coffin of jesus

[Drtad]

First of all, I am an Armenian Apostolic Orthodox Miaphysite Christian, and I believe Jesus was divine and not mortal. I also believe that even if the inscription did mean "Mary the Master" I wouldn't believe it was the coffin of Jesus. It is probably just an elaborate forgery by the "archaeologist" to get some publicity and money out of it. Sorry I didn't post more, but I'll read up more about this subject.

[ThiudareiksGunthigg]

Lest I be taken entirely out of context, let us redress this grievous failure to discourse effectively:

"Let us redress this grievous failure to discourse effectively"?? Why are you talking like a rural vicar from a Jane Austen novel?

This, Thiudareiks, is my point. That would be the clincher.

If you don't want to be "misunderstood", let alone "taken entirely out of context", you might want to choose your verbs more carefully then old son. "The actual clincher is ... " means something entirely different to "The actual clincher would be ..."

I concur. It is a good question. Which is why I thought it useful to present the position underpinning the popular answer in revisionist 1st Century Judean Historical circles.

"The popular answer in revisionist 1st Century Judean Historical circles"? Eh? One guy thinks that (somehow) an ossuary with name "Mariamene" on it in Greek refers to a person whose name is recorded everywhere else in its Greek form as "Maria". That's like saying a tombstone with the name "Jack" on it refers to a person whose name was "James". They are two quite different names. Sorry, but near enough ain't good enough and one guy claiming this does not equal a "popular answer" by any stretch of the imagination.

Proving, of course, that the inscription could mean precisely what Cameron and those supporting the positions expressed in his documentary believe. If it could mean anything, it could mean, "Mary the Master".

That "proves" nothing of the sort. The first problem is that "Mara" is a masculine form in Aramaic, which casts immediate strong doubt on the "the Master" interpretation on purely linguistic grounds. Secondly, L.Y. Rahmani's Catalogue of Jewish Ossuaries (1994) gives the accepted interpretation of this inscription: "Mariamene, who is also known as 'Mara'". In other words, "Mara" is the diminutive form of "Mariamene" and the nickname by which the deceased was known.

You'll note that the inscription was not presented as the clincher. Rather, the possibility that the inscription translates as proposed would be the clincher.

If that's actually what you originally meant and this isn't just some post factum backpedalling, then see above about your odd choice of verbs.

This is not, however, what many revisionist scholars contend. I refer you to John Dominic Crossan and his body of work. It's considerable, and he's very well-respected in his field.

You think I' not familiar with Crossan?! I've been researching the historical background to Jesus etc for 25 years - give me a break.

His effort has been to define Jesus in terms of his time, and to understand him in terms of the world from which he came.

Gosh, you don't say?

I do not consider him to be right, of course. I consider him to be rational.

I'm sure Crossan is delighted. This would be the same Crossan who wrote a rather good article on why Jesus didn't marry anyone (including Mary Magdalene) BTW? Crossan does believe that Mary Magdalene played a major role in the early Jesus sect, but that's hardly some kind of fringe "revisionist" idea. Nor is his recognition that later Gnostic traditions highlighted (by then) more marginal figures like Magdalene, "doubting" Thomas and even Judas as a way of contrasting their "revealed" gnosis with the "apostolic" authority of their proto-orthodox rivals.

There's a world of difference. Anyway, Gnostic Christianity had its roots somewhere, and there are those who think it lies around the actual circle that followed Jesus. So, the contention these scholars make is that Gnosticism is closer to the way Jesus taught and lived than is any other form of Christianity.

There are those who think all kinds of things. The consensus of scholars, however, agrees that Gnosticism was a later development. That may not be what people who find Gnostic ideas attractive would like to believe but that's kind of bad luck.

[mrjesushat]

"Let us redress this grievous failure to discourse effectively"?? Why are you talking like a rural vicar from a Jane Austen novel?

It seemed apropos.

If you don't want to be "misunderstood", let alone "taken entirely out of context", you might want to choose your verbs more carefully then old son. "The actual clincher is ... " means something entirely different to "The actual clincher would be ..."

Uh huh, sure. I agree, it could have been somewhat misleading, if one were to read the line and then experience an emotional response that disregarded all logic. Because, you see, if one were to continue reading the entire post without emotional response, one would see the list of required evidence at the end. And then one would get that while this is a nice theory that Cameron has decided to champion, it is useless without supporting evidence. I understand your eagerness to debate people, but really, dude...choose someone who actually disagrees with you.

"The popular answer in revisionist 1st Century Judean Historical circles"? Eh? One guy thinks that (somehow) an ossuary with name "Mariamene" on it in Greek refers to a person whose name is recorded everywhere else in its Greek form as "Maria". That's like saying a tombstone with the name "Jack" on it refers to a person whose name was "James". They are two quite different names. Sorry, but near enough ain't good enough and one guy claiming this does not equal a "popular answer" by any stretch of the imagination.

My statement refers to a sort of distillation of revisionist ideas, and not to the specific case.

That "proves" nothing of the sort. The first problem is that "Mara" is a masculine form in Aramaic, which casts immediate strong doubt on the "the Master" interpretation on purely linguistic grounds. Secondly, L.Y. Rahmani's Catalogue of Jewish Ossuaries (1994) gives the accepted interpretation of this inscription: "Mariamene, who is also known as 'Mara'". In other words, "Mara" is the diminutive form of "Mariamene" and the nickname by which the deceased was known.

We have to be careful when we say things like, "That could mean anything...". When we give up that kind of ground, people can counter-claim anything. Also, how can Mara be a masculine form but also a diminutive for a feminine name? I realize that such things happen in linguistics, but this then opens the door for the appelation of a masculine title to a feminine name. And again, this is not intended as a defense for the position that these anecdotal and interpretive points are significant. I merely wish to point out the flexibility of the overall argument. My personal belief is that, until we master time travel, we will know nothing of the actual past. We will know only the past that we are given.

If that's actually what you originally meant and this isn't just some post factum backpedalling, then see above about your odd choice of verbs.

It's not backpedalling. It's what happens when somebody thinks they have found an opponent, and chooses to ignore the evidence to the contrary. But, at least this way, the thread got some interesting debate. Hell, I'll even play devil's advocate for you, if you want. I'd advance this: Is it not far more likely, in terms of modern science and general rationality, that Jesus was a mortal man, that he lived, taught and died as a Hebrew charismatic preacher, and that he may well have married and fathered children? This seems a more rational position than any belief that argues that a living God once walked amongst us, and was sacrificed in a magic ritual expiating all human sin.

You think I' not familiar with Crossan?! I've been researching the historical background to Jesus etc for 25 years - give me a break.

Cool out. I didn't mean to imply that you were unlettered. I merely wished to refer you to Crossan's works.

I'm sure Crossan is delighted. This would be the same Crossan who wrote a rather good article on why Jesus didn't marry anyone (including Mary Magdalene) BTW? Crossan does believe that Mary Magdalene played a major role in the early Jesus sect, but that's hardly some kind of fringe "revisionist" idea. Nor is his recognition that later Gnostic traditions highlighted (by then) more marginal figures like Magdalene, "doubting" Thomas and even Judas as a way of contrasting their "revealed" gnosis with the "apostolic" authority of their proto-orthodox rivals.

To Christian traditionalists, all revisionist work is "fringe". And to the pedestrian mind, little of the revisionist work is significant, since its chief proponents before the public take the form of "DaVinci Codes" and "Tombs of Jesus".

I have seen Crossan state that he believes that Jesus didn't marry, but I am unfamiliar with the article you mention. Could you direct me to it? I'd love to read it. Crossan is one of my favorite academic writers.

There are those who think all kinds of things. The consensus of scholars, however, agrees that Gnosticism was a later development. That may not be what people who find Gnostic ideas attractive would like to believe but that's kind of bad luck.

[/QUOTE]

This continues to depend upon how the works underpinning Gnosticism are read. That the organized system of belief known as Gnosticism was a later development cannot be denied. The same is true of Christianity itself. What we today recognize as Christianity probably didn't exist before the late 3rd century CE. But these things are not in contention. The issue is whether or not Gnosticism is the descendant of the original teachings of the actual Jesus of Nazareth...a position that many scholars would at least consider valid, if not going so far as to trumpet it themselves.