Ancient Jewish tablet raises new questions on Jesus

[paximperium]

So a newly discovered ancient tablet that predates the supposed birth of Jesus has brought to light that the idea of a suffering messiah that is killed and resurrected is not original to Christianity but has its roots in older Jewish traditions.

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/07/06/world/middleeast/06stone.html?_r=1&hp&oref=slogin

Does this really change anything?

[Grimes]

Does this really change anything?

Change what for whom? Any believer can just pull up an old chestnut like "da devildidit to test my faith" or "the evil atheist scientists are lying about the date" so as to not have to question their own beliefs.

[paximperium]

Change what for whom? Any believer can just pull up an old chestnut like "da devildidit to test my faith" or "the evil atheist scientists are lying about the date" so as to not have to question their own beliefs.
Well most of those who seem to be studying this tablet are either Christian believers or Jewish researchers.

I don't much care about the extremist religion nutbars but I do care about more "middle of the road" Christians.

[Olowkow]

So a newly discovered ancient tablet that predates the supposed birth of Jesus has brought to light that the idea of a suffering messiah that is killed and resurrected is not original to Christianity but has its roots in older Jewish traditions.

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/07/06/world/middleeast/06stone.html?_r=1&hp&oref=slogin

Does this really change anything?

There are more miracle working gods through history than you can shake a stick at.
http://www.themystica.com/mystica/articles/d/dying_and_resurrected_gods_archetypal_manifestatio n_of_psychological_need.html
Every culture that is examined, whether ancient or modern, has the concept of a dying and resurrected god.

[Gord_in_Toronto]

What always amazes me is how little Christians and even Christian Theologists know about other religions. Every bit of Christian nonsense is claimed to be unique to Christianity. If fact it is all copied from more ancient religions and religious myths.

They view the world through the same green glasses that Dorothy and her companions were asked to put on before they were allowed to enter the Emerald City.

:boggled:

[Nick227]

What always amazes me is how little Christians and even Christian Theologists know about other religions. Every bit of Christian nonsense is claimed to be unique to Christianity. If fact it is all copied from more ancient religions and religious myths.



All of it? Care to cite me references for, say, the Gospel of Thomas or the Gospel of Truth?

Nick

[Olowkow]

Dr. Bob Price is a bible scholar par excellence. Two Phd's in theology. It is a good place to start. A former fundamentalist turned atheist, and expert on all things biblical. Acharia S is also pretty good, but not as well documented as Price.
http://www.robertmprice.mindvendor.com/ Robert M. Price
Professor of Theology and Scriptural Studies, Johnnie Colemon Theological Seminary (http://www.jctseminary.org/portaljcts/default.aspx)
Founder and Editor, The Journal of Higher Criticism (http://www.atheistalliance.org/jhc)
Fellow, The Jesus Seminar (http://www.westarinstitute.org/)
Executive Board Member, The Jesus Project (http://www.jesus-project.com/)
Fellow, The Committee for the Scientific Examination of Religion (http://www.centerforinquiry.net/cser/index.html)
Research Fellow, Center for Inquiry Institute
Contributing Editor, Spinoza's Lens (http://www.spinozaslens.com/)
The Bible Geek (http://www.robertmprice.mindvendor.com/bible_geek.htm)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jesus_and_comparative_mythology#Mithras This is the easy way to get started in research.

[Ichneumonwasp]

Thanks for pointing that article out, paximperium -- very, very interesting. If it pans out it may help explain a lot.

Doesn't change anything for me, but I gave up on Christianity a long while ago.

[Dancing David]

So a newly discovered ancient tablet that predates the supposed birth of Jesus has brought to light that the idea of a suffering messiah that is killed and resurrected is not original to Christianity but has its roots in older Jewish traditions.

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/07/06/world/middleeast/06stone.html?_r=1&hp&oref=slogin

Does this really change anything?

the jewish tradition is heavily edited.

jesus the nazarene was one of many leaders of apocalytic cults. dying gods are common as well.

as to the history and context , we may never know

[Safe-Keeper]

What always amazes me is how little Christians and even Christian Theologists know about other religions. Every bit of Christian nonsense is claimed to be unique to Christianity. If fact it is all copied from more ancient religions and religious myths.
It's indeed ironic how people attack New Age people for picking and choosing what to believe from religions and faiths... when Christianity and the other religions came about in pretty much exactly this way.

[thesyntaxera]

All of it? Care to cite me references for, say, the Gospel of Thomas or the Gospel of Truth?

Nick

Yeah. There has already been a huge amount of discussion on this in the two Zeitgeist threads...so, like Nick I am wondering what sources there are?


Dr. Bob Price is a bible scholar par excellence. Two Phd's in theology. It is a good place to start. A former fundamentalist turned atheist, and expert on all things biblical. Acharia S is also pretty good, but not as well documented as Price.

http://www.robertmprice.mindvendor.com/
Robert M. Price

Professor of Theology and Scriptural Studies, Johnnie Colemon Theological Seminary
Founder and Editor, The Journal of Higher Criticism
Fellow, The Jesus Seminar
Executive Board Member, The Jesus Project
Fellow, The Committee for the Scientific Examination of Religion
Research Fellow, Center for Inquiry Institute
Contributing Editor, Spinoza's Lens
The Bible Geek

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jesus_a...hology#Mithras This is the easy way to get started in research.

Well, Acharya's "work" has been extensively questioned and pretty quickly done away with. Price was also discussed, and many of his conclusions were drawn into question. I may be guessing, but, you wouldn't happen to be a fan of that Zeitgeist video are you?

[JoeTheJuggler]

All of it? Care to cite me references for, say, the Gospel of Thomas or the Gospel of Truth?
I guess I shouldn't answer on Gord's behalf, but I think he meant the kinds of stuff that Christians think of as unique to their religion--like a teaching based on compassion and forgiveness, a god made flesh, miracle stories, death & resurrection and so on. Some of the specific bits pre-date Chrisitanity, but none of the thinking is radically new.

[Nick227]

I guess I shouldn't answer on Gord's behalf, but I think he meant the kinds of stuff that Christians think of as unique to their religion--like a teaching based on compassion and forgiveness, a god made flesh, miracle stories, death & resurrection and so on. Some of the specific bits pre-date Chrisitanity, but none of the thinking is radically new.

Fair enough. Few or none of the main features of what became orthodox Christianity are radically new. I think, however, one has to also consider the sheer amount of human mythos that predates Christianity, and the variety of it. It would be tricky to come up with an original religion, not because they're all the same, but because so many avenues have already been walked down. You want a 12' deity who's head is made out of spaghetti? Chances are it's already been done, or at least greatly resembles the 2 cubit snake-monster of the ancient Mayans.

There's also a related matter around archetypal symbolism, but let's not bother with that.

Nick

[Gord_in_Toronto]

All of it? Care to cite me references for, say, the Gospel of Thomas or the Gospel of Truth?

Nick

Others have answered on my behalf while I had a good night's sleeep. Thank you all! :)

But I have just checked my Bible very carefully and can't find the Gospel of Thomas or the Gospel of Truth there at all. You are talking about a different version of Christianity?

[Nick227]

Others have answered on my behalf while I had a good night's sleeep. Thank you all! :)

But I have just checked my Bible very carefully and can't find the Gospel of Thomas or the Gospel of Truth there at all. You are talking about a different version of Christianity?

I was talking about the Christian literature as a whole.

Nick

[Bikewer]

Some years ago, I recall seeing an interview with Ellen Pagels (The Gnostic Gospels) where she referred to much older Jewish texts (pre-JC) referring to the "piercing" of a "Messiah".
This may be the sort of thing she was referring to.

[cj.23]

Er dudes, er what??? Why would this be in the slightest a challenge to Christianity? You really are going to spell it out for me, because as far as I can see assuming the date is correct this is exactly what Christians have always said, namely that Jesus fulfilled the messianic expectations and prophecies of the Jewish people?

Every single one of the gospels and Paul as well does just this - says that Jesus fulfilled Messianic expectations, and that his life was a fulfillment of the expectations of the time. The very passages cited - Daniel etc - are exactly those used by the Gospel writers to say "look he is the Messiah" in the Gospels, and which form the apoologetic spin of the Christian faith in its early outreach to the Jews.

It might be a kick in the teeth to Acharya S and the pagan parellists, but it says what Christians and scholars have always said?

cj x

[Olowkow]

Yeah. There has already been a huge amount of discussion on this in the two Zeitgeist threads...so, like Nick I am wondering what sources there are?

Well, Acharya's "work" has been extensively questioned and pretty quickly done away with. Price was also discussed, and many of his conclusions were drawn into question. I may be guessing, but, you wouldn't happen to be a fan of that Zeitgeist video are you?

I never heard of the "Zeitgeist" video.
Price merely questions the basis for claims of authenticity, and points out many contradictions and lack of stylistic consistency etc. It is just another point of view. As I said, A.S. gets too carried away I think, and loses credibility, and Price was really down on her until they actually met on the Infidel Guy's show; they got along pretty well.

Price is of course controversial. It is the sheer lack of sources to back up the biblical references that makes any real iron clad conclusions impossible on either side. This stuff is mostly opinion and interpretation based on style and other nebulous criteria.

[Gord_in_Toronto]

I was talking about the Christian literature as a whole.

Nick

I'm not quite sure how to respond. I don't have the time, energy or scholarship to read and research either document. However, they are part of Gnosticism and Gnosticism has been rejected by Christians as being Christian. They are not relevant; any more than the Book of Mormon would be.

[kedo1981]

It does show that the people of that time had a tradition of “hey, the messiah is coming and he’s going to kick your butt”.
It means that a Jesus type character was on peoples minds for a long time and almost certainly written about, discussed, embellished, long before the gospels were made up.

[cj.23]

It does show that the people of that time had a tradition of “hey, the messiah is coming and he’s going to kick your butt”.
It means that a Jesus type character was on peoples minds for a long time and almost certainly written about, discussed, embellished, long before the gospels were made up.

Yes, but we already new that, as that is exactly what the New Testament says? :) (Not to mention all the other Jewish apocalyptic writings...) By confirming that Jesus met the prophetic expectations of the period, and was not a bad retrofit to "propecies" which no one saw as prophecies - as i have long suspected - the Evangelical position is strengthened considerably.

So if this is genuine, expect to hear an awful lot about it from Christian Apologists clapping in joy in the months and years to come!

cj x

[JoeTheJuggler]

Fair enough. Few or none of the main features of what became orthodox Christianity are radically new. I think, however, one has to also consider the sheer amount of human mythos that predates Christianity, and the variety of it. It would be tricky to come up with an original religion, not because they're all the same, but because so many avenues have already been walked down. You want a 12' deity who's head is made out of spaghetti? Chances are it's already been done, or at least greatly resembles the 2 cubit snake-monster of the ancient Mayans.
I agree. Although a great number of the stories aren't similar due to chance--there was obvious transmission of these ideas from one group to another.

I wonder what would happen to Christianity if its adherents saw their faith as yet another one in a long chain of mythologies? The point Gord was making (I think) is that most people who believe strongly in a religion believe that theirs is somehow unique.

As many atheists can point out, most religious people are atheist with regard to all deities except for one.

A while back I had a long conversation with a guy in a doomsday cult who really really believed that his cult leader's prophecy of The End was legit and that those hundreds of other doomsday cults down through history had no lesson to teach him.

[cj.23]

I agree. Although a great number of the stories aren't similar due to chance--there was obvious transmission of these ideas from one group to another.

I wonder what would happen to Christianity if its adherents saw their faith as yet another one in a long chain of mythologies? The point Gord was making (I think) is that most people who believe strongly in a religion believe that theirs is somehow unique.

But we do, by definition? We believe that Christianity descends directly from Temple Judaism, and hence eventually from the Semitic mythologies of the Ancient Near East? There is nothing remotely controversial about that.

Nor is it remotely controversial to note syncretism, where religious ideas cross faith boundaries. What is however unsubstantiated woo is the Frazerian Green God claims of those who see in Christianity a late version of the Oriental mystery cults, and idea devoid of any real evidence. It's this Mithras/Horus/Whoever nonsense which annoys us, as just ruibbish scholarship. :) Skepticwiki is a relaible guide on these issues i always find.

cj x

[Nick227]

I'm not quite sure how to respond. I don't have the time, energy or scholarship to read and research either document. However, they are part of Gnosticism and Gnosticism has been rejected by Christians as being Christian. They are not relevant; any more than the Book of Mormon would be.

Well, according to Pagels, Ehrman, and the other general luminaries on this topic, a large number of gospels and other Christian documents were circulating about in the age approx 70-200 CE. From this large amount of material a much smaller orthodox canon developed, and an orthodoxy, which rejected material it designated as not orthodox.

Thus, I think, personally, if you're going to say that Christianity is entirely recycled then it is not enough to merely pick a few themes or a few books.

Nick

[paximperium]

Yes, but we already new that, as that is exactly what the New Testament says? :) (Not to mention all the other Jewish apocalyptic writings...) By confirming that Jesus met the prophetic expectations of the period, and was not a bad retrofit to "propecies" which no one saw as prophecies - as i have long suspected - the Evangelical position is strengthened considerably.

So if this is genuine, expect to hear an awful lot about it from Christian Apologists clapping in joy in the months and years to come!

cj x
From my understanding, in traditional Jewish traditions and the old testaments, there is no Suffering Messiah character.

Christians have trumpeted that Jesus as a "suffering messiah" who kinda meets some of the old Jewish prophecies(via post hoc and very interesting imagination) and is an original idea and is so anti-established religious beliefs at that time that therefore Jesus cannot be a myth...yeah even that logic is retarded before this tablet brings significant doubts of that claim.

[paximperium]

But we do, by definition? We believe that Christianity descends directly from Temple Judaism, and hence eventually from the Semitic mythologies of the Ancient Near East? There is nothing remotely controversial about that.

Nor is it remotely controversial to note syncretism, where religious ideas cross faith boundaries. What is however unsubstantiated woo is the Frazerian Green God claims of those who see in Christianity a late version of the Oriental mystery cults, and idea devoid of any real evidence. It's this Mithras/Horus/Whoever nonsense which annoys us, as just ruibbish scholarship. :) Skepticwiki is a relaible guide on these issues i always find.

cj x
Actually the controversy is the question as to whether Jesus as a person as described in the Bible existed at all. This tablet brings to question the originality of the Suffering Messiah character and whether Jesus was just amalgamated into this story.

So what do you think of the Multiple Jesus or Mythic Jesus Hypothesis?
1)Jesus an amalgamation of a multitude of different apocalyptic rabbis.
2)Jesus is a mythic god character that was "humanized".

[Nick227]

I agree. Although a great number of the stories aren't similar due to chance--there was obvious transmission of these ideas from one group to another.

Possibly. It can also be that certain archetypal themes are constantly attractive to the human psyche and so simply recur.

I wonder what would happen to Christianity if its adherents saw their faith as yet another one in a long chain of mythologies?

Well, as I understand it, the orthodox Christians accepted the Old Testament as part of their canon to achieve precisely this. Some commentators, I think Ehrman at least, has said that this acceptance of an older tradition helped to solidify the emergent Christianity and was a big reason for the eventual Roman acceptance of it. The olders books stopped it seeming too fly-by-night.

The point Gord was making (I think) is that most people who believe strongly in a religion believe that theirs is somehow unique.

As many atheists can point out, most religious people are atheist with regard to all deities except for one.

A while back I had a long conversation with a guy in a doomsday cult who really really believed that his cult leader's prophecy of The End was legit and that those hundreds of other doomsday cults down through history had no lesson to teach him.

Yes, there are some nutters around but for me this doesn't mean that all religion is necessarily grounded in fantasy. The religious beliefs that Christians have ended up with nowadays for sure bear little resemblance to those of the first Christians.

Nick

[JoeTheJuggler]

But we do, by definition? We believe that Christianity descends directly from Temple Judaism, and hence eventually from the Semitic mythologies of the Ancient Near East? There is nothing remotely controversial about that.
No, you're right. Christians by definition don't see their religion as wholly unique.

However a great many Christians do insist that teachings like the Golden Rule were new with Jesus. That this idea of compassion or love and forgiveness was a radical new idea. And that the stories of signs and wonders are somehow evidence that other religious claims don't have.

I think you're among a relatively small class of Christians with such a nuanced and educated view.

I put my Jesuit friends in that small class too. They have a similar way of approaching stuff that foreshadowed Jesus too--seeing it as what happens when God's revelation gets filtered through other, perhaps less-receptive cultures.

And I see what you mean that this new tablet doesn't change anything for people with that view--that Jesus is the fulfillment of Jewish prophecy.

I see it the way pax does--as strengthening the case that the Jesus story may have been a composite.

[Nick227]

Actually the controversy is the question as to whether Jesus as a person as described in the Bible existed at all. This tablet brings to question the originality of the Suffering Messiah character and whether Jesus was just amalgamated into this story.

So what do you think of the Multiple Jesus or Mythic Jesus Hypothesis?
1)Jesus an amalgamation of a multitude of different apocalyptic rabbis.
2)Jesus is a mythic god character that was "humanized".

Just to cloud the issue a little further, there is a fairly well-known mystical relationship between the words "Jesus Christ" and "Messiah." The Greek words Iessou and Christou are usually taken as having numbers values - 888 and 1480. Added together these give 2368. The ratio 888:1480:2368 reduces to 3:5:8, 358 being the value of the Hebrew word "Meshiach."

Whether this relationship was understood by Christians of the early centuries I don't know. However, as far as I do know, they still used letters as numerals back then so it could well be a great deal more likely to have been recognised than such apparently abstract thinking might appear these days.

The main issue for me with the "mythic Jesus" hypothesis is that there are a great deal more writings ascribed to him (though all certainly written long after his death) than found in the orthodox canon. Many of these writings are also highly original. Why would so many diverse schools of mystical wisdom arise and all credit one individual? Doesn't seem very likely to me that it happened by chance or deliberate attempt to deceive. I mean they were at each others throats half the time.

Why would all these schools agree on source if there was no source? The only reasonable-sounding explanation I've thus heard for this is that there was a very significant spiritual teacher around at the time who inspired these diverging schools.

Nick

[joobz]

I can't help but think that christians will view this tablet as proof of Jesus. Afterall, he fullfilled the prophecy written on this stone and therefore this proves his divinity.

[Gord_in_Toronto]

Well, according to Pagels, Ehrman, and the other general luminaries on this topic, a large number of gospels and other Christian documents were circulating about in the age approx 70-200 CE. From this large amount of material a much smaller orthodox canon developed, and an orthodoxy, which rejected material it designated as not orthodox.

Thus, I think, personally, if you're going to say that Christianity is entirely recycled then it is not enough to merely pick a few themes or a few books.

Nick

OK. Let me turn it around. What in Christianity is unique?

[Nick227]

OK. Let me turn it around. What in Christianity is unique?

Well, a lot of the so-called "sayings of Jesus" are highly original imo. Also some of the mysticism. This is why I pointed towards the Gospel of Thomas and Gospel of Truth before, being good examples here.

There was a pretty major outpouring of mystical literature in JC's name in the couple of centuries after he died. If you're familiar with some of the concepts then it helps to assess its originality.

You also have to consider whether, in picking which out of many available Gospels to canonize, the early orthodox Christians also picked those which had archetypal themes. It could well be that Jesus was a very major figure of the times, post death, and that Christianity was simply a re-packaging of him for the masses.

That orthodox Christianity itself is not particularly original does little imo to determine whether or not Jesus actually lived.

Nick

[cj.23]

From my understanding, in traditional Jewish traditions and the old testaments, there is no Suffering Messiah character.

Christians have trumpeted that Jesus as a "suffering messiah" who kinda meets some of the old Jewish prophecies(via post hoc and very interesting imagination) and is an original idea and is so anti-established religious beliefs at that time that therefore Jesus cannot be a myth...yeah even that logic is retarded before this tablet brings significant doubts of that claim.

Er, yeah sort of. :) The Suffering Servant verses in Isaiah clearly refer to Israel at that time, as do the other Prophecies. Prophecy in the religious sense does not mean "predicting the future", more "a call to social justice and awareness of the claims of God". Yet those same verses were from the very beginning of Christianity seen as having a secondary function, which was predictive, and explained God's plan. This is the root of the initial Jewish Christian apologetic to the 1st century Jews - in Jesus all the prophets are fulfilled.

As far as I know Christians do not believe that the Messianic expectation was original in nay way - it's clearly part of what was expected. Conservative Evangelical scholars have always claimed it was recognizable as a fulfilment of verses which were understood as Prophetic BEFORE Jesus, rather than my suspicion the verses were subsequently retrofitted to fit the events.

Hence my assertion, if this is true then it shows Jesus did exactly what it said on the tin, and Evangelicals will rejoice at the confirmation. :)

cj x

[cj.23]

Actually the controversy is the question as to whether Jesus as a person as described in the Bible existed at all. This tablet brings to question the originality of the Suffering Messiah character and whether Jesus was just amalgamated into this story.

So what do you think of the Multiple Jesus or Mythic Jesus Hypothesis?
1)Jesus an amalgamation of a multitude of different apocalyptic rabbis.
2)Jesus is a mythic god character that was "humanized".

Right, I replied to a long thread on Jesus Mythicism a few days ago, it should be a few threads down on this subfora. If you want to intelligently pursue that angle, Geoff Prices book Jesus: A Very Jewish Myth would be an excellent resource, and i have argued the case long and hard with him over on Dawkin's forum. For the reasosn i explain in the other thread, I believe the issues against a Historical Jesus (not of course the Christ of Faith) are insurmountable from a historian's perspective. Still do get Geoff's book, he does good work fighting fundies in various areas, even if we disagree strongly on ths historical issue and our religion (he is an atheist, I a Christian). He's a good bloke.

cj x

[cj.23]

I can't help but think that christians will view this tablet as proof of Jesus. Afterall, he fullfilled the prophecy written on this stone and therefore this proves his divinity.

Yes, but as the statement on the stone is derived entirely from reading the Old Testamanr prophecies that Jesus is believed to have fulfilled otherwise, it makes very little difference.

Where it is important,a nd why I agree with you, is that it shows the passages of the Hebrew Scriptures (the Christians Old Testament) were being interpreted that way BEFORE Jesus, and hence yes, it would substantially strengthen the Christian case. However we could have rationally deduced this - as all the Gospels writers base their claims that Jesus was the Messiah on his fulfilling prophecy, for it to work and be a strong argument those prophecies must have existed in a First Century Jewish environment. I had simply before doubted owing to the scepoticism of people like Ehrman and Price if the prophecies actually existed in that form - now it seems likely they did.

So a point to the conservative Evangelicals, as I said.

Still, this assumes the tablet is genuine and the dating correct.

cj x

[paximperium]

Right, I replied to a long thread on Jesus Mythicism a few days ago, it should be a few threads down on this subfora. If you want to intelligently pursue that angle, Geoff Prices book Jesus: A Very Jewish Myth would be an excellent resource, and i have argued the case long and hard with him over on Dawkin's forum. For the reasosn i explain in the other thread, I believe the issues against a Historical Jesus (not of course the Christ of Faith) are insurmountable from a historian's perspective. Still do get Geoff's book, he does good work fighting fundies in various areas, even if we disagree strongly on ths historical issue and our religion (he is an atheist, I a Christian). He's a good bloke.

cj x
I'll look into that book. Thanks.
BTW: what is the subthread's title you were discussing this issue?

[Ichneumonwasp]

Er, yeah sort of. :) The Suffering Servant verses in Isaiah clearly refer to Israel at that time, as do the other Prophecies. Prophecy in the religious sense does not mean "predicting the future", more "a call to social justice and awareness of the claims of God". Yet those same verses were from the very beginning of Christianity seen as having a secondary function, which was predictive, and explained God's plan. This is the root of the initial Jewish Christian apologetic to the 1st century Jews - in Jesus all the prophets are fulfilled.

As far as I know Christians do not believe that the Messianic expectation was original in nay way - it's clearly part of what was expected. Conservative Evangelical scholars have always claimed it was recognizable as a fulfilment of verses which were understood as Prophetic BEFORE Jesus, rather than my suspicion the verses were subsequently retrofitted to fit the events.

Hence my assertion, if this is true then it shows Jesus did exactly what it said on the tin, and Evangelicals will rejoice at the confirmation. :)

cj x


Um, except this stone is not scripture. It reflects a belief in a suffering messiah, yes, but if the interpretation offered is correct that messiah is not Jesus -- this isn't apparently some unnamed guy that is supposed to show up.

Further, the point of the suffering is for the redemption of Israel not the remission of the world's sins, as in mainline Christianity.

I don't see how this represents Jesus doing what was expected by scripture. The retrofit idea still works best.

This does demonstrate that the idea of a suffering messiah was around at the time and supports the idea that the Jesus story was molded to fit those ideas -- makes much more sense out of the writing of Mark's gospel, for instance.

I don't see how this helps the case of any who might try to view this as Jesus fulfilling prediction. If the conjecture that this was written by Simon's followers is correct, then it does quite the opposite.

And it questions the interpretation of the sacrifice.

I think they would need to cherrypick what they wanted out of it to help support their case -- the Evangelicals, that is.


ETA:

Just to add.......this was also apparently an apocalypse, which would also mesh with the idea of Jesus as an apocalyptic preacher. Since the end didn't occur 2000 years ago (as the author of Mark's gospel seemed to expect and Paul also clearly seemed to expect), we must seriously question the reality of any of the teachings we have received through the ages.

[thesyntaxera]

I never heard of the "Zeitgeist" video.
Price merely questions the basis for claims of authenticity, and points out many contradictions and lack of stylistic consistency etc. It is just another point of view. As I said, A.S. gets too carried away I think, and loses credibility, and Price was really down on her until they actually met on the Infidel Guy's show; they got along pretty well.

Price is of course controversial. It is the sheer lack of sources to back up the biblical references that makes any real iron clad conclusions impossible on either side. This stuff is mostly opinion and interpretation based on style and other nebulous criteria.

Zeitgeist is a film released on the internet that is endorsed by A.S., as she is the chief source of information in the first part. The other two parts to the film are the rehashing of several 9/11 truth video's, and several federal reserve conspiracy videos.

It's a pile of stink basically, although well made stink.

It's not a matter of not being able to prove it either way, as there are plenty of original sources to pick from that do not verify those claims, and in fact refute them.

[Nick227]

Just to add.......this was also apparently an apocalypse, which would also mesh with the idea of Jesus as an apocalyptic preacher. Since the end didn't occur 2000 years ago (as the author of Mark's gospel seemed to expect and Paul also clearly seemed to expect), we must seriously question the reality of any of the teachings we have received through the ages.

Just to mention that apocalyptic writings don't necessarily refer to the end of the world. They can be metaphorical also, sometimes relating notions of spiritual transformation and the like.

Nick

[cj.23]

I'll look into that book. Thanks.
BTW: what is the subthread's title you were discussing this issue?

It's here, sorry I'm working or I would have linked it before --
http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=117203

Hope of interest!
cj x

[cj.23]

Um, except this stone is not scripture. It reflects a belief in a suffering messiah, yes, but if the interpretation offered is correct that messiah is not Jesus -- this isn't apparently some unnamed guy that is supposed to show up.

Yes, it demonstrates the existence of the Messianic Suffering prophecies though before Jesus though, assuming it's genuine. I have nowhere near enough information to judge that. So in that sense as I said it's a major positive for a conservative Evangelical position, removing one of the central academic critiques, namely that Jesus did not fulfil prophecy as expected as no Messianic prophecy of a suffering messiah is known, and that the verses in the Hebrew Scriptures were nto interpreted that way. It seems they were.


Further, the point of the suffering is for the redemption of Israel not the remission of the world's sins, as in mainline Christianity.

And what is Israel in that historical context? The Jewish People. Israel however is "the people" - the term means "The Hebrew people, past, present, and future, regarded as the chosen people of God by virtue of the covenant of Jacob." and is applied to all descendants of Jacob. So there is no difference. The Messiah was, as we have always known, meant to rescue the Jews from oppression and institute the reign of God - but as in the universalist passages of the Hebrew Bible, where the righteousness of Israel is expected to save all the nations, (see Zecariah for some clear exposition) sees his role as far more than this. As far as i can make out, and this is pretty close to a subject where i can speak with some authority for once academically, it makes no difference whatsoever, simply being exactly what everyone has always said? Of course the blood was shed for the Redemption of Israel - Paul, John, Matthew and Mark say as much? That was the whole point of the Messiah - yet Christian theology takes it to a broader universal sense. Nothing new at all here, this is what puzzles me. The claims are rather dramatic, the reality - it's a nice piece of archaeological evidence and fascinating, and simply support what we have always known?


This does demonstrate that the idea of a suffering messiah was around at the time and supports the idea that the Jesus story was molded to fit those ideas -- makes much more sense out of the writing of Mark's gospel, for instance.

Yes, as I said, it explains the apologetic methods used in all the Gospels and in Paul if I remeber aright - and the success of the Early Church. The fact that the Messianic prophecy was fitted to another character in no way invalidates it, because after all Josephus wa sout to prove Vespasian was the Messiah, and I'm sure we have all seen Life of Brian which makes the point clearly enough - messianic candidates existed, and their lives were interpreted in terms of how they fulfilled Hebrew Scripture.


I don't see how this helps the case of any who might try to view this as Jesus fulfilling prediction. If the conjecture that this was written by Simon's followers is correct, then it does quite the opposite.

How is that?



And it questions the interpretation of the sacrifice.

I forsee a long technical discussion of notions of Sacrifice in 1st century Temple Judaism! Let me grab my books then, if my previous comments in this reply do not clarify this. :)



I think they would need to cherrypick what they wanted out of it to help support their case -- the Evangelicals, that is.


I think they will just say "told you so". Which is a shame, because I think it's all very interesting, and gives us a neew insight in to the sects of the time - if it true. I'm cautious till we see phtographs of the alleged inscription, and the Hebrew as far as it is readable, and how the translation was produced. It's far too early for me to be very impressed I'm afraid, so I remain cautious.

cj x

[Ichneumonwasp]

Just to mention that apocalyptic writings don't necessarily refer to the end of the world. They can be metaphorical also, sometimes relating notions of spiritual transformation and the like.

Nick

They are revelations that show either the working of heaven -- person taken on a tour of heaven -- or what is to come. This one seems to be about what is to come, though I don't know the details, of course.

The importance is the association of the idea of a suffering messiah with an apocalyptic tradition since we have clear instances of eschatological writing in our earliest examples from the New Testament (Mark and Paul's letters).

This would weigh as some evidence that Bart Ehrman is correct in his assessment of the early Jesus cult -- that it was apocalyptic, since it seems to have used other apocalyptic writings in its earliest myths (if this holds up). Not that his thesis needed much help, since there were already clear signs of apocalypticism within the cult -- early association with John the Baptist and Paul, who seemed to expect the end during his lifetime.

[cj.23]

Um. Ehrman is a bout 150 years too late to claim much origianlity here though - Strauss, Ritschl, Wrede and Scweitzer all covered this ground in the 19th century. I guess most people don't read 'em much now though. :)

The real issue is not that the Early Christians were apocalyptic and expected the End - the motif is abundantly clear in the 7 authentic Paulines, and the gospels, not least in Mark, and we know from the development of delayed escatology in the Early Church writings, but what End of Days actually meant to Jesus. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/End_times#Christianity

There seems to be a good case for a Jewsih belief in an "End of an Age and ushering in of the Reign of God", not the literal immediate destruction of the world. I can wwite a lot on this, but itr will have to be tomorrow. :)

cj x

[Ichneumonwasp]

Yes, it demonstrates the existence of the Messianic Suffering prophecies though before Jesus though, assuming it's genuine. I have nowhere near enough information to judge that. So in that sense as I said it's a major positive for a conservative Evangelical position, removing one of the central academic critiques, namely that Jesus did not fulfil prophecy as expected as no Messianic prophecy of a suffering messiah is known, and that the verses in the Hebrew Scriptures were nto interpreted that way. It seems they were.

It is also perceived as one of the central strengths. I think it goes a ways toward making sense of the composition of Mark -- places it in a recognized literary tradition.

This isn't recognized Hebrew prophecy. It is not scripture. It looks more like a local tradition within the communities of apocalypticists at the time.

I would say that the critique stands, but it is now complicated by the fact that a local tradition pre-existed the Jesus stories we have.

And what is Israel in that historical context? The Jewish People. Israel however is "the people" - the term means "The Hebrew people, past, present, and future, regarded as the chosen people of God by virtue of the covenant of Jacob." and is applied to all descendants of Jacob. So there is no difference. The Messiah was, as we have always known, meant to rescue the Jews from oppression and institute the reign of God - but as in the universalist passages of the Hebrew Bible, where the righteousness of Israel is expected to save all the nations, (see Zecariah for some clear exposition) sees his role as far more than this. As far as i can make out, and this is pretty close to a subject where i can speak with some authority for once academically, it makes no difference whatsoever, simply being exactly what everyone has always said? Of course the blood was shed for the Redemption of Israel - Paul, John, Matthew and Mark say as much? That was the whole point of the Messiah - yet Christian theology takes it to a broader universal sense. Nothing new at all here, this is what puzzles me. The claims are rather dramatic, the reality - it's a nice piece of archaeological evidence and fascinating, and simply support what we have always known?

We would need to see the text itself to tell, but from what is in the article, this doesn't sound as though it fits within a universalized context -- particularly if this one figure, Simon, is at the political heart of it. The universalizing aspects concern more the Christian interpretation as the faith spread through the pagan world. If there is evidence on this stone that this sacrifice was intended to save the world, then your argument makes more sense.

Paul said much more than that Jesus' blood was shed for the redemption of Israel. He said that it was shed for the redemption of all and the remission of all sin. He also said that Jesus was the first fruits. These were not classical Jewish ideas.

And shedding blood for the redemption of Israel, the whole point of the Messiah? No. There was no such evidence until this showed up.


Yes, as I said, it explains the apologetic methods used in all the Gospels and in Paul if I remeber aright - and the success of the Early Church. The fact that the Messianic prophecy was fitted to another character in no way invalidates it, because after all Josephus wa sout to prove Vespasian was the Messiah, and I'm sure we have all seen Life of Brian which makes the point clearly enough - messianic candidates existed, and their lives were interpreted in terms of how they fulfilled Hebrew Scripture.

That Josephus sought to prove Vespasian the Messiah only proves that many attempts were made to do the same -- or, as Time Rice so eloquently said it, "you Jews produce messiahs by the sackful". What this may show is that the early Jesus cult simply adopted an idea that was promulgated about another person -- Simon. Jesus was supposed to be the one and only Messiah. How does a prediction of someone else being raised from the dead help evangelicals to say -- look that means Jesus is God.


I forsee a long technical discussion of notions of Sacrifice in 1st century Temple Judaism! Let me grab my books then, if my previous comments in this reply do not clarify this. :)

If you wish. You know much more about this than I do. But I still don't see how evangelicals are going to be able to make sense out of this in a positive light, even knowing the implications of all forms of sacrifice and redemption in Judaism dating back to the goat in the desert. I know they will try to say -- see, I told you so -- but I don't see how that will make sense.

Of course, I may very easily be reading more into the article than was meant, but from what is there, it doesn't seem that evangelicals are going to be able to pull off what you suggest they will.


I think they will just say "told you so". Which is a shame, because I think it's all very interesting, and gives us a neew insight in to the sects of the time - if it true. I'm cautious till we see phtographs of the alleged inscription, and the Hebrew as far as it is readable, and how the translation was produced. It's far too early for me to be very impressed I'm afraid, so I remain cautious.

cj x

Yes, we should all remain cautious, especially since we are not sure if it is real -- since there have been several forgeries revealed over the past few years and none of us know what is really on the thing.

[Ichneumonwasp]

Um. Ehrman is a bout 150 years too late to claim much origianlity here though - Strauss, Ritschl, Wrede and Scweitzer all covered this ground in the 19th century. I guess most people don't read 'em much now though. :)

The real issue is not that the Early Christians were apocalyptic and expected the End - the motif is abundantly clear in the 7 authentic Paulines, and the gospels, not least in Mark, and we know from the development of delayed escatology in the Early Church writings, but what End of Days actually meant to Jesus. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/End_times#Christianity

There seems to be a good case for a Jewsih belief in an "End of an Age and ushering in of the Reign of God", not the literal immediate destruction of the world. I can wwite a lot on this, but itr will have to be tomorrow. :)

cj x



No, of course, I didn't mean to single him out for special honors -- his is just the easiest name in this day and age.

"End of the Age and ushering in of the Reign of God" is all fine and well, but Paul spoke of an imminent resurrection of the dead and Jesus (in Mark's gospel) spoke of the coming of a cosmic judge and what appears to the passing away of heaven and earth (though this, of course, is open to wide interpretation since there is condiderable hyperbole in the passage).

The idea of the Reign of God certainly appears more prominent in Luke. But, if this is the age of the Reign of God.............?

[Beanbag]

Oh, puh-leeze. This rock shows up with NO provenance with something painted on it, a supposed Dead Sea scroll on stone, and we're supposed to take it seriously? The article says it "may" have been found by the Dead Sea in Jordan.

The fact that the message is written or inked on the stone makes me suspicious. The first part of producing any forgery is to get the proper substrate for the period. Trying to erase existing writings from a vellum or leather or papyrus scroll from the correct period almost always leaves some trace detectable by modern analysis. They mention how "rare" inked stones are. Does this mean this is the only one they've found? How many are extant?

Nice thing about inking on a rock is that, well, rocks are kinda old to begin with. They're as old as, well, dirt, so you don't have to do anything to age them to start. Particularly if you can find a weathered stone of proper size and don't have to shape or alter it, then you haven't left any sharp edges or telltale cutting marks that are unweathered. I would be more inclined to take a less-skeptical view if the writings were inscribed, rather than painted or inked.

Well, that leaves the composition of the ink itself, and how it sits on the surface of the rock. Period inks weren't too complicated. I'd guess carbon black, gum arabic, and water would be typical. I have friends who produce their own replica illuminated scrolls, and we're talking the extremely anal types who make their own inks from scratch, using period formulas and materials. Simple matter to produce the ink, then apply on the rock, and simulate age.

All that is really required is somebody scholastically well-versed enough to duplicate the calligraphic style and literary style for the correct period. You know, like using the recently-released Dead Sea scroll texts as a guide?

Nope, this thing just flew in from left field with no previous history. Sorta like the James Ossuary. It's got the fingerprints that shout FAKED all over it.


Beanbag

[Steelmage]

Though it is pretty much agreed upon by scholars that Jesus never existed. If anyone were to look into this issue with an open mind, in the end it is pretty obvious that Jesus never existed.

[Nick227]

They are revelations that show either the working of heaven -- person taken on a tour of heaven -- or what is to come. This one seems to be about what is to come, though I don't know the details, of course.

The importance is the association of the idea of a suffering messiah with an apocalyptic tradition since we have clear instances of eschatological writing in our earliest examples from the New Testament (Mark and Paul's letters).

I claim no great expertise here but "suffering" and "salvation" can be clearly related in for example the famous Apocalypse of John. One mystical interpretation would be that John is undergoing a major shift in consciousness, facilitated in part by having his psyche purged of negativity. The 7 seals represent 7 layers of the psyche, which are sequentially opened and purged clean with a grotesque outpouring of demons and related phenomena.

Thus there is some scope here for confusion between interpreting the Revelation as a individual transformative experience or as a universal Armageddon. This is a confusion which persists to this day and appears also to have been very much a part of early Christianity, with myths and stories having meanings on different levels - mundane and mystical.

Nick

[Nick227]

"End of the Age and ushering in of the Reign of God" is all fine and well, but Paul spoke of an imminent resurrection of the dead and Jesus (in Mark's gospel) spoke of the coming of a cosmic judge and what appears to the passing away of heaven and earth (though this, of course, is open to wide interpretation since there is condiderable hyperbole in the passage).

The idea of the Reign of God certainly appears more prominent in Luke. But, if this is the age of the Reign of God.............?

All of these ideas also have quite different conotations mystically.

Judgement infers the end of a period of deliberation and can be understood as a movement out of overtly dualistic consciousness. The "resurrection of the dead" is similar and the Reign of God also. The coming of the Kingdom of Heaven can be understood as an earthly catastophe or a movement in deeper, inner awareness. All these ideas have quite different mundane and esoteric meanings. I don't know for sure but I very much doubt the esoteric ones have much changed since the times these myths were written down.

Nick

[Ichneumonwasp]

I claim no great expertise here but "suffering" and "salvation" can be clearly related in for example the famous Apocalypse of John. One mystical interpretation would be that John is undergoing a major shift in consciousness, facilitated in part by having his psyche purged of negativity. The 7 seals represent 7 layers of the psyche, which are sequentially opened and purged clean with a grotesque outpouring of demons and related phenomena.

Thus there is some scope here for confusion between interpreting the Revelation as a individual transformative experience or as a universal Armageddon. This is a confusion which persists to this day and appears also to have been very much a part of early Christianity, with myths and stories having meanings on different levels.

Nick


Numerous interpretations are possible, but, as a literary genre, apocalypses are generally agreed to serve the function of telling people to hold on to the faith in these hard times. I'm not sure how a close reading of a mystical interpretation would work without leaving out large swathes of the account. The message seems fairly clear with a simple close reading, especially when one considers the signposts clearly outlined in the text itself -- the end is coming very soon, so shine it on for a while longer.

[paximperium]

Though it is pretty much agreed upon by scholars that Jesus never existed. If anyone were to look into this issue with an open mind, in the end it is pretty obvious that Jesus never existed.
That is a significant oversimplification. Many biblical scholars actually do believe Jesus existed...the question is what version of Jesus. Some believe that he was just a normal man, others that he was a mythic figure and some do believe he was the son of god etc. Some believe in the Mythic Jesus, some believe in a multiple Jesus amalgamated into one story, some believe in a normal man version etc. Its complicated.

To me, it makes no difference. If Jesus existed it does not make any of the claims in the Bible true.

[Ichneumonwasp]

All of these ideas also have quite different conotations mystically.

Judgement infers the end of a period of deliberation and can be understood as a movement out of overtly dualistic consciousness. The "resurrection of the dead" is similar and the Reign of God also.

Nick


I don't think many folks would have a problem with that. It's the self-appointed moral judges ringing out the old -- you're all going to hell and we are going to be taken into the arms of Jesus -- garbage that angers the folks around here the most.

As we've discussed earlier, I certainly have no idea what ultimate reality looks like.

[cj.23]

Though it is pretty much agreed upon by scholars that Jesus never existed. If anyone were to look into this issue with an open mind, in the end it is pretty obvious that Jesus never existed.

I think you will find completely the reverse is true. :)
See
http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=117203

:)

Still welcome to the forum!
cj x

[cj.23]

As we've discussed earlier, I certainly have no idea what ultimate reality looks like.

You, me, and every other honest person on this pale blue dot. Over on Dawkins forum we often discuss what it is we are fighting - religion, irrationalism, or pseudoscience - but my guess at the end of the day is what annoys us all most is dogmatic loonies who think their mental maps equal the physical territory out there. :)

cj x

[paximperium]

You, me, and every other honest person on this pale blue dot. Over on Dawkins forum we often discuss what it is we are fighting - religion, irrationalism, or pseudoscience - but my guess at the end of the day is what annoys us all most is dogmatic loonies who think their mental maps equal the physical territory out there. :)

cj x
Amen to that. While I consider Religious belief irrational, I have never had an issue with the religious as long as their beliefs are not harmful(I know..that's a debatable issue) and they stop attempting to legislate their beliefs.

[cj.23]

Just recalled this - from 2000, before the stone turned up - by one of the experts involved now --
http://www.amazon.com/Messiah-before-Jesus-Suffering-Foundation/dp/0520234006/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1215381156&sr=1-1

Coincidence or serendipity?
cj x

[cj.23]

Amen to that. While I consider Religious belief irrational, I have never had an issue with the religious as long as their beliefs are not harmful(I know..that's a debatable issue) and they stop attempting to legislate their beliefs.

I have no problem with anyone believing whatever they like - be it Elvis was a Space alien, or it is right to eat Children. It's acts that bother me, and specifically criminal acts. We should never legislate against freedom of thought - how could one enforce it? - but we have a right to legislate over behaviours, and some behaviors are downright WRONG. :) mental massacres don't bother me - but if you act on it...:eye-poppi

cj x

[Ichneumonwasp]

You, me, and every other honest person on this pale blue dot. Over on Dawkins forum we often discuss what it is we are fighting - religion, irrationalism, or pseudoscience - but my guess at the end of the day is what annoys us all most is dogmatic loonies who think their mental maps equal the physical territory out there. :)

cj x


I think that covers it for me. I'm fine with folks who are honest and consistent (not that I'm all that consistent or honest myself).

I tried to poke around a bit to find out what was written about this tablet in the paper that is supposedly already out there, but I couldn't find it on the net.

Most of the Christian sites are saying just what you predicted -- doesn't mean anything; oh, of course we could have told you that; so someone predicted Jesus before He came, fancy that.

I should probably keep my mouth shut about it since I am just as likely reading into what is in this thing. Gotta keep in mind that there are lots of folks like Achara S. out there whose scholarship is not up to snuff and who jump to conclusions far too quickly.

And the whole thing could be a forgery.

I just like it because I think it makes more sense out of the writing of Mark for me personally -- Jesus being the messiah because he suffered and died.

Like you, I think this would be a great window on that time and place.


ETA:
You know, the more I think about this article, I am becoming a bit angry about it. This is similar to the way that reporters wait for the latest medical papers to be released and write an article about them before the medical community even has a chance to mull over what it might mean. The public gets a partial picture that frequently causes much confusion over time, especially when the papers concern only correlated data and not cause-effect relationships. The estrogen in women's heart disease issue comes to mind. I think I'm flying to Jerusalem tonight. I gotta get a look at that thing. Do you suppose I could take a crash course in ancient Hebrew during the plane ride over?

[cj.23]

Prbly f y br n mnd t's ll wrttn wtht vwls! :) Actually Biblical Hebrew is not that bad, and there are zillions of good guides. The question which arises is why it was written in Hebrew in the first place, not Aramaic?

cj x

[Steelmage]

I think you will find completely the reverse is true. :)
See

:)

Still welcome to the forum!
cj x

Still there is a small problem, for a man to have the effect that Jesus is suppose to have, there is nothing about him written at the time. As far as I know most, if not all the Gospels were written 200 years after his supposive death. There are no sources outside of the bible that confirm about Jesus. For a scholar like Jesus was suppose to be, he never written down anything, which is very unlikely because someone with a message should write something important down himself.

[Gord_in_Toronto]

Still there is a small problem, for a man to have the effect that Jesus is suppose to have, there is nothing about him written at the time. As far as I know most, if not all the Gospels were written 200 years after his supposive death. There are no sources outside of the bible that confirm about Jesus. For a scholar like Jesus was suppose to be, he never written down anything, which is very unlikely because someone with a message should write something important down himself.

Those are fighting words to some people! :D

But to which I will add. Why are we supposed to believe, given the incredibly weak evidence we are presented with today, when the thousands of people who actually met the LORD GOD INCARNATE and saw him performing those fantastic miracles were apparently not convinced? If He had really existed, there would be a H of a lot more evidence. :boggled:

[Dancing David]

Oh, puh-leeze. This rock shows up with NO provenance with something painted on it, a supposed Dead Sea scroll on stone, and we're supposed to take it seriously? The article says it "may" have been found by the Dead Sea in Jordan.

The fact that the message is written or inked on the stone makes me suspicious. The first part of producing any forgery is to get the proper substrate for the period. Trying to erase existing writings from a vellum or leather or papyrus scroll from the correct period almost always leaves some trace detectable by modern analysis. They mention how "rare" inked stones are. Does this mean this is the only one they've found? How many are extant?

Nice thing about inking on a rock is that, well, rocks are kinda old to begin with. They're as old as, well, dirt, so you don't have to do anything to age them to start. Particularly if you can find a weathered stone of proper size and don't have to shape or alter it, then you haven't left any sharp edges or telltale cutting marks that are unweathered. I would be more inclined to take a less-skeptical view if the writings were inscribed, rather than painted or inked.

Well, that leaves the composition of the ink itself, and how it sits on the surface of the rock. Period inks weren't too complicated. I'd guess carbon black, gum arabic, and water would be typical. I have friends who produce their own replica illuminated scrolls, and we're talking the extremely anal types who make their own inks from scratch, using period formulas and materials. Simple matter to produce the ink, then apply on the rock, and simulate age.

All that is really required is somebody scholastically well-versed enough to duplicate the calligraphic style and literary style for the correct period. You know, like using the recently-released Dead Sea scroll texts as a guide?

Nope, this thing just flew in from left field with no previous history. Sorta like the James Ossuary. It's got the fingerprints that shout FAKED all over it.


Beanbag


Location, location, location.

Thanks Kitty Beanbag, you are a wonder!

Considering the rade in relic and fake antiquities that was part of the Crusades this is a very cogent argument.

The provenance is everything.

[davefoc]

Oh, puh-leeze. This rock shows up with NO provenance with something painted on it, a supposed Dead Sea scroll on stone, and we're supposed to take it seriously? The article says it "may" have been found by the Dead Sea in Jordan.

...



It is reasonable to be suspicious of this sort of stuff but in this case I suspect you are wrong. This has a far different feel than the James brother of Jesus Ossurary type stuff.

But I also concur with the general sense of this thread that the importance of this thing to anything is being overblown.

As a non-believer that is interested in the nature and history of a probable historical Jesus it doesn't seem to add much to the mix.

I don't think it adds much to the mix for a religious person either. It can just as easily be used to support core beliefs as not.

It certainly adds very little to the story of what the life of Jesus was like. It doesn't add much to the story of how early Christianity spread. So it doesn't seem like much is added even assuming the artifact is not a hoax to what for me are the fundamental questions about early Christianity.

ETA: One thing that interested me was that it was written in Hebrew. By this time Hebrew was long gone as a day to day language. Even some of the last written sections of the old testament were written in Aramaic. So here's something like this written in Hebrew. Is there anything about the story that can be inferred from that?

[David Swidler]

Hebrew wasn't exactly dead, though. It wasn't the day-to-day language, certainly, but its role was little different two thousand years ago than two hundred years ago: primarily used in ritual, but part and parcel of Jewish scholarship and study. Some of the Jewish literature that came along less than two centuries after this tablet is supposed to originate were written in Hebrew, so a blanket statement that the Hebrew is a surprise is not really so.

[cj.23]

Still there is a small problem, for a man to have the effect that Jesus is suppose to have, there is nothing about him written at the time. As far as I know most, if not all the Gospels were written 200 years after his supposive death. There are no sources outside of the bible that confirm about Jesus. For a scholar like Jesus was suppose to be, he never written down anything, which is very unlikely because someone with a message should write something important down himself.

http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=117203 should clarify, in that in my first post I discuss some of the sources. Jesus was executed c.30, and the 7 authentic Pauline Epistles date from 20-30 years after that, the Gospels 35-70 years after the Crucifixion at best guess, but see www.earlychristianwritings.com for links to sound technical discussion of dating scholarship.

cj x

[a_unique_person]

That is a significant oversimplification. Many biblical scholars actually do believe Jesus existed...the question is what version of Jesus. Some believe that he was just a normal man, others that he was a mythic figure and some do believe he was the son of god etc. Some believe in the Mythic Jesus, some believe in a multiple Jesus amalgamated into one story, some believe in a normal man version etc. Its complicated.

To me, it makes no difference. If Jesus existed it does not make any of the claims in the Bible true.

I think he's just as likely to have existed as the Buddha. I also think both of them would be totally perplexed by what is done in their names today. They Buddha was an atheist, and people pray to him?:confused:

[Nick227]

Numerous interpretations are possible, but, as a literary genre, apocalypses are generally agreed to serve the function of telling people to hold on to the faith in these hard times. I'm not sure how a close reading of a mystical interpretation would work without leaving out large swathes of the account. The message seems fairly clear with a simple close reading, especially when one considers the signposts clearly outlined in the text itself -- the end is coming very soon, so shine it on for a while longer.

Are you referring to the Apocalypse of John? For this one I would consider that there is a fairly consistent mystical interpretation amongst the Christian or Judaeo-Christian mystical schools which study it. There are also parallels in Raja Yoga and other Eastern disciplines where a phase of purgation is undertaken, with the intention of relieving the psyche of negativity. See also the Gospel of Mary, for parts of a similar account.

The setting of the scene and introduction of the seven cities "which are in Asia;" the initiation of John; the sequential opening of the seals (chakras in the East); the resurrection of the false spiritual ego - the "head which comes back to life;" the descent of the spiritual body - the city of Jerusalem.

I would consider the psycho-spiritual interpretation as basically pretty valid and consistent with other schools of thought from different locations, though for sure the text is resplendant with much varied symbolism and anyone would struggle to tie it all in. There are also other valid interpretations, I'm sure.

For me, it seems fairly clear that these layers of meaning are a feature of much early Christian literature, pointing to the likely presence of layers of initiation, consistent with the earlier Greek mystery traditions.

Nick

[Nick227]

As we've discussed earlier, I certainly have no idea what ultimate reality looks like.

Probably looks much like this, but with less identification. Who knows? For me it's just that sometimes I imagine about some "ultimate reality", somewhat inevitably given the layer of consciousness I'm immersed in. There are only questions!

Nick

[Nick227]

Prbly f y br n mnd t's ll wrttn wtht vwls! :) Actually Biblical Hebrew is not that bad, and there are zillions of good guides. The question which arises is why it was written in Hebrew in the first place, not Aramaic?

cj x

Sacred language, dude! 22 letters - 12 singles, 7 doubles, 3 mothers. Derived from the Chaldean Flame alphabet? I don't recall. But certainly 22 was a big number for Judaic mystical schools, one reason being that 22 over 7 was a close approximation to pi. Is there a Hebrew text of the stone online? Did anyone analyse isopsephia or gematria yet?

Nick

[sphenisc]

The religious beliefs that Christians have ended up with nowadays for sure bear little resemblance to those of the first Christians.

Nick

Canyou provide some examples?

[Nick227]

Canyou provide some examples?

You could start with the Nag Hammadi texts.

Nick

[davefoc]

Canyou provide some examples? [of how early Christianity is different than present day Christianity]

Assuming that Jesus existed and that the basic historical narrative of the life of Jesus that has been inferred from the few available sources is accurate:

Jesus was probably a leader of a small Jewish sect. Jewish being the key word. He probably followed Jewish law and celebrated Jewish holidays. The early Jesus followers were Jewish who probably didn't see Jesus as divine. There is not very much information about these people. James the brother of Jesus is believed to have been their leader after the death of Jesus.

One thought is that most of them were killed in the Roman destruction of Jerusalem in 70 AD.

The theology of the early Christians varied quite a bit and might have a wider range than all of Christian theology today(maybe excluding the Mormons). There were lots of ideas afloat. The adoptionists believed that God adopted Jesus during his life and that's when he became divine. For a long time even after the council of Nicea (325 AD) Arianism survived. A core belief of Arianism was that the holy trinity idea was bogus and that Jesus was distinct from God.

Here's some wikipedia links:
Arianism
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arianism

Adoptionism
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adoptionism

Ebionites
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ebionites

[paximperium]

Davedoc,
Did you forget the Gnostics? Poor Gnostics...

[pgwenthold]

That is a significant oversimplification. Many biblical scholars actually do believe Jesus existed...the question is what version of Jesus. Some believe that he was just a normal man,

No offense or anything, but in what way is "a normal man" equal to Jesus?

Yeah sure, there could have been someone named Jesus, and shoot, he might have even been conceived out of wedlock to a carpenter named Joseph. To call him Jesus of the bible, though, is pretty silly, unless he did some of the things that make Jesus interesting and unique. Otherwise it's fairly unremarkable.

[paximperium]

No offense or anything, but in what way is "a normal man" equal to Jesus?

Yeah sure, there could have been someone named Jesus, and shoot, he might have even been conceived out of wedlock to a carpenter named Joseph. To call him Jesus of the bible, though, is pretty silly, unless he did some of the things that make Jesus interesting and unique. Otherwise it's fairly unremarkable.

Come on...a man named Jesus who was a carpenter, born out of wedlock and was a virgin through his thirties, became a rabbi and got crucified...sounds like a normal person to me...better Jesus than his neighbor Bob the Butcher who could resurrect kittens and walk on fire.

[davefoc]

Davedoc,
Did you forget the Gnostics? Poor Gnostics...

It seems to be difficult to pin down exactly what was gnosticism while the Christian theology was being developed. Sometimes the word seems to be used to apply to everything Christian like that didn't become part of Orthodox views. The use of the word covers some religious views that predated Christianity. Sometimes it seems to be used to describe people with very specific dualistic views (and I remain confused as to exactly what that is).

I just reread the Wikipedia article and remain confused about exactly what was gnoticism during the rise of Christianity. At least one expert seems to have reservations about the use of the term. From the Wikipedia article:
Williams argues that the conceptual foundations on which the category of Gnosticism rests are the remains of the agenda of the heresiologists. Too much emphasis has been laid on perceptions of dualism, body-and-matter hatred, and anticosmism, without these suppositions being properly tested. In essence, the interpretive definition of Gnosticism that was created by the antagonistic efforts of the heresiologists has been taken up by modern scholarship and reflected in a categorical definition, even though the means now exist to verify its accuracy. Attempting to do so, Williams contests, reveals the dubious nature of categorical 'Gnosticism', and he concludes that the term needs replacing in order to more accurately reflect those movements it comprises. Williams' observations have provoked debate; however, to date his suggested replacement term 'the Biblical demiurgical tradition' has not become widely used.The Wikipedia article on Valentinus identifies him as "for a time the most successful early gnostic theologian". But I remain confused as to exactly what made him a gnostic.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Valentinus_%28Gnostic%29

I think that your point though, that there were lots of ideas floating around about what should be Christian orthodoxy in the second century AD and Gnostics (whatever they were) were a big part of that is correct.

[davefoc]

Come on...a man named Jesus who was a carpenter, born out of wedlock and was a virgin through his thirties, became a rabbi and got crucified...sounds like a normal person to me...better Jesus than his neighbor Bob the Butcher who could resurrect kittens and walk on fire.

The carpenter hangs on very slim evidence as I recall. He may not have been a carpenter.

IMHO, everything concerning the birth of Jesus was just made up. So born out of wedlock, maybe, but I don't believe there is any probative evidence for that one way or the other.

virgin through his thirties - Unclear when Jesus was born or when he was crucified, but maybe he was a virgin before he met his end.

My point is that almost nothing is knowable about the man. Almost everything written about him in the first and second centuries was written by somebody with the agenda of promoting a religion (controversial writings by Josephus might be exception). I think that the mythicists take that fact to extreme and claim that the absence of clear cut evidence argues for non-existence. The seems incorrect to me. I think there is just enough evidence available to make some reasoned guesses (with big holes) about the life of Jesus. But most of what we "know" from the common knowledge available in our culture about Jesus is not very reliable.

[Nick227]

I just reread the Wikipedia article and remain confused about exactly what was gnoticism during the rise of Christianity. At least one expert seems to have reservations about the use of the term. From the Wikipedia article:
The Wikipedia article on Valentinus identifies him as "for a time the most successful early gnostic theologian". But I remain confused as to exactly what made him a gnostic.

I think that your point though, that there were lots of ideas floating around about what should be Christian orthodoxy in the second century AD and Gnostics (whatever they were) were a big part of that is correct.

Well, the word "gnosis" is from the Greek "to know." I think a possible definition would be that they are those who rely on direct knowledge as the basis of their spiritual pathway, with things like dogma and ritual being secondary concerns.

Orthodox Christianity placed far greater importance on dogma (often paradoxical dogma!) and the apostolic succession and didn't like a bunch of people claiming individually to have be given authority on spiritual matters through gnosis.

In considering how what is now orthodox Christianity came to be so dominant, I think one must also recognise that it would pretty hard to imagine that groups as free-form and anti-authoritarian as the 2nd C gnostics really ever had much hope of survival in Rome-dominated culture. Though if I recall the Marcionites made a pretty good go of it for a while.

Nick

[pgwenthold]

Come on...a man named Jesus who was a carpenter, born out of wedlock and was a virgin through his thirties, became a rabbi and got crucified...sounds like a normal person to me...


Yeah, that sounds like a normal person. It doesn't sound like the guy described in the bible, though, who did things like heal the sick, turn water into wine, walk on water, and raise people (and himself) from the dead.

Jesus, as described in the bible, is anything but a normal person. So how can it make sense to claim that a "normal person" is Jesus?

[paximperium]

Yeah, that sounds like a normal person. It doesn't sound like the guy described in the bible, though, who did things like heal the sick, turn water into wine, walk on water, and raise people (and himself) from the dead.

Jesus, as described in the bible, is anything but a normal person. So how can it make sense to claim that a "normal person" is Jesus?

There are some "Christians"(only in the loosest sense) who take the story of Jesus and remove just about all the supernatural claims from it(ie Jefferson Bible) and just take the "nice" philosophical lessons from it.

[pgwenthold]

There are some "Christians"(only in the loosest sense) who take the story of Jesus and remove just about all the supernatural claims from it(ie Jefferson Bible) and just take the "nice" philosophical lessons from it.

Yeah, but Jesus of the Jeffersonian Bible is not Jesus of the Bible. If the claim is that historians recognize there was probably a Jesus as in the Jefferson Bible, that is one thing. However, that should never be conflated with Jesus of the New Testament. Few (if any?) historians accept that he existed.

As others (and I) have said repeatedly, saying Jesus existed (given the Jeffersonian version) makes as much sense as saying that Paul Bunyan, Robin Hood, or even Dorothy of the Wizard of Oz existed. In all these cases, there are "normal people" who share certain, mundane characteristics with the people described in the books. However, they lack the important traits that make those characters bookworthy in the first place.

[paximperium]

Hey pgwenthold,
You're arguing with the wrong person because I completely agree with you. I'm just saying there are some people with those beliefs...that's all.

[GreNME]

Well, the word "gnosis" is from the Greek "to know." I think a possible definition would be that they are those who rely on direct knowledge as the basis of their spiritual pathway, with things like dogma and ritual being secondary concerns.

Orthodox Christianity placed far greater importance on dogma (often paradoxical dogma!) and the apostolic succession and didn't like a bunch of people claiming individually to have be given authority on spiritual matters through gnosis.

In considering how what is now orthodox Christianity came to be so dominant, I think one must also recognise that it would pretty hard to imagine that groups as free-form and anti-authoritarian as the 2nd C gnostics really ever had much hope of survival in Rome-dominated culture. Though if I recall the Marcionites made a pretty good go of it for a while.

The Marcionites weren't necessarily a textbook example of a gnostic sect, though I do have to admit that I have trouble with usage of terms like "the gnostics" with relation to Christian sects in general terms. Not only was there no definitive "gnostic" defining characteristics between the many schools of thought or sects to whom the term applies, but in some ways their thinking or teachings/writings were somewhat contradictory between different sects. Some of them never came into contact with one another as they were located in different regions-- some in Persia, some in Egypt, some in Palestine/Israel, etc.

I'm just pointing that out because it should be emphasized that not all of these self-appointed spiritual 'masters' were claiming authority, power, or revelation from the same sources. This happens to be one of the larger flaws of people like (Jan) Irvin and (Dorothy) Murdock, who treat these groups as if they were a monolithic entity and not the subset of more than one school of thought.

[davefoc]

Yeah, that sounds like a normal person. It doesn't sound like the guy described in the bible, though, who did things like heal the sick, turn water into wine, walk on water, and raise people (and himself) from the dead.

Jesus, as described in the bible, is anything but a normal person. So how can it make sense to claim that a "normal person" is Jesus?

In just about every one of the threads that discusses the life of Jesus somebody makes this point. It's a valid point but it's also a semantic point that doesn't add much to the discussion, IMHO.

The interesting question for me is how a little offshoot of Judaism came to be the world's largest religion and what was the true nature of the life that that religion is ostensibly based on.

[davefoc]

The Marcionites weren't necessarily a textbook example of a gnostic sect, though I do have to admit that I have trouble with usage of terms like "the gnostics" with relation to Christian sects in general terms. Not only was there no definitive "gnostic" defining characteristics between the many schools of thought or sects to whom the term applies, but in some ways their thinking or teachings/writings were somewhat contradictory between different sects. Some of them never came into contact with one another as they were located in different regions-- some in Persia, some in Egypt, some in Palestine/Israel, etc.

I'm just pointing that out because it should be emphasized that not all of these self-appointed spiritual 'masters' were claiming authority, power, or revelation from the same sources. This happens to be one of the larger flaws of people like (Jan) Irvin and (Dorothy) Murdock, who treat these groups as if they were a monolithic entity and not the subset of more than one school of thought.

This seems right to me. The term is thrown around a lot in the discussion of early Christianity which implies that there must be some clear definition of what gnosticism was. But the descriptions are long winded with reference to a lot of very esoteric terms and in the end it is hard (for me at least) to see exactly why some group was described as gnostic. It might be that discussions about early Christianity would be better served if the word wasn't used at all. It seems like there were many different groups promoting various forms of Christian theology during the formative years of Christianity. Clumping them together as gnostic implies commonalities of beliefs and/or origins that aren't clear.

The situation to me seems more akin to evolution in mountainous regions where many different species are formed because the populations are isolated. In the case of the early years of Christianity books were difficult to produce and it was natural that individual preachers would tend to invent their own theology because they were isolated from other preachers. Of course the individual theologians sometimes had common influences and it is reasonable to talk about what they might have been. But describing them as gnostic doesn't seem to do much to pin down exactly what those influences were. Their groups were small and communication between the groups was limited. As Christianity grew the individual groups began to interact and that is what lead to confrontation and eventually a reduction in the theological differences.

[Darth Rotor]

So a newly discovered ancient tablet that predates the supposed birth of Jesus has brought to light that the idea of a suffering messiah that is killed and resurrected is not original to Christianity but has its roots in older Jewish traditions.

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/07/06/world/middleeast/06stone.html?_r=1&hp&oref=slogin

Does this really change anything?
No, it changes nothing, but it's interesting anyway.

How is this news? Are you familiar with the school of thought that Christ fulfilled many prophecies, all of which were standing JEWISH/HEBREW prophecies? (Debating the various points on that is not the intent of this observation, as that's a bit of a derail.)

Of course his role is rooted in ancient Jewish traditions. The Messiah is a Jewish figure, as He fulfilled the role.

@ GrenMe: Nicely said about Gnostics. :)

DR

[pgwenthold]

In just about every one of the threads that discusses the life of Jesus somebody makes this point. It's a valid point but it's also a semantic point that doesn't add much to the discussion, IMHO.

It is NOT a semantic point. It is actually very relevant when discussing "did Jesus exist." How can you talk about whether something exists without clearly defining it? That is most absolutely important in any discussion of "did Jesus exist?: what do you mean by Jesus?

How can that be semantic?

[davefoc]

It is NOT a semantic point. It is actually very relevant when discussing "did Jesus exist." How can you talk about whether something exists without clearly defining it? That is most absolutely important in any discussion of "did Jesus exist?: what do you mean by Jesus?

How can that be semantic?

You are making the point that by your definition of the word "Jesus" no such individual could have existed which I agree with. By your definition of "Jesus" no such individual existed. However the non-religious people who are discussing the nature of an individual that may have existed that was the underlying character of Jesus mythology are not using your definition and that is clear from the context of their discussion. So your point is semantic in that you are arguing that your definition of the term "Jesus" is correct and the definition that was implied by the discussion is incorrect.

[pgwenthold]

You are making the point that by your definition of the word "Jesus" no such individual could have existed which I agree with. By your definition of "Jesus" no such individual existed. However the non-religious people who are discussing the nature of an individual that may have existed that was the underlying character of Jesus mythology are not using your definition and that is clear from the context of their discussion.

I disagree that it is clear from their context. If it were so dang clear, then why do christians keep bring up stupid things like "There is more evidence for Jesus than for any person in history"? When they do that, they certainly are NOT talking about Jesus the Normal Person. Yeah, it's a total bait and switch, but it is facilitated by the sloppy use of the name Jesus.

When Christians see the comments that, "Historians agree that Jesus existed" they aren't thinking "generic person with none of the magic."

[davefoc]

I disagree that it is clear from their context. If it were so dang clear, then why do christians keep bring up stupid things like "There is more evidence for Jesus than for any person in history"? When they do that, they certainly are NOT talking about Jesus the Normal Person. Yeah, it's a total bait and switch, but it is facilitated by the sloppy use of the name Jesus.

When Christians see the comments that, "Historians agree that Jesus existed" they aren't thinking "generic person with none of the magic."

I agree with this mostly. The "there is more evidence for Jesus than any person in history" line is one I find annoying also. Especially when after that line the standard list of fellows that lived long after Jesus is believed to have died that mentioned him or his followers in their writings is put forth as proof of the existence of Jesus.

But, my assumption is that the people that were involved with this discussion on this forum knew what was meant by normal guy and Jesus and if your point wasn't semantic it was at least a tangentially related rant. Not to say that rants are necessarily a bad thing.

[GreNME]

The situation to me seems more akin to evolution in mountainous regions where many different species are formed because the populations are isolated. In the case of the early years of Christianity books were difficult to produce and it was natural that individual preachers would tend to invent their own theology because they were isolated from other preachers. Of course the individual theologians sometimes had common influences and it is reasonable to talk about what they might have been. But describing them as gnostic doesn't seem to do much to pin down exactly what those influences were. Their groups were small and communication between the groups was limited. As Christianity grew the individual groups began to interact and that is what lead to confrontation and eventually a reduction in the theological differences.

Well, that's kind of the case but it doesn't allow for the mediocre communications lines that actually did exist during that time. Communications didn't travel nearly as fast as they do today, sometimes taking days, weeks, months or in some cases years to disseminate, but communications lines existed then.

what seemed to differentiate the Christian phenomenon very early on was the fact that it could spread very fast through a very grass-roots method, with laypersons able to be considered gurus or church leaders. In some cases they may not have even required literate individuals, just charismatic ones. There are obvious examples of literate early church notables, but they don't account for how this religion that had to have seemed weird to the mainstream of that day managed to make its way to Rome within the course of a half-century (albeit among lesser classes, but still existing).

The general historical consensus for the entirety of the first few decades of Christianity is that it saw increases in adherents because it was ultimately a very easily-grasped (good people are rewarded) and had a malleable theological base-- it was able to take on adherents of other religious practices and not radically change many of their views, just the name or names of the focus of worship. We can look at the Pauline letters or some writings from the first century to see that there were cases where leaders of various churches needed to explain to some congregations that their past worship practices weren't "valid" and that they needed to change some things, but overall the theological and psychological leaps weren't huge (especially in Western Europe).


Of course his role is rooted in ancient Jewish traditions. The Messiah is a Jewish figure, as He fulfilled the role.

Well, according to Christians he did. According to Jewish standards, that whole dying thing pretty much counted as a failure. :)

[davefoc]

Well, that's kind of the case but it doesn't allow for the mediocre communications lines that actually did exist during that time. Communications didn't travel nearly as fast as they do today, sometimes taking days, weeks, months or in some cases years to disseminate, but communications lines existed then.

what seemed to differentiate the Christian phenomenon very early on was the fact that it could spread very fast through a very grass-roots method, with laypersons able to be considered gurus or church leaders. In some cases they may not have even required literate individuals, just charismatic ones. There are obvious examples of literate early church notables, but they don't account for how this religion that had to have seemed weird to the mainstream of that day managed to make its way to Rome within the course of a half-century (albeit among lesser classes, but still existing).

The general historical consensus for the entirety of the first few decades of Christianity is that it saw increases in adherents because it was ultimately a very easily-grasped (good people are rewarded) and had a malleable theological base-- it was able to take on adherents of other religious practices and not radically change many of their views, just the name or names of the focus of worship. We can look at the Pauline letters or some writings from the first century to see that there were cases where leaders of various churches needed to explain to some congregations that their past worship practices weren't "valid" and that they needed to change some things, but overall the theological and psychological leaps weren't huge (especially in Western Europe).


Over the years I have been interested in several issues that you touched on here and I would very much like to see what your more detailed thoughts are about all this.

Let me ask just one question here. Who was Paul preaching to? Possibilities:
1. Completely new congregations that had formed as a result of Jesus stories that were sweeping through the Mediterranean area.
2. Jewish oriented gentile congregations that were adopting some kind of Jewish related faith that was arising partially as a result of the distribution of the Septaguint over the previous 200 years throughout the Mediterranean area.
3. Jewish/Gentile congregations that were forming as a result of the long term disbursal of Jews throughout the Mediterranean area and the resulting cross pollination of religious ideas.
4. Jewish sects that had heard of the existence of a messiah and were looking for somebody to tell them about him.
5. Completely new congregations that were being created by the force of Paul's personality.

A comment on your comment about communication. That is exactly right. Communication was limited allowing some ideas to develop in limited isolation from other ideas but ancient religious ideas were swirling around influencing everything.

One specific issue about communication is the connection between Paul and the Gospel writers. How did Mathew and Luke come by copies of Mark? What was the connection if any between Paul and the author of Mark? Did the author of Mark (or a proto Mark author) get inspired to write about Jesus as a result of Paul's work? Or was Mark written in isolation of Paul's work?




Well, according to Christians he did. According to Jewish standards, that whole dying thing pretty much counted as a failure. :):)

[boloboffin]

Supposing that this is not a forgery, it would play into the gospel themes of Jesus fulfilling prophecies. The early Christians are assumed to be the ones scouring the Old Testament for various prophecies to either fit into Jesus' actual life or to invent episodes that then could fulfill these Scriptures. But if there was an extant body of literature that had already done this, then the historical Jesus could have used that as a roadmap for his life, hitting all the prophecies like a skilled video game player picking up all the Easter eggs in his favorite game. What he didn't quite fulfill could be made up by his followers later (like the Bethlehem birth, etc.).

Of course, these would be a spectacular choice for a forgery as well. Either way, it's a remarkable thing. If it's not a forgery, it's an astounding find. If it is, you have to admire the sheer effort involved in putting it together. This isn't just scribbling a few letters on an old ossuary.

[DOC]

I've read only a few posts in here but here is a website that talks about prophecy on this matter in the Old testament. Specifically Psalm 16:10 and Hosea 6:1-2

http://www.themoorings.org/apologetics/prophecy/Resurrection/proph.html

[GreNME]

Over the years I have been interested in several issues that you touched on here and I would very much like to see what your more detailed thoughts are about all this.

Yikes. Well, before anything else let me make it known that I'm not a biblical scholar. I study history, particularly Mid-Eastern history, so once we get much further northwest than the Mediterranean my understanding becomes more scattered and less ancient. My opinions aren't necessarily gospel (pun intended).

Let me ask just one question here. Who was Paul preaching to?

Short answer: anyone who would listen.

Possibilities:
1. Completely new congregations that had formed as a result of Jesus stories that were sweeping through the Mediterranean area.

This seems partially accurate from what I know, but primarily because Paul was more able to "minister" to people more familiar to him (he was a Roman citizen, after all).

2. Jewish oriented gentile congregations that were adopting some kind of Jewish related faith that was arising partially as a result of the distribution of the Septaguint over the previous 200 years throughout the Mediterranean area.

Highly doubtful, IMO. Once he made his highly controversial statements about Christians not being bound to Kashrut (dietary) laws, among other things, I doubt he was prone to be Jewish-oriented and instead used Jewish Messianic prophecy as a springboard.

3. Jewish/Gentile congregations that were forming as a result of the long term disbursal of Jews throughout the Mediterranean area and the resulting cross pollination of religious ideas.

This, along with the first one you list, seems to make partial sense. By the time Paul would have been preaching there would have been a pretty large dispersal of Jews, but keep in mind that he tended to focus heavily on the "it's okay to be a Gentile" message-- not a very orthodox thing to preach in terms of Jewish theology of that time.

4. Jewish sects that had heard of the existence of a messiah and were looking for somebody to tell them about him.

Highly doubtful. Even by the time of Jesus there were already a few other could-have-beens for the Moschiach, and at least one who came later (Bar Kochba) came way closer according to Jewish lore anyway. Paul didn't preach a "maybe this was the messiah" message, he preached a definitive "this was the messiah" message.

5. Completely new congregations that were being created by the force of Paul's personality.

Definitely, at least to some degree.

I guess what I'm saying is that I'm opining that it was an amalgam of the odd-numbered ones you listed, and probably not the others.

A comment on your comment about communication. That is exactly right. Communication was limited allowing some ideas to develop in limited isolation from other ideas but ancient religious ideas were swirling around influencing everything.

A comment on your comment on my comment on... wait. Anyhoo, I really don't think there were many limitations to the level of communication going on. I mean, heck, Paul was writing letters from jail (well, not literally, and Romans were pretty easy on Roman citizens). Several early Christian leaders communicated through letters to each other. Simon Magus-- allegedly another failed Moschiach candidate-- was a respected figure of one of the mystery schools until his supposed "conversion" to Pauline Christianity.

One specific issue about communication is the connection between Paul and the Gospel writers. How did Mathew and Luke come by copies of Mark? What was the connection if any between Paul and the author of Mark? Did the author of Mark (or a proto Mark author) get inspired to write about Jesus as a result of Paul's work? Or was Mark written in isolation of Paul's work?

Based solely on examinations of the gospels that I've read, not only do they all seem fairly separate from Paul's work but they also seem to have been written without consensus between each other. They get dates different between them. Two of the books recite different lineage for Jesus. They seem to focus on different aspects of the overall mythos of Jesus. One of the ways some have tried to reconcile these differences is to posit the existence of some "Q" text that has the basics of each that all were drawing from. No such actual document exists, but considering the number of locations where Christianity sprang up where oral tradition was a staple-- especially when pointing out that the religion originally sprang from Judaism, where oral tradition is crucial-- I'm willing to accept the possibility of some sort of oral story that spread around about the guy in that manner. It would be consistent with the religious roots and would account for at least some of the inconsistencies inherent within the gospels (which were written decades apart from each other).

[davefoc]

Matthew and Luke incorporate large sections of Mark. Mark doesn't incorporate any text from Matthew or Luke.

The current scholarly consensus is that Matthew and Luke were written after Mark and used Mark as source material. The alternative hypothesis that Mark was written after Matthew and Luke and just deleted stuff is an older idea and is generally rejected today for reasons that I don't remember now but they sounded convincing when I was reading about this stuff.

The q document that you spoke of is used to explain the similarities between Luke and Matthew.

Based on those facts I think what went on is that a small Jesus based movement got going in the Jewish community led probably by James that resulted in the dispersal of Jesus stories. Paul picked up on that and exploited the stories about Jesus that were circulating to create an itinerant preacher career focused on growing the Jesus stories into a religion.

The spreading interest in Jesus inspired Mark or the writer of a proto Mark to write down the Jesus stories that were out and about and to add his own enhancements (think Homer). A similar process might have led to a q document. The existence of Mark was a big local success and this inspired the authors of Matthew and Luke to create their own versions. Matthew was some kind of old testament scholar and he used his command of the old testament to add the prophesy stuff into his gospel.

After Mark, Matthew and Luke began circulating there was a strong interest in Jesus mythology and lots of writers got into the game. Most of these guys didn't get their stuff into the bible but the author of John (and probably revelation) did. And the guys who created the fake Paul letters did.

Although, the fad of creating Jesus mythology might have played a significant part in getting the religion going in the long run only the early gospel writers and the early church fathers got their ideas about theology and the life of Jesus passed on.

[Ichneumonwasp]

No, it changes nothing, but it's interesting anyway.

How is this news? Are you familiar with the school of thought that Christ fulfilled many prophecies, all of which were standing JEWISH/HEBREW prophecies? (Debating the various points on that is not the intent of this observation, as that's a bit of a derail.)

Of course his role is rooted in ancient Jewish traditions. The Messiah is a Jewish figure, as He fulfilled the role.

@ GrenMe: Nicely said about Gnostics. :)

DR



As I said earlier, I think it depends on what is actually in the text and its context. Those claiming that this fits with Jesus fulfilling prophecy seem to assume that there is a general prophecy of a suffering messiah who will arise on the third day. I think I may have read into what the analyzers of this text were saying, but the other option -- and the one that at least one of these guys appears to be pushing -- is that this is not a general prophecy of an unnamed suffering messiah to come but a specific prediction about a specific individual, Simon. If the latter is the case, then this is not a general prediction that Jesus could fulfill; if the former, then sure (but this is also not scripture but apocrypha at best, if not a forgery). It is probably senseless for us to conjecture on a text that we cannot examine.

[Almo]

It means that a Jesus type character was on peoples minds for a long time and almost certainly written about, discussed, embellished, long before the gospels were made up.

Hence his appearance.

[GreNME]

Matthew and Luke incorporate large sections of Mark. Mark doesn't incorporate any text from Matthew or Luke.

The current scholarly consensus is that Matthew and Luke were written after Mark and used Mark as source material. The alternative hypothesis that Mark was written after Matthew and Luke and just deleted stuff is an older idea and is generally rejected today for reasons that I don't remember now but they sounded convincing when I was reading about this stuff.

The q document that you spoke of is used to explain the similarities between Luke and Matthew.

My mistake, you are right about the Q document (see? not a biblical scholar :) ). I can buy the other gospels in the bible using Mark as a source, but keep in mind that there were literally dozens of gospels floating around. What I find more interesting is John, which is really the only one of the canonical gospels to affirm (repeatedly) that Jesus was a divine being and not a human with miraculous power. I tend to get that John was probably influenced by Paul's teachings.

Based on those facts I think what went on is that a small Jesus based movement got going in the Jewish community led probably by James that resulted in the dispersal of Jesus stories. Paul picked up on that and exploited the stories about Jesus that were circulating to create an itinerant preacher career focused on growing the Jesus stories into a religion.

Well, this should probably be a given, as according to all we know about the early Christians they were mostly (if not exclusively) Jewish in the beginning.

The spreading interest in Jesus inspired Mark or the writer of a proto Mark to write down the Jesus stories that were out and about and to add his own enhancements (think Homer). A similar process might have led to a q document. The existence of Mark was a big local success and this inspired the authors of Matthew and Luke to create their own versions. Matthew was some kind of old testament scholar and he used his command of the old testament to add the prophesy stuff into his gospel.

After Mark, Matthew and Luke began circulating there was a strong interest in Jesus mythology and lots of writers got into the game. Most of these guys didn't get their stuff into the bible but the author of John (and probably revelation) did. And the guys who created the fake Paul letters did.

Hmm. Plausible, but I'm not so sure. If things played out with the Christian mythology the way they did other things, then the Jesus story probably started out fairly tame-- though if the tablet from the OP is authentic it lends credence to a source of the resurrection part-- and as the group expanded outward the story became more mystical and magical. Those like Paul probably grabbed onto it as a means to draw some consistency (sort of like canonization, but not nearly as aggressive). The authorship of revelation seems to me to be a hate-letter to Rome using Jesus mythology wrapped up in Jewish apocalyptic preaching.

Although, the fad of creating Jesus mythology might have played a significant part in getting the religion going in the long run only the early gospel writers and the early church fathers got their ideas about theology and the life of Jesus passed on.

Actually, I think the early Jewish Christians with their oral histories are what propagated the later Jesus mythologies, probably unaware that spreading the stories to groups and cities where oral tradition was not necessarily so orthodox would lead to differing versions of the Christ myth. Sort of like passing a secret phrase down a line of people and seeing how the final message differs from the original.

[davefoc]

Actually, I think the early Jewish Christians with their oral histories are what propagated the later Jesus mythologies, probably unaware that spreading the stories to groups and cities where oral tradition was not necessarily so orthodox would lead to differing versions of the Christ myth. Sort of like passing a secret phrase down a line of people and seeing how the final message differs from the original.

I'm not so sure of this.

Most of the early Jesus writings that didn't make it into the bible were written after the synoptic Gospels. I don't mean to convey any expertise in them, but I think there is nothing in them that sheds much light on the life of Jesus. They seem to me to be more like Jesus fiction inspired by the Gospels or the oral stories that were being created as a result of the church that was developing around the Synoptic Gospels. If they were really derived out of oral stories dating from the time of the Jesus or at least the Jewish Christians I would have expected at least something in them that would have provided better insight into the actual life of Jesus.

[pgwenthold]

Most of the early Jesus writings that didn't make it into the bible were written after the synoptic Gospels. I don't mean to convey any expertise in them, but I think there is nothing in them that sheds much light on the life of Jesus. They seem to me to be more like Jesus fiction inspired by the Gospels or the oral stories that were being created as a result of the church that was developing around the Synoptic Gospels.

Alternatively, could they have been stories "to set the record straight" so to speak?

For example, IIRC doesn't either Thomas or Judas start out with "this the real story of Jesus"? That would sound a lot like, "There have been lots of stories floating around, and they are unreliable. Here is the "real dope" on this person called Jesus."

[Nogbad]

I'm not so sure of this.

Most of the early Jesus writings that didn't make it into the bible were written after the synoptic Gospels. I don't mean to convey any expertise in them, but I think there is nothing in them that sheds much light on the life of Jesus. They seem to me to be more like Jesus fiction inspired by the Gospels or the oral stories that were being created as a result of the church that was developing around the Synoptic Gospels. If they were really derived out of oral stories dating from the time of the Jesus or at least the Jewish Christians I would have expected at least something in them that would have provided better insight into the actual life of Jesus.

I thought the primary criticism was that they conveyed too much of an alternative point of view on the life of Jesus and as such were eventually suppressed by the Bishops as the Church gained power and a well defined orthodoxy.

[Nick227]

The Marcionites weren't necessarily a textbook example of a gnostic sect, though I do have to admit that I have trouble with usage of terms like "the gnostics" with relation to Christian sects in general terms. Not only was there no definitive "gnostic" defining characteristics between the many schools of thought or sects to whom the term applies, but in some ways their thinking or teachings/writings were somewhat contradictory between different sects. Some of them never came into contact with one another as they were located in different regions-- some in Persia, some in Egypt, some in Palestine/Israel, etc.

I'm just pointing that out because it should be emphasized that not all of these self-appointed spiritual 'masters' were claiming authority, power, or revelation from the same sources. This happens to be one of the larger flaws of people like (Jan) Irvin and (Dorothy) Murdock, who treat these groups as if they were a monolithic entity and not the subset of more than one school of thought.

Yes, "gnostics" has become a generic term for groups that in many ways were anything but generic. I guess all, as far as I know, are connected to a degree in that they all placed some emphasis on Jesus. But there are clearly many others streams of thought, or wisdom, that helped shaped their individual viewpoints.

I read that an early orthodox priest, Hippolytus, made a literary attempt to demonstrate that all their teachings, from whichever group, were derived from pre-Christian sources, and thus not "real Christianity." No doubt Dorothy Murdock would have applauded this but from what I've read few these days are much convinced by his efforts.

What strikes me about the "gnostics" is that they were not really cut out for world domination, due to the frequent irreverance for hierachies and the other usual mechanisms needed to maintain a power structure over time. I think the Marcionites succeeded for quite a few centuries and the Manichaeans also introduced enough structure, and were sufficiently remote from Rome, to succeed for longer still.

Nick

[Nick227]

I'm not so sure of this.

Most of the early Jesus writings that didn't make it into the bible were written after the synoptic Gospels. I don't mean to convey any expertise in them, but I think there is nothing in them that sheds much light on the life of Jesus. They seem to me to be more like Jesus fiction inspired by the Gospels or the oral stories that were being created as a result of the church that was developing around the Synoptic Gospels. If they were really derived out of oral stories dating from the time of the Jesus or at least the Jewish Christians I would have expected at least something in them that would have provided better insight into the actual life of Jesus.

Well, I think here that it has to be borne in mind that mostly they were teachings, reported "sayings of Jesus" or metaphysical stories. Given that these "gnostic" texts were essentially concerned with transmitting the bare bones of gnosis, it doesn't seem unreasonable to me that they bothered little with the actually history of JC, the guy. Of course it would have been great if had:)

Nick

[GreNME]

I'm not so sure of this.

Most of the early Jesus writings that didn't make it into the bible were written after the synoptic Gospels. I don't mean to convey any expertise in them, but I think there is nothing in them that sheds much light on the life of Jesus. They seem to me to be more like Jesus fiction inspired by the Gospels or the oral stories that were being created as a result of the church that was developing around the Synoptic Gospels. If they were really derived out of oral stories dating from the time of the Jesus or at least the Jewish Christians I would have expected at least something in them that would have provided better insight into the actual life of Jesus.

I think you may have misunderstood what I said, or perhaps I wasn't clear in my wording.

That they were either more outrageous, portrayed a different view of Jesus, or whatever differences within them (I've read books on a couple), they still portray exactly the quality I described: having elements of similarity but grow progressively different in certain ways as time progresses.

Let me see if I can describe a hypothetical: The Jews are dispersed from Palestine. A certain group of them tell stories in the places they move to of this guy Josh. The stories say this guy Josh was a stand-up fellow, a hero, and he could have been a king if "the man" (at this point, the Romans) hadn't killed him. The small group of Jews even say that since Josh was so cool, his coolness was passed down to them in spirit, making them feel genuinely healthier, more confident, and definitely more righteous/pious/etc. Some of the non-Jews who hear this story start believing that Josh was, indeed, a pretty cool guy-- in fact, he probably helped people feel that way because he had divine power. So they start telling people (even though they don't have the oral stories memorized like in traditional oral recitation). Some of the people they tell are convinced, too-- in fact, they think it's almost definite this Josh guy was actually the god of the Jews in human form. "The Man" also eventually changes from being the Romans to being the leadership inside of Palestine at the time (after all, some of these new converts were Romans themselves). Rinse, repeat.

Also, add this other guy Paul, who was a Jew and a Roman, so he's got street cred from two fronts. He knows all this stuff and offers all kinds of guidance to all the different cities where these dispersed Jews moved. Some of the cities even have guys who learn to add to the well of guidance and who write letters back and forth to each other, comparing notes. By the second century this has all the makings of organization and is beginning to really come together as a cohesive system of beliefs. The rest, they say, is history.

:D

Now, that's way over-simplified and it's not exactly what I'd call completely historically accurate, but it's close enough to what I meant to describe that I hope it gets across what I was saying better.

[GreNME]

I think the Marcionites succeeded for quite a few centuries and the Manichaeans also introduced enough structure, and were sufficiently remote from Rome, to succeed for longer still.

Yeah, but they (the Manichaeans) were made up of several different schools themselves, some of which predate Christianity and absorbed Christians as they came along. But yeah, you seem to be on a similar track to me on what they were.

[Nick227]

That they were either more outrageous, portrayed a different view of Jesus, or whatever differences within them (I've read books on a couple), they still portray exactly the quality I described: having elements of similarity but grow progressively different in certain ways as time progresses.

I find this a very interesting point, this apparent divergence, because from my limited reading I felt I had noticed a similar effect. To me it does all seem to point back to around the same time and place.

Nick

[Nick227]

Does anyone have a link to an online pic of the stone or rendering of the Hebrew script?

Nick

[GreNME]

No. There is supposedly a Jewish journal which has an examination by two individuals of the tablet, but I've equally had no success in getting an electronic copy of that as well. I'd settle for a print copy, but unfortunately I don't sight-read Hebrew (yet) and thus am having a difficult time finding the edition.

[Nick227]

No. There is supposedly a Jewish journal which has an examination by two individuals of the tablet, but I've equally had no success in getting an electronic copy of that as well. I'd settle for a print copy, but unfortunately I don't sight-read Hebrew (yet) and thus am having a difficult time finding the edition.

I found links to Hebrew transliteration and English translation here http://biblicalscholarship.wordpress.com/2008/07/09/the-text-of-gabriels-revelation/

From briefly looking I see that Israel Knohl, a scholar, seems to be the main guy putting up the "3 days" translation, and that he's also using it to reinforce a theory he previously held. I haven't read anywhere near enough to be able to decide if this is suspect or not.

There are some interesting lines to this "Gabriel's Revelation" anyway. I think around L67 something like the "blood of the merkabah." Sounds kind of mystical! I'm trying to interest some Kabbalists I know to check it out, but no bites yet.

Nick

[GreNME]

I have serious doubt that the incarnation of the Tetragrammaton (YHVH) as displayed would have been an acceptable (and authentic) usage as it appears in that text. On the other hand, the whole text as he transliterated seems to be lacking vowel marks, so perhaps my doubts are unnecessary.

[applecorped]

It's indeed ironic how people attack New Age people for picking and choosing what to believe from religions and faiths... when Christianity and the other religions came about in pretty much exactly this way.

Agreed. Oh, I love Shea stadium.

[applecorped]

Yes, but as the statement on the stone is derived entirely from reading the Old Testamanr prophecies that Jesus is believed to have fulfilled otherwise, it makes very little difference.

Where it is important,a nd why I agree with you, is that it shows the passages of the Hebrew Scriptures (the Christians Old Testament) were being interpreted that way BEFORE Jesus, and hence yes, it would substantially strengthen the Christian case. However we could have rationally deduced this - as all the Gospels writers base their claims that Jesus was the Messiah on his fulfilling prophecy, for it to work and be a strong argument those prophecies must have existed in a First Century Jewish environment. I had simply before doubted owing to the scepoticism of people like Ehrman and Price if the prophecies actually existed in that form - now it seems likely they did.

So a point to the conservative Evangelicals, as I said.

Still, this assumes the tablet is genuine and the dating correct.

cj x

And the interpretation/translation.

[melville2]

This is a very interesting, and learned, discourse. But I have always thought that many of the Christian stories and traditions were derived from earlier pagan societies. I also thought that the messiah thing, including a resurrection, started hundreds, even thousands, of years before Christianity.

Am I missing the point entirely?

[GreNME]

This is a very interesting, and learned, discourse. But I have always thought that many of the Christian stories and traditions were derived from earlier pagan societies. I also thought that the messiah thing, including a resurrection, started hundreds, even thousands, of years before Christianity.

Am I missing the point entirely?

I don't think you're missing the point, but it should be noted that the actual tablet doesn't seem to actually describe a resurrection. The only reference I could find on the claims of implying a resurrection would be line 80, which the translation (the scholar as well as the PDF in Nick's linklink (http://www.bib-arch.org/news/dssinstone_english.pdf) (PDF)) states: "In three days ..., I, Gabriel ...[?]."

The problem is, in looking at the actual Hebrew script link (http://www.bib-arch.org/images/DSS-stone-hebrew.jpg) that is supposed to have been transliterated, that very same line could also read: "For three days ..., I Gabriel ...[?]." The reference and context isn't necessarily clear, and the lack of vowel markers makes it difficult for me (admittedly not fluent at sight-reading Hebrew) to be absolutely sure.

If nothing else, I'd really like to see more academic examination of the writing itself to see if the initial proposed interpretations stay the same.

[Nick227]

I don't think you're missing the point, but it should be noted that the actual tablet doesn't seem to actually describe a resurrection. The only reference I could find on the claims of implying a resurrection would be line 80, which the translation (the scholar as well as the PDF in Nick's linklink (http://www.bib-arch.org/news/dssinstone_english.pdf) (PDF)) states: "In three days ..., I, Gabriel ...[?]."

There seems to be Ada Yardeni's original translation (http://www.bib-arch.org/news/dssinstone_english.pdf)and transcription (http://www.bib-arch.org/images/DSS-stone-hebrew.jpg). Then there seems to be the article (http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/850657.html)written by Israel Knohl adding extras to the transcription and interpretation. It's this article, by Israel, that is claiming connection to the 3 day resurrection.

This is what I've been able to work out so far. It also seems to be the case that Knohl wrote a book called The Messiah Before Jesus previously, and sees that this inscription may ratify his ideas further.

Nick

[GreNME]

There seems to be Ada Yardeni's original translation (http://www.bib-arch.org/news/dssinstone_english.pdf)and transcription (http://www.bib-arch.org/images/DSS-stone-hebrew.jpg). Then there seems to be the article (http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/850657.html)written by Israel Knohl adding extras to the transcription and interpretation. It's this article, by Israel, that is claiming connection to the 3 day resurrection.

This is what I've been able to work out so far. It also seems to be the case that Knohl wrote a book called The Messiah Before Jesus previously, and sees that this inscription may ratify his ideas further.

My, but that is disappointing. In reading that brief article in Haaretz all Knohl does is self-reference or reference the bible. I would have to hear in more detail how he is coming to the assumptive conclusions he is making to be able to give an honest response, but the methodology he uses in that article is very sloppy and can't possibly be indicative of his more academic work.

I hope this doesn't result in Knohl damaging his career through being impatient. He acknowledges the unknown circumstances surrounding the discovery of the tablet, meaning it's difficult to geographically place with certainty. He even acknowledges that the current translations display most of the text in a broken and unreadable (or barely readable) form. Why is he pushing forward so quickly with a conclusion under such circumstances? In most cases where over-eagerness takes hold with archaeological discoveries the final result is not good for those trying to push too far too early. Only rarely is such impetuousness met with success (or later vindication).

[cj.23]

It does look like a possible case of Confirmation Bias to me. :(

cj x

[View from Here]

I would submit that this "ancient tablet" is probably another sensationalist scam, as is clearly suggested by the facts

(1) that no specific information is available on its provenance ("probably found near the Dead Sea" doesn't quite do it for me); and

(2) that no details are provided on carbon dating of the ink or analysis of the stone.

As such, this "news" brings to mind the faked Lost-Tomb-of-Jesus "documentary" designed to financially profit from people's fascination with the "real" Jesus, as well as the larger scandal of the biased and misleading way the Dead Sea scrolls are being presented in museum exhibits around the world, with an antisemitic nuance emerging on a government-run North Carolina museum's website. See, e.g.,

http://robertdworkin.wordpress.com/2008/07/12/the-ethics-of-exhibition-romancing-the-scrolls/ (article critical of exhibits)

and

http://blog.news-record.com/staff/frontpew/archives/2008/06/dead_sea_scroll.shtml (discussion and further links).

As for Bart Ehrman, one must surely question (to put it mildly) his take on the Dead Sea Scrolls controversy. He apparently believes that the old Qumran-Essene theory is "probably" true simply because his personal acquaintances believe in it, even though he's not a scrolls expert himself, and even though the theory has been rejected by an entire series of historians and archaeologists over the past decade. This kind of appeal to the "common opinion" doesn't sound like the type of critical thinking one is entitled to expect from a serious scholar.

See his angry exchange with some of his critics at

http://biblicalraleigh.wordpress.com/2008/07/17/unc-professor-admits-hes-not-a-scrolls-expert-defends-biased-museum-exhibit/

[davefoc]

A view comments on your post View from Here:

I suspect you are wrong about the authenticity. If somebody has faked this, it is a strange fake. It is not clear that there is enough information to make the connection to a resurrection prophesy that one interpreter has made. Without that interpreter's guess we probably wouldn't have heard of this thing and it doesn't sound likely to me that your average forger is going to the trouble of making a forgery without a less ambiguous connection to something that would give his document great value in the antiquities market.

It also looks to be really tough to forge this thing. There's a lot of text that needs to be written with a script and language appropriate for the time frame. How many people in the world could do that?

And lastly it seems like credible people have given this thing a pretty good look and they think it's not a forgery.

Of course, I could be wrong and my gut feel doesn't add much to the discussion but my gut feel is that this isn't a forgery but I am not all that sure that this document really has a resurrection prophesy in it.

Did Essenes create the DSS
It was news to me that there was still any kind of scholarly consensus behind the Essene idea. So it surprised me that Ehrman would have been so convinced that the Essene wrote the scrolls was still the consensus amongst scroll scholars.

I looked around to try to get a better idea about what the actual scholarly consensus was and my sense of it was that Ehrman was just wrong about a scholarly consensus still existing that the scrolls were created by Essenes living at Qumram.

Anyway thanks for the links.

[GreNME]

I would submit that this "ancient tablet" is probably another sensationalist scam, as is clearly suggested by the facts

(1) that no specific information is available on its provenance ("probably found near the Dead Sea" doesn't quite do it for me); and

(2) that no details are provided on carbon dating of the ink or analysis of the stone.

Both of those are so because it's only just recently gotten any kind of actual study. These things take time. It's one of the reasons I mention earlier that I'm not comfortable with the rush to claim this information being publicized is reliable or definitive.

As such, this "news" brings to mind the faked Lost-Tomb-of-Jesus "documentary" designed to financially profit from people's fascination with the "real" Jesus, as well as the larger scandal of the biased and misleading way the Dead Sea scrolls are being presented in museum exhibits around the world, with an antisemitic nuance emerging on a government-run North Carolina museum's website. See, e.g.,

So, the fact that the scholars working on this tablet are in a university in Israel makes no difference to your assumption? Seriously, bringing up sideways accusations of latent antisemitism when the only existing studies of this tablet are from Israeli universities and published in Jewish scholar articles is contradictory, to say the least.

http://robertdworkin.wordpress.com/2008/07/12/the-ethics-of-exhibition-romancing-the-scrolls/ (article critical of exhibits)

and

http://blog.news-record.com/staff/frontpew/archives/2008/06/dead_sea_scroll.shtml (discussion and further links).

Interesting articles (well, blog and op-ed), but nothing new as far as I'm aware. Yes, "pop history" is literally decades behind actual study on many ancient subjects. I don't see how that makes it anti-semitic.

As for Bart Ehrman, one must surely question (to put it mildly) his take on the Dead Sea Scrolls controversy. He apparently believes that the old Qumran-Essene theory is "probably" true simply because his personal acquaintances believe in it, even though he's not a scrolls expert himself, and even though the theory has been rejected by an entire series of historians and archaeologists over the past decade. This kind of appeal to the "common opinion" doesn't sound like the type of critical thinking one is entitled to expect from a serious scholar.

Sorry, but at this time the current majority in the field of history and ancient Israel/Palestine still maintain a high probability of a link between the Essenes and the scrolls. Attacking Ehrman personally does not a reliable argument make.

See his angry exchange with some of his critics at

http://biblicalraleigh.wordpress.com/2008/07/17/unc-professor-admits-hes-not-a-scrolls-expert-defends-biased-museum-exhibit/

Your assessment of that conversation and my assessment of that conversation differ greatly. Could you link to something that isn't a blog or a North Carolina op-ed piece (one that actually makes an anti-Mormon comment, no less!) to elaborate on what you're saying?


The authenticity of the tablet is not clear, nor is the actual location or dating of the artifact. Also in question is the translation, for reasons I and a couple others have already pointed out. However, the reasons for questioning this discovery have to do with the actual interpretations being claimed, and since a transliteration and translation have been provided and can be reviewed by a wider range of people now. Currently there are serious questions about the interpretations that have to do with the actual language on the tablet-- which don't seem to support the assumptions being made by Knohl.

[davefoc]

...


Sorry, but at this time the current majority in the field of history and ancient Israel/Palestine still maintain a high probability of a link between the Essenes and the scrolls.
...


I tried to get a feel for this and came away with the opposite conclusion based on a half hour survey of what I chanced upon on the internet. Perhaps you could link to something that supports this idea?

Attacking Ehrman personally does not a reliable argument make.
Yes, the anti-Ehrman rhetoric seemed unnecessarily personal and antagonistic. It had the feel of kookery. But, their underlying claim that the DSS weren't for the most part copied at Qumram seems at least plausible if not the most likely explanation for the available facts.

[GreNME]

I tried to get a feel for this and came away with the opposite conclusion based on a half hour survey of what I chanced upon on the internet. Perhaps you could link to something that supports this idea?

"The internet" is a pretty broad and unspecific distinction. My view comes from published literature on the subject (and more to do with southern Palestine in the late centuries of Rome). The impressions I've gotten over the years from sources not attempting to "prove" or "disprove" any kind of historical Christ or Christianity have been that the Essenes came through the area now known as Qumran and that it's known the Essenes had conclaves all over the place in Palestine, the Sinai Peninsula, and other locations. Whether or not the Qumran scrolls are entirely Essene is still under dispute but to claim that none of them belonged to the Essenes is as wild a claim (or more) as saying that all of them were. Many of these non-mainstream Jewish groups inter-mingled.

[davefoc]

"The internet" is a pretty broad and unspecific distinction. My view comes from published literature on the subject (and more to do with southern Palestine in the late centuries of Rome). The impressions I've gotten over the years from sources not attempting to "prove" or "disprove" any kind of historical Christ or Christianity have been that the Essenes came through the area now known as Qumran and that it's known the Essenes had conclaves all over the place in Palestine, the Sinai Peninsula, and other locations. Whether or not the Qumran scrolls are entirely Essene is still under dispute but to claim that none of them belonged to the Essenes is as wild a claim (or more) as saying that all of them were. Many of these non-mainstream Jewish groups inter-mingled.

Three possibilities:
1. Qumram was inhabited by a group of Essenes that were the principal source of the Dead Sea scrolls.

2. The wide variety of the scrolls makes it unlikely that a small group located in Qumram was responsible for most of them. In addition the available archaeological evidence does not support the idea that Qumram was inhabited primarily by celibate Essenes.

3. There just isn't enough evidence to make good guesses about what was going on in Qumram. Maybe most of the scrolls were copied there or maybe they were stored there and transferred to the caves in bad times or maybe Qumram didn't play a significant role at all with regard to the scrolls, nobody knows.

I thought possibility 1 was the old idea that had been popularized early after the discovery of the scrolls, but modern scholarship tended to not believe it today.

I thought possibility 2 came the closest to a modern scholarly consensus about the situation.

Assuming that possibility 1 is still mainstream scholarly thought then do you know of a source that discusses why possibility 2 is wrong?

[ImaginalDisc]

Just to cloud the issue a little further, there is a fairly well-known mystical relationship between the words "Jesus Christ" and "Messiah." The Greek words Iessou and Christou are usually taken as having numbers values - 888 and 1480. Added together these give 2368. The ratio 888:1480:2368 reduces to 3:5:8, 358 being the value of the Hebrew word "Meshiach."

Wait, was that supposed to make sense? I know this thread has been going on a while, but what does that mean? Are you seriously suggesting numerology has some merit?

[GreNME]

Three possibilities:
1. Qumram was inhabited by a group of Essenes that were the principal source of the Dead Sea scrolls.

2. The wide variety of the scrolls makes it unlikely that a small group located in Qumram was responsible for most of them. In addition the available archaeological evidence does not support the idea that Qumram was inhabited primarily by celibate Essenes.

3. There just isn't enough evidence to make good guesses about what was going on in Qumram. Maybe most of the scrolls were copied there or maybe they were stored there and transferred to the caves in bad times or maybe Qumram didn't play a significant role at all with regard to the scrolls, nobody knows.

I thought possibility 1 was the old idea that had been popularized early after the discovery of the scrolls, but modern scholarship tended to not believe it today.

I thought possibility 2 came the closest to a modern scholarly consensus about the situation.

Assuming that possibility 1 is still mainstream scholarly thought then do you know of a source that discusses why possibility 2 is wrong?

Sorry, I've given the wrong impression. It's a combination of the three. I'm not saying that only the Essenes were associated with the texts at Qumran, but that the heated arguments made that the Essenes were not are not part of the modern historical conversation on the topic. The links given earlier seemed to imply that the heated argument I mention is somehow a valid talking point (and thus dismissing the Essenes almost entirely).

[Nick227]

Wait, was that supposed to make sense? I know this thread has been going on a while, but what does that mean? Are you seriously suggesting numerology has some merit?

Given that neither Hebrew nor Greek had separate numeral systems at the time of the authorship of the testaments, I'd be pretty surprised if it didn't!

Both languages originally used their alphabets to signify both letters and numbers. Thus there was always the possibility to infer equivocation between ideas, or other relationships, through the numeration of groups of letters or words. In Greek they call this isopsephia - wisdom of sameness.

Nick