lee_merrill

Hi everyone,
Well, from this site:

"The microletters (but these are clear and definite as far as I am concerned) LA CONS P.S.QVIRINI are on the line referring to the census which A. Secundus took of Apamea, being sent by Quirinius for that purpose on the Lapis Venetus (Inscription of Venice - still there in Arch. Museum). Quirinius was only consul one time - in 12 B.C. For some it will be a problem since here Greek is mixed with Latin, but such critics will have to blame the original writer of the microletters - I am confident of my reading. (In many places on this text Greek is mixed with Latin, and Phoenician, as well - particularly the sign for year - looks like a stretched out 'K'). I believe that the Lapis Tiburtinus is also connected with Quirinius, contra almost all modern scholars. Is my 'Yes' better than their 'No?' Each individual will have to decide on the best evidence that they can muster - and to me it is the evidence of microletters."

Large cities would always have a building around a spring? Not, say, a garden? The Cananite-Jebusite inhabitants in fact cut a water tunnel from this spring 92 feet through solid bedrock as well, so digging around the spring seems rather short-sighted (the spring was at times even outside the city walls). Not to mention that "another feature that contributed to Jerusalem’s growth and development was its location near the junction of two important routes in the area." ("Cities of the Biblical World," DeVries, p. 199). So it is the location, but it need not be just this spring (or the En Rogel spring in the area).

And as far as excavating the city of David and Solomon's time, "… it is very difficult to recover the ancient city because the site has been occupied continuously from ancient times to the present. Ancient Jerusalem is buried beneath the present-day city" (p. 201).

Well, why not? When a conqueror razes a city, they typically don’t go down and ensure that they also remove the Neolithic layer.

2 Chronicles 36:19 They set fire to God's temple and broke down the wall of Jerusalem; they burned all the palaces and destroyed everything of value there.

Well, it’s Vardaman, not Vandaman! and from this site: “Dr. E. Jerry Vardaman has served for 45 years in the academic classroom. He was the founding director of the Cobb Institute of Archaeology at Mississippi State University (1973) and served there also as Professor of Religion until his retirement in 1994. He is a graduate of Baylor University (Ph.D. 1974), and Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary (Th.D. 1957). He taught Biblical Archaeology at Southern Baptist Theological Seminary for 14 years before joining the Mississippi State University faculty as Professor of Religion, and Director, Cobb Institute of Archaeology, in 1973. He has participated in various Near East excavations – Bethel; Shechem; Ramat Rachel (where Jehoakim built [Jer. 22] “the house of vermillion”); Caesarea: Ashdod, Machaerus (where John the Baptist died) and Elusa (where Hagar was expelled), and is the author of 6 books or dissertations, plus numerous scholarly articles and studies. His most recent research has been in the field of New Testament Chronology.”

So indeed let's avoid making statements that might be construed as conning others--shall we?

Minimalist

I think you have that backwards. When the city expanded to the point that it needed walls (in both the Middle Bronze Age and in Hezekiah's time) those walls were built to provide protection to the water source. Just a common sense approach to fortifying anything. Large scale defenses are built to protect something of importance. A mere village would not meet that criteria.

It could have sat on 8 roads and had an international airport and without water everyone would have died and the caravans would have looked for someplace where they could water their camels. You are putting the cart before the horse.

Grasping at straws. We have remains from Hezekiah's Jerusalem and the Middle Bronze Age city. Your conqueror's were thus very selective in what they chose to destory? I actually had one Fundie who bitched that 'god' got rid of the evidence as a test of 'faith.' As absurd as that claim sounds, it has as much validity as the "selective conqueror" theory.

Again, they took the time to dig down and obliterate "David's Jerusalem" but not Hezekiah's? One would think that the Babylonians would have had more important things to do with their time?

I apologize for the misspelling. I assume you have never misspelled a word? From Richard Carrier's Essay on the Nativity:

http://www.infidels.org/library/mode....html#Vardaman

Which is lengthy but pretty much dismisses the coins.

And, btw, this:

Quote:

Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary

is not much of a recommendation. Were he still alive he'd probably be on the board of the Creation Museum. Far too much of early archaeology was put forward by bible-thumpers who interpreted every rock they found as something that Moses had pissed on. They set an absurd standard which has taken generations to overturn.

I still see Fundie web sites which trumpet the antiquated claims of Albright, Robertson and Garstang among others. I wonder if they would be so quick to consult a doctor who based his treatments on 1920's medical texts?

lee_merrill

The spring was it seems outside the walls in David's time! That's how he got into the city, through the water tunnel. It was also apparently outside in the Canaanite-Jebusite era.

Just my point, actually, one spring is not going to support an extensive city, so digging around just that place would appear to be rather short-sighted.

What is left of Hezekiah's Jerusalem, though? From what I have heard, not very much that they know of.

And the Babylonian conquest, this was the only one because we know of no others? Do I hear another argument from silence coming? But we do know of others...

The points cannot be succinctly summarized here? This might indicate a lack of cogency in the argument, "See this web site, it refutes you!" I hear a lot, yet when someone has a refutation over there around the corner somewhere I really don't expect, well, that they do.

And Southwestern is an accredited seminary, and they have real scholars there, strange though it may seem.

jeffevnz

Assuming for the moment that the name Jesus came from a common Hebrew or Aramaic name, such as Yeshua, would the fact that he had a common human name argue at all against mythicism?

It seems to me (and correct me if I'm wrong about this) that Gods and, in particular, deities of the mystery cults to which Christianity is often compared, seldom, if ever, have human names. Now (and correct me if I'm wrong about this too), one of the common MJ arguments is that the early Christians didn't even view Jesus as a recent, historical person. The fact that Paul's first few letters apparently never discuss Jesus in earthly terms is cited to support this.

Well, if Paul (and the other early Christians he was writing to) referred to their Messiah by a common human name, wouldn't that at least suggest that they thought of him as a historical person? Imagine finding a cult that worshipped a deity called "Steve". Wouldn't your gut reaction be that Steve was an actual human being, or that they thought of him as such? While far from being evidence that an HJ existed, this seems to counter an MJ argument.

I'd be honored if some of the more knowledgable people around here would render an opinion on this.

Amaleq13

Probably not given that the name means "God's salvation".

Gooch's dad

How utterly bizarre. I'll go ahead and clear this up for the sake of the lurkers, I know that most participants in this thread have already seen how irrelevant your comments are.

Paul never claims to have met the "historical Jesus". He had a vision of Jesus. No historian thinks that Paul met the historical Jesus. You are conflating a "historical Jesus" with "Jesus Christ". Only fundamentalists on both sides typically have this problem. Historians do not.


WTF? I specifically said that I was referring to Antiquities 20.9.1. I made no mention whatsoever of the Testimonium, which you proceed to quote. It would be difficult for you to discredit yourself more fully from speaking on the HJ/MJ subject, than by what you have done in confusing these two passages.


This has absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with the historicity of Jesus as a person. Jesus=/=Christianity, in case you don't realize that.


Why is a writer as late as Irenaeus relevant to support the idea of a mythical Jesus, when a writer as late as Hegesippus is scorned as being irrelevant for supporting a historical Jesus?

RSM

Tacitus does not say that Jesus was crucified under Pilate. He only says that there are people in his juridiction who believe this. That is not a personal statement at all; it's a statement about the beliefs of the people in his jurisdiction.

Okay, I have only ever seen it in English translation. I don't know what it says in the original Latin that Tacitus would have written in.

RSM

[QUOTE=Zeichman;4500345]It's interesting to see reference to Bill Arnal. His dad was my church history prof. The dad is a Christian but about as far left as you can go and still be considered an orthodox Christian.

aa5874

That is my point, Paul cannot help in resolving the historicity or non-historicity of Jesus. God knows. And Paul clearly confirms your admission.


Without the TF, the passage in 20.9.1 is arbitrary, and if the TF is a forgery, then any reference to 'Christ' must be suspect.


That's for you to resolve. If Christians, as early as the 2nd century, could not determine whether Jesus was real or not, and some Christians like Marcion even rejected the books called Matthew, Mark, John and much of Luke and even claimed that Jesus was not from the God of Jews and was not born at all, then these facts do put the historicity of Jesus in doubt.

Chris Weimer

I don't know which translation you read, but it definitely says that Christ did suffer the ultimate penalty by Pilate, not merely that people believe.