Archeaology and the Bible
Archeaology time and time again has shown the accuracy of the New Testament:For example in John 5: 1- 15 we hear that Jesus healed a man by the Pool at Bethsaida. In John's account it describes the pool as having five colonaided porches (porticoes). For many years people argued that John was inaccurate in his recording because no such pool had been found in Bethsaida. More recently however archaologists have discovered this pool which has 'yes you guessed it' five porticoes!
For me one of the most interesting discoveries was that of the dead sea scrolls.
Lee Strobel in his book: 'The Case For Christ' explains:
"The gospel of Matthew describes how John the Baptist, imprisoned and wrestling with lingering doubts about Jesus' identity, sent his followers to ask Jesus this monumental question: 'Are you the one who was to come, or should we expect someone else?' (Matt. 11.3). He was seeking a straight answer about whether Jesus was the long awaited Messiah.
Through the centuries, Christians have wondered about Jesus' rather enigmatic answer. ... 'Go back and report to John what yu hear and see: The blind receive sight, the lame walk, those who have leprosy are cured, the deaf hear, the dead are raised, and the good news is preached to the poor.' (Matt. 11: 4 - 5)
Jesus response was an illusion to Isaiah 35. But for some reason Jesus included the words the dead are raised which is conspicuously absent from Old Testament text.
This is where 4Q521 comes in. This non-biblical manuscript from the Dead Sea collection, written in Hebrew, dates back to thirty years before Jesus was born. It contains a version of Isaiah 61 that does include the missing phrase the dead are raised."
'[Scroll scholar Craig] Evans has pointed out that this phrase in 4Q521 is unquestionably embedded in Messianic context' 'It refers to the wonders that the Messiah will do when he comes and when heaven and earth will obey him. so when Jesus gave his response to John, he was not being ambiguous at all."
Jesus is saying 'Yes I am the one to come - I am the Messiah.'
My critics will ask the question: 'But what does this prove?' The answer is 'in itself not a great deal'. But it is another piece of the jigsaw that reveals the truth of who Jesus really is - the truth of who Jesus claims to be.
Comments
That aside, as you note John’s pool and portico were found (or should I note a pool that could be construed as the pool mentioned in John have been found... not quite the same thing). Yet in John’s Gospel, the disciples are called BEFORE John the Baptist’s imprisonment (in a different place, by the Jordan, rather than Lake Galilee in the Synoptics) and therefore the bit in the Synoptics – e.g. Matt. 11: 4 – 5 doesn’t happen as JB was arrested after Jesus’ ministry began. Which is the true account?
As for 4Q521, all this demonstrates is that a belief in life after death had entered some Jewish thinking by this time (as the writings of Philo illustrate very well). There is no mention of a resurrection in Old Testament writings, nor the idea that keeping the Law perfectly would give rise to eternal life – which is odd, when you think about it. Rather all keeping the Law ensures is that you will (to borrow from Dr Spock) ‘Live Long and Prosper’. It is highly likely the notion of a corporal afterlife comes from the cross fertilisation of Jewish thought with other religions and philosophies of the time. It is noteworthy that besides the fact there is no mention of eternal life in the OT, there is no mention of the devil or demonic possession either (the character of ‘Satan’ in Job is a very different character to the ‘Satan’ of the N.T.); similarly there is no allusion to a ‘spiritual’ conflict – this seems a Greek and/or Zoroastrian concept.
I have little doubt in my mind that someone called Joshua Ben Yusef did live sometime around the beginning of the Christian Era and was some kind of political or philosophical figure that came to a nasty and probably unjust end. Forty or so years after his death his life story and his sayings were incorporated into several (sometimes conflicting) narratives with a good dollop of the philosophical and religious mishmash that the Roman world afforded his followers at the time. There are no surviving contemporary documents – the oldest NT documents are from several hundred years later. Who can say what is truth and what is fiction or just plain muddle? Can you remember last Sunday’s sermon verbatim? Think what would happen if you were telling someone about it 40 years down the line? What does it matter, after all, religion is more about faith than facts isn’t it?
I don't really want to get into a 'the Bible says this, so it IS right, coz the Bible says so!'. The Bible is certainly not a consistent witness - and even the most devout of Christians lightly skip over the bits that confuse or are confused; or skirt around other bits that would impinge upon the lives of many of the faithful. Given in the above you cite Matthew’s Gospel and note how John the Baptist, when in prison, asked his followers to question Jesus. Yet you have not commented on why in John’s Gospel, John the Baptist wasn’t in prison at the time of calling of the disciples – and the disciples were called around the banks of the Jordon – some distance from Galilee – where synoptic Gospels place these events . Instead you have decided to respond to something that is inconsequential – you state ‘As for your point about family history - it is clear throughout the Bible that Hebrews kept very clear records of family trees. One only has to read Chronicles to know this is true.’ – perhaps, then, you can explain why the genealogies of Matthew and Luke disagree! Or why no other ancient document mentions a ‘census of the whole world’ in 4BC – you’d have thought something so massive, would have cropped up elsewhere in Roman records?
At the end of the day the vast majority of the population couldn’t give a flying fig! Hence I think it is a waste of time trying to ‘prove’ this or that. You either believe it or you don’t. Yes, perhaps there are pieces of the jigsaw that appear to fit – but as those of us who have done a jigsaw puzzle know, we can convince ourselves a piece belongs in a certain place, only to find, when that part of the picture is completed, that the piece doesn’t belong there at all – it was just wishful thinking that forced us to believe the piece belonged when all the time its place was elsewhere.
What I will say, having dipped into the odd ‘Christian’ history book – is that there tends to be a considerable cherry picking of facts and events - playing up this or that piece of ‘evidence’ when it suits and ignoring others that would give rise to awkward questions or embarrassing contradictions. But you could say the same of wider history too. At the end of the day, histories are composed to suit the needs of present at the time they were written – there is no such thing as objective history; rather, like many things in human life, self interest dictates how a society or faction within it, selects its history and its telling!
If it is inconsequential kind of wonder why you brought it up?
Maybe it became inconsequential the moment the point was answered? There are scholars that offer solutions to your other points too eg about chronology of the gospels and genealogies . Sure you know the arguments about these too.
Thanks for your comments!
Neil
Neil
I have not published your comments because they are unconstructive comments about me rather than the subject. Where possible I am wanting to avoid conflict with individuals. If you are not guessing about your point about Catholicism, I would like to speak to your source personally and not Anonymously so that I can correct such a comment. I do however reserve the right to defend my faith and expose false teaching. I will try to do so as lovingly as possible.
Take care! Neil