Biblical Archaeology

[Mr E]

Sorry-- I didn't mean to step on this thread with another.

2. New Papyrus Published Containing Sayings of Jesus (Sept. 2023)​

A photo from 2012 of P.Oxy. 5575 (the recto). Photo: Ardon Bar-Hama
A papyrus fragment containing quotes from Matthew, Luke, and the Gnostic Gospel of Thomas was recently published in the most recent volume of the Oxyrhynchus Papyri (volume LXXXVII). The papyrus dates to the late second or early third century and is part of the collection of over 500,000 papyri discovered at Oxyrhynchus, Egypt in the late 1800’s and early 1900’s by Bernard Grenfell and Arthur Hunt. The fragment, known by it’s technical designation P.Oxy. 5575, contains small portions of Matthew 6, Luke 12 and the Gospel of Thomas 27. It is the oldest manuscript with text from Matt 6 and the earliest witness to the Gospel of Thomas. The Gnostic Gospel of Thomas is a later, second-century work that purports to contain secret sayings that Jesus gave only to Thomas, and it is not considered an authentic record of actual sayings by the historical Jesus described by the canonical Gospels from the first century.


I love the editorializing regarding the Gospel of Thomas. lol (not considered authentic) -- but the fragments of Matthew and Luke? Authentic!

 

[Wick Stick]

Archaeology is always fascinating, but when it comes to Jerusalem I have a hard time with the dating of many of the finds there. For instance, this article says that they found a villa from 1st century Jerusalem.

Elevator project at the Western Wall unearths an ancient archaeological trove

Old City excavations, ahead of work to improve disabled access at holy site, uncover ornate 1st century villa, oil lamps and a ritual mikveh that overlooked the Temple esplanade

www.timesofisrael.com

But Jerusalem was utterly razed in the 1st century. Not one brick left on another is the how the Bible describes it, and secular history from the classical period agrees that the city was literally erased from the earth.

So what they found is probably Roman construction that came after that.

 

[Mr E]

Archaeology is always fascinating, but when it comes to Jerusalem I have a hard time with the dating of many of the finds there. For instance, this article says that they found a villa from 1st century Jerusalem.

Elevator project at the Western Wall unearths an ancient archaeological trove

Old City excavations, ahead of work to improve disabled access at holy site, uncover ornate 1st century villa, oil lamps and a ritual mikveh that overlooked the Temple esplanade

www.timesofisrael.com

But Jerusalem was utterly razed in the 1st century. Not one brick left on another is the how the Bible describes it, and secular history from the classical period agrees that the city was literally erased from the earth.

So what they found is probably Roman construction that came after that.

Good to see you Wick. Yes, I agree.

If you want to find something older, dig deeper.

 

[Matthias]

“Using a ‘breakthrough’ technology based on measuring the magnetic field recorded in burnt bricks, researchers at dour Israeli universities have corroborated the occurrence of an event described in the Bible’s Second Book of Kings - the conquest of the Philistine city of Gath by Hazael, King of Aram. …”

Israeli research uses Earth's magnetic field to verify event in Bible's Book of Kings

The discovery was achieved by scientists from Tel Aviv University (TAU), the Hebrew University of Jerusalem (HU), Bar-Ilan University (BIU) in Ramat Gan, and Ariel University in Samaria.

www.jpost.com

 

[Mr E]

Not exactly archeology-related, but interesting to me anyways....

The northern part of Israel is so fascinating. It reminds me a lot of southern California, with a small mountain range extending north to south, which becomes a hilly region dividing the land overlooking the coastal area. It's like when I go to my cabin at Big Bear Lake, which I can drive to in less than 2 hours, from the sand at sea level to the ski hill.... with snow in the winter because it's part of a small mountain range with peaks near 8000 feet above sea level. On a clear day, from those peaks you can see the Pacific.

Similarly in Israel, they have a mountain range with snow-covered peaks in the 8000-foot-plus elevations-- Mount Hermon of course, being the highest peak in Northern Israel, it borders Lebanon and Syria. And like my little resort town of Big Bear -- Mt Hermon has a little ski hill, where Israelis go skiing and snowboarding, or just for snow play in the winter. It's very similar, except we don't get rockets fired at us when we are skiing at Big Bear. I digress.

BEIRUT (AP) — Lebanon’s Hezbollah militia fired dozens of rockets at northern Israel on Saturday, warning that the barrage was its initial response to the targeted killing, presumably by Israel, of a top leader from the allied Hamas group in Lebanon's capital earlier this week.

The rocket attack came a day after Hezbollah leader Sayyed Hassan Nasrallah said that his group must retaliate for the killing of Saleh Arouri, the deputy political leader of Hamas. Nasrallah said that if Hezbollah does not retaliate for Arouri’s killing in its stronghold south of Beirut, all of Lebanon would be vulnerable to Israeli attack.

Nasrallah appeared to be making the case for a response to the Lebanese public, even at the risk of escalating the fighting between Hezbollah and Israel. But he gave no indication of how or when the militants would act.

Hezbollah said Saturday that it launched 62 rockets toward an air surveillance base on Mount Meron and that it scored direct hits. The Israeli military about 40 rockets were fired toward the area of Meron, but made no mention of a base.


Here is a pic from the top of Mt Arbel, overlooking the Sea of Galilee... It's a day-hike.



You have to wonder if Jesus ever climbed these peaks as a young man, for fun-- or with friends, just camping out. Why wouldn't he?

Mount Meron, mentioned in the news story above as the target of the Hezbollah rocket attacks, would have been the highest mountain peak one could see from Galilee where Jesus grew up. Folks tend to think of him 'wandering in the wilderness' as some sort of desert experience, but the reality is that Northern Israel is mountainous and lovely.

If you read this far-- thank you for reminiscing with me.

 

[Matthias]

“Researchers have discovered an ancient military base that may corroborate a Bible story about God’s angels fending off an attack on Jerusalem. …”

Military camp mentioned in the Bible was discovered in Jerusalem

Researchers have discovered remnants of the Assyrian military camp site that was destroyed during its siege on Jerusalem. The war is depicted in a 2,000-year-old Biblical story.

www.dailymail.co.uk

 

[RedFan]

What about archeology disproving the Bible? Wouldn't that be worthy of discussion as well?

There's the gospel story about the paralytic whose buddies were so desperate to have Jesus heal him that they scrambled up onto the roof where Jesus was staying, made a hole in it and lowered him down on his bed. Mark’s account of this story, Mark 2:1-12, places it in Capernaum in Galilee – and does not tell us what the roof was made of, only that “they removed the roof above him; and after having dug through it, they let down the mat on which the paralytic lay.” Luke agrees that the miracle took place in Galilee but he is more descriptive of the roofing material; he says they lowered him “through the tiles,” Luke 5:19.

Archeological digs in Capernaum and the surrounding regions in Galilee have uncovered many ruins and remains of houses from the time of Christ, but have found no tile. None. Simon Peter in Capernaum: An Archaeological Survey of the First-Century Village | Religious Studies Center

Could Luke (who was not from the region, and for all we know never visited it) have made this detail up? After all, whether the roof was tile or mud-thatch would add nothing to the theological significance of the story; shouldn’t that significance be the “truth” Luke was trying to impart here?

Some will respond that Luke didn’t get it wrong; the archeologists just haven’t dug deep enough! Even if they were to scrape all the way to China and uncover no tile, it MUST be that they either missed it or the tile all got carted away somewhere during the past 2000 years. But it had to be there originally. In any dispute over even the minutest of details, Luke trumps the archeologists.

I cant agree with this, but wonder who else thinks Luke embellished the story.

 

[Matthias]

What about archeology disproving the Bible? Wouldn't that be worthy of discussion as well?

There's the gospel story about the paralytic whose buddies were so desperate to have Jesus heal him that they scrambled up onto the roof where Jesus was staying, made a hole in it and lowered him down on his bed. Mark’s account of this story, Mark 2:1-12, places it in Capernaum in Galilee – and does not tell us what the roof was made of, only that “they removed the roof above him; and after having dug through it, they let down the mat on which the paralytic lay.” Luke agrees that the miracle took place in Galilee but he is more descriptive of the roofing material; he says they lowered him “through the tiles,” Luke 5:19.

Archeological digs in Capernaum and the surrounding regions in Galilee have uncovered many ruins and remains of houses from the time of Christ, but have found no tile. None. Simon Peter in Capernaum: An Archaeological Survey of the First-Century Village | Religious Studies Center

Could Luke (who was not from the region, and for all we know never visited it) have made this detail up? After all, whether the roof was tile or mud-thatch would add nothing to the theological significance of the story; shouldn’t that significance be the “truth” Luke was trying to impart here?

Some will respond that Luke didn’t get it wrong; the archeologists just haven’t dug deep enough! Even if they were to scrape all the way to China and uncover no tile, it MUST be that they either missed it or the tile all got carted away somewhere during the past 2000 years. But it had to be there originally. In any dispute over even the minutest of details, Luke trumps the archeologists.

I cant agree with this, but wonder who else thinks Luke embellished the story.

Luke embellished the story = Luke is an unreliable writer = what else is Luke fabricating? = all scripture is not inspired = Jesus was mistaken when he said the sriptures cannot be broken.

Will anyone else think Luke “fabricated” the story? Absolutely! “Luke the Liar” will resonate with every atheist heart.

 

[RedFan]

Luke embellished the story = Luke is an unreliable writer = what else is Luke fabricating? = all scripture is not inspired = Jesus was mistaken when he said the sriptures cannot be broken.

Will anyone else think Luke “fabricated” the story? Absolutely! “Luke the Liar” will resonate with every atheist heart.

"Luke embellished the story" I think he did. "Luke is an unreliable writer" As to theologically irrelevant details, yes, but quite reliable on the ultimate message he puts forth. "what else is Luke fabricating?" Hard to say. He purports in Luke 1:3 to be an investigative historian, so a few minor mistakes could easily creep in to his research. "all scripture is not inspired" Sure it is! But "inspired" does not mean inerrant as to the irrelevant details of a story, like the materials used to construct the roof removed to lower the paralytic. "Jesus was mistaken when he said the sriptures cannot be broken" Jesus was referring to the OT in that statement.

 

[Matthias]

"Luke embellished the story" I think he did. "Luke is an unreliable writer" As to theologically irrelevant details, yes, but quite reliable on the ultimate message he puts forth. "what else is Luke fabricating?" Hard to say. He purports in Luke 1:3 to be an investigative historian, so a few minor mistakes could easily creep in to his research. "all scripture is not inspired" Sure it is! But "inspired" does not mean inerrant as to the irrelevant details of a story, like the materials used to construct the roof removed to lower the paralytic. "Jesus was mistaken when he said the sriptures cannot be broken" Jesus was referring to the OT in that statement.

Your testimony that the New Testament scripture can be broken is something else.

”There is nothing so dangerous as to add to the scripture. There is nothing so dangerous as to take away from the scripture. You do either, and you’re wrong.” - Martyn Lloyd-Jones

 

[RedFan]

Your testimony that the New Testament scripture can be broken is something else.

Meaning, something other than what you believe, which is the inerrancy of every word? Or, are you using "broken" in a different sense?

 

[Matthias]

Meaning, something other than what you believe, which is the inerrancy of every word? Or, are you using "broken" in a different sense?

Meaning your witness is busted.

 

[RedFan]

Meaning your witness is busted.

I wonder if our Bibles must have different translations of Luke 1:3. MIne says "With this in mind, since I myself have carefully investigated everything from the beginning, I too decided to write an orderly account." Does yours say "With this in mind, I let God move my pen on the parchment, since my own investigation of the facts would be a colossal waste of time"?

 

[Matthias]

I wonder if our Bibles must have different translations of Luke 1:3. MIne says "With this in mind, since I myself have carefully investigated everything from the beginning, I too decided to write an orderly account." Does yours say "With this in mind, I let God move my pen on the parchment, since my own investigation of the facts would be a colossal waste of time"?

Luke is a trustworthy witness.

 

[RedFan]

Luke is a trustworthy witness.

It’s hard for me to view Luke as the careful historian you make him out to be, given his Gamaliel gaff in Acts 5:36-37. We know from Josephus’ Antiquities that the Theudas incident occurred in 45 C.E., yet Luke quotes Gamaliel – speaking around ten years earlier – as placing the Theudas uprising before that of Judas the Galilean circa 6 C.E. (i.e., at the time of the census).

I’ve heard the theory that there were two pseudo-Messiahs named Theudas who stirred up their controversies 40+ years apart, and Jospehus and Gamaliel were talking about two different incidents (contrary to what we are told by Eusebius, who later wrote that they were one and the same). But that seems farfetched. It’s far more likely that Luke’s source for the Gamaliel speech botched Gamaliel’s actual words. A good historian would have checked his source’s accuracy against at least one other source before putting pen to parchment – and if no other source was available, would have kept his pen in the ink well.

 

[Matthias]

It’s hard for me to view Luke as the careful historian you make him out to be, given his Gamaliel gaff in Acts 5:36-37. We know from Josephus’ Antiquities that the Theudas incident occurred in 45 C.E., yet Luke quotes Gamaliel – speaking around ten years earlier – as placing the Theudas uprising before that of Judas the Galilean circa 6 C.E. (i.e., at the time of the census).

I’ve heard the theory that there were two pseudo-Messiahs named Theudas who stirred up their controversies 40+ years apart, and Jospehus and Gamaliel were talking about two different incidents (contrary to what we are told by Eusebius, who later wrote that they were one and the same). But that seems farfetched. It’s far more likely that Luke’s source for the Gamaliel speech botched Gamaliel’s actual words. A good historian would have checked his source’s accuracy against at least one other source before putting pen to parchment – and if no other source was available, would have kept his pen in the ink well.

It’s hard for you to believe Luke is a reliable witness. Take him off the stand. Who else is it hard for you to believe is a reliable witness?

 

[Matthias]

It’s hard for me to view Luke as the careful historian you make him out to be, given his Gamaliel gaff in Acts 5:36-37. We know from Josephus’ Antiquities that the Theudas incident occurred in 45 C.E., yet Luke quotes Gamaliel – speaking around ten years earlier – as placing the Theudas uprising before that of Judas the Galilean circa 6 C.E. (i.e., at the time of the census).

I’ve heard the theory that there were two pseudo-Messiahs named Theudas who stirred up their controversies 40+ years apart, and Jospehus and Gamaliel were talking about two different incidents (contrary to what we are told by Eusebius, who later wrote that they were one and the same). But that seems farfetched. It’s far more likely that Luke’s source for the Gamaliel speech botched Gamaliel’s actual words. A good historian would have checked his source’s accuracy against at least one other source before putting pen to parchment – and if no other source was available, would have kept his pen in the ink well.

Taking Josephus over Luke is a choice that I wouldn’t make or advise. He provides some valuable historical perspective but his deficiencies - his inaccuracies and embellishments - should cause us to pause. It is Josephus, not Luke, who I would question as being a “good historian”.

“Was Josephus really the great Jewish historian that history and historians have made him out to be, or, as the evidence suggests, was he himself, a self-serving individual who betrayed his own people and then spent the rest of his life trying to make up for it?”

Flavius Josephus and the Jewish Wars | The History Vortex

Louis Finkelstein, in his bookThe Jews: Their History, Culture and Religion, quotes a lecture given by Henry St. John Thackeray in which Thackeray reminded his audience that there was a

www.historyvortex.org

”Luke was clearly a careful historian.”

How Did Luke get his historical information? Did he interview eye-witnesses? – Evidence for Christianity

evidenceforchristianity.org

 

[Wick Stick]

Luke is a trustworthy witness.

It’s hard for me to view Luke as the careful historian you make him out to be, given his Gamaliel gaff...

I would suggest that being a trustworthy witness and being a careful historian are two different things. I would also suggest that Luke is neither of those things.

Luke can't be a trustworthy witness because he wasn't a witness. He wasn't an apostle. He didn't spend time with Jesus. Matthew was a witness. So was John. Mark is often thought to be relating Peter's account of things, and Peter was a witness. Luke was not a witness.

Second, let's be honest about history. History is written by the victors, and for the most part is written as propaganda for the glory of kings and emperors. A careful historian isn't one who writes most accurately, but one who writes in such a way that his king doesn't have his head. This describes Josephus rather well, but not Luke.

Luke is a Bard; an Editor. He is relating stories that don't originate with himself, collecting them into one place. It's clear that what he put together is taken from the accounts of other people, borrowing heavily from Mark/Matthew. He is as good as his source material, and he doesn't add much to his sources.

 

[Matthias]

I would suggest that being a trustworthy witness and being a careful historian are two different things. I would also suggest that Luke is neither of those things.

Luke is an eye-witness of some of the events (his second book, Acts). For those which he isn’t (his first book, the Gospel) he reliably reports what those who are told him.

Luke can't be a trustworthy witness because he wasn't a witness. He wasn't an apostle. He didn't spend time with Jesus. Matthew was a witness. So was John. Mark is often thought to be relating Peter's account of things, and Peter was a witness. Luke was not a witness.

Second, let's be honest about history. History is written by the victors, and for the most part is written as propaganda for the glory of kings and emperors. A careful historian isn't one who writes most accurately, but one who writes in such a way that his king doesn't have his head. This describes Josephus rather well, but not Luke.

Luke is a Bard; an Editor. He is relating stories that don't originate with himself, collecting them into one place. It's clear that what he put together is taken from the accounts of other people, borrowing heavily from Mark/Matthew. He is as good as his source material, and he doesn't add much to his sources.

His source material is better than gold. It’s impeccable.

 

[RedFan]

Luke is an eye-witness of some of the events (his second book, Acts). For those which he isn’t (his first book, the Gospel) he reliably reports what those who are told him.

There are some verses in his gospel that no witness could have related to Luke. Like what the angel said to Zechariah (Luke 1:12 et seq.), who was surely deceased before Luke ever got the notion to write his gospel. Like what the angels said to the shepherds at Christ's birth (Luke 2:10-12). Like what the Devil said to Jesus in the wilderness (Luke 4:1-12).