History 2,000 year old books found in Jordan - new evidence for Jesus?

[SergioGeorgini]

"Maybe the most important discovery in the history of archaeology...They will...perhaps be more significant than the Dead Sea scrolls."

Incredible claims being made about the discovery of books nearly 2,000 years old, claimed to be of Christian origin and possibly made by followers of Jesus. Real or hoax?

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-12888421

(For the 2 people on these boards interested in the history of Christianity. )

 

[JeffDunne]

Philip Davies, Emeritus Professor of Old Testament Studies at Sheffield University, says the most powerful evidence for a Christian origin lies in plates cast into a picture map of the holy city of Jerusalem.

"As soon as I saw that, I was dumbstruck. That struck me as so obviously a Christian image," he says.

"There is a cross in the foreground, and behind it is what has to be the tomb [of Jesus], a small building with an opening, and behind that the walls of the city. There are walls depicted on other pages of these books too and they almost certainly refer to Jerusalem."
Book found in Jordan The books were bound by lead rings

It is the cross that is the most telling feature, in the shape of a capital T, as the crosses used by Romans for crucifixion were.

"It is a Christian crucifixion taking place outside the city walls," says Mr Davies.

With all due respect to the Professor of "Old Testament Studies", it might be best if he left the study of significant archaeological artifacts to scientists and not people desperately trying to justify their relevance.

If you're not careful you might create yet another myth for people to fight over.

 

[SergioGeorgini]

There appears to be a lot of speculation about whether they're Christian or not but I'm more interested in whether or not the relics are forgeries. Surely there would be greater interest in them if they were indeed the greatest archaeological discovery ever, as claimed?

 

[Happy Mastenator]

But is Jesus there riding dinosaurs? If not it's fake

 

[JeffDunne]

This I found interesting.

It is the cross that is the most telling feature, in the shape of a capital T, as the crosses used by Romans for crucifixion were.

Assuming that's true (I'm too lazy to check), wouldn't that mean much of Christian Symbolism is based on a falsehood? I know Christians would defend that with saying the dieing part is the significant part, but the whole "cross" thing is pretty important. Especially those claiming to see visions.

Did god mandate this change from a 'T' to a cross?

 

[MightyFighting]

Assuming that's true (I'm too lazy to check), wouldn't that mean much of Christian Symbolism is based on a falsehood? I know Christians would defend that with saying the dieing part is the significant part, but the whole "cross" thing is pretty important. Especially those claiming to see visions.

Did god mandate this change from a 'T' to a cross?

I was taught in high school that Roman "crosses" we in fact T-shaped. I could have been a simple misnomer, or a misinterpretation of the Latin word crux. Latin nouns tended to have generally broader meanings than nouns in modern English.

 

[SergioGeorgini]

This I found interesting.



Assuming that's true (I'm too lazy to check), wouldn't that mean much of Christian Symbolism is based on a falsehood? I know Christians would defend that with saying the dieing part is the significant part, but the whole "cross" thing is pretty important. Especially those claiming to see visions.

Did god mandate this change from a 'T' to a cross?

Yes, crosses did come in different shapes. The manuscripts that are now called 'the Gospels' don't describe the shape of the cross Jesus was crucified on but it was probably a T shaped cross.

No, it doesn't mean Christian symbolism is based on a falsehood. That statement would be a non-sequitur given the meaning of the word 'symbolism'.

 

[FIGJAM]

The cross is a symbol. Not to be taken literally.

 

[skilts]

Seeing he's been dead for over 2,000 years, of what possible interest to Jesus could "new evidence" be? Or has he been exhumed, yet again?

 

[MightyFighting]

The cross is a symbol. Not to be taken literally.

[youtube]A7CtI8nx1Wc[/youtube]

 

[JeffDunne]

Yes, crosses did come in different shapes. The manuscripts that are now called 'the Gospels' don't describe the shape of the cross Jesus was crucified on but it was probably a T shaped cross.

No, it doesn't mean Christian symbolism is based on a falsehood. That statement would be a non-sequitur given the meaning of the word 'symbolism'.

I wish I had a dollar for every time a pseudo-intellectual threw that one out on this board.

Yes I know the meaning of the word 'symbolism'.

Symbolism in the church would be things like bread & wine. They aren't seen as bread & wine, they are symbols for something far more distasteful. It's not preached as bread & wine.

The cross is the symbol of THE cross. You know, the "Jesus died on the cross . . . " story? The cross is the context of preaching is seen as representing the actual cross. In fact, if there's one common theme across the myriad of christians faiths, it's the cross and the cross story.

So if the cross is simply symbolism, where does the symbolism in the story begin and end? Could it be Jesus wasn't crucified literally, but he was crucified in the sense John Lennon used the word. Or could it be he was banished & put on a boat to some far off land where the people didn't record a thing?

The whole cross thing doesn't make sense to me anyway. To me it would be like hanging a grenade,AK47 or IED on the homes of parents of military killed as a sign of respect. Not sure I'd want to keep seeing images far more graphic than that.


Anyway, was just a random curiosity from an article that told me little other than that. I'm sure others will take a lot from it. Personally, I reckon the description in the article could be describing a public toilet on a map for all we know. He hardly presents a compelling case.

 

[CharacterFirst]

So if the cross is simply symbolism, where does the symbolism in the story begin and end? Could it be Jesus wasn't crucified literally, but he was crucified in the sense John Lennon used the word. Or could it be he was banished & put on a boat to some far off land where the people didn't record a thing?

The whole cross thing doesn't make sense to me anyway. To me it would be like hanging a grenade,AK47 or IED on the homes of parents of military killed as a sign of respect. Not sure I'd want to keep seeing images far more graphic than that.

Its not simply symbolism. The symbolism of the cross represents the reality of what actually happened. That is what a symbol is - it represents something else. The shape of the cross you use doesn't effect what it stands for. Thru history there have been all sorts of different shaped crosses representing Jesus crucifixion.

The early Xians took the cross as a symbol to show how the horrific act of crucifying Jesus was in fact a blessing to all creation as a victory over sin and death. That is why we have Good Friday - what is good about Jesus Death? It wipes out sin and makes the way to relationship with the perfect and holy God, open for us imperfect and sinful people.

If you don't understand the Xian story of the cross and resurrection and its implications, you can't understand how the instrument of Jesus death has become a symbol of Jesus victory achieved on the cross.

 

[Monniehawk]

This I found interesting.
Assuming that's true (I'm too lazy to check), wouldn't that mean much of Christian Symbolism is based on a falsehood? I know Christians would defend that with saying the dieing part is the significant part, but the whole "cross" thing is pretty important. Especially those claiming to see visions.
Did god mandate this change from a 'T' to a cross?

Mischievous!
The cross as a device can take many forms. In Christianity it ranges from the splayed arms of the Maltese, the mediaeval Celtic style incorporating the circle, three-armed Papal and Russian crosses, to Peter's inverted cross.
What the hey!
Then the cross becomes part of Jung's archetypal imagery with the Hindu reversed Swastika, Egyptian ankh, Bolgar cross, all the way to the Neolithic cross.
Christ is also represented as a shepherd, a torch, a fish (from the Greek icthus, (ΙΧΘΥΣ), the initials of the inscription supposedly written on his cross.)
Symbolism was often used as a shorthand visual 'writing' because very few were literate, let alone educated. It still is.
PS
Monty Python actually uncovered one of the more powerful images, the sandal.

 

[The rabbi]

Christ is also represent as a fish (from the Greek icthus, (ΙΧΘΥΣ), the initials of the inscription supposedly written on his cross).

Sorry to be pedantic, but the Ichthys symbol came a bit later for Christians and the reasons for its adoption are not certain.

The inscription on the cross was the claim that Jesus was the anticipated political leader of the Jews.

"And an inscription also was written over him THIS IS THE KING OF THE JEWS." Matt 27:37; Luke 23:38. John has "THIS IS JESUS OF NAZARETH, THE KING OF THE JEWS. John 19:19

You can often see the acronym INRI on a crucifix, furniture, or priests vestments particularly the Catholic church. See the Latin in the second line and you can see how the acronym INRI came about.

 

[JeffDunne]

Mischievous!

Just throwing it out there. Don't know why speculating/asking on such things is seen as a sin.

The cross as a device can take many forms. In Christianity it ranges from the splayed arms of the Maltese, the mediaeval Celtic style incorporating the circle, three-armed Papal and Russian crosses, to Peter's inverted cross.
What the hey!

Yes, but the point you are missing is that they are all symbols of the "cross" Jesus was supposedly strung up on. The cross isn't a symbol - it's part of the story. The bread & wine are a symbol for flesh & blood . . . the cross is a symbol for a cross. I don't question the many forms the cross symbol takes (I don't assume the cross symbols are an accurate representation drawn to scale).

Surely if they could get the details like the inscription correct, then the device would have also received an accurate description.

Then the cross becomes part of Jung's archetypal imagery with the Hindu reversed Swastika, Egyptian ankh, Bolgar cross, all the way to the Neolithic cross.

Well, yes but that's a different issue and takes us on a path I'm not venturing.

Christ is also represented as a shepherd, a torch, a fish (from the Greek icthus, (ΙΧΘΥΣ), the initials of the inscription supposedly written on his cross.)
Symbolism was often used as a shorthand visual 'writing' because very few were literate, let alone educated. It still is.
PS
Monty Python actually uncovered one of the more powerful images, the sandal.

See that sort of symbolism I can understand.

But a torture device?

The resurrection was when he proved himself. That should be where the symbolism is derived. Would make more sense to me.

 

[CharacterFirst]

Just throwing it out there. Don't know why speculating/asking on such things is seen as a sin.


Yes, but the point you are missing is that they are all symbols of the "cross" Jesus was supposedly strung up on. The cross isn't a symbol - it's part of the story. The bread & wine are a symbol for flesh & blood . . . the cross is a symbol for a cross. I don't question the many forms the cross symbol takes (I don't assume the cross symbols are an accurate representation drawn to scale).

Surely if they could get the details like the inscription correct, then the device would have also received an accurate description.


Well, yes but that's a different issue and takes us on a path I'm not venturing.



See that sort of symbolism I can understand.

But a torture device?

The resurrection was when he proved himself. That should be where the symbolism is derived. Would make more sense to me.

Perhaps you are not reading all the posts Jeff?

The cross is not a symbol of defeat or torture or failure etc, but of what Jesus on the cross achieved - victory over sin death, the devil etc. Perfectly good symbol of "success" if you understand its reality and the symbol itself.

The turning on its head of the torture device is one of the great things about the cross of Christ - what people meant for evil, God used for good and his glory (inc. Jesus glory, as you say, confirmed in his resurrection), and our benefit.

The communion elements - bread and wine - are actually sacraments, not symbols.

 

[Pie eyed]

I hate o be a party pooper, but that article says absolutely nothing but could be and then draws from massively tenuous links with texts which have not even been studied yet.
This is typical.

After the "coded" ancient Hebrew is picked over, partially deciphered and then interpreted in the best light as possible a few equally tenuous links will be claimed with zero evidence other than the "scholarly" opinion of the opiner.
And the "lead bible" will never be heard of again outside of Christian forums.

That's my prediction, which if right, I'll be expecting a fair bit of deification for.

Whatever happened to the iron clad proof of the ark from a few years back?

 

[CharacterFirst]

I hate o be a party pooper, but that article says absolutely nothing but could be and then draws from massively tenuous links with texts which have not even been studied yet.

Agreed. Who would believe the Melbourne papers anyway?

 

[Max zero]

So let me get this straight.

When the tablets are studied they *might* lead to evidence of a man called Jesus dying from crucifixion. This means what exactly? The resurrection is true and therefore God is real?

Considering the evidence for God hasn't even reached first base (hell it hasn't even taken a swing yet) I find all the faithful cheering on third base (or even on home plate) rather misguided.

Wouldn't you start believing *after* proof not before? This 'quality' of evidence wouldn't get you out of a speeding ticket yet some are willing to bet *everything* on it. It's not like these people are stupid, Sergio, Character, etc all seem intelligent, well read and educated yet here they are cheering on the invisible space magician.

I just don't get it.

Why do otherwise intelligent people so devoutly believe such an obvious fabrication?

 

[JeffDunne]

Why do otherwise intelligent people so devoutly believe such an obvious fabrication?

Same reason people attach themselves to political parties & ideology regardless of the obvious fabrications. Same with nationalism.

They're all forms of self justification in a lame arse attempt to make yourself feel relevant.

The reality of irrelevance doesn't sit well with intelligent beings.

 

[SergioGeorgini]

So let me get this straight.

When the tablets are studied they *might* lead to evidence of a man called Jesus dying from crucifixion. This means what exactly? The resurrection is true and therefore God is real?

Considering the evidence for God hasn't even reached first base (hell it hasn't even taken a swing yet) I find all the faithful cheering on third base (or even on home plate) rather misguided.

Wouldn't you start believing *after* proof not before? This 'quality' of evidence wouldn't get you out of a speeding ticket yet some are willing to bet *everything* on it. It's not like these people are stupid, Sergio, Character, etc all seem intelligent, well read and educated yet here they are cheering on the invisible space magician.

I just don't get it.

Why do otherwise intelligent people so devoutly believe such an obvious fabrication?

Same reason people attach themselves to political parties & ideology regardless of the obvious fabrications. Same with nationalism.

They're all forms of self justification in a lame arse attempt to make yourself feel relevant.

The reality of irrelevance doesn't sit well with intelligent beings.

Guys, you're letting your antipathy towards religion get in the way of your rational thinking. ADS at work again.

This thread has nothing to do with belief in God.

It's about an archaeological find which may have great relevance for historians.

If these books are as old as claimed, and are of Christian origin as claimed, and are authentic, it will be another source that historians can apply the historical method to in order to determine what happened in the ancient past. That's what historians do, including atheist and secular historians.

 

[JeffDunne]

Would be quicker to quote my first post :

With all due respect to the Professor of "Old Testament Studies", it might be best if he left the study of significant archaeological artifacts to scientists and not people desperately trying to justify their relevance.

If you're not careful you might create yet another myth for people to fight over.

Don't let reality get in the way of good religious rant.

 

[SergioGeorgini]

Sorry to be pedantic, but the Ichthys symbol came a bit later for Christians and the reasons for its adoption are not certain.

Interesting article in the Catholic Encyclopedia about this.

Among the symbols employed by the primitive Christians, that of the fish ranks probably first in importance. While the use of the fish in pagan art as a purely decorative sign is ancient and constant, the earliest literary reference to the symbolic fish is made by Clement of Alexandria, born about 150, who recommends his readers (The Pedagogue III.11) to have their seals engraved with a dove or a fish. Clement did not consider it necessary to give any reason for this recommendation, from which it may be safely be inferred that the meaning of both symbols was unnecessary. Indeed, from monumental sources we know that the symbolic fish was familiar to Christians long before the famous Alexandrian was born; in such Roman monuments as the Capella Greca and the Sacrament Chapels of the catacomb of St. Callistus, the fish was depicted as a symbol in the first decades of the second century.

The symbol itself may have been suggested by the miraculous multiplication of the loaves and fishes or the repast of the seven Disciples, after the Resurrection, on the shore of the Sea of Galilee (John 21:9), but its popularity among Christians was due principally, it would seem, to the famous acrostic consisting of the initial letters of five Greek words forming the word for fish (Ichthys), which words briefly but clearly described the character of Christ and His claim to the worship of believers: Iesous Christos Theou Yios Soter, i.e. Jesus Christ, Son of God, Saviour. (See the discourse of Emperor Constantine, "Ad coetum Sanctorum" c. xviii.) It is not improbable that this Christian formula originated in Alexandria, and was intended as a protest against the pagan apotheosis of the emperors; on a coin from Alexandria of the reign of Domitian (81-96) this emperor is styled Theou Yios (Son of God).
The word Ichthys, then, as well as the representation of a fish, held for Christians a meaning of the highest significance; it was a brief profession of faith in the divinity of Christ, the Redeemer of mankind. Believers in this mystic Ichthys were themselves "little fishes", according to the well-known passage of Tertullian (On Baptism 1): "we, little fishes, after the image of our Ichthys, Jesus Christ, are born in the water".

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/06083a.htm

 

[Wallaby]

If Jesus returns today and follows much the same plotline, will the christian symbol become an electric chair or a gas chamber?

 

[STC]

This I found interesting.



Assuming that's true (I'm too lazy to check), wouldn't that mean much of Christian Symbolism is based on a falsehood? I know Christians would defend that with saying the dieing part is the significant part, but the whole "cross" thing is pretty important. Especially those claiming to see visions.

Did god mandate this change from a 'T' to a cross?

Bit OT, but why do Christians want to see the cross all the time? Wouldn't that be like Port Adelaide making their team logo the number 119?