Because of its cover "the real Jesus: What archaeology reveals about his life". I was curious how the article's author was going to spin the utter lack of any evidence for a historical Jesus or even a christianity before the 2nd cent CE.
And I wasn't disappointed Ms Kristin Romey, the author, conludes (though given from the first word she's assuming her answer, I'm loath to call it a conclusion) based on the findings of jewish archaeology in the majority jewish area of Gallilee and priests at these sites excitedly telling her "this is proof of Jesus".
Her dismissal of the increaingly well evidenced mysticist position is a couple of sentences from Eric Meyers of Duke and Byron McCane of Florida Atlantic, giving no context as to their expertise, credentials or why they were saying what they were saying.
The one redeeming feature of her article is that it reeks of desperation throughout, making unwarranted assertions throughout (excavations of a town at a place now known as Magdala proves Mary of Magdalene exists, Jesus being called Jesus of Nazareth proves he exists because three centuries later a town of Nazareth existed). Its as if she knows her position is untenable yet is unwilling to abandon it.
Her last sentence is indicative of her postion: "But for true believers, their faith in the life, death and resurrection of the son of god [capitalisations in original removed] will be evidence enough". Like the deluded pilgrims Ms Romey will stick to her myhology no matter how conclusively it is disproven.
And I wasn't disappointed Ms Kristin Romey, the author, conludes (though given from the first word she's assuming her answer, I'm loath to call it a conclusion) based on the findings of jewish archaeology in the majority jewish area of Gallilee and priests at these sites excitedly telling her "this is proof of Jesus".
Her dismissal of the increaingly well evidenced mysticist position is a couple of sentences from Eric Meyers of Duke and Byron McCane of Florida Atlantic, giving no context as to their expertise, credentials or why they were saying what they were saying.
The one redeeming feature of her article is that it reeks of desperation throughout, making unwarranted assertions throughout (excavations of a town at a place now known as Magdala proves Mary of Magdalene exists, Jesus being called Jesus of Nazareth proves he exists because three centuries later a town of Nazareth existed). Its as if she knows her position is untenable yet is unwilling to abandon it.
Her last sentence is indicative of her postion: "But for true believers, their faith in the life, death and resurrection of the son of god [capitalisations in original removed] will be evidence enough". Like the deluded pilgrims Ms Romey will stick to her myhology no matter how conclusively it is disproven.
Urbs Antiqua Fuit Studiisque Asperrima Belli
Home
Home
