 |
The Jesus Family Tomb: The Evidence Behind the Discovery No One Wanted to Find by Simcha Jacobovici, Charles Pellegrino
Book Summary InformationAuthor: Charles Pellegrino, Simcha Jacobovici Edition: Paperback Audio: English (Original Language); English (Unknown); English (Published) Published: 2008-03-01 ISBN: 0061205346 Number of pages: 256 Publisher: HarperOne
Book Reviews of The Jesus Family Tomb: The Evidence Behind the Discovery No One Wanted to FindBook Review: Total Rubbish Summary: 1 StarsRevised and updated 13th July 2007
Critics of the book 'The Jesus Family Tomb' actually make a number of very salient and provable points:
1. That the authors have not been honest with their readers.
2. That the authors began with a conclusion and then worked backwards to try and find the 'evidence' that fits.
3. That the authors ignored a wealth of evidence disproving their argument.
4. That the only people being taken in by this load of rubbish are those who believe the book for no other reason than that it is what they want to hear, and by those who have no knowledge nor experience in any of the fields under discussion and choose to put their faith in people who are profiting financially from this book, rather than those eminently qualified and experienced in these fields, and who are on record as having decried the book as fiction.
It is one of the most unstintingly shoddy books masquerading under the subject of science that has been published for a long time. Critics the world over have included many of the worlds experts freely acknowledged as masters in their fields, with decades of experience under their belts.
It is a sound dictum that things must not be studied in isolation and out of context. Mistakes have been made in the past by following the 'isolated and out of context' method and these fields have therefore learned from their mistakes. This means that everything with regards the Talpiot tomb must be looked at in light of everything else, and very much within the context of the 1st century AD.
Very surprised to read that Mary and her children moving to Jerusalem about AD30 (that's AD30, not 30 AD) is a fact. Evidence please? That's evidence, not supposition if you don't mind. The only text that might conceivably support that contention is the NT, but those same documents also contain information that flies in the face of many of the other suppositions of the reviewer. Now come come, you mustn't be selective with the evidence unless you have hard categorical fact (sorry to repeat myself but that's 'fact' not supposition/guesswork) to support that argument.
"There's actually no evidence in Jewish sources, such as the Old Testament or the Mishna and Talmud, that a place called "Nazareth" even existed in or before the first century. I'm not disputing the evidence per the NT, that there was indeed a place called Nazareth. But to the best of my knowledge, there's no mention of Nazareth at all in any ancient writings outside the New Testament. So the place existed, but nobody knew about it. Therefore there was no reason to call Jesus "of Nazareth." Either in life or on an ossuary. He was called "Jesus the Branch" (of David) in Hebrew/Aramaic. "
The above quote is total and complete rubbish and again are the words of someone who has a drum to beat, but has little knowledge of ancient history nor archaeology. This is the danger of amateurs getting hold of a little knowledge but not knowing what it means. First Century AD documents are few and far between, and the dearth of documents relating to the lives of ordinary day to day individuals is even fewer. Let's take an example: How many pay 'dockets' were issued to Roman soldiers during the First Century? Thousands upon thousands. How many have survived? Not sure of the exact figure but very, very few. Getting the picture? The absence of documentation therefore is frustrating, but means very little. It is actually possible to prove by the use of archaeological analysis that Nazareth was occupied as far back as the Fourth Century BC, and even Roman remains from the First Century AD have been found at Nazareth (According to all the known facts and technologies, the remains are Roman.) Additionally there are Jewish documents referring to Jewish people of the priestly caste making their homes in Nazareth after the destruction of the Temple in AD70. So, the place existed but nobody knew about it? Give me a break. Even children can display a better sense of reasoning that that. E.g. Here's a little book that might be worth a read, provided you can force yourself to read something that doesn`t fit in with youir preconceptions:
"Archaeology, The Rabbis, & Early Christianity" by Eric M. Meyers & James F. Strange.
With regards Point 4, and the reference to Mary and Martha, again please learn to get some facts right and please stop being so selective with the use of evidence. Firstly, Mary and Martha are recorded in those exact same documents as being from Bethany, some miles in the other direction from Jerusalem. Secondly, those same documents also show that they already had a family tomb there. Thirdly, a family tomb was discovered some time ago in Bethany from the First Century AD which contained ossuaries of people named Mary, Martha, and Lazarus/Eliazar.
"The critics of this find are also less than perfectly qualified for the task- they are either Israeli archeologists with no real knowledge of the New Testament and other Christian sources, or Christian scholars with no thorough knowledge of Hebrew, Judaism and Jewish Law."
The above quote, again completely wrong. It's rather strange. Mention particle physics, or open heart surgery, or some such subject, everyone would listen respectfully acknowledging the other persons expertise. Mention history or archaeology and suddenly 'everyone's' an expert despite the fact that 'expert' knowledge amounts to nothing more than the equivalent of reading a book on first aid and then claiming to be qualified enough to perform open-heart surgery. It is extremely arrogant. I wouldn't tell a lawyer how to do his job. I wouldn't respect a lawyer telling me how to study and analyse biomolecular science, DNA, archaeology, and the study of ancient history, especially if it was quite clear he didn't know what he was talking about.
"I would have thought of a tomb just like the tomb we're discussing. It fits perfectly with what I'd have expected Jesus' family tomb to be."
And there you have it, the preconceived idea in black and white. Seeing what you want to see. It would be like running a DNA sample hoping to find a particular result, doing a seven point analysis, and then shouting `Eureka! It's exactly what I expected to find!' Yes, it happens. However a 14 point analysis of the same sample, more detailed and careful, reveals a rather different picture than the one expected. And yes, that happens too.
People would be far better off learning to read and study `around' a subject rather than simply concentrating, to the exclusion of all else, on their bias'.
Additionally Mr Bernstein appears to be following me around from Amazon.com. I know he has a book to promote as well as the above authors, but this is getting ridiculous.
|
 |
|
|
|