harpoon
Just Arrived
Joined: Jan 21, 2008
Posts: 6
|
 Posted:
Fri Mar 28, 2008 5:21 am |
 
|
I could be overlooking something since we can't actually read it on his site or order the book yet. But, what if Jesus came from a small clan or farming plot that wasn't known as anything at the time? Then in the later post-70CE period, what if a town nearby was built (today's Nazareth), and simply had come to be known "as the area of Jesus"? Wouldn't then this amount to arguing over where the town's border is? And what does that change? Perhaps when the late Nazereth became inhabited by the lamp and cemetery people, the writers simply knew it as something near Jesus' hometown, so they wrote down the popular lore of the time in Matthew and Luke. Sort of like when you tell someone you come from suburb Y, but people refer to you as from Metropolis X. Doesn't seem impossible. There are many theories possible here, that still coincide with all of the evidence the author presents. I think the author's conclusion by the end of his talk, as much as I appreciate his effort, is too biased to be taken as science. He bills his book as changing everything, proving evangelists and conservatives wrong. "Jesus of Nazareth is largely a fiction", smells of sensational tagline for a book / tour campaign. But I don't think this changes anything for conservatives or evangelicals. Is the author yet asking us to take his idea on *faith* that Nazareth did not exist at the time of Jesus? And, therefore Jesus was entirely made up - the conclusions do not follow.
Occam's razor - make as few assumptions as possible - the consensus at the time of Matthew, Luke was Jesus came out of the area, let's say it for a moment it doesn't matter what that "Jesus area" was called during his time. So the assumption Rene makes is that the parts (or possibly all) of the independent Gospel traditions are a fiction, or at least erroneous speculation. First, why this assumption? Do we simply want to believe the gospel authors resorted to making piece-meal fictions about towns/cities, even though most if not all the rest are non-fictional towns and places, and people? This would not be in line with archaeology or period literature about Herod, Pilate, etc.. The lack of archaeological evidence till now did not bring down the evangelicals or the conservatives anyway. Furthermore, the people who lived in the post 70CE area (what our archaeology knows as early modern Nazareth) would have suspected any falsely disseminated facts in Luke or Matthew that did not correspond with their tradition. It's easy to get ahead of ourselves and draw conclusions that we simply want to be the case. I commend the author's first conclusion about archaeology solving and answering things making it a bona fide science. At least we can know there is a town known today as Nazareth that is not anything what we thought it to be.
However when you try to persuade people because of said evidence that "Jesus of Nazareth" is therefore all myth...jumping so far is not what science is about, and I think it is a detriment to his progress. It is proof of an agenda, which is only throwing stones. Because even if you take away the name "Nazareth", prove the interpolations between nazorean, nazorites, etc, past experience says this is not going to bring down the curtain.
I say this because for science to remain influential it needs to be pressured, and it needs to pressure itself to remain as unbiased as possible, otherwise it risks becoming a "following" rather than a method. And that would be the most unfortunate hole I think we can dig for ourselves. Our goal in science should be informing society of facts and contributing only that, in hopes that they will be picked up and made useful. Great facts *will* speak for themselves. I think we all hope for a society that is internally in agreement with itself on where science will take us, and our history with religion. But this ideal cannot happen by making an upheaval between science and religion like we have done, fostered by what are effectively pseudo-science "talents" like Dawkins. No matter how inspired we become we cannot leverage good facts in society if they are tainted or biased in the conclusions. The comment he makes that an Islamic or Christian archeologist will fit the data to fit their world view, I find is very ironic by the end of the episode, since that is all he is doing. He still comes out and suggests it should lead us to a mythicist position, even through he is "not prepared to come out" with his view at this time - there's some thinly veiled double-speak.
Finally the author states that when faced with reasonable evidence to the contrary of his conclusions, that he would continue to defy the existence of a Jesus era city of Nazareth. This to me is not reason, is not science, and it undermines the hard evidence he presents for archaeology. If you have a bone to pick, and have the spare time, instead of throwing rocks at a story which will largely remain untestable, IMO why not spend time attacking the "religion" of the present God of "United States". The God-country? Omniscient, omnipotent, and all-good, who goes around making others in it's image? If you want to make society better, find evidence for and affect change in this century, is my take.
The next religion and widespread "doctrine" is on the horizon and will be passed on through generations through a narrative much like the Bible if we are not careful. Science may very well turn into "the religion about science", if we are not careful about perceptions of what it can and cannot tell us. The Richard Dawkins's who claim to represent the science community, are effectively building the next cult. The inescapable truth about societies is that we have no integral technological way of holding on to and passing down truth about reality, truth being obfuscated as soon as it is written down, even in its most pure form. If even science cannot stand the test of time, what we do have? My view is that all we have is what to teach the kids. What we can offer them are the tools of reason, critical thinking, exploring higher levels of the social conscience (that is, building awareness of the consumeristic principles and psychology that inspire the trends) That is the only way we can practically affect the world views offered to people of the future. There aren't any harrowing revelations to be unleashed on the historicity of the Bible. The true problem with fundamentalist religious mindset lies not in the specific places or artifacts, but in the consumerstic behavior of people of modern society in general, because there will always be those who believe without reason, and those who will attempt to exploit them. You cannot get rid of either type of behavior by attempting to barely tarnish what is presumed by the many to be incorruptible. Those occupied with debunking minor details are destined to be footnotes even when they may be right, but when marketed and published in the same one-way forms of filtering and publishing. It is the establishment of institutional record, libraries, scholarly work, that produced Christianity. If you really want to improve society and politics, give children the tools to set themselves free from the natural forces of social coercion. Don't waste time picking squabbling over Nazareth or the Shroud of Tourin. Do the science but not if your aim is building strategic counter-alliances. That is what we do by selling books - only inviting more unfounded allegiances to yet something else.
Overall I find his research fascinating, the fact that we can poke small holes in things is fun, and if it stands the test of time, it may open new areas of inquiry. I just fear the real facts won't make it to see the light of day before the juggernaut relinquishes it. |
|
|
* You can syndicate our news and blog using the file