So what if the remains found really are those of Jesus of Nazareth? This joke indicates that for some it might not matter:
One day the Pope received a phone call from an archaeologist in Palestine. "Holy Father," the voice said, "I don't quite know how to tell you this, but we have discovered what prove beyond doubt to be the very bones of Jesus!" Hanging up, the Pope convened his closest advisors. Explaining the situation, he asked the stunned clerics for suggestions. One stammered, "Holy Father, I believe there is a theologian in America who might be able to help us. His name is Paul Tillich." Wasting no time, the Pope called Tillich's office in New York. "Herr Tillich, I'm afraid we have quite a problem here, and we hope perhaps you can advise us. Archaeologists in the Holy Land have discovered the bones of our Lord Jesus!" Silent seconds passed, followed by Tillich's heavy German accent: "Ach... he lived?" [from here]
This joke was current in the 1950s. This is not a modern problem. Rudolph Bultmann presciently argued that the resurrection story's real theological meaning was the rise of the faith of the apostles. He is reputed (I can't find the reference right now) to have said that his faith would not be affected if Jesus' bones were found by archeologists, which is good in one way, in that it means his theology is not hostage to science. In fact, much of the so-called modernist theologians were trying to deal with their religion in the context of the competing epistemic claims of science. They tried, without much popular success, to insulate their religion from future discoveries, as well they might, given that the preceding three centuries was a successive record of failures by theology to limit or pre-empt science.
Why has it failed? Why haven't people adopted some sort of Spinozan theology like this? What would be the outcome of accepting that the stories in the Bible are just stories with a theological point?
For a start, it seems that the resulting religion would be very bloodless, unemotional and reflective. This is not a good basis for cohesion, and a crucial role of religions, as with sports and subcultures, is to make a community cohere. Despite the best intentions, Unitarian churches and the like don't seem to inspire the kind of devotion and loyalty against outsiders that the traditional faiths do. Present believers tend to see this as a flaw (I see it is a virtue, myself). So they'd probably have little choice but to treat the science on which this discovery is based (if there is any) as wrongheaded, just as some do for evolution.
But moreover, it means that apart from Christian theology being a tradition in the west, there'd be no reason to be a Christian at all. One might as well be a full-throated Spinozan, with a philosophical deity rather than one that matters in everyday life. It's a conundrum for them. If this "discovery" of the bones of Jesus pans out, and I doubt that it will, it will be interesting to watch from the sides as they deal with it.
One way to deal with it might be to become Muslim. Jesus was just a man in that theology, and the discovery of his grave would be just another holy site. So those who want from religion that they have The Truth that nobody else has, have a ready-made alternative. This could be problematic for western civilisation, for Islam and science don't easily co-exist, as Taner Edis points out in his new book on Islam and Science.
Religion doesn't seem to be easily insulated from science. It is hostage to fortune in that no matter what factual claims it makes, they are defeasible by empirical research. Perhaps religion needs to make no factual claims, but then it becomes purely moral philosophy. A conundrum, but not my conundrum, I'm pleased to say.
- Log in to post comments
I was told Discovery Channel is running a special on this, at 9pm Sunday night.
JERUSALEM - Archaeologists and clergymen in the Holy Land derided claims in a new documentary produced by James Cameron that contradict major Christian tenets, but the Oscar-winning director said the evidence was based on sound statistics.
"The Lost Tomb of Jesus," which the Discovery Channel will run on March 4, argues that 10 ancient ossuaries � small caskets used to store bones � discovered in a suburb of Jerusalem in 1980 may have contained the bones of Jesus and his family, according to a press release issued by the Discovery Channel.
One of the caskets even bears the title, "Judah, son of Jesus," hinting that Jesus may have had a son, according to the documentary. And the very fact that Jesus had an ossuary would contradict the Christian belief that he was resurrected and ascended to heaven.
Cameron told NBC'S "Today" show that statisticians found "in the range of a couple of million to one in favor of it being them." Simcha Jacobovici, the Toronto filmmaker who directed the documentary, said the implications "are huge."
"But they're not necessarily the implications people think they are. For example, some believers are going to say, well this challenges the resurrection. I don't know why, if Jesus rose from one tomb, he couldn't have risen from the other tomb," Jacobovici told "Today."
[...]
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070226/ap_on_sc/jesus_s_burial
I have believed in a low probability that Jesus, the normal human, ever lived. While the findings of the Talpiot Tomb may decrease religiosity in many Christians (oh please let it be so), the tomb actually increases my own perceived probability that Jesus was a real human.
Course, even with my new perceived probability, I still trust a lightning bolt more than Jesus.
Zzzzz...wake me up when they find a cure for cancer, then I'll get out of bed.
No matter what evidence science has or could come up with, believers will Duhem-Quine the hell out of the auxiliary hypotheses (up to and including the very core propositions of science -- witness the YECs) until they get the results they want.
Which is one of the bad effects of insisting that science leads to atheism.
Why would anyone believe that a man with a very common name and a mother with a very common name (at the time), who were poor and from Nazareth, have a "family tomb" in Jerusalem?
In other words, what evidence credibly ties this family tomb to Jesus of Nazareth?
Not having seen the information used to justify the claim, I can't say. I doubt that it will be compelling. But suppose it were true...
John Pieret:
No, it's one of the "bad" effects of doing science. As far as I recall, Galileo was NOT advocating atheism, yet his conclusions were attacked because his science gave the "wrong" answers. Even today, scientists of any religious persuasion are vilified for the same reason, no less than scientists of no religious persuasion.
Stop attacking strawmen, please. They are unable to defend themselves.
Suppose pigs could fly...
Suppose there really is a teapot in orbit...
Extending on John Farrell's thoughts, suppose there really were someone buried in Jerusalem named Jesus, how would that be any more extraordinary than hypothesizing someone in Mexico City named "Pedro"? If he's not the son of God, and if he didn't work any miracles, including resurrection, then there is no story. And this evidence, even if true, would not establish any of the miracle claims.
Supposedly they had some DNA testing done. It'll be a hoot to see that published in a reputable journal: The Y chromosome of God
A lot of people have problems understanding the role of philosophy. It is not to discuss things that are true alone - that can be done by science, or history, or whatever. Often, philosophy discusses things that are not true, called counterfactuals, which are "what ifs". If the what ifs are interesting enough, they can tell us things we hadn't thought of. So, what if pigs can fly? Think of the structural changes that would be necessary. Think of the changes to developmental programs. And so on. It makes us appreciate the things we think are true, and what we do know and how...
One might as well be a full-throated Spinozan, with a philosophical deity rather than one that matters in everyday life.
This provides an opportunity for me to ask a question of you that I've been wondering about since the recent contretemps across the non-theistic bloggers.
Of the two categories of deity above, I'm reasonably sure your attitude toward the former is the agnosticism you have described at some length. But what about the latter? I would think the nature of the assertion justifies a different stance. If I understand your approach, it's rather like the difference between how I think about an Omphalos-type creation (a world created with a built-in history) and a typical YEC-type creation. The first case can't even be investigated, so why bother with a true/false distinction? The second is contradicted by physical evidence, though, so any approach that favors naturalism would reject it.
Sorry if this is territory you've covered before and I missed it.
But suppose it were true...
I think a large number of Christians would then take St. Paul's warning: if Jesus did not rise, our faith is in vain (or words to that effect as my waning memory recalls).
Of course, a large number of Christians would probably also decide to forget that particular passage...
;)
They may be looking in the wrong place--the other day, the image of Mary, Mother of God was discovered on a pizza pan (all the tv news programs carried the story, although I forget if it was labeled as "breakiing news").
John,
I agree that philosophy considers counterfactuals, but that doesn't distinguish it from other kinds of human thinking all of which involve counterfactuals and other kinds of ideas that don't involve literal realities. History without a consideration of alternatives would be pretty barren, for example; and very little of literary criticism is about facts. By the way, doesn't thinking about why there are no flying pigs belong more properly to biology (or aeronautical engineering)than to any kind of philosophy?
jackd,
I think I have a similar question as you, but I tend to think of things as Omphalos is to YEC as theistic evolution is to evolution proper. Both of the former are the mother of all just so stories, (personally, I like the brains in a vat theory. :) Clearly, YEC is false under any view of scientific reasoning and evolution is true, but you can always bolt on post hoc reasoning to "justify" God being the "explanation" of anything. It reminds me of the Steve Martin scene from "The Jerk"...
Navin R. Johnson: I know this is our first date but do you think the next time you make love to your boyfriend you could think of me?
Marie: Well I haven't made love to him yet.
Navin R. Johnson: That's too bad. Do you think its possible that someday you could make love with me and think of him?
Marie: Who knows maybe you and he could make love and you could think of me.
Navin R. Johnson: I'd be happy to be in there somewhere.
John,
I think it would be most educational if you could provide a post on your thinking on these issues.
Mike
I saw an interesting documentary (it was a TV program, so not giving it great weight) which provided quite a bit of evidense, indicating that jesus' going away, and his return, were physical, and involved fleeing to india. They have, in their local holy writtings, tales of a sacred child, taken from jesus' region to learn of buddhism at the age he "disappears" in the bible, who returned at the correct age to tie in with the bible continueing story. It also tells of how this "great teacher" returned with nail wounds at about the time of the "resurection". There was also no mention of the assention to heaven in the texts written at the time, that was a later addition. My point is there are hundreds of theories about jesus' existance (or non-existance) many of which have a lot of convincing, and mutually conflicting, evidense. I would worry about giving extra weight to one particular one because James cammeron gives a press conference about it (not that I'm accusing orac of this).
Josh: might you be thinking of the St. Thomas Christians in Inida? There is a Christian group from India dating from at least 350s CE (or AD for Conservapedia users) that supposedly traces its existence back to the apostle Thomas. The story is that Thomas (as in "doubting Thomas") fled the Middle East when his take on Jesus' teachings was so different from the rest of the apostles, he was forced into exile.
Religion doesn't seem to be easily insulated from science. It is hostage to fortune in that no matter what factual claims it makes, they are defeasible by empirical research.
They would just say Jesus had a second body or something. (Maybe there was a transubstantiational Jesus -he was transformed into Jesus, although his appearance of Jesus remained the same.) Or they would say scientists are liars. Or they would say that the bible Jesus was a metaphor for the real one. All of the above. Just like all the Genesis stuff. (Genesis defeasible by empirical research? No, not quite, sorry.) Same ol' same ol'.
Mustafa Mond:
Don't you mean someone in Mexico City named "Jesus"? :-)
Ah, I don't think there's any difference to Christianity here. It depends only on how much power the religion has over the state.
What? Where?