Tablet Ignites Debate on Messiah and Resurrection

[Achilles]

Note: frankly, I think the headline is a bit of a herring, considering that the article itself points out that this is merely just another piece of evidence for an existing argument. Anyway...

 

Link to full article

JERUSALEM — A three-foot-tall tablet with 87 lines of Hebrew that scholars believe dates from the decades just before the birth of Jesus is causing a quiet stir in biblical and archaeological circles, especially because it may speak of a messiah who will rise from the dead after three days.

 

If such a messianic description really is there, it will contribute to a developing re-evaluation of both popular and scholarly views of Jesus, since it suggests that the story of his death and resurrection was not unique but part of a recognized Jewish tradition at the time.

Not just Jewish tradition, but almost every pagan religion as well.

 

Skipping ahead:

Daniel Boyarin, a professor of Talmudic culture at the University of California at Berkeley, said that the stone was part of a growing body of evidence suggesting that Jesus could be best understood through a close reading of the Jewish history of his day.

Like the book of Isaiah?

 

I also thought that the last couple of paragraph were particularly interesting:

Mr. Knohl said that it was less important whether Simon was the messiah of the stone than the fact that it strongly suggested that a savior who died and rose after three days was an established concept at the time of Jesus. He notes that in the Gospels, Jesus makes numerous predictions of his suffering and New Testament scholars say such predictions must have been written in by later followers because there was no such idea present in his day.

 

But there was, he said, and “Gabriel’s Revelation” shows it.

 

“His mission is that he has to be put to death by the Romans to suffer so his blood will be the sign for redemption to come,” Mr. Knohl said. “This is the sign of the son of Joseph. This is the conscious view of Jesus himself. This gives the Last Supper an absolutely different meaning. To shed blood is not for the sins of people but to bring redemption to Israel.”

[Jae Onasi]

So, if you think Jesus is fake, you don't have anything to worry about, and this whole discussion theoretically for you is moot.

 

I'm not sure why this would be surprising in Biblical circles--a lot of the Old Testament looks forward to a Messiah. That this concept exists outside of the Bible is no surprise. Also, as noted above that Jesus is best understood through a close reading of Jewish history--Jesus was Jewish, after all. Of course it's going to help understanding Him if one is also familiar with the history, culture, and even geography of the area at that time. Trying to understand Jesus without knowing about the relevant history is like trying to understand Soviet Russia without knowing anything about Communism.

[Achilles]

So, if you think Jesus is fake, you don't have anything to worry about,

Worry?

 

and this whole discussion theoretically for you is moot.

Since I'm stuck on the same planet with 2 billion believers, I wouldn't say it's moot in the slightest

 

I'm not sure why this would be surprising in Biblical circles--a lot of the Old Testament looks forward to a Messiah. That this concept exists outside of the Bible is no surprise. Also, as noted above that Jesus is best understood through a close reading of Jewish history--Jesus was Jewish, after all. Of course it's going to help understanding Him if one is also familiar with the history, culture, and even geography of the area at that time. Trying to understand Jesus without knowing about the relevant history is like trying to understand Soviet Russia without knowing anything about Communism.

The point is that many christians think that the hero myth of jesus is somehow special or unique. This basically says "not only was it not special or unique in the context of mythology in general, it wasn't even special or unique within the context of the existing religion it was a schism of".

[Totenkopf]

Daniel Boyarin, a professor of Talmudic culture at the University of California at Berkeley, said that the stone was part of a growing body of evidence suggesting that Jesus could be best understood through a close reading of the Jewish history of his day.

 

So much for the ingenuity of the human spirit, nevermind anything divine. At some point, every "new idea" or different strain of thought had to start from someone.

[Samuel Dravis]

In my experience the historical tale of Jesus has very little to do with people's belief in Jesus as God. Were you intending to address the latter, you'd have to look at how they were originally convinced (I'm not sure convinced is quite the right word, really) to believe.

 

Facts are malleable, in a way; very different worldviews can be built around the same facts. To believe in Jesus as God is not so much a fact that can be disproven but a worldview that cannot be false (or true). To change a worldview is a rather difficult thing. I am skeptical that presenting some facts will change anyone's mind.

[Arcesious]

There are no 'true' or 'false' facts, only misinterpretted facts.

[Achilles]

I am skeptical that presenting some facts will change anyone's mind.

I would agree that you are right to be skeptical in many cases. I would however argue that there are many people that are persuaded by facts and logic and rational arguments. To state otherwise might be to suggest that atheism "just happens" and is no more a reasonable position than any other worldview.

 

My 2 cents.

[Samuel Dravis]

I would agree that you are right to be skeptical in many cases. I would however argue that there are many people that are persuaded by facts and logic and rational arguments. To state otherwise might be to suggest that atheism "just happens" and is no more a reasonable position than any other worldview.

There might be a slight misunderstanding here. I mean that an atheistic worldview is often the result of being exposed to facts, arguments, etc. If you're interested in facts then it certainly is better. Note, however, that the religious worldview is very, very often the result of being raised in a religious way.

 

I saw a good quote from CS Lewis about that: "I believe in Christianity as I believe that the sun has risen: not only because I see it, but because by it I see everything else." I don't think that many people are told as children "God exists, because..." However, it's quite natural for them to be told "God doesn't like that.."

 

My original post is about people who are religious in that way. They're unlikely to be convinced because the facts never (for them, at least) had anything to do with god's existence in the first place.

 

So no, I don't think that a religious point of view is equivalent to an atheistic one, at least as regards factual/rational investigation. Of course, I don't think that a religious point of view deals in facts (save tangentially) either, so there's not much competition.

[Darth InSidious]

Since I'm stuck on the same planet with 2 billion believers, I wouldn't say it's moot in the slightest

Do feel free to leave if we make you feel uncomfortable.

[Achilles]

My original post is about people who are religious in that way. They're unlikely to be convinced because the facts never (for them, at least) had anything to do with god's existence in the first place.

Thank you for clarifying your point. It seems that we are in agreement here.

 

I would add that I continue to hold some hope that from time to time some people do become unsatisfied with "answers" that don't add up. Granted the people that are severely indoctrinated from the time of birth onwards aren't likely candidates for this (to your point), however it can happen and not everyone who calls themselves a theist fits into this mold anyway.

 

Do feel free to leave if we make you feel uncomfortable.

Trust me, if someone offered to fire up Earth 2.0 and hang an "atheists only" sign on the door, I'd be the first in-line. In the mean time, I'll keep promoting rational thought to anyone who is willing listen.

[Jae Onasi]

In the mean time, I'll keep prosyletizing atheism to anyone who is willing listen.

Fixed.

[Achilles]

Perhaps you'd like to explain how one goes about proselytizing a neutral position?

[Totenkopf]

Trust me, if someone offered to fire up Earth 2.0 and hang an "atheists only" sign on the door, I'd be the first in-line. In the mean time, I'll keep promoting rational thought to anyone who is willing listen.

 

 

If that place were anything like software, it'd probably be buggier than the original.

[Q]

Perhaps you'd like to explain how one goes about proselytizing a neutral position?

Given this relentless agenda of yours, your position could hardly be described as neutral, Achilles. I mean, how many threads attacking religion have you started in the Senate and here in Kavar's in the past month or so? You've been spreading your message with all of the zeal of Billy Graham on meth.

 

And no, I'm not going to argue with you about this. We would both be wasting our time. Suffice to say that when it comes to this particular subject I prefer to remain irrational and stupid.

[Totenkopf]

Given this relentless agenda of yours, your position could hardly be described as neutral, Achilles. I mean, how many threads attacking religion have you started in the Senate and here in Kavar's in the past month or so? You've been spreading your message with all of the zeal of Billy Graham on meth.

 

QFT

[Achilles]

Given this relentless agenda of yours, your position could hardly be described as neutral, Achilles. I mean, how many threads attacking religion have you started in the Senate and here in Kavar's in the past month or so? You've been spreading your message with all of the zeal of Billy Graham on meth.

You appear to be confused. The position itself is neutral with regards to the question of the existence of god or gods. Therefore, "proselytizing" doesn't apply.

 

My position as to whether this neutral position is correct or incorrect (or rational vs. irrational) is not the question at hand (well, except for where you just tried to make it so by missing the point ).

 

And no, I'm not going to argue with you about this. We would both be wasting our time.

Then why comment? Seems rather disingenuous of you

 

Suffice to say that when it comes to this particular subject I prefer to remain irrational and stupid.

Best of luck with that.

[Samuel Dravis]

Thank you for clarifying your point. It seems that we are in agreement here.

 

I would add that I continue to hold some hope that from time to time some people do become unsatisfied with "answers" that don't add up. Granted the people that are severely indoctrinated from the time of birth onwards aren't likely candidates for this (to your point), however it can happen and not everyone who calls themselves a theist fits into this mold anyway.

Quite honestly I don't think I know of anyone who believes based on or because of the facts, strictly speaking. Interestingly, the same Lewis whom I quoted earlier converted to Christianity not because historical facts convinced him, but because of his own personal experiences with a feeling of joy and that which caused it (I draw this from Surprised by Joy, his autobiography of sorts).

 

I'd have a very difficult time understanding someone who was seriously swayed by the historical evidence on this subject, and if those people do exist they're probably in a rather tiny minority (as I'd expect from that kind of cognitive dissonance). I say this mainly because if they were to base their beliefs on scientific or historical facts alone they'd already be nonbelievers.

 

Of course, this thread is useful to people whom have understood the facts as being other than they are, e.g. that Jesus was alone in his three day resurrection. Even so, a correction on this point is not going to be a tiebreaker by any means, due to the curious nature of religious belief. I do agree it is an interesting discovery, though; religion is as much a part of the natural history of man as any of the many other things we do, and this discovery helps us understand ourselves to a greater degree. "Know thyself" is a command as useful to us as it was for the ancient Greeks.

[Rev7]

I'm not sure why this would be surprising in Biblical circles--a lot of the Old Testament looks forward to a Messiah. That this concept exists outside of the Bible is no surprise. Also, as noted above that Jesus is best understood through a close reading of Jewish history--Jesus was Jewish, after all. Of course it's going to help understanding Him if one is also familiar with the history, culture, and even geography of the area at that time. Trying to understand Jesus without knowing about the relevant history is like trying to understand Soviet Russia without knowing anything about Communism.

QFE.

There are no 'true' or 'false' facts, only misinterpretted facts.

Could you explain a little bit more Arc? I'm a little confused with what you said...

[Jae Onasi]

Perhaps you'd like to explain how one goes about proselytizing a neutral position?

If one argues that they can't know if God exists, that's conceivably a somewhat neutral stance, but basing a worldview on the concept that God therefore does not exist (or, we don't know, so we're going to assume He doesn't exist) can no longer be considered neutral. You either function in life as a theist or atheist, but neither of those are neutral even if the philosophical underpinnings could be argued as being neutral. You've come down on one side of the fence.

Given the types of threads you start about religion and specifically Christianity, and the arguments you make within them, it could be argued that you are actually anti-Christian (and I'm not trying to make that sound like a pejorative or flamebait, even if I disagree with your position). That is definitively not neutral.

[Achilles]

If one argues that they can't know if God exists, that's conceivably a somewhat neutral stance, but basing a worldview on the concept that God therefore does not exist (or, we don't know, so we're going to assume He doesn't exist) can no longer be considered neutral.

If one argues that they can't know if invisible pink unicorns exists, that's conceivably a somewhat neutral stance, but basing a worldview on the concept that invisible pink unicorns therefore do not exist (or, we don't know, so we're going to assume they doesn't exist) can no longer be considered neutral.

Fixed.

 

Are you arguing that the rational course of action would be to act in some manner that is consistent with the possibility that IPUs are real? Or is there some argument from special pleading which makes your particular flavor of belief more valid than any of the hundreds of others that are available?

 

Stating that IPUs are not real is indeed leaving a neutral position (since you are making a positive statement about their non-existence). However I do not agree that living your life aware that there is no evidence for them somehow violates this neutrality.

 

You either function in life as a theist or atheist, but neither of those are neutral even if the philosophical underpinnings could be argued as being neutral. You've come down on one side of the fence.

Not at all. Not accepting a hypothesis because it has no supporting evidence is not the same thing as saying that the hypothesis is false. Because there is no evidence with which a decision can be made, blindly rejecting the hypothesis is just as foolish a decision as blindly accepting it.

 

Given the types of threads you start about religion and specifically Christianity, and the arguments you make within them, it could be argued that you are actually anti-Christian (and I'm not trying to make that sound like a pejorative or flamebait, even if I disagree with your position).

I would submit that it's more "anti-pretending to know stuff that you can't possibly know because there is no evidence". Furthermore, I would also argue that this position extends to topics far more diverse than just religion.

 

That is definitively not neutral.

It most certainly is. My effort to point out that no one knows says absolutely nothing about one claim's validity over another (other than to highlight that both claims would be wrong).

 

I hope that helps to clarify.

 

P.S. you didn't answer the question

[Darth InSidious]

First of all, stuff similar to this turns up all the time. Most of it is fake - convincing fake, but fake, nonetheless.

 

As for Knohl - an unorthodox scholar with an agenda claims that something partially illegible supports his thesis? Surely not!

[Achilles]

First of all, stuff similar to this turns up all the time. Most of it is fake - convincing fake, but fake, nonetheless.

Oddly, the stone is not really a new discovery. It was found about a decade ago and bought from a Jordanian antiquities dealer by an Israeli-Swiss collector who kept it in his Zurich home. When an Israeli scholar examined it closely a few years ago and wrote a paper on it last year, interest began to rise. There is now a spate of scholarly articles on the stone, with several due to be published in the coming months.

Ms. Yardeni, who analyzed the stone along with Binyamin Elitzur, is an expert on Hebrew script, especially of the era of King Herod, who died in 4 B.C. The two of them published a long analysis of the stone more than a year ago in Cathedra, a Hebrew-language quarterly devoted to the history and archaeology of Israel, and said that, based on the shape of the script and the language, the text dated from the late first century B.C.

A chemical examination by Yuval Goren, a professor of archaeology at Tel Aviv University who specializes in the verification of ancient artifacts, has been submitted to a peer-review journal. He declined to give details of his analysis until publication, but he said that he knew of no reason to doubt the stone’s authenticity.

Moshe Bar-Asher, president of the Israeli Academy of Hebrew Language and emeritus professor of Hebrew and Aramaic at the Hebrew University, said he spent a long time studying the text and considered it authentic, dating from no later than the first century B.C. His 25-page paper on the stone will be published in the coming months.

I agree that this doesn't necessarily rule out the possibility that the tablet is a fake. I guess my question is: if this tablet has been around for 10 years and has been examined by multiple people, wouldn't someone have noticed by now?

 

As for Knohl - an unorthodox scholar with an agenda claims that something partially illegible supports his thesis? Surely not!

Indeed. In fact, I think one of the people interviewed for the story went a bit further:

Regarding Mr. Knohl’s thesis, Mr. Bar-Asher is also respectful but cautious. “There is one problem,” he said. “In crucial places of the text there is lack of text. I understand Knohl’s tendency to find there keys to the pre-Christian period, but in two to three crucial lines of text there are a lot of missing words.”

However, I think this continues to be indicative of a larger hypocrisy that I tend to notice in theological circles: one standard of evidence for one set of ideas and another, much more rigorous standard for a different set.

 

I would tend to think that orthodox scholars also have their agendas, yet because everyone is operating from the same play book, critical analysis is limited.

 

My 2 cents.

[Darth InSidious]

However, I think this continues to be indicative of a larger hypocrisy that I tend to notice in theological circles:

This is Biblical Archaeology, not theology - which is, in any case, an area that neither of us are qualified to comment on.

 

I would tend to think that orthodox scholars also have their agendas, yet because everyone is operating from the same play book, critical analysis is limited.

Of course. But I'd trust orthodoxy over the crackpots any day of the week... after all, we don't pay serious credence to, say, creationists or Holocaust deniers, why should we grant such serious credence to the "unorthodox" in other areas?

[Achilles]

This is Biblical Archaeology, not theology - which is, in any case, an area that neither of us are qualified to comment on.

Thank you for the correction. I shall now adjust the barriers of my disdain for hypocrisy to include Biblical Archaeology

 

Of course. But I'd trust orthodoxy over the crackpots any day of the week... after all, we don't pay serious credence to, say, creationists or Holocaust deniers, why should we grant such serious credence to the "unorthodox" in other areas?

I understand that this is your position, however this is not a position that I share. All I care about is the merit of the idea itself, not the source.

[Darth InSidious]

Thank you for the correction. I shall now adjust the barriers of my disdain for hypocrisy to include Biblical Archaeology

I'm not sure that's going to make the headlines - that field is notoriously variable in the quality of the work done in it...

I understand that this is your position, however this is not a position that I share. All I care about is the merit of the idea itself, not the source.

Of course the idea is important, but it must be taken in context. In any case, one cannot, sadly, be an expert on everything, and failing that, as a general rule it is best to follow the experts, no?