@lettherebespite @palace71 @AiG Well, it is "Answers in Genesis", so you can hardly expect cogent, careful analysis. Or logic. The so-called "Nazareth Inscription" has been used by apologists as evidence of ... something or other ... since its publication in 1930. Exactly how this inscription somehow ...
@lettherebespite @palace71 @AiG ... "confirms the Resurrection" isn't very clear. The AiG article declares breathlessly that it's "a powerful piece of extrabiblical evidence that Christ’s Resurrection was already being proclaimed shortly after He was raised" without explaining how. But the "reasoning" seems ...
@lettherebespite @palace71 @AiG ... to be "(i) it's about bodies and tombs, (ii) some claimed Jesus body had been removed from his tomb, (iii) therefore .... *waves hands* ... the Resurrection!" Apparently it's supposed to show there was some dispute about Jesus' body's fate (as noted in Matt 28:11-15) and ...
@lettherebespite @palace71 @AiG ... the emperor Claudius responded with this rescript set up in Jesus' home town. There are all kinds of problem with this not-very-coherent idea.
Firstly, the date of the inscription is not clear and nothing dates it to the reign of Claudius. AiG states this as the date, but ...
Firstly, the date of the inscription is not clear and nothing dates it to the reign of Claudius. AiG states this as the date, but ...
@lettherebespite @palace71 @AiG ... that is based on a chain of reasoning that has the inscription being *found* in Nazareth and Galilee (including Nazareth) coming under direct Roman rule in AD 44, so this is the earliest a Roman edict would be publicly posted there - making the likely date during the reign...
@lettherebespite @palace71 @AiG ... of Claudius (AD 41-54). But we don't know that the inscription was *found* in Nazareth. The catalogue note of the antiquities collector Wilhelm Fröhner in 1878 simply says it was "sent from Nazareth" to Paris, not that it had been excavated there. Nazareth was a centre of ...
@lettherebespite @palace71 @AiG ... the antiquities trade in the late nineteenth century. In 2020 isotope analysis on the inscription's stone found it came not from Palestine but from a quarry on the island of Kos. So we have no idea if it has an origin in Galilee or just ended up there. The inscription ...
@lettherebespite @palace71 @AiG ... just refers to an "edict of Caesar" with no other identifiers. This was most common for edicts by Augustus, with later emperors appending other names ("Tiberius" etc) to differentiate themselves from their predecessor. That would make the edict too early to have anything ...
@lettherebespite @palace71 @AiG ... to do with Jesus. The claim that desecration of bodies was not a common thing and so this inscription has to refer to something or other to do with Jesus is simply nonsense. We have multiple laws issued and re-issued by Roman rulers about desecration of tombs - the Romans ...
@lettherebespite @palace71 @AiG ... were highly superstitious about disturbing the dead and doing so was a way of violating a family's honour. Thus the laws and the heavy penalties. The inscription itself refers to the crime as being as serious as anything "concerning the gods in human religious observance" ...
@lettherebespite @palace71 @AiG ... and so worthy of the severest punishment, as do similar other laws on tomb breaking. The reference to "the gods" also indicates a Gentile origin for the inscription, not a Jewish one. Finally, the (bad) Greek of the inscription actually doesn't mention bodies at all - it ...
@lettherebespite @palace71 @AiG ... just talks about breaking into tombs and "[making] off with what was buried in them" or "moving ... the buried". It seems to be more about grave robbing than anything to do with carrying off corpses.
Finally, why the hell a Roman emperor would feel the need to deliver a ...
Finally, why the hell a Roman emperor would feel the need to deliver a ...
@lettherebespite @palace71 @AiG ... rescript addressing some squabble between two groups of Jews over a specific incident of apparent grave violation a decade earlier I have no idea. Or why he would have this (bad) Greek inscription put up in the tiny village of Nazareth and not Jerusalem, where the ...
@lettherebespite @palace71 @AiG ... apparent inciting incident took place is also totally unclear. The whole thing makes no sense.
It's easy to see how apologists get excited by an inscription about tombs and bodies given that it is supposedly from Nazareth. But it probably isn't from Nazareth, probably ...
It's easy to see how apologists get excited by an inscription about tombs and bodies given that it is supposedly from Nazareth. But it probably isn't from Nazareth, probably ...
@lettherebespite @palace71 @AiG ... pre-dated Jesus and Christianity and most likely has nothing to do with either. Answers in Genesis is, as usual, garabge.
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
