabbling? Not to be too cynical but how do you define that? Anyway for the third time the NT may be dated to the first-century but which of the redaction's do you mean? If you use the NT then you can dabble all you want. Josephus some, Mishnah some, but how about archeological data? Don't you see the futility of trying to prove from the redacted to death NT the validity of stone inscribed ossuaries? You and the scholars, historians, whatever, assume the NT and disregard the archeology because it doesn't match your redacted text. You don't even use the Jewish cultural traditions that he SHOULD have been married! Torah Judaism didn't change for the Perushim like Ribi Yehoshua from Sinai. Torah observant Jews didn't just start marrying in the first-century. That has more weight than a corrupted, redacted NT. So the Mishnah though written later is a great historical source.
My point is it is evidence of the name that was found. It was the
form of the name that was important.
About the Mishnah, it is a terrific source for second century
Judaism!
Of course it is. But it tends to assume that life before the Jewish revolt was similar to life after. I'm sure you're familiar with the work of Jacob Neusner and his ideas about the major disruption caused by the Jewish revolt, when most of the Jewish leadership was killed.
I am just a dabbler so you shouldn't assume I am familiar with that. There was major disruption in 70 but enough was put together to make a run until 135. It was then that all the Jews were expelled from Yrushalayim and until 1948 you could say there was major disruption. So it is mostly from 135 to 325 that there is a hole. But before 135 there is no evidence that the followers of Ribi Yehoshua were anything other that Torah observant Jews, part of the Torah observant community. Only the issue of Mashiach was different and that was evidently not a dividing point for if it were R Akiva would also have been booted for his choice, but he wasn't.
But Ribi Yehoshua bar Yoseph can not be identified
conclusively in the Mishnah. The polemics are not directed against
a Torah observant Ribi but possibly against an anti-Torah religion
that can't be before 135CE!
My point is simple. The archeological evidence of a Jewish tomb, in
a Jewish setting, of a Jewish family. There is nothing Christian
about it. J-esus an arguable Hellenist form (from where does it
derive?) is impossible in this setting and couldn't be found in it
and never has been. The Torah observant community of the day used
Aramaic (it's on the ossuaries). It was spoken along with Hebrew in
the Jewish communities. Greek was mostly for business.
I agree with you on this, so am not sure why you're arguing with me. But the problem is to connect this ossuary to Jesus of Nazareth. And the evidence for that is very weak.
Again I would say your math is dependent upon NT assumptions which are invalid. Ex falso qodlibet assuming NT to prove J-esus. Yeshua bar Yoseph, that is a name on an ossuary and the name of the historical man.
Christianity therefore was never a part of the history around this
tomb and Ribi Yehoshua bar Yoseph is not the author of Christianity.
Again, we agree on that.
He is as it is said in Hebrew, ”·“Ϩ distinct from, separated from,
in no way part of J-esus.
Let's be clear on one thing. Jesus of Nazareth is an English term. It refers to exactly the person you refer to as Yehoshua bar Yoseph. But nobody on the planet believes that he was called in real life "Jesus" or any similar name. He was called either Yehoshua or Yeshua. Everybody knows this. So I don't understand why you make a big deal out of this, since we all agree on it.
I sense some irritation here. If everyone knows it then why is Christianity the religion of J-esus whom you say was a Torah observant Jew. The big deal is what you allude to in your response to what I wrote as finally.
Finally, then since Ribi Yehoshua taught Torah, and was a candidate
for Mashiach it eliminates Christianity as an option to follow Torah
(the Hebrew word means "instruction" not law). So then it is
Torah, that HaSheim has given to connect with Him. It is not just
for Jews. Wayikra (Leviticus) 18:15, which if a man do he shall
live.
Nobody would argue that Christianity is a way of following Torah (except possibly the Messianic Jews, but even they would agree that Gentile Christians need not follow Torah). Christianity is a way of approaching God, and it derives from the Jesus community, as that community expanded into the Gentile world around it. The Jesus community had a massive internal debate about whether Gentiles should be required to be Torah observant. The consensus decision was no. This decision came about the year 50 CE in the Jerusalem Jesus community. See chapter 15 of the book of Acts of the Apostles in the New Testament for the account of how this happened.
Are you serious? Torah means instruction, the instruction for human beings to live by considered to be given to man by HaSheim. Christianity is diametrically opposed to Torah. Old Testament is replaced by New Testament. Christians are not under the law which is considered to be the Old Testament - Torah. You don't know much about Christianity do you? Which day is Shabbat according to the Christians. It may still be important to HaSheim but they aren't following it.
According to the Torah there is one way to approach HaSheim and that is by keeping Torah. "Which if a man do he shall live. Wayikra 18:15.
The Jesus community in Jerusalem was destroyed or scattered in the 60s, and never was reassembled. That left leadership of the Jesus community around the Empire in the hands of mostly Gentiles. That is the source of what we now call Christianity. But nobody with any knowledge of the history of the early church believes that it was intended to be a Torah observant community.
According again to Eusebius the first 15 Paqids, bishops if you must, were JEWS. Only after 135 when the last Paqid was expelled from Yrushalayim with all the other Jews, did the first Gentile bishop Marcus come to some sort of power, but not among Jews obviously. That is considerably past the 60's. Dabbling?
My understanding of rabbinic Judaism is that Gentiles are not considered to be under any obligation to observe Torah. Within Christianity, there are various lines of thought on whether Jews are true followers of God. The "exclusivists" teach that Jews are "not saved." The "inclusivists" believe that God loves Jews and Christians equally. I happen to be an inclusivist, so I don't feel any need to "convert" Jews to Christianity.
The issue is whether someone is in the brit of Torah. A born Jew is no better off than anyone else if they don't keep Torah."Which if a man do he shall live. Wayikra 18:15.
Herein is the big deal. The Mashiach is bringing back Torah observance like he did before he was executed. It is Torah from a logical, (the type of logic a computer can solve,), scientific, archeological, and historical, perspective. That is the second coming. No hocus pocus no fables no supernatural or superstitious. Preparing for the next life for those that keep Torah but not neglecting this life. It is the Torah that says, "You shall love the (ger) resident alien as yourself," Wayikra 19:34
www.netzarim.co.il
I haven't heard back as of yet.
