Archeology has never disproved a Biblical point

[TimCallahan]

Despite all the hoopla and Christmas pageantry, the two accounts of the Nativity (in Matthew and Luke) are rather late additions. There is no Nativity story in Mark. Jesus seems to be an ordianary mortal until his baptism, and the epiphany he experiences as he comes up out of the water is entirely subjective. Paul merely says that Jesus was born "according to the flesh," though in the same verse (Romans 1:3) he says Jesus was a descendant of David.

Anything noteworthy in the life of Jesus before his baptism would seem to be the stuff of legend. This not only includes his birth in Bethlehem, but possibly his childhood in Nazareth. That name may refer to an actual town or may be derived from "netzer" meaning branch (of the house of David) or may be related to the term "Nazarite," a person who has taken on holy vows either for a limited period of time or for life (see Numbers 6:1 - 21). Archaeological evidence for the existence of Jesus is, thus far, nil.

While this doesn't disprove his existence the way achaeology disproves the narratives of Exodus and Joshua, it does demonstrate that the historical Jesus, assming he actually existed, was of little note in the history of his day.

 

[The Atheist]

Anything noteworthy in the life of Jesus before his baptism would seem to be the stuff of legend.

Just fixed that up for you.

A free service from the Grammar Tyrant.

 

[boloboffin]

I wonder a couple of things. If there was no Bethlehem in Judea during the time, how could stories have been created about this town?

1. Perhaps this is a "prophecy fulfulment" based on a pun like "He shall be called a Nazarite" for his living in Nazareth. A quote clearly about Samson and having nothing to do with Nazareth is punned into a fulfillment of prophecy. Could the mixup in towns be a similar play on names? Yet this still doesn't explain no Bethlehem south of Jerusalem during the time period.

2. Perhaps Judea is being thought of in the sense that Herod the Great, tetrarch during the Nativity, controlled Galilee and Judea proper? Perhaps all of Herod's fiefdom was considered Judea, and so Bethlehem in Galilee was also Bethlehem of Judea during Herod's reign? That seems the most likely to me, and it only needs citations referring to the Galilean area as Judea during Herod's reign to back it up.

 

[drkitten]

I wonder a couple of things. If there was no Bethlehem in Judea during the time, how could stories have been created about this town?

1. Perhaps this is a "prophecy fulfulment" based on a pun like "He shall be called a Nazarite" for his living in Nazareth. A quote clearly about Samson and having nothing to do with Nazareth is punned into a fulfillment of prophecy. Could the mixup in towns be a similar play on names? Yet this still doesn't explain no Bethlehem south of Jerusalem during the time period.

2. Perhaps Judea is being thought of in the sense that Herod the Great, tetrarch during the Nativity, controlled Galilee and Judea proper? Perhaps all of Herod's fiefdom was considered Judea, and so Bethlehem in Galilee was also Bethlehem of Judea during Herod's reign? That seems the most likely to me, and it only needs citations referring to the Galilean area as Judea during Herod's reign to back it up.

3. People make **** up. I'm fairly confident there's no village of Little Whinging in Surrey, even though I have books about people who live there.

 

[m_huber]

I also find it hard to believe that the authors of Jesus' stories would put him being born in a town that didn't actually exist. If we believe the events of the Bible and standard dating of the books, then Matthew was written in ~70 AD, and the disciples were set up in Jerusalem by ~40 AD. With so many original disciples still living, why would they make up a town, or even move a town a large distance? Even if we date the book at ~130 AD, this is still not far removed from the time of Christ. Anyone who traveled at all would know it to be fake if the city did not exist.

Even if Bethlehem was little more than a post office and a 7-11, it could still be a settlement. The fact that we don't have artifacts from a certain time may simply mean that we haven't been digging in the right place.

Many arguments against the Bible are valid, but having the authors make such an egregious error seems preposterous.

 

[paximperium]

200AD:
"Jesus lived in a village"
"Which Village Father Bob?"
"Uh...that one over there."
"Bethlehem? Only lepers live there."
"Uh..well, Jesus loves everyone."

 

[paximperium]

Many arguments against the Bible are valid, but having the authors make such an egregious error seems preposterous.

Was it an error or did someone decide to "fill in the blanks"?

 

[TimCallahan]

Micah 5:2 says:

But you, O Bethlehem Ephrathah, who are little to be among the clans of Judah, from you shall come forth for me one who is to be ruler in Israel, whose origin is from of old, from ancient days.

This is a reasonable prophecy to make, since Bethlehem is the home town of David, according to 1 Samuel. This is the whole reason for Matthew and luke going to such embarassing lengths to reconcile Jesus coming from Galilee with his supposed birth in Bethlehem. Since prophecy said he had to be born there, that's where he was born.

It should be remembered that the geography of the gospels is, for the most part, the stuff of legend. For example, the "Sea" of Galilee upon which a ferocious storm at sea breaks out, so Jesus can calm it, is actually a fresh water lake 8 miles across at its greatest width and 12 miles long.

Mark, the oldest of the gospels, garbles the geography considerably. Mark was obviously not a native of the area. Matthew and Luke, though they sometimes "correct" Mark - though not usually his geography - essentially use his narrative for most of theirs, although the Nativity stories seem to be their own inventions.

Geography is obviously not Matthew's strong point, since he has the magi come from the east, but bear gifts - frankincense and myrrh - that come from the southern end of the Red Sea. Of course, he also invents a star that wasn't there. So, reviving a town defunct at the time is no big deal.

Luke invents a bizarre, empire-wide Roman census to get Joseph and Mary from Galilee to Bethlehem, possibly a mythologization of the census of Judea, made when the Romans deposed Herod Archelaus and took it over directly. Again, reviving the town for its big prophecy moment isn't a big deal among all the other mythology.

 

[kurious_kathy]

Despite all the hoopla and Christmas pageantry, the two accounts of the Nativity (in Matthew and Luke) are rather late additions. There is no Nativity story in Mark. Jesus seems to be an ordianary mortal until his baptism, and the epiphany he experiences as he comes up out of the water is entirely subjective. Paul merely says that Jesus was born "according to the flesh," though in the same verse (Romans 1:3) he says Jesus was a descendant of David.

Anything noteworthy in the life of Jesus before his baptism would seem to be the stuff of legend. This not only includes his birth in Bethlehem, but possibly his childhood in Nazareth. That name may refer to an actual town or may be derived from "netzer" meaning branch (of the house of David) or may be related to the term "Nazarite," a person who has taken on holy vows either for a limited period of time or for life (see Numbers 6:1 - 21). Archaeological evidence for the existence of Jesus is, thus far, nil.

While this doesn't disprove his existence the way achaeology disproves the narratives of Exodus and Joshua, it does demonstrate that the historical Jesus, assming he actually existed, was of little note in the history of his day.

What do you mean assuming he actually existed? Jesus is a historical fact!

And archeology has discovered many old artifacts and places that are in the OT. So I am not following your thinking at all Tim. Did you look at those articles I have linked to http://www.4truth.net/site/pp.aspx?c=hiKXLbPNLrF&b=2903877&printmode=1

 

[paximperium]

What do you mean assuming he actuallyexisted? Jesus is a historical fact!

No it isn't.

And archeology has discovered many old artifacts and places that are in the OT.

So? Archeology has found many artifacts and places in the Iliad and Odyssey; does that mean Zeus and Athena exists?

 

[joobz]

Did you look at those articles I have linked to http://www.4truth.net/site/pp.aspx?c=hiKXLbPNLrF&b=2903877&printmode=1

Yes. What about them?

Have you read the ehrmann book recommended to you regarding god and suffering?

 

[shadron]

Understand the audience. Matthew was written to give inspiration to a Jewish audience that had just gone through the depressing humiliation of having their capital sacked, their central temple destroyed and their nationalist army of revolution wiped out at Masada. References to prophecies is what was required, to give hope that all is not lost, but rather that the defeat was just part of the progression to the glorious kingdom. The story of the birth and childhood fills many prophecies. Later on even Luke, addressing Greek and Romans rather than Jews, uses the same sories to impress on how much Jesus was set apart by the Jews.

 

[shadron]

What do you mean assuming he actually existed? Jesus is a historical fact!

And archeology has discovered many old artifacts and places that are in the OT. So I am not following your thinking at all Tim. Did you look at those articles I have linked to http://www.4truth.net/site/pp.aspx?c=hiKXLbPNLrF&b=2903877&printmode=1

Kathy, Tim's thinking is called "skeptical". It's what we do here, which you are trying to obviate apparently as a personal crusade. Go back and read the posts before you joined in. Go read some wikipedia articles on literary analysis of the Bible, like Biblical Criticism^WP, Bible and History^WP, Biblical Archaeology^WP. Go watch the Nova program The Bible's Buried Secrets at http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/bible/program.html and/or the Frontline show From Jesus to Christ at http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/religion/ . We don't mean to tear your world down around your ears, but if you want to join the discussion you need to understand the basics, even if you don't agree with them.

If I might criticize the page that you point to, I would say it is incomplete , inasmuch as there is a lot of archaeology that points to specific Biblical events that is not on the page (the Tel Dan stele I referred to above, for example) and a lot of cited items that are, "Yeah, so what?". The tribunal in Corinth - what does it's existence prove about the Bible, except that the writer did see Corinth at some point? The existence of any of these items doesn't lend much gravitas to Jesus' actual existence, and some of them (Caiaphas' tomb) are extremely controversial vis-a-vis John McRay's interpretation. His book, Archaeoloy and the New Testament, is crammed with this sort of tour guide promotional stuff, and really short on proof of anything.

 

[drkitten]

I also find it hard to believe that the authors of Jesus' stories would put him being born in a town that didn't actually exist. If we believe the events of the Bible and standard dating of the books, then Matthew was written in ~70 AD, and the disciples were set up in Jerusalem by ~40 AD. With so many original disciples still living, why would they make up a town, or even move a town a large distance?

For the same reason that they made up a census that didn't exist, or a mass slaughter of children that didn't exist?

I see no reason to believe that the inhabitants of Jerusalem are supposed to be familiar with all the small towns and hamlets that exist around it. Lord knows the inhabitants of New York aren't familiar with all the podunk little towns in New Jersey,.... (who here can tell me where Old Bridge NJ is without looking at a map?) and it's a lot easier to get out to Jersey now than it would have been to get to the site of Bethlehem.

 

[drkitten]

I also find it hard to believe that the authors of Jesus' stories would put him being born in a town that didn't actually exist. If we believe the events of the Bible and standard dating of the books, then Matthew was written in ~70 AD, and the disciples were set up in Jerusalem by ~40 AD. With so many original disciples still living, why would they make up a town, or even move a town a large distance? Even if we date the book at ~130 AD, this is still not far removed from the time of Christ. Anyone who traveled at all would know it to be fake if the city did not exist.

I should point out that between the purported date of the Crucifixion and the writing of Matthew, there was also this little problem of the First Jewish-Roman war, the siege and sack of Jerusalem, and the destruction of the Temple.

Anyone curious about how Jesus could have been born in a non-existent town would simply have been met with a shrug since lots of towns would routinely have been destroyed in such a siege. "Bethlehem used to be over there <waves hands vaguely thataway> but isn't any more. People called Romanes they go the house!"

 

[m_huber]

For the same reason that they made up a census that didn't exist, or a mass slaughter of children that didn't exist?

I see no reason to believe that the inhabitants of Jerusalem are supposed to be familiar with all the small towns and hamlets that exist around it. Lord knows the inhabitants of New York aren't familiar with all the podunk little towns in New Jersey,.... (who here can tell me where Old Bridge NJ is without looking at a map?) and it's a lot easier to get out to Jersey now than it would have been to get to the site of Bethlehem.

Would ancient Jerusalem have been as self-contained of a city as New York? I grew up in Mississippi, and I imagine that the population density of that state is a bit closer to what Israel was. People in Jackson generally do know where places like Tchula and Panther Burn are, or at least that they exist. If traders and shepherds were coming and going from the city on a regular basis, or if rabbis like Jesus traveled around the country frequently, you would think those settlements would be familiar to everyone, and you would also expect that a made-up city would be quickly noticed.

As for the star, that's magic, so no need for explanation. The slaughter of the children is an event, and events are easy to overlook (especially if they happened 50-100 years ago). Settlements, on the other hand, are fairly permanent.

Tim, you make a good point about the self-fulfilling prophecy.

I was about to write about how nobody would believe something so absurd as a city existing that clearly doesn't exist, then I thought about Joseph Smith and his litany of bull. People are stupid.

 

[Nogbad]

What do you mean assuming he actually existed? Jesus is a historical fact!

And archeology has discovered many old artifacts and places that are in the OT. So I am not following your thinking at all Tim. Did you look at those articles I have linked to http://www.4truth.net/site/pp.aspx?c=hiKXLbPNLrF&b=2903877&printmode=1

Lots of books, lots of religious texts, are rooted in the culture of their origin - even Scientology is a fantastic repository of 1950s B movie paraphernalia.

If a Gita script refers to a place name or town in Northern India and archaeology unearths said town, it confirms not that Krishna actually fought a battle there but that the culture that believed he did lived there. Likewise, the Bible did not come out of nothing. If the names and places did not exist then one might reasonably assume it was a late forgery. Working on the assumption that the texts belong to their era, in the case of the New Testament, one would expect a reasonable knowledge of the Eastern Roman Empire (the Western part doesn't get a mention really). That archaeology can confirm some of these things confirms that much of the New Testament was written in the 1st and 2nd century. However, this is not in dispute so it doesn't actually prove anything. There is strong evidence that Hubbard wrote Dianetics in the 50s - this doesn't make a word of the content any less questionable.

 

[MIKILLINI]

What do you mean assuming he actually existed? Jesus is a historical fact!

And archeology has discovered many old artifacts and places that are in the OT. So I am not following your thinking at all Tim. Did you look at those articles I have linked to http://www.4truth.net/site/pp.aspx?c=hiKXLbPNLrF&b=2903877&printmode=1

Kathy......Do you ever wonder at all? Do you ever wonder if you can use, or ever have used critical thinking? Do you ever wonder if the links you post have ever been rendered questionable?

A simple non-Godbot answer would suffice here.

 

[Alareth]

The difference kathy, the one we apparently will never be able to resolve, is you see the Bible as THE HOLY AND INERRANT WORD OF THE ALMIGHTY GOD. We on the other hand view the Bible as simply a book writen by men.

I'm not asking you to agree with us, just to see it from our point of view.

 

[drkitten]

Would ancient Jerusalem have been as self-contained of a city as New York?

If anything, I suspect more so. Growing up in Mississippi in the age of the car, you can actually get out to Tchula fairly easily; just get on the highway and you're sixty miles away in an hour. In the first century a.d., sixty miles would have been at least a day's travel, more likely two.

If traders and shepherds were coming and going from the city on a regular basis, or if rabbis like Jesus traveled around the country frequently, you would think those settlements would be familiar to everyone, and you would also expect that a made-up city would be quickly noticed.

But they wouldn't have been coming and going from the city on a regular basis; small towns like our hypothetical Bethlehem wouldn't have had anything to sell to the traders and little money with which to buy it. The subsistence farmers wouldn't really even be selling their goats and sheep, because those weren't cash crops (indeed, the idea of "cash crop" itself is only meaningful since the rise of the money economy).

What you would have seen instead is what you see in agrarian societies all over the world -- a central market town (possibly Jerusalem, possibly something closer) where everyone goes when they need to buy and sell, at infrequent but regular intervals. The town would be swamped at this time with hicks coming out of the woodwork, but few of the locals would much care which hick was from where. The locals that lived and worked in the town would, by definition, live and work in the town.