Even MORE evidence for "Jesus died on a Cross"?

by ILoveTTATT 56 Replies latest watchtower beliefs

• 

  Earnest

  Thanks for your thoughtful comments, ILTTATT. And I agree that what I say about the evidence for the cross can also be extended to anything that is not explicit in the Gospels. For example, we really have no idea what Jesus looked like apart from very general impressions. Whether the Gospels themselves are reliable is subject to debate but they are the earliest record we have regarding the life of Jesus.

  I find slim's comment regarding the provenance of the earliest mss quite relevant (as usual). How much more likely it is for mss that were written in Egypt to make use of the Ankh as a nominum sacrum when they were already accustomed to its significance as reflecting eternal life.

  I am certain that the editors of the NWT are well aware of the nomina sacra. In the 1984 revised edition of the NWT it includes P 45 , P 66 and P 75 in the footnotes and the use of the nomina sacra in the NT is one of the arguments that 'Jehovah' was replaced by 'Lord' or 'God'. As George Howard wrote in his article on 'The Tetragram and the New Testament' (JBL, 1977, pp.63-83) :

  ...conservative Jewish Christians probably continued to write the Tetragram in their copies of the LXX. Toward the end of the first century Gentile Christians, lacking a motive for retaining the Hebrew name for God, substituted the words kurios and theos (kurios being used more often than theos) for the Tetragram. Both were written in abbreviated form in a conscious effort to preserve the sacral nature of the divine name. Soon the original significance of the abbreviated surrogates was lost, however, and many other contracted words were added to the list.

  As for Nazareth, if I may put my oar in, I visited some years ago and stayed at the Sisters of Nazareth convent. I'm not sure if that was JW-approved but thought Paul would allow it as "making use of the world". Anyway, while I was there they kindly showed me some excavations going on which were of a first century house they maintained was probably that of Joseph and Mary. Whether or not that was wishful thinking I notice an article in the Antiquaries Journal, Vol.92, pp.37-64, September 2012 which refers to :

  ...the archaeological site at the Sisters of Nazareth convent in central Nazareth [which] has remained unpublished and largely unknown to scholarship. However, work by the Nazareth Archaeological Project in 2006–10 showed that this site offers a full and important stratified sequence from ancient Nazareth, including well-preserved Early Roman-period and later features. These include a partially rock-cut structure, here re-evaluated and interpreted on the basis of both earlier and newly recorded data as a first-century ad domestic building – perhaps a ‘courtyard house’ – the first surface-built domestic structure of this date from Nazareth to be published, and the best preserved. The site was subsequently used in the Roman period for burial, suggesting settlement contraction or settlement shift.
• 

  mP

  Earnest:

  As for Nazareth, if I may put my oar in, I visited some years ago and stayed at the Sisters of Nazareth convent.

  mP:

  The catholic church has built many churches, and other structures over so called special places. how many churches have fake arms fingers and whatever of apostles ? there are many cases where different churches claim to hold bits and pieces from the same apostle that doesnt add up.

  How many places have shrines to apparitions of the virgin mary ? Does anybody really believe in all those crying sstatues of mary or jesus ?

  if you understand jewish tradition, there i no way they would built a village onto p of a cemetary and thats just the start of the problem with N.
• 

  mP

  Earnest:

  I'm not sure if that was JW-approved but thought Paul would allow it as "making use of the world".

  mP:

  Well Paul never mentions Nazareth, or any placwe that jesus mentioned. We have an account in Gal of him visiting jerusalem and yet he never mentions anything about jesus preaching work there, unfair trial or death. in fact if you read Romans, Paul said that jesus wouldnt even qualify as a preist if he came to earth. The truth is P didnt know jesus. the man at all. You can verify this by scanning all of P's writings for any word or place related to Jesus. No Nazareth, Bethlehem, Mary, miracles, etc.
• 

  mP

  Earnest

  the archaeological site at the Sisters of Nazareth convent in central Nazareth [which] has remained unpublished and largely unknown to scholarship. However, work by the Nazareth Archaeological Project in 2006–10 showed that this site offers a full and important stratified sequence from ancient Nazareth, including well-preserved Early Roman-period and later features. These include a partially rock-cut structure, here re-evaluated and interpreted on the basis of both earlier and newly recorded data as a first-century ad domestic building – perhaps a ‘courtyard house’ – the first surface-built domestic structure of this date from Nazareth to be published, and the best preserved. The site was subsequently used in the Roman period for burial, suggesting settlement contraction or settlement shift.

  mP:

  If y9ou have a link to read the article that would be great. However Rome was around a long time. It certainly only took at interest after Constantine in Nazareth. Given the thousands of years between now and then, we need some narrowing down on the times they actually identify. Are they actually saying they have proof for N existing at the time of Jesus ?

  Im sure if they found something big or persuasive they would publicize it, but its never in the news. All articles of faith almost always are undisputable fakes. The Saudi government itself does not allow archeology within its borders because they know the story of Mohammad anmd the Quran is just as problematic. The story of the Q being unchanged since the beginning is a lie just like the Bible. Both traditions have evolved and changed over time many times.
• 

  Phizzy

  According to the article Earnest quotes the cemetary came in to use after the dwelling/s fell in to disuse, not the other way round.

  That aside, most of the Archeological work that has gone on in the areas of Biblical interest has been with the motivation of proving the Bible true, only lately have some come up with very different intepretations of what is unearthed.

  Very little of what is presented to us has been subjected to the true scientific method, and so we are only getting the views of publicity seeking individuals, and those with an interest in continuing the Tourist trade.

  The truth is out there, but difficult for us to get at when bias and personal agenda get in the way. There is a lot working against a true unbiased interpretation of Archaeological finds in the "Holy Land" and vicinity, such an interpretation may show that the State of Israel has no historical right to exist.
• 

  mP

  Phizzy/

  Exactly you rarely hear of any archeological work from the middle east that backs the bible. It just never happens. From what i have read and seen no arab country allows archeological work with this motivation. Israel is at least intellectually honest becase they allow archeologists like finkelstein. I think they know that the claims of god and bible are myth and the game is up. For whatever reason there are still many believers perhaps not in the truth of the bible but in the tradition that the land is jewish etc.
• 

  cantleave

  Marked for later
• 

  adamah

  Phizzy said-

  The truth is out there, but difficult for us to get at when bias and personal agenda get in the way. There is a lot working against a true unbiased interpretation of Archaeological finds in the "Holy Land" and vicinity, such an interpretation may show that the State of Israel has no historical right to exist.

  Well, that's a conclusion that goes quite a bit beyond what archaeologists like Finkelstein have even stated, since archaeologists HAVE found evidence of ancient Hebrew settlements in Palestine, just no evidence of an exodus from Egypt, etc. There's not going to be an ejection of Jews from Israel anytime soon, with Palestinians filling in the gap.

  Adam
• 

  ILoveTTATT

  I am certain that the editors of the NWT are well aware of the nomina sacra. In the 1984 revised edition of the NWT it includes P 45 , P 66 and P 75 in the footnotes and the use of the nomina sacra in the NT is one of the arguments that 'Jehovah' was replaced by 'Lord' or 'God'.

  In WTS words... evidently.

  LOL

  That's exactly my same thought too... now, when I came to this same conclusion above, I was even more dissapointed and disgusted with the WTS... They hide so many important things from the R&F...

  Everyone I talk to anonymously about the name Jehovah not being in the NT manuscripts is shocked... many don't know that fact...
• 

  Phizzy

  Adam said " archaeologists HAVE found evidence of ancient Hebrew settlements in Palestine "

  Ancient Viking settlements exist in numbers here in the U.K, that does not mean that the Norse can come and displace me and my fellow tribesmen and claim they have aright so to do.

  This is all a bit off topic, so sorry everyone, we may need to start a new thread if there is any interest in more discussion on this. My contention is that Archaeology does not so far support the idea of a Jewish State by right of history.