You have probably heard this story regarding a stone tablet that has been dated to the turn of the first century. The owner claims it contains an inscription that provides a missing link between Judaism and early Christian resurrection beliefs.
Although it is an interesting find, scholars are approaching it with a bit of skepticism as there really is not any conclusive opinion as to the authenticity of the inscription, given the fact that there are some anomalies with the ink and surface structure.
"The ink is badly faded on much of the tablet, known as Gabrielâ€™s Vision of Revelation, which was written rather than engraved in the 1st century BC. This has led some experts to claim that the inscription has been misinterpreted. "
There appears to be some debate and confusion over the exact translation of the inscription. Also, with any new find, one has to always be aware of the possibility of tampering and forgery that occurred at a date after the origin of the tablet.
This appears to be one of those cases where one must proceed with a bit of caution before drawing any final conclusions. Regardless, this is a good example of how Historians go about reconstruction and analysis, usually slowly and in bits and pieces.
It will be interesting to see what further testing and analysis reveals. If a consensus is reached that the inscription is indeed authentic and the inscription does translate as stated, then this would certainly be a find that increases our understanding of the factors that played a part in the acceptance of early Christian beliefs among contemporary Jews.
Well the tablet mentioned on top is authentic though there are some disagrements to the translation, in one line Gabriel says in 3 days, and then a word that is one letter short of being read as live if the translation is in 3 days live then we would have a noter resurrected messias on our hands about 4 years before Christ was borne.
And yes there are very few if any outside sources for the exsistance of Jesus, one would think that a guy who raises the dead, heals the sick, feeds the masses whit 2 fish and a loaf of bread would be written about by most literate people of that time but no.
And something else that is probably wrong too in the bible the way Poncipilat treats Jesus, a few years after Jesus he ran out of wood to make crosses so i doubt he would take time to talk to a inferrior to romans Jew and just said well crucifie him.
And the cross curches use is also probably wrong, if he had to carry anything it would be the horisontal plank of the cross, and that horisontal plank would be put on a slot at the top of the cross so no beem sticking out where the in-ri inscription lies.
The way he is depicted nailed to the cross is also probably wrong, the nails trough the palm would probably not hold him and the romans knew that so trough the wrist is more probable. And a leg found that was crucified indicate that the nails would go trough the side of the heel probably on the sides of the cross. This point is ideal because it misses all the major blood vessals and hits a nerve center inflicting lots of pain and that is what the romans wanted to scare all other "criminals", people naild to the cross in lots of pain as a deterant from crime.
Yossi Garfinkel, the Hebrew University archaeologist in charge of the dig, is confident that the text is of Israelite origin. According to an AP report, “Garfinkel bases his identification on a three-letter verb from the inscription meaning ‘to do,’ a word he said existed only in Hebrew.”
Garfinkel explained, “‘That leads us to believe that this is Hebrew, and that this is the oldest Hebrew inscription that has been found.’”
If Garfinkel is correct, the shard would support the case for the Bible’s accuracy, as it demonstrates that Israelites kept written records of Biblical events as they took place.
Edited by sophia777, : No reason given.
Edited by AdminPD, : Quote Box added - Refined Link
It would help if you learnt to use the quote tags.
Brian is absolutely right, Jesus didn't make enough noise to attract the attention of any true contemporary writer, which does suggest that the Gospel accounts are greatly exaggerated.
For later accounts, even if we assume that the direct Josephus reference (the so-called Testamonium Flavianum) is held to be partially genuine I'd guess that Jesus was less influential in life than John the Baptist/ The indirect reference, however, is more likely genuine, and sufficient to indicate that Jesus did exist - except that there are questions about the interpretation. I don't think that there is much else of value outside the Bible (Tacitus might be, but only if he got his information from Roman records instead of Christian sources which I doubt).
But we can't rule out the Biblical sources. Sure, they are biased and exaggerated, but that doesn't mean that they are complete fictions.
If Garfinkel is correct, the shard would support the case for the Bible’s accuracy, as it demonstrates that Israelites kept written records of Biblical events as they took place. "
A lot of cultures did, thou loads of them do not mention a flood that covered the whole planet, creation like the one in the bible, milions of isrealites escaping egypit, or Jesus, all events one might think one would write down some where though they are only found in the bible.
The problem is finding what the actual story was. What is embellished, added, removed, ... , from this book and whitout outside sources it is hard to find out what realy happend.
If 10 000 years in the future some alien archeologist would find the script for batman would he imidetly conclude such a person exsistred or would he try to find other sources to confirm or deny his exsistence.
They include the translation of the Old Testament known as the Septuagint.
Seems like a daunting task for four scribes,
Surely they were copying from some sort of ancient text.
For one volume to contain all the Christian scriptures book technology had to make a great technological leap forward. This advance was something akin to the introduction of printing with movable type or the introduction of personal computers. Whereas most previous bound books, as opposed to rolls, were relatively short and small in page size, the Codex was huge in length and large in page size.