RE: Did Jesus Christ exist as a historical human or was he a theological construct?
May 20, 2010 at 10:07 pm
If you'd like to see for yourself.
http://www.textexcavation.com/priestlyco...ption.html
First off, the inscription is in Hebrew, not Aramaic. That again is the kind of thing that I would expect Strange to know and he well might, because the original source for the quote is a 16 year old jesus freak who hasn't shown a great affinity for facts himself.
The inscription itself is on a smashed piece of marble which itself dates to the 3d century and the (probable) construction of a synagogue in Caesarea which (probably) makes a reference to Nazareth and the town certainly existed by that time.
The Franciscan order of Monks has had a monopoly on the site which is up on the hillside. What they have found has been underwhelming. In essence, a handful of pottery shards from oil lamps which may have illuminated tombs for the workmen who were carving them out of the limestone. There was no city located there in the first century.
Well....you can find all you want to know about dishonest monks, here.
http://www.nazarethmyth.info/
Your second point strikes me as odd. Surely you know that everyone has the same "evidence." It is the interpretation of that evidence that breaks down along ideological lines. In the early 20th century it was common for virtually every find to be attached to some bible story. The reason for this was quite simple. Those"archaeologists" were either funded by churches or were conducted by preachers with the proverbial 'bible in one hand and a spade in the other.' I'll accept your word that you don't know much about this stuff so perhaps you are merely being naive. There is still some of this 'bible-first' archaeology being done today but the people who do it have been marginalized by the Israel Antiquities Authority.
I would suggest you take a little time to read "The Bible Unearthed" by Israel Finkelstein. It's archaeology written for laymen and Finkelstein calls himself a "centrist" on the issue of when was the bible written but it is still a useful recap of the last 30 years of archaeology. A 30 year period which has seen the carefully constructed house of cards of "biblical archaeology" come crashing down much to the chagrin of the bible thumpers.
http://www.textexcavation.com/priestlyco...ption.html
Quote:Three fragments of a Hebrew inscription on a marble slab have been discovered at Caesarea. Fragments 1 and 2 were found in 1962 in controlled excavations near the remains of the synagogue. Fragment 3 was discovered some years earlier, and was photographed but has since disappeared. It is probable but not certain that they all came from the same physical inscription.
Fragment 1 has the putative mention of Nazareth; it was dated by Professor N. Avigad to the 3rd or 4th century (presumably on paleographic grounds).
First off, the inscription is in Hebrew, not Aramaic. That again is the kind of thing that I would expect Strange to know and he well might, because the original source for the quote is a 16 year old jesus freak who hasn't shown a great affinity for facts himself.
The inscription itself is on a smashed piece of marble which itself dates to the 3d century and the (probable) construction of a synagogue in Caesarea which (probably) makes a reference to Nazareth and the town certainly existed by that time.
The Franciscan order of Monks has had a monopoly on the site which is up on the hillside. What they have found has been underwhelming. In essence, a handful of pottery shards from oil lamps which may have illuminated tombs for the workmen who were carving them out of the limestone. There was no city located there in the first century.
Well....you can find all you want to know about dishonest monks, here.
http://www.nazarethmyth.info/
Your second point strikes me as odd. Surely you know that everyone has the same "evidence." It is the interpretation of that evidence that breaks down along ideological lines. In the early 20th century it was common for virtually every find to be attached to some bible story. The reason for this was quite simple. Those"archaeologists" were either funded by churches or were conducted by preachers with the proverbial 'bible in one hand and a spade in the other.' I'll accept your word that you don't know much about this stuff so perhaps you are merely being naive. There is still some of this 'bible-first' archaeology being done today but the people who do it have been marginalized by the Israel Antiquities Authority.
I would suggest you take a little time to read "The Bible Unearthed" by Israel Finkelstein. It's archaeology written for laymen and Finkelstein calls himself a "centrist" on the issue of when was the bible written but it is still a useful recap of the last 30 years of archaeology. A 30 year period which has seen the carefully constructed house of cards of "biblical archaeology" come crashing down much to the chagrin of the bible thumpers.
