The Frailty of Archeological 'Evidence'

Atheistextremist
atheistSilver Member
Atheistextremist's picture
Posts: 5102
Joined: 2009-09-17
User is offlineOffline
The Frailty of Archeological 'Evidence'

 

 

April 14, 2011 Two Roman nails next to a Roman period ossuary which Simcha Jacobovici believes may have been used in the crucifixion of Jesus. Photo: AFPJERUSALEM: Two nails used in Jesus's crucifixion have been discovered in a 2000-year-old tomb, a documentary maker has claimed, sparking intense debate among historians. The rusted, bent iron nails were found more than 20 years ago in a tomb outside Jerusalem that contained a number of ossuaries, or boxes containing bones. Two boxes were inscribed with the name Caiaphas, the Jewish high priest who presided over Christ's crucifixion, the New Testament says. Simcha Jacobovici, who has made a documentary about the find for the History Channel, contends that the nails were used to hammer Christ to the Cross. He believes the high priest may have wanted them buried alongside his body for their talismanic powers and as divine protection in the afterlife. ''What we are bringing to the world is the best archaeological argument ever made that two of the nails from the crucifixion of Jesus have been found,'' he said. ''If you look at the whole story - historical, textual, archaeological - they all seem to point at these two nails being involved in a crucifixion. And since Caiaphas is only associated with Jesus's crucifixion, you put two and two together and they seem to imply that these are the nails.'' The nails were discovered in 1990 before disappearing. Jacobovici claims to have tracked them down to a laboratory in Tel Aviv. The documentary, The Nails of the Cross, airs in the US next week.  http://www.smh.com.au/world/crucifixion-nails-found-in-tomb-20110413-1de2k.html

 

 

"Experiments are the only means of knowledge at our disposal. The rest is poetry, imagination." Max Planck


danatemporary
danatemporary's picture
Posts: 1590
Joined: 2011-01-12
User is offlineOffline
NEVER HEARD OF IT ..

Quote:
He believes the high priest may have wanted them buried alongside his body for their talismanic powers and as divine protection in the afterlife
 

 Okay!

 This must be  'new'  because there are few examples of these "nails" used in that time found in the Archaelogical digs. As of last yr "I know of" a single case where physical evidence was uncovered of an execution inflicted in a similar death.  It was where one such nail was embedded in the ankle. Thank You 'Naked Archaelogist'.  Any sort of corroborating of this information in your Url ?  Has  any  papers spoke of how this claim was received?   

 


danatemporary
danatemporary's picture
Posts: 1590
Joined: 2011-01-12
User is offlineOffline
NEVER HEARD OF IT ..

  

 


Atheistextremist
atheistSilver Member
Atheistextremist's picture
Posts: 5102
Joined: 2009-09-17
User is offlineOffline
The release was today

 

It seems to me to be fabricated. It beats me why this fellow would venerate the nails of some one he slew all those years before and go to the grave with them in a box. Too weird. Souvenirs of the crucifixion? I hope he boiled them...

 

 

 

"Experiments are the only means of knowledge at our disposal. The rest is poetry, imagination." Max Planck


danatemporary
danatemporary's picture
Posts: 1590
Joined: 2011-01-12
User is offlineOffline
Oh Then

 Oh.

  I kinda almost  thought  for a second  this was  sure  to become  a fire-storm  for this forum.

 See: My Question in another part of the Forum paying close attention to 'ApostateAbe's' remark  to that  question of him: 

 

danatemporary wrote:
> Curious. Have U an answer to something you were wondering about ?
ApostateAbe asked & wrote:
I then wondered why this wasn't a big rhetorical point against Christianity.
I am not advancing anything but am very curious. I am wanting to know if this thread (in its' entirity) helps answer a question of yours (Ref and See: Quoted).
 

 

ApostateAbe wrote:
He remarks to me : "Sure. Such a rhetorical point against Christianity requires believing that Jesus really existed as an actual-living human being who was speaking to actual-living people. Otherwise, I think you would have to be favoring the interpretation that the character of Jesus was speaking directly to the gospel readers, which isn't a rhetorical advantage against Christianity at all. Non-religious activists against the Christian religion very often tend to be Jesus-mythicists, meaning that they believe Jesus never existed as a human being, so this is a rhetorical point that wouldn't be available to them. Encouragingly, there are some authors who really do take advantage of this weakness in the character of Jesus, such as John W. Loftus and Bart Ehrman. I figure that Jesus-mythicism tends to be more powerful of an anti-Christianity war machine, but I think it has a strong disadvatage--it just isn't correct (end quote)"
 

 

 

 

:


BobSpence
High Level DonorRational VIP!ScientistWebsite Admin
BobSpence's picture
Posts: 5863
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
'Jesus' is arguably both

'Jesus' is arguably both mythical and historical.

There was probably at least one historical figure who inspired the mythical figure described in the Bible, who, as a whole character, almost certainly did NOT exist.

Favorite oxymorons: Gospel Truth, Rational Supernaturalist, Business Ethics, Christian Morality

"Theology is now little more than a branch of human ignorance. Indeed, it is ignorance with wings." - Sam Harris

The path to Truth lies via careful study of reality, not the dreams of our fallible minds - me

From the sublime to the ridiculous: Science -> Philosophy -> Theology