" These could be the earliest Christian writing in existence"

[bikerdruid]

here's an interesting news bite....
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/mobile/wor...-east-12888421
By Robert Pigott
BBC News religious affairs correspondent

They could be the earliest Christian writing in existence, surviving almost 2,000 years in a Jordanian cave. They could, just possibly, change our understanding of how Jesus was crucified and resurrected, and how Christianity was born.

A group of 70 or so "books", each with between five and 15 lead leaves bound by lead rings, was apparently discovered in a remote arid valley in northern Jordan somewhere between 2005 and 2007.

A flash flood had exposed two niches inside the cave, one of them marked with a menorah or candlestick, the ancient Jewish religious symbol.

A Jordanian Bedouin opened these plugs, and what he found inside might constitute extremely rare relics of early Christianity.

That is certainly the view of the Jordanian government, which claims they were smuggled into Israel by another Bedouin.

Snipped for compliance with Rule 4. Do not copy and paste entire articles.

Posted By:LashL

[Gord_in_Toronto]

What on Earth is the BBC smoking these days?

April 1st is still a couple of days away.

[madurobob]

Well, Pigott is a "religious affairs correspondent". So, he may be prone to a bit of bias there...

[bikerdruid]

i dunno....i think this is pretty interesting stuff.
i find religious archaeology really cool.

[Bikewer]

I read Ehrman's book on the Gospel Of Judas Escariot, which was not only a commentary on this Gnostic text but also on the considerable jiggery-pokery that surrounded it's discovery and eventual exposure to scholars.
Sounds like this find would be very similar in "provenance".....

As well, it's known that Revalations dates to what 200 years after JC? So associations to that text may mark it as considerably newer than indicated.

[Damien Evans]

Originally Posted by Bikewer

I read Ehrman's book on the Gospel Of Judas Escariot, which was not only a commentary on this Gnostic text but also on the considerable jiggery-pokery that surrounded it's discovery and eventual exposure to scholars.
Sounds like this find would be very similar in "provenance".....

As well, it's known that Revalations dates to what 200 years after JC? So associations to that text may mark it as considerably newer than indicated.

The most common date given for the authorship of Revelations is around 90 CE, so roughly 60 years after Jesus death.

[Piggy]

In the interest of balance, here's a skeptical opinion.

My personal view is that time will tell. Either we'll get some confirmation on this or we won't.

But I have to agree with the whiskey-tango-foxtrot when it comes to the code writing.

[Lucian]

Originally Posted by Piggy

In the interest of balance, here's a skeptical opinion.

My personal view is that time will tell. Either we'll get some confirmation on this or we won't.

But I have to agree with the whiskey-tango-foxtrot when it comes to the code writing.

That's a bold prediction!

[Piggy]

Originally Posted by Lucian

That's a bold prediction!

It's not a prediction. It's the current state of the matter.

[theprestige]

Originally Posted by madurobob

Well, Pigott is a "religious affairs correspondent". So, he may be prone to a bit of bias there...

Not really. "X correspondent" is usually just an ad-hoc title plastered onto whichever pool reporter happened to have three column-inches of filler about X.

In some cases, to avoid duplication of effort, the various topics X, Y, and Z will be divided arbitrarily amongst the pool reporters, such that one of them will be primarily responsible for filler about X, and can safely ignore topics Y and Z.

It's a safe bet that Pigott's only bias is in favor of "getting paid to produce filler about X".

[joobz]

Originally Posted by Piggy

In the interest of balance, here's a skeptical opinion.

My personal view is that time will tell. Either we'll get some confirmation on this or we won't.

But I have to agree with the whiskey-tango-foxtrot when it comes to the code writing.

Thanks for the link Piggy.
I was actually shocked by the lead plate thing as well. It didn't seem practical to use,

Also, the strange drift in the report is greatly disturbing. Going from kabbalah to jesus is very strange.

[madurobob]

Originally Posted by theprestige

Not really. "X correspondent" is usually just an ad-hoc title plastered onto whichever pool reporter happened to have three column-inches of filler about X.

You mean the BBC is really just like The Daily Show and they simply label someone "X correspondent" to make it seem more important?

But, well, he does write quite a bit about religion:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/search/news/?q=Robert%20Pigott

My (small) point was simply that a "religious correspondent" might well be predisposed to look at things such as this story from a more credulous viewpoint than, say, an archeological correspondent. Assuming, of course, that such titles aren't just made up.

[JoeTheJuggler]

Let me get this straight--the BBC article with all its "if"s and "maybe"s is based pretty much entirely on an image that seems to some people to be "obviously a Christian image" and the dating and the content of the documents isn't known yet to be from the Christian period at all?

[MikeSun5]

I saw this earlier today... If it really is 2000 years old, hopefully some NON-Christian (ie: neutral) organization will be allowed to research it first. The Vatican isn't exactly forthcoming when it comes to ancient texts they believe may contradict and/or rewrite their beloved Bible.

[Fnord]

Did they find any Seer Stones with these "writings"?



_{(... dumb de dumb dumb...)}

[HansMustermann]

I must say, there is stuff in that article that makes me seriously doubt the credentials of those making those claims.

For a start, the idea that a codex was anything specifically Christian. That's so bogus, it's almost funny.

First of all, the codex evolved out of writing on wax plates by the Romans, and has nothing to do with the Christians, except in a Cum Hoc Ergo Propter Hoc way. That two things appear in the same period, doesn't make them connected.

Even among Christians it only becomes a popular format pretty late, well into the 2nd century CE. Before that, we have framents of Christian stuff written on papyrus scrolls too. And conversely, in the 2nd century, it had become popular with almost everyone else too. Really, there is not enough evidence to make such a claim that something must be Christian if it was in codex form.

Second, and probably more important, let's talk about why the codex format was used.

Papyrus is thin and flexible and can be easily made into strips of sheet of any length. Which wasn't bad at all for a scroll. It pretty much is early paper.

When the Romans started writing on wax plates, of course, they couldn't make a 10 ft long strip of wax and roll it into a scroll. Or not without destroying it. They figured out a way to tie those thin-ish wax plates together in a book, and thus the codex was born.

Now let's look at a book whose pages are made of cast lead plates. Am I the only one who gets the giggles at the idea that non-Christians would have rolled lead plates into a scroll?

[TmoonII]

Would be interesting to me if it's another copy of Judas' book.

[George152]

Originally Posted by bikerdruid

i dunno....i think this is pretty interesting stuff.
i find religious archaeology really cool.

What ?
Faith moves mountains ?
Shovels and trowels do a better job

[PGH]

I've read about this as well and my main issue is the apparent secrecy around it.

They discovered it 5 years ago. Why is this only coming to light now?

Why am I being told what it contains when a simple photograph could let me see it with my own eyes? There are a few photos they've made available but none detailing what they describe. If it's there show me.

[TimCallahan]

Assuming, for the sake of argument, the plates are what they purport to be, that would only prove that there was a guy named Jesus who claimed to be the Messiah and who had a following whose world-view was apocalyptic. This, of course, fits with messianism. This Jesus would be a mortal Jewish would-be messiah, not the Pauline Christ Jesus, god-man.

In other words, this doesn't tell us anything we didn't already know.

[Piggy]

Originally Posted by TimCallahan

In other words, this doesn't tell us anything we didn't already know.

Every genuine artifact tells us a little something we didn't know. Some tell us a good bit we didn't know.

[HansMustermann]

Originally Posted by TimCallahan

Assuming, for the sake of argument, the plates are what they purport to be, that would only prove that there was a guy named Jesus who claimed to be the Messiah and who had a following whose world-view was apocalyptic. This, of course, fits with messianism. This Jesus would be a mortal Jewish would-be messiah, not the Pauline Christ Jesus, god-man.

In other words, this doesn't tell us anything we didn't already know.

I disagree. So far basically we have to take Paul's word for it. An independent confirmation of Jesus would be a major thing.

[TimCallahan]

Originally Posted by HansMustermann

I disagree. So far basically we have to take Paul's word for it. An independent confirmation of Jesus would be a major thing.

Good point. I'll have to concede that this preserved document would certainly add credibility to the idea that the original followers of Jesus saw him as a Jewish messiah, rather than as the Pauline Christ.

[Aepervius]

Originally Posted by TimCallahan

Assuming, for the sake of argument, the plates are what they purport to be, that would only prove that there was a guy named Jesus who claimed to be the Messiah and who had a following whose world-view was apocalyptic. This, of course, fits with messianism. This Jesus would be a mortal Jewish would-be messiah, not the Pauline Christ Jesus, god-man.

In other words, this doesn't tell us anything we didn't already know.

That would give to the "jesus was a human and not a myth" theory much more credence than it has right now, IMHO. *poke at piggy*.

[HansMustermann]

Heck, even as the pauline Christ. There are a lot of blanks in there, that pretty much you have to take Paul's word for it, or trust a much later gospel for stuff that even Paul doesn't actually say. Even just the mere existence of a Christian or proto-Christian group at all before Paul, would validate his claims to the existence of that beyond all doubt, and be really invaluable information.

Not that I expect this plates to be anything but a modern forgery, because, well, there's a surrealistic amount of stuff that just doesn't fit anything we know about that era. But in the unlikely event that it turns out to be the real deal, that would be a great find.

[Nursefoxfire]

According to Gawker (according to the Daily Telegraph):

Quote:

The only thing is, there's a good chance they're forgeries, according to The Daily Telegraph:

Israeli archaeological sources have been dismissive of the find, suggesting that Mr Saeda has appeared "every few years" trying to sell the codices. They said examinations had shown them to be forgeries.

http://gawker.com/#!5787102/possible...quel-unearthed

[CurtC]

There are all kinds of red flags about this. It is written in Hebrew? The rest of the New Testament was written in Greek, and the gospels were written by people who didn't even know Hebrew. The idea that there's a phrase common with Revelation is pretty fishy, since they're in different languages.

Then there's the bit about the open tomb depicted in it, contrasted with the speculation that it could be from very early Christianity. From what I've seen, the open tomb idea seems like it developed a little later.

And the only thing that makes them think this could be from very early Christianity, as opposed to a second or third century artifact, is that the corroded lead suggests it wasn't made recently?

Whiskey-tango-foxtrot is right.

[TimCallahan]

Originally Posted by HansMustermann

Heck, even as the pauline Christ. There are a lot of blanks in there, that pretty much you have to take Paul's word for it, or trust a much later gospel for stuff that even Paul doesn't actually say. Even just the mere existence of a Christian or proto-Christian group at all before Paul, would validate his claims to the existence of that beyond all doubt, and be really invaluable information.

Not that I expect this plates to be anything but a modern forgery, because, well, there's a surrealistic amount of stuff that just doesn't fit anything we know about that era. But in the unlikely event that it turns out to be the real deal, that would be a great find.

I think the Pauline Christ Jesus was created by Paul pretty much out of whole cloth after his having some sort of conversion experience. In his epistle to the Galatians he claims (Gal. 1:11, 12):

For I would have you know, brethren, that the gospel which was preached by me is not man's gospel. For I did not receive it from man, nor was I taught it, but it came from a revelation of Jesus Christ.

He even scorns the idea of his knowledge of Christ coming from the original followers of Jesus (Gal. 2:6):

And from those who were reputed to be something (what they were makes no difference to me; God shows no partiality) - those, I say, who were of repute added nothing to me;

[Information Analyst]

Originally Posted by theprestige

Not really. "X correspondent" is usually just an ad-hoc title plastered onto whichever pool reporter happened to have three column-inches of filler about X.

In some cases, to avoid duplication of effort, the various topics X, Y, and Z will be divided arbitrarily amongst the pool reporters, such that one of them will be primarily responsible for filler about X, and can safely ignore topics Y and Z.

It's a safe bet that Pigott's only bias is in favor of "getting paid to produce filler about X".

You are clearly unfamiliar with how the BBC News Department operates, which is to have individual journalists carry out specific and sole roles, e.g.:

Frank Gardner - Security Correspondent
Caroline Wyatt - Defence Correspondent
Laura Kuenssberg - Chief Political Correspondent

And - surprise, surprise - Robert Pigott has been the Religious Affairs Correspondent for over five years, although he doesn't merit a Wikipedia page yet.

Lower-rung "pool" reporters will simply be introduced as "BBC reporter" or simply by name.

[HansMustermann]

Originally Posted by TimCallahan

I think the Pauline Christ Jesus was created by Paul pretty much out of whole cloth after his having some sort of conversion experience. In his epistle to the Galatians he claims (Gal. 1:11, 12):

For I would have you know, brethren, that the gospel which was preached by me is not man's gospel. For I did not receive it from man, nor was I taught it, but it came from a revelation of Jesus Christ.

He even scorns the idea of his knowledge of Christ coming from the original followers of Jesus (Gal. 2:6):

And from those who were reputed to be something (what they were makes no difference to me; God shows no partiality) - those, I say, who were of repute added nothing to me;

Well, I'm not looking to start the historical Jesus discussion here too I was just trying to say that whichever version it would support, if it's independent confirmation of anything in that myth, be it the belief, the group, the guy, whatever... hey, I for one would be thankful for the information.

[madurobob]

More evidence today that these may well be forgeries:

Peter Thonemann on the Lead Codices

Quote:

The text was incised by someone who did not know the Greek language, since he does not distinguish between the letters lambda and alpha: both are simply represented, in each of the texts, by the shape Λ.

and

Quote:

However, this text corresponds precisely to line 2 of the Greek text of a bilingual Aramaic/Greek inscription published by J.T. Milik, Syria 35 (1958) 243-6 no.6 (SEG 20, 494), and republished in P.-L. Gatier, Inscriptions grecques et latines de Syrie XXI: Inscriptions de la Jordanie, 2: Region centrale (Paris 1986), no.118.inscription reads, in its entirety, as follows,

1 Σελαμαν χρηστὲ καὶ
2 ἄλυπε χαῖρε, Ἀβγαρ ὁ καὶ Εἰσίων
3 Μονοαθου υἱὸς υἱῷ τειμίῳ τὸ μνῆμα
4 ἐποίησεν ἔτους τρίτου ἐπαρχείας

’For Selaman, excellent and harmless man, farewell! Abgar, also known as Eision, son of Monoathos, constructed this tomb for his excellent son (i.e. Selaman), in the third year of the province’.

This is a stone tombstone from Madaba in Jordan, precisely dated to AD 108/9, on display in the Archaeological Museum in Amman.

[Hoppy]

I'm a little suspicious of this. Unless it says that "we are right and you are going to hell if you don't agree" or has an 800# and address to send contributions it's likely a fake.

[Jonnyclueless]

I imagine it's too early to know anything, but I did read about someone pointing out a bunch of spelling errors in them. Something about using the incorrect Greek letters for words.

[TmoonII]

Originally Posted by Jonnyclueless

I imagine it's too early to know anything, but I did read about someone pointing out a bunch of spelling errors in them. Something about using the incorrect Greek letters for words.

I don't think literacy was predominant.

[HansMustermann]

On the other hand, someone who did know how to read and write at all, as to be capable of writing those texts, would be expected to know the difference between A and L. Because, if nothing else, it should sooner or later dawn upon them "wait, how do I tell when to read it as A and when as L?"

[Antiquehunter]

Am I wrong, but if proven to be genuine artifacts, would these 'books' also be the first known instance of spiral binding?

[Kev The Green]

Originally Posted by HansMustermann

On the other hand, someone who did know how to read and write at all, as to be capable of writing those texts, would be expected to know the difference between A and L. Because, if nothing else, it should sooner or later dawn upon them "wait, how do I tell when to read it as A and when as L?"

But, that means whoever made these must have been guided by divine inspiration. Finally, absolute incontrovertible proof that God exists. Since we now know these to be straight from God's mouth let's hope that they don't contradict current Christian doctrine. The Church is going to feel mighty sheepish if it turns out that things like masturbation and premarital sex were actually supposed to be encouraged.

Okay, I suppose the other possibility is incompetent forgers, but how likely is that?

[HansMustermann]

Heh. Yeah, I can see it causing a tizzy if it turns out to be something like, "And lo, Jesus turned to them and said, 'nay, verily I say unto you, my Dad didn't say he's hating all descendants of Eve, He just said unto Moses that he's not much into women, if Moses catcheth his drift. Moses just didn't get the right drift. Which brings me to the other point, the part about stoning gays? Totally not Dad's word.'"

Nah, they'll just file it under gnostic heresy, like everything else

[LarianLeQuella]

I think a big hint to the authenticity is that the finder wants $500K up front for them...

[devnull]

Originally Posted by LarianLeQuella

I think a big hint to the authenticity is that the finder wants $500K up front for them...

Maybe the books are covered in bigfoot DNA.