Archaeologist: "Jesus" predated Jesus

[Suraknar]

I believe most archaeologists consider this a hoax.

Yes most do, not all, but the majority that is not willing to put their own credibility on the line with such a controversial issue of cource do.

To me at least the possibility remains there, but I do understand tha many whose livellyhood depends on approuval ratings would think twice before accepting this as fact. And lets face it, it makes sence from a personal point of view, yet, those reasons are personal, and as such, if taken under consideration, also make the "expert" opinion, not so expert anymore.

Human nature, what can I say, but lets not detract from the original topic :)

[Brenus]

“Egypt (Osirian cult)” Is this one with the black Stone? I always wonder if the black Stone in the Mecca and this one were the same…?

[Suraknar]

“Egypt (Osirian cult)” Is this one with the black Stone? I always wonder if the black Stone in the Mecca and this one were the same…?

Can you be more specific about the black stone? Do you mean made out of Black stone? Usually Anubis is made out of black stone, he was an Underworld Diety. But Anubis's cult was later replaced by Osiris, anubis became son of Osiris.

As for the Ka'ba in Mecca, little is known about it in preislamic history other than it was a center of worship for the arabian polytheism that existed prior to Islam.

The tradition of the annual pilgrimage to the ka'ba is preislamic, and all tribes of the arabian peninsula would stop any conflicts they may have had with eachother at the time for its duration.

[Suraknar]

Ahh..I see.

You refering to the black-stone of the corner-stone, not the actual stone that makes the Temple (since its made out of granite).

Well...that black stone is linked to Isis, who is linked to Osiris because it was his wife and also the one that resurected him.

[Strike For The South]

Since I can not say anything that will change your mind AII due to the fact that your english is better than mine and my attention span is horredously short. I leave with this. You best not be talkin bout my jesus..boy

[Brenus]

“You refering to the black-stone of the corner-stone, not the actual stone that makes the Temple”: I don’t know. This is a reminiscence f what years in University. I remember studying the birth of Christianity and that was for the Roman just a new among the new religions, a new Jewish problem/sect, after the Rebellion of Judas, the Caligula Statues etc… And within the new religion one was qualified as the Religion of the Black Stone. But I do not remember which one (I don’t think it was Mithra, the religion of the Army, but I honestly do not remember…). So if you can give me more information, I would appreciate…

[Suraknar]

I think it is Cybele or Magna Mater, the cult came to Rome from Pessino in Phrygia.

[Sigurd]

I have in my hands the William Whiston translation (1732) of a book called The Works of Flavius Josephus. My copy is printed 1875

Flavius Josephus (37 – 100 AD), Antiquities of the Jews XVIII, iii 3.


Now, there was about this time Jesus, a wise man , if it be lawful to call him a man, for he was a doer of wonderful works, - a teacher of such men as receive the truth with pleasure. He drew over to him both many of the Jews, and many of the Gentiles. He was [the] Christ; and when Pilate at the suggestion of the principal men amongst us, had condemned to the cross, those that loved him at the first did not forsake him, for he appeared to them alive again the third day, as the divine prophets had foretold these and ten thousand other wonderful things concerning him; and the tribe of Christians, so named from him, are not extinct at this day.

Now, I get the feeling that this section of Josephus has been tampered with and some encyclopaedias agree. This is a man who studied all directions of Judaism and chose to be associated with the Pharisees. The canon does give the impression that Jesus and the Christians were not really in a good light with the Pharisees.
This section found in the middle of Josephus’ history concerning the procurator of Jerusalem; Pontus Pilate, speaks of a man called Jesus and connects him with the title Christ and his followers the Christians.

I believe it has been tampered with and as such should be taken with a grain of salt. But the fact that it has been tampered with suggests that something else was written concerning Jesus of Nazareth; probably not favourable towards the Christian faith. I only speculate of course and it is claimed that it was 3rd century scholars that did the editing. This gives an interesting idea of other texts being tampered with.

Considered, Josephus a first century non Christian historian mentions Jesus in a first century text (93 AD).

[Pindar]

I think you missed the thrust of the potential criticism: the issue is that standard scholarly opinion has Mark as the Synoptic text on which Matthew and Mark depend. Thompson's work (based on the review) treats each as independently sourcing to a larger oral tradition. Much of his argument appeals to assumed tropes from Mathew and Mark. If there is a literary dependence then that would undercut his thesis at an early stage of analysis. Thompson does not appear to engage the conventional view. This is problematic.

I think you are mixing up Gospels here, but I get your point anyway. Thompson's answer would be, I guess, that all Gospels draw on previous sources. Besides, scholarly opinion often assumes that the later Gospels draw on Mark + 'Q' instead of on Mark alone. And then of course there is the issue of Paul's preceding letters. I think one would have to read Thompson's book to see what he makes of all of this in detail.

Ahh, I see what you mean by mixed up: I typed Mark when joining it with Matthew when I meant to type Luke. Even so, this apparent failure of Thompson to address the standard position of Synoptic construction, particularly given he seems to reply on the latter dependent texts, undercuts his argument. If one argues C and D lead to conclusion E, but the standard is to see C and D as dependent on B then one would need to engage the alternate standard. If the review is correct, this is a critical failing.

I guess my final point would be the one I started this thread with. There is a process of thorough demystification of religious sources going on right now. What Thompson and many others are doing for Christian sources, Israel Finkelstein and others are doing for Hebrew history and the Saarbrücken seminar and others (Hans Jansen being one of them) are doing for Mohammed and early Islam.

A secular assumption will always lead to a secular conclusion. Choosing one's trope makes all the difference.

[Adrian II]

Since I can not say anything that will change your mind AII due to the fact that your english is better than mine and my attention span is horredously short. I leave with this. You best not be talkin bout my jesus..boy

Indeed, I don't think we are talking of the same Jesus. But I started this thread with an open mind, professing that even if I don't believe in God I certainly believe in the bible.

Lo and behold, as I was browsing the weekend papers I hit upon this piece in the TLS. Now that is the good stuff. Must have that book.

All the form-critical assumptions to do with the role of the early Christian communities in the formation of the synoptic tradition would have to be abandoned in favour of decisive personal contributions by recognized and authoritative eyewitnesses.

Just .. wow.